BS: Out of body experiences

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM

Bill:

Oy, such tsuris.

You perceive things when you direct your attention to them.

Yeah, that's an embedded premise.

It is the premise that makes focused thought, communication, learning, understanding itself, all conversations, and a hell of a lot more possible at all.

'Course it might be wrong, but then, there might be no such thing as George Bush, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 06:00 PM

"And they all sound the same as believers."

That should give you some confidence in their plausibility then, Bill, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:59 PM

yes, it could be... I saw something about that. I will watch for any conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:53 PM

Just today reading in the Daily Express (UK) that doctors in certain areas will be questioning people about out of body experiences after they have had near death experience in order to draw somesort of conclusions from the research......mmmmmm........ could be quite interesting

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:52 PM

so...everything affects the process, and ....ummmm... my posting replies to this thread affects your answers...and Amos' answers... and no one can see it clearly if everyone keeps talking about it...and ...and...

More & more, I see why being a Philosophy major was fun......

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:48 PM

re: the universe... yes, I agree, LH.... others don't

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:48 PM

Testing does interfere with the process, Bill, because directed attention affects the process. What are we going to do about it? We're going to learn some interesting new stuff from it, that's what.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:46 PM

"Can't you, for heaven's sake, come up with any ideas as to why a wise and loving God would NOT answer certain prayers????? Well?"

yup...I can. And they all sound the same as believers. IF a god is wise & loving, he would have better sense than......etc... that IF is mighty heavy...

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:46 PM

I'll give you an answer as to "why the Universe is so hard to predict & control", Bill.

Because we aren't the boss of it, that's why! You and I and George Bush are not in charge here. Human beings are a small species on a very small planet that could easily be overlooked by anyone with a large telescope if they were a few light years away from here.

That's why the Universe is so hard to predict and control.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:44 PM

"Let's leave God out of it" metaphor, Amos...metaphor.

non responsive??? leaving out God, I did say that "...embedded in that answer are assumed premises that "directed attention" in psychic realms IS possible - which is what we are trying to determine."

As near as I can determine, we agree on that bare statement...but don't see the implications the same way.

IF, by your standards, 'testing' is sort of interfering with the entire process....what are we to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:40 PM

Bill, you are such an unadventurous plodder when it comes to this sort of thing... ;-) Come one, stretch your mind. Speculate a bit! Ponder the unknown. Can't you, for heaven's sake, come up with any ideas as to why a wise and loving God would NOT answer certain prayers????? Well?

Don't disappoint me, Bill. Show me that you are capable of discussing ideas for a change rather than just reiterating your faith in the mundane materialities of life for the 11 billionth time.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:36 PM

(You know... a common joke when trying unsuccessfully to get some gadget to cooperate is "I didn't hold my mouth right..". Made facetiously, but in the same general category as serious disclaimers. We NEED answers about why the Universe is so hard to predict & control... and by golly, we shall have them, even if they are not terribly satisfactory!)

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:34 PM

A discussion of this very topic in The Independent who asks if such things are possible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:33 PM

Bill:

Your answer is facile and non-responsive.

It is evident on the face of it that remote viewing has to do with the direction of attention. What else would you call it? Anyone who has done it intentionally, rather than by sporadic happenstance, will confirm this. Thus it is an inherent part of the claim for the phenomenon to be tested.

Let's leave God out of it, though. One damn variable at a time, please.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:31 PM

*IF* there were...etc... yep...it's a puzzlement. "*IF* wishes were horses, beggars would ride"

Which is the very point... IF one is confident that there is a God and that he does "Give it some consideration", then one MUST have, for sanity's sake, a disclaimer to explain non-answered prayers¹. (God, of course, doesn't explain...in general OR in specific... why he doesn't, so all explanations and disclaimers are worked out by believers. They do seem to be similar, though.)



1)(same with why 127 folks die in a plane crash and 3 survive, assuring everyone, "God was with me".)

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:19 PM

If there were a "God", Bill, why and how would "he" answer prayers? And with what intention? Would it be a good idea, for example, to answer everyone's prayers by giving them exactly what they asked for?????

LOL! Some amusing movies have been made around just such a premise.

It would be a fecking disaster!

What would you do regarding prayers if you were "God"? Give it some consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:26 PM

"...non-neutral attention can contaminate a test of directed attention,..."

Yeah, I kinda thought that was the answer...

Of course, embedded in that answer are assumed premises that "directed attention" in psychic realms IS possible - which is what we are trying to determine.

Sounds very like "God can tell if your prayers are selfish...and he may have very good reasons for not granting them anyway. So don't be surprised if He doesn't come thru."

When claims are coupled with DISclaimers about testing for veracity and accuracy, there's not a lot we can do, and are back to just deciding whether a lot of reports are convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:42 PM

Well, Bill, I am saying that non-neutral attention can contaminate a test of directed attention, just like random RF can mess up the test on a radio or a cellphone. It depends on what you are testing for of course. It would make sense to me you would want to test for clarity of reception or transmission separately than for robust noise-filtering.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:15 PM

as I said before, he doesn't claim to be "neutral"....he IS a skeptic. That doesn't mean he can't be fair...although you seem to imply otherwise.

I am sure you would not assert that no test of remote viewing or other psychic abilities CAN be fair if skeptics are involved, but what I read between the lines sure sounds that way.

**IF** you are suggesting that "psychic distortion" of "interplay of thought" is always present when skeptics are about, and that all that negative influence will affect results, then you have, of course, the ultimate disclaimer.

"the elves NEVER come out and dance in the garden when you go sit there & wait!"

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:41 PM

I know, I know. He is apparently just providing an incentive and has "no bias".

The fact is, he has a million bucks on the line against the experiment coming out positive.

That is scarcely neutral.

Forthermore he has a lot of his own "psychic energy", for want of a better English term, invested in the rebuttal of such claims.

I grant you that there are cheats, and some of them probably have fallen to his eagle eye (eagle "I"?) which is well and good, and I applaud it basically, buit this is not the scenario we are talking about.

A neutral test would not be predicated on "there has beren a lot of cheating on this subject int he past" any more than it would be predicated on "no-one understands the poor abused psychic". In other words, just as a pure chemical test requires a chemically "clean" environment to be honest, a test of directed attention requires a scenario uncontaminated by psychic distortion.

Of course, if you don't believe in psychic distortion or the interplay of thought, then this notion is of course ridiculous because you will argue that if the site is "clean" electromechanically then it should work.

But if you believe in phlogiston, you would similarly have a cognitive twist on what a thermal test should look like, if yous ee what I mean.

This is a dialogue that probably should happen in the open to define what such a series would look like.

I have, in the past, accepted that the Targ Puthoff tremote viewing experiments actually were well-controlled, at least well enough to make a remarkable statistical point.

However, one of the first lines of rebuttal has always been to challenge that assumption, and I do not have enough data to discriminate between bias and scientific rationale in such a discussion of those experiments. I am not biased against good scientific method, but you have to take the conditions you are testing for into account. You can't do a "pure water" test in the middle of a sewer, I should think.

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:10 PM

thanks, Paul, for stating it clearly.

Amos..."with a hostile attention directed toward disproving it"
I don't think 'hostile' is a apt word. Remember, any test worth its salt MUST have some control over conditions. If a subject interprets all attention designed to be comprehensive as 'hostile', how can fair testing EVER be done?

If those who claim any sort of psychic experiences are content to just 'share experiences' with others who also 'believe', I guess all this debate is irrelevant, but many DO assert that those of us who have not had these experiences 'ought' to be convinced by the many stories they can read about.

...we weren't convinced by assertions of "table-top nuclear fusion" either.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:04 AM

Amos: all Randi requires is a proven effect beyond chance, under circumstances which preclude cheating (accidental or deliberate). You'll admit there are deliberate cheats; you might be surprised how sympathetic he is to people who believe sincerely in their spiritual powers, and are amazed and deflated when they don't "work" when simple precautions like double- blind testing are used. If there's an effect, it qualifies for a million dollars, which is his bet that such spiritual powers don't in fact exist. You'll find a lot of whinging about Randi on the net; much of it comes from candidates who complain that they haven't been allowed to set particular conditions which would allow them to cheat.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 07:54 PM

No, I am not suggesting that, Bill. Simply that it is one thing to neutrally and scientifically verify things and another thing altogether to go into the test environment for the testing of the capabilities of directed attention, with a hostile attention directed toward disproving it. This would be like contaminating a chemical test by blowing clouds of some other chemical into the lab--it compromises the environment of that which is being tested.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 05:37 PM

"He would not be a neutral observer or a Fair Witness, to use Heinlein's term, in an experiment calling on psychic abilities. "

well, no...he doesn't claim to be neutral. He is a serious skeptic.

Are you saying that it would BE impossible for someone to pass a test on psychic abilities IF a non-neutral observer designed the setup?

I'd agree that Orville could not fly if an anchor was tied to his ankle, but that is designed to FORCE failure. All Randi 'should' do is make sure the test is scrupulously fair and not biased in favor of the psychic: he supposedly would not bang drums, flash lights and force drugs on the subject to ensure failure.

Are you suggesting that the only way to have a psychic success is to be sure no one double-checks all the conditions? [for some reason, that sounds like Bush asking us to 'take his word' that he will act in our best interests]

All I am saying is that IF a test succeeds, even after being designed by Randi, that would be pretty strong circumstantial evidence. It is NOT saying that all examples NOT monitored are false or faked.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 03:04 PM

"...And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him..."
"...He said all Men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them..."
"...Foresaken almost human..."
..."He sank beneath your wisdom, like a stone..." - (para.) - Leonard Cohen

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 02:44 PM

Bill:

Randi's expertise is in debunking people who run sleight-of-hand or other rigged scams. He would not be a neutral observer or a Fair Witness, to use Heinlein's term, in an experiment calling on psychic abilities. Not that such an observer is not possible, by any means. But in testing the "mind" itself, non-interference is a critical element of a fair test. Otherwise it is like tying an anchor to Orville's ankle to challenge his ability to fly.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 02:23 PM

It seems to me, that even Randi, presented with a series of totally accurate 'seeings' or similar where HE controlled the conditions and items to be 'seen' would have to convinced by statistics, even if no material mechanism could be found.
I know *I* would be.
As far as I understand Randi, he simply does not want to spend the million based on reports by others where he has doubts about the conditions and procedures.
I know *I* would feel that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 01:54 PM

Paul:

Are you familiar with the methods they used?

Given the known depth and wide distribution of the placebo effect, in which suggestions of cure frequently bring about organic changes, why would you expect hard-core materialist cynicism such as Randi's to be a valid scientific environment for a test of "paranormal" abilities? Only a complete ignorance of the conditions involved would lead one to suggest it, which is why Randi, in this regard, is a bit of a buffoon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 12:48 PM

My, that's a LOT of reading from Swann. I'll delve into it and see what he says.

(sure wish I could delegate THAT task to some other part of my being....any data on RREs..(remote reading experiences?)

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:35 AM

It was consistently producing way over random chance results wuth remote viewing hits.

Well anyone familiar with the methods they used could earn themselves an easy million from Randi.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:31 AM

A huge amount of information on the non-local capabilities of the human species collected and/or authored by Ingo Swann. Includes the long book he developed to tell the story of the SRI experiments and why they happened.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:15 AM

Ingo Swann eventually wrote "the" book on remote viewing, because (he said) no-one else would.

The on-line version of that book can be found here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:01 AM

Stanford Research ran a similar series, not centered on NDEs but on intentional and conscious OOBEs, and the series continued to pull down funding for ten years from Army intell, I believe. The reason? It was consistently producing way over random chance results wuth remote viewing hits.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Jeanie
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 09:47 AM

These are the people behind the research: Horizon Research Foundation at Southampton University, so I think it is pretty certain that they *will* be publishing the results.

They have a very interesting website - worth a look for those interested in this subject. I've had it "bookmarked" as a favourite on my computer for some time - very interesting to dip into. There is a good background reading list on there, too - not read any yet - on my "to do" list !

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 08:40 AM

But will they release the results?

Thanks for the link, Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 07:56 AM

If you'd shifted reaaly fast, she could have seen a dopplerganger, turning from red to blue as it sped past.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 07:49 AM

On a slightly different angle, I have been seen by my late first wife when I was somewhere else. I believe this is known as a "fetch" or more commonly a "doppleganger".
She watched me walk though from the bedroom to the bathroom and was quite shocked when five minutes later I really appeared from the bedroom.
On second thoughts, perhaps I'm not me:)

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 05:51 AM

A scientific investigation of OBEs may throw up some interesting results.

there does seem to be a potential flaw, in that it seems possible that the contents of the hidden pictures will become known to hospital staff, who might accidentally mutter things like "I wonder if he'll see the xxx" while attempting resuscitation. But one hopes they will have allowed for such possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Jane of 'ull
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 07:40 AM

Amendment: I have actually seen my body from outside myself.. I've just spotted myself in the audience, on a Youtube video of last week's Hull shanty festival! lol

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 08:14 PM

Hey, man, no one wants ants at a picnic! ;-) But they come anyway. Then there are millions of people who want to win the jackpot at the casino, and almost no one does.

I'm thinking it may not have much to do with what people think they "want".

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 07:20 PM

If, as Little Hawk suggests, the appearance of angels and some other 'entities' that come calling to 'some' people at some times, is merely US supplying our own personal 'images' to a phenomenon that has no particular form, then the issue is not resolved, but just pushed one level back.
In fact, *I* would tend to agree that it is probable that individual who see such things do supply the details in some format that makes sense to us.
Whether the apparition itself comes from inside us, or IS a manifestation of an external force, is still in doubt. Since we know that people DO on occasion suffer delusions or are tricked by charlatans, we still need some way to sort 'em out.

As I like to remind folks now & then, I WANT some of these things to be true...maybe so badly that I hate the very idea of believing and being wrong! I am told that I need to try harder...*grin*.. to open my mind to possibilities and 'accept'. I like to think that IF these things are gen-yoo-ine, they can get to me no matter what I believe! Kinda like ants at a picnic....

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:06 PM

I would suggest that the cor einteraction of attention between "units" of ;ife gets complexified by the plasticity and the tendency to drum up pictures in response to the stimulation, rather than simply see what is there. All of Bill's highly favored pychological tests demonstrate the endless human capacity to dub in more than is actually seen.

What is of interest to me is not that "X occurred and J saw an angel..." (or an alien or a goddess or a demon or a mercurial messenger in a hardhat). The interesting thing is what X really consisted of and how to learn more about such events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 05:00 PM

Following the theme of angels, my family dropped the ball as far as I'm concerned, before my father died at the age of 93.

They never got around to telling me that before he died - in good health, believe it or not; his pulse, always slow, simply slowed to the point it couldn't sustain him - he had told them that an angel had several times awakened him by touching him on the knee and then smiled at him wordlessly. He said it was totally peaceful and non-frightening.

Dad was a pragmatic sort and I never heard him discuss things of the after-life.

He told two of my brothers that he was afraid it meant that his wife of four years was going to die and he would be left alone again.

One brother told me that in response, he thought, Oh, no, Dad. This is for you.

Since I didn't know it - being in Alaska - I didn't get to ask him questions, like how did you identify it as angelic? So far as I know, he never mentioned wings.

I'm with Little Hawk. I see no reason for wings. If there are such things as angels, they are as diaphanous as thought itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:40 PM

Bill, I think that the appearance of Angels is filtered in a unique fashion through the consciousness of the one seeing the Angel.

What I mean is, the Angel is not physical at all, and it is not dependent on physical requirements or limited to a physical form as we are when we're living in a physical body in a physical world.

Accordingly, no one can say in any ultimate sense what the Angel "looks like", they can only say how it looks to them at the time they see it, and how it looks to them is probably dependent upon how their consciousness interprets the experience, and how their consciousness interprets the experience will be influenced by their culture, their past experiences, their beliefs, their expectations, etc...

It will appear in the guise that their consciousness is most capable of dealing with.

So, the same Angel could appear as:

- a winged being
- a being without wings
- a male being
- a female being
- a Christian figure
- a Muslim figure
- a Buddhist figure
- a North American Indian figure
- a reptilian being
- an androgenous being
- a known saint
- Jesus
- Buddha
- a shining ball of light
- or just about anything else imaginable....depending on the state of mind and understanding of the eyewitness.

And yet they could ALL be the very same Angel...which is to say, it's not a physical being at all, it's not a being tied to our cultural or religious traditions or expectations, it's a form of highly intellgent living consciousness which the human mind cannot see in its ultimate sense, but must translate into some kind of recognizable terms that that person can relate to.

If so, then your various concerns about Angels having or not having beards, wings, robes, etc, would be interesting, but irrelevant.

They would simply be different individual versions of human perceptions of a non-physical phenomenon which we haven't the ability to define in our usual terms...because it's beyond our usual physical experiences.

An Angel clearly doesn't NEED any wings! ;-) But that doesn't mean someone's individual consciousness can't or won't translate the sight of a being of pure energy into the image of an Angle with wings...if that suits that individual consciousness.

I will PM you presently with further info.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:09 PM

That's quite true, Amos...and we are discussing them now. Science does, of course, have picky little issues about being able to replicate results and test various theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM

Bill:

Science starts with hypotheses that seek to form a framework that allows an explanation of all known data, predicts new data which can be found to exist, and accounts for the data more simply, or more elegantly than other models.

There is nothing unscientific about the discussion of possible models, and of the flaws in present ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 12:20 PM

Paul: David Hume, one of the major exponents of solipsistic ideas, said in a footnote some where that (paraphrased): "even though I am confident that my reasoning is sound, it is sometimes too much to contemplate, and I find that I must act 'as though' the world and all those other beings in it ARE quite real and not just in my own mind"

Indeed, Hume's reasoning was quite well done and tightly argued.....but once you look carefully at the premises he began with, his entire system exists in a bubble...it only hold under certain condidions. *IF* he can get to to assume X is true, then you are indeed locked into Y.

Part of the awkwardness of being human is that is is difficult to examine the phenomenological aspects "of those things we all see the same" that Amos refers to. There is a concept in phenomenology called the "eidetic reduction", where we do something like 'run around behind ourselves and grabour conciousness by the back of the neck' so that we can objectively examine our own subjectivity. So far, it is ONLY a concept....and it remains VERY difficult to deal with even simple questions like "how do I know I am being honest or altruistic?" ...and if THAT is the case, how do we approach the same questions about others?
   This is why I am dubious when I read posts that seem to assume that it is possible to be sure of the causes and explanations of metaphysical & para-psychological experiences....and why I claim that science, for all ITS complexity, is simpler than postulating premises like those which caused Hume so much consternation.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:58 AM

finding out about X is the problem

Indeed it is. You can't even be certain that the person you are talking to is conscious. Solipsism this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:55 AM

Bill:

Just as a comment, getting away from those who simply know, as you describe, is of course a "retreat to the commons", so to speak--to the phenomenology of those things we all see the same. I would offer the argument for consideration that those things which we all see the same constitute the materail space-time continuum, to a large degree, and that in a sense, you are like a zoologist who never leaves the university campus office to see whether there are really such things as elephants (or hippogriffes, for that matter).

As for the potential "consciousness" of matter, it is arguable, sure. But the most profound reason fro my earlier statement is that particles (the objects of viewing) and awareness (the potential of vierwing) are profoundly, qualitatively so different that arguimg that the former is made out of the latter seems like arguing that the sun is made of very tiny snowballs, just formed into very complex connections. Or pigs with lipstick on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of body experiences
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:40 AM

Ebbie: don't fret...this is exchanging ideas...and ideas about ideas. I don't take it personally. (and if I DID come from the future, I sure have forgotten about it...and I'm not sure 'neat' is how I'd feel about discovering Angels and Demons were among us.) I don't even know how we'd tell....we have paintings and stories and movies with descriptions and images of things like Angels, but those are human imaginations projecting concepts...and once we get a few 'set', like images of Jesus with the beard & robe, all the images found on Cheetos & rusty water tanks seem to resemble the standard 'form'. If Angels are not linited by matter, why would they need wings to arrive here and do whatever it is they do? *grin*.....

So...you see why, at least, I ask pointed questions about many of the things and experiences that happen 'inside' us and are not subject to objective testing and comparison?


Paul Burke:
"How about the idea that consciousness is a propert that ALL matter can have, when appropriately organised."

It's an idea...*shrug*...what more can be said about it? *IF* X were true, *THEN* Y might be true...but finding out about X is the problem. (and what a HUGE batch of 'maybes' is buried in the notion of "appropriately organized".)

Lizzie:
"And there are those who simply 'know'."
   ...yes, I've met some of them. I got away from them as fast as possible. Since "simply knowing" is subjective to the individual, there's no way for us 'others' to have any idea what is going on in their heads...and it can be awkward when they 'tell' you. ☺