Lab Experiments...

artdragondream · 30th March 2008, 08:32 PM

The reason IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m looking for this is because I want to be able to show these results to the scientifically minded people out there that have a hard time accepting this as a possibility. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard several times on radio interviews and books on the subject of them taking about these experiments that have taken place as proof that the phenomenon exists and that it is testable and verifiable. Well I would like to see the results for myself. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t plan on publishing or writing anything I just would like to see the actual findings and published works from these scientists out of curiosity for one and as a powerful tool for spreading the word that there is more to reality than what we experience physically. Something like this could help fuel the effort to open peoples minds to these possibilities.

You see its stuff like this that can, in my view, save lives. What I mean is it, in a sense, help people wake up from the religious constraints that form intolerance and hate in our world. Experiential spirituality holds the possibility to change our entire world for the better. Once you experience this you cant help but be motivated to explore further and when you come to see the truths through this new perspective you want to help others to know what you know and see what you see, either through a desire to help people or to prove your not hallucinating. lol

In conclusion I have one pet peeve that really gets on my nerves. Its when people condemn something when they know nothing about it. Condemnation without investigation is the ultimate form of ignorance!!! So when I get the chance I would like to educate people in order to relieve them of there ignorance. I know thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s awful presumptuous of me but I would like to do what I can to help people open there minds and expand there consciousness.

And thats the end of my rant.

Thank you for your help

~Scott

**CFTraveler** · 30th March 2008, 10:36 PM

Hi Scott.
I certainly know I'd like to see people take stuff like this more seriously and to some extent have seen it in my life, but not because some scientist (who will eventually will be set aside and ridiculed by his peers, as it always seems to happen) creates some sort of testing system that can prove that OBEs are more than purely subjective phenomenon, but really because more people learn to induce the state and can have experiences that are verifiable to them, and make it legitimate- to them.
I think it's no secret that I don't think it's possible to objectively verify a phenomenon that is to some extent subjective, at least not in the sense that scientific systems work, but I'm ok with that because I've had enough experiences that have been verified to feel secure about what I do when I do it.
But I get what you're saying, and I sincerely hope that someday this is probable and verifiable the way that science tends to want evidence to be, but I won't be holding my breath.

artdragondream · 31st March 2008, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by CFTraveler

I think it's no secret that I don't think it's possible to objectively verify a phenomenon that is to some extent subjective, at least not in the sense that scientific systems work, but I'm ok with that because I've had enough experiences that have been verified to feel secure about what I do when I do it.

Do you think Robert and other experts in OBE's are wrong to have claimed that the experiments conducted prove in an objective way that the phenomenon exists and the findings can be reproduced and verified?

~Scott

**CFTraveler** · 31st March 2008, 02:48 PM

I'm not in any position to judge whether they are wrong or right in claiming anything, I'm just giving my honest opinion. The thing is that verifiable is not always probable in the scientific world. And anything that is falsifiable is false in their view, so what objective proof means to one isn't considered objective proof in another.
Let's use something else in the modern world as an example:
Psychology is considered by the average person to be a science. Psychologists have been observing, cataloguing and mapping behaviour for a long time now, and have come up with therapies for different things. When you look at them from a statistical point of view, you'll see that there is always a margin of error for any given therapy- some people that are classified as "a" or "b" or "c" get whatever is supposed to work for their respective condition. The problem is that since most treatment is symptom-derived, and most symptoms are either reported by the patient or people around them, there is a margin for error in classification (that's why there's so many "borderline x y or z" diagnoses available, because symptoms cross over) so there's never any assurance that something's going to work 100% all the time. Why? Because the human mind is awesomely complex, and mostly they guess, and if a therapy works, the doctors think they were right in the diagnosis (they guessed good). And if it doesn't, it can be because of many other reasons.
But the thing is, that the scientific establishment sees psychology as a proto-science, or a 'soft science'. And some don't believe in its validity at all. Why? Because there is too much subjectivity in the analysis- too much room for interpretation.
So pretty much anything to do with the human mind is not a science, and not verifiable in the kind of scientific objectivity that is asked for by the scientific establishment.
So, in other words, what is proof for one camp is not proof for another.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Me, I think therapy works, if you approach it to your own benefit. But I'll never say it's been proven to work, just as I'll never say OBE has been proven to exist. Although I know it does, and I have my own proof. But that's me.