![..[ Phrack Magazine ]..](img/phrack-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
.:: PHRACK ISSUES ::.
Issues: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ] [ 20 ] [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ] [ 25 ] [ 26 ] [ 27 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] [ 31 ] [ 32 ] [ 33 ] [ 34 ] [ 35 ] [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 41 ] [ 42 ] [ 43 ] [ 44 ] [ 45 ] [ 46 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ] [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ] [ 64 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] [ 67 ] [ 68 ]
Current issue : #64 | Release date : 27/05/2007 | Editor : The Circle of Lost Hackers
Title : Hacking your brain: The projection of consciousness
_ _
_/B\_ _/W\_
(* *) Phrack #64 file 14 (* *)
| - | | - |
| | Hacking your brain: | |
| | | |
| | The projection of consciousness | |
| | | |
| | by keptune | |
(____________________________________________________)
Dead Underground, for this new Phrack issue, The Circle of Lost
Hackers has decided to start one more new section entitled "Hacking
you brain". We already hear you: "what the hell this subject is in
relation with computer hacking???". Well, as we already mentioned in
other articles, for us hacking is not only computer hacking but
it's much more.
The following article, as you will understand, talks about out of body
experiences. By publishing this article in a magazine like phrack, we
know that it will bring scepticism. The author, in this article, claims
that such out of body experiences are possible. One of the main rule
of the underground is to not be blind and trust everything simply because
an authority claims it, to try everthing by yourself with criticism
and a totally open mind spirit. It's why, for us, the unreasoning
credulity is something more blameworthy than a presumptuous and septic
guy who reject facts without examinating if they are real.
Even if an out of body experience is interesting, what is more interesting
is the new implication that it leads up. It's unrecognized by the current
Science even if it's known for ages. If the following information are
true - what we affirm - then it's revolutionary. Be able to live out of
your body means that the dead is no the end but only one step that we all
have to pass over.
All these reasons make us think that publishing an article like that in
Phrack is a good idea. Because before being a computer hacking magazine,
phrack is dedicated to spread the occult knowledge, unrecognized and
subversive.
We let you discover - and experiment - by yourselves this fantastic
phenomenon that are lucid dreams and out of body projections so that
you can make up your own opinion.
Have a good read.
----------------------------------
The projection of consciousness
by keptune
Since the Ancient times, as far as we know, humankind has been animated by
the most impressive curiosity for almost everything, especially for this
strange thing that is the Mind : something concrete although impalpable to
the subject, yet invisible to the world. Some of the oldest carvings and
paintings that have been discovered in Africa are full of dream visions
and abstract symbols, most likely depicting chamanic inner travels.
However, it appears that the .power. to investigate how the mind works and
to retrieve pieces of information on the consciousness and its mecanisms
has been monopolized early in History by a few ones. Call them chamans,
sorcerers, wisemen, etc., they have gained a social position through the
ages by grabing the exclusive rights of these investigations. Which might
has been wise at first, as the initiations to these practices were mostly
done from master to disciple in order to keep the teaching intact. But
indirectly, it has led the majority to be ignorant of these subjects,
almost fearful about the workings of the consciousness and what could
modify it. When the time came for the brand new .modern science. to
study the Mind, during the XIXth century, some would have thought that
everything was about to change. But in place it was only the continuity
of the past traditions, although by fathering new ones: psychologists,
psychiatrists, neurologists. Nowadays, if you do not have at least a
master degree in one of these subject, you are simply considered ignorant
by the scientists about the mind. That.s right, your . own . mind, your
consciousness. You are just not .authorized. to talk about it, or mocked
at if you try, like a child who would try to build a skyrocket . cute,
but impossible. It is no more than another form of monopoly, to control
the main dogma of materialism in our society. It is like saying that
you are not intelligent enough to think about it, so just do not try,
serious people are doing it for you and will tell you what to think and
how to apprehend your own life. Meanwhile, just work, consume and enjoy.
But guess what: these people, most likely unconsciously as they are being
.manipulate. too by the main dogma, just want to make you think that
you canno.t know anything about the mind, your . own . consciousness,
without them. And you would be a fool to try in spite of this all-powerful
fact. Which is just wrong. Seriously. In fact, you are the one who
is all-powerful about his own consciousness. But you must use it, and
bring it to unknown territories in order to understand it by yourself,
which is the only way. Some might be thinking at this point: my mind
is what it is, what is he talking about? Sometimes I am sad, or joyful,
but my mind stays the same beneath that. Well, wrong. You just did
not try to change it, to push it to it.s extreme. I am talking about
something with the same subjective difference than the physical reality
and a dream. Think Matrix, less the glasses, the robots and the giant
killing computer. I am talking about a skill that anyone can develop:
projection of consciousness, one of the most amazing faculty of the mind.
What is projection of consciousness? Have you ever lucid dream? I mean,
dreaming and knowing that you are dreaming? Realizing that the world
around you is just an illusion created by your mind and you did not
notice it at first? That is a type of projection of consciousness, the
lowest one in fact. You are projecting your mind out of the feeling
of your physical body, into another reality. Dreaming is a type of
projection of consciousness, although non-lucid one are the lowests from
the lowest, not very interesting for the real mind raiders. But it.s
a good bridge to do some more serious projection activities. At this
point of the article, I know that some are already thinking: whatever,
dreams are not real. WRONG. That is a typical shortcut from the dominant
materialistic, so-called .scientific., dogma, which considers that all
that is not palpable is not real. Then your mind as a unity of perception
and consciousness is not real, because guess what, even the best EEG
canno.t find where the mind sets in the brain (if it is in the brain at
all). All they do is record electrical signals here and there. For your
mind, the dream is as solid and real as physical reality. That is why
you wake up sweating from a nightmare, with you heartbeat at 200, and
still all frightened during a few minutes. Or at the opposite, you wake
up with a feeling of completeness after a really amazing and beautiful
dream. Right? A dream is impalpable, but it is real nonetheless for the
observer, you. And now think about this: about one sixth of your life is
made of dreams. Almost an entire seperate life, which most people just
disregard as unreal (=impalpable) and therefore uninteresting. That is
just sad, when you know all the amazing possibilities of the mind, which
can . and will . really transform your life by bringing your attention
to a whole new dimension. Something noboby has ever talked to you about
I guess. Something that is still mostly undiscovered, where you are a
real pionnier.
If you have never even lucid dream, you are situated right now at the
first floor of a skyscrapper, ignoring that there is an elevator just
behind you that could bring you in no time to a flabbergasting landscape
and a whole new perspective. Seriously. You canno.t know what your
mind, your consciousness, is made of unless you accept to explore it by
yourself. The modern scientific method tends to analyze from an outside
point of view, which just canno.t led to a full understanding. It would
be like trying to understand how you watch works without opening it up
at one time or another.
I guess many are thinking right now about shrooms, pot and crack, salvia
divinorum, entheogens, hallucinations etc. That.s on the exact opposite of
what I am about to explain. You do not need anything more than yourself
(and hopefully your mind too) to project in full consciousness. Plants
have been used a lot by chamans to attain different levels of perception,
but nowadays it is very unlikely that you know a chaman that could
guide you into a safe practice using them. Taking some is therefore
not recommended for projection of consciousness, as you need to be
fully aware. Moreover, some might just think afterwards that it was
hallucinations due to the drugs, which would ruin the whole point of
the experience.
So let us start. From my own experience (it is always important to speak
by experience on this subject and not from books or theories, even more
as the point is to gain a first-hand knowledge of all this), there are
different levels of projection (the fact of putting your consciousness
out of the perception of the physical universe, into another form of
reality). From the lowest to the highest:
- dreams
- lucide dreams
- wake initiated lucid dreams
- full physical projection
- higher projections
Everyone knows dreams. Well in fact some people never remember their
dreams, but everyone can after only a few days of training (thinking
hard about the last image in mind just after waking up for example is a
good way to progressively remember full dreams). I won.t talk about it
here as everyone can achieve this state quite easily.
Lucid dream is a type of dream that not everyone has experienced, or
for some only a few times. It is dreaming and realizing that something
is wrong, and eventually that you are in a dream. It opens up a whole
new perspective to dreaming: have you ever thought of controlling the
whole universe? Well, with some training, you can in lucid dreams. It
is also a place to meet solidified parts of your psyche, your
subconscious. Characters become interfaces with deeper parts of your
mind. You can retrieve old of lost information or interact with your
own mind by creating psychic anchors through them. You are like inside
of you own mind, I mean . really . inside, the universe around you is
a symbolic materialized form of what you thought was so impalpable
in the waking state. You can go on the lowest levels of your mind
.programs. (i.e. your personality etc.) and modify them. Or you can just
create your own worlds, and enjoy the landscapes, the .people. you meet
(parts of you in fact, with sometimes what seems to be a real kind of
independent behaviour and own proto-mind). Something I am experimenting
with lately is fusioning with the strongest .people. (part of my psyche)
that I encounter. I just ask to fusion and our bodies melt into one. It
is a really amazing experience each time, and I gain a lot of knowledge
that I did not thought I had. It is like reunifying my mind little by
little. Well, the possibilities are almost limitless, so just think about
anything you would like to do, and you can! It is also a good place to
face blocages and fight them. The result in the physical life is real
if you win. Some have destroyed their OCD in this state, others have
gained enough willpower to stop drugs or take control of their lives etc.
Becoming lucid for the first time can be however some kind of a
challenge. Fortunately, many types of training have been developped. Here
are a few ones. I encourage you to google these for more information
and technics:
- Make your watch beep every x minutes. It can be quite annoying for other
people though. However, this beep will progressively be integrated by your
subconscious mind and will start to appear in your dreams after a week or
two. What you must do (in physical reality) is check out your surrounding
everytime your watch beeps. Do this seriously, it is really important to
get totally involved into this verification of reality. Try to remember
your whole day, and the past days, for chronological problems etc. Do
not think that you are in the physical reality but really imagine that
you might be dreaming. If you realize that there is a problem, well,
congratulations, you are doing a lucid dream now.
- Do some reality checks the same way when you see something strange, or
on the opposite (which might work better for some) when you do something
really basic, like washing your hands, or opening a door. Do it each time
for a few days or weeks, and very seriously (at least for one minute). You
will become lucid if you try this while dreaming after it becomes a habit
(as it will be integrated by the subconscious mind).
- Before you go to sleep, while laying down in your bed, feel the world
around you, feel that you are lucid, fully aware of yourself. Repeat a few
times .I WILL be lucid tonight, I WILL be lucide tonight .. while holding
the feeling of lucidity. Do this until you start sleeping if you want.
Once you become lucid in a dream, stay calm and enjoy. Repeat loudly
every five seconds (to prevent you from risking to lose your lucidity and
being caught back into a normal dream) that you are lucid, it will help
you stay in this state. You can try to fly to move more easily into your
created universe (lift your legs and even move your arms as if you were
swimming might help at first), but do not try harder stuff like going
through walls, teleporting or creating big objects from nothing before
you have enough experience to stabilize entirely your dream. Indeed the
mind does not like lucid dreaming at first and it will try to wake you up
(in this case, if you feel that the dream is losing consistency and the
image is disapearing, concentrate very hard on your five senses, touch
the ground, look closely to some details etc. This will help to get you
back into the dream but you might lose a lot of mental energy doing so so
repeat actively that you are lucid after that otherwise you might lose
your lucidity entirely), or to make you lose your lucidity (typically,
by catching you back into a scenario . a naked member of the opposite
sex (or same, depending of the sexual preferences) might appear, someone
will tell you that something has happened to your house, a giant dinosaur
might start chasing you etc., anything that would get you involved into
the dream will be used, so do not get caught and stay focused!
If you have imagination and willpower (which I am sure is the case),
you will see changes in your everyday life and personality in a matter
of weeks of practice. Your centers of interest might change, as well
as what you feel is important in life, so stay aware of your needs and
aspirations. However, this kind of dream initiated lucid dream is still
not as powerful as a .full. lucid dream.
What I mean by full lucid dream is a dream initiated from the waking
state. Ok, some might think that dreams can only be initiated from
this state, as we go to sleep etc. But do you ever remember the exact
instant when you enter your dream? And moreover, being fully aware
during the whole process? It is a really flabbergasting experience
the first few times. It is like being suddenly propelled into another
world. If you thought dreams appeared slowly, that is far from reality,
as the transition from your black mind vision to the full-colored and
3D dream takes no more than a second. You suddenly feel a new body,
into a whole new world surrounding you. The experience of a WILD
(Wake Initiated Lucid Dream) is extremely joyful and what one would
call .real.. Appart from what is happening (you are flying etc.) the
world seems as real and solid as the physical world would. But it is
more of an Alice in Wonderland thing going on. Doing a WILD is a bit
more tricky than a dream initiated lucid dream, but nothing impossible
to do fortunately. One technic that is very effective is visualizing
(=imagining and feeling) yourself walking into a known place (a mall,
a street in your neibourghood etc.) I think that it is important to
visualize some place you know (and not an imaginary one) as this will
stimulate your subconscious in a passive way: it is less demanding to
the mind to remember things than to create them. I will also prevent you
from daydreaming a scenario and eventually fall asleep without noticing
it. So just lay down, close your eyes, relax for a few minutes and start
visualizing without moving. It is important to really feel yourself in
that place. Do not stop whatever you feel or happens. The transition will
be really quick as I said. Once you suddenly find yourself propelled into
a dream environment, concentrate on stabilizing your lucidity but touching
things, watch closely whatever is near you etc. And then . Well, enjoy!
About enjoying, by the way, some might want to trigger sexual fantasies
in these states. Everything is possible here, remember, and all will
look as solid as it could. In fact sex is even better most of the times,
more intense. But climax will bring you back into the waking state,
and before that you may lose your lucidity as you will get too involved
into the scenario. There are much more interesting things to do while
lucid dreaming, but I understand that some want to try different things.
A higher type of projection has been mastered through times by a few
ones. Originally, it was used by chamans and sorcerers in traditional
societies to retrieve information on a member of the tribe or the village,
i.e. his illness, or discover hidden things. This technic is called by
some out-of-body experience, but I prefer the term physical projection.
Indeed, although real, lucid dreams stay mostly in a totally subjective
universe, there are you own creation. But the mind, our consciousness,
are not limited by the physical boundaries. Crazy? Well everyone thinks
that before he actually does it. What I am saying here is that it is
possible to be in the physical world while not inside your physical
body. How does it work? It is highly debated even amongst those who
practice this. However, it works, which is the important point here.
The easiest way to understand this is by trying it by yourself. One
technic that I developped early in my experimentations with the mind
was the physical projection initiated from a lucid dream. That.s right,
a projection of consciousness inside another projection. It is really
easy so even if you are a full-time skeptic, give it a try. Once you
become lucid in a dream, following the technics explained hereabove,
allow yourself to fall backwards without trying to catch oneself. This
will trigger very powerful sensations, so be prepared to the shock of your
life, really. Most of the times, this is what will happend: while falling
backwards, the image of your dream will disappear as if you were losing
consciousness in the physical world (it becomes black). A strong feeling
of being pulled down will appear and you will hear some very loud noises,
like if you were standing really closely next to an aircraft about to
take off. It can be quite frightening, but stay focused. You might see
some bright flashes of light, like being propelled at full speed inside
a tunnel formed by black clouds during a storm at night. Suddenly,
you will find yourself floating a few inches above your bed. You will
most likely feel very weird, and might not see your body, although if
you try to touch your hands you will feel them, but your body might be
invisible (or more precisely like the predator in the eponym movie). The
environment will be strange too: you room will be your physical room,
but something will feel different. In fact, you will be able to get
through every object, like a ghost mostly. However the environment will
also be very permeable to your thoughts, so if you concentrate to see
something it will appear until you stop to focus. You will feel very
different than in any dream, even lucid, and will be in full possession
of your memory. You should keep your first projection of this type short
however, in order to keep vivid memories from it. You will soon understand
first-hand the differences with dreams and how to act in this new state
of existence. However, be very careful with what you think or do, as
even if this type of projection is very stable (unlike a lucid dream),
you can soon be sucked back into a dream-like environment, or your body
(your might feel tingling sensations in your limbs at this point, and
have painful areas on your body, but don.t worry). So stay focused.
A test that many projectors like to do is putting a playing card on
top of a furniture without looking at it unless they are in a physical
projection, in order to check it later and confirm the projection. But
even without that, you will soon be amazed to observe that you can verify
a lot of what you see in this state. For example, this happened to me
a few years ago : it was early in the morning and my girlfriend left
the bedroom, to take a shower or eat her breakfast I thought. However I
was very tired and soon get back in a very deep relaxed state. I pushed
my consciousness frontwards and found myself hoavering above my body,
fully aware. I floated through the room, then through the door, the hall,
another door, and eventually was in the living room. I was surprised to
see that my girlfriend was sleeping in a f.tus position on one of the
sofas, in its left corner, her face against the back and my coat (which
I had left in the hall) as a blanket. I felt a powerful force sucking me
back inside my body at this point. I immediately checked what I have seen:
everything, down to the slightest detail, was correct. This kind of thing
has happened to me a lot since then. You do not have to be religious,
of even believe in life after death to make this experience, just try
it before you make your own judgement, but give it a try at least.
As you read in the experience I shared just above, I did not project
physically from within a lucid dream. Indeed you can project from
full conscious state too, which is even more powerful. If you want to
learn more about these technichs, I suggest you buy some books about
this subject, like the trilogy of Robert A. Monroe, a classic written
during 30 years of experimenting by an electrical ingenieur which found
himself projecting without even willing it. There are many good books out
there. However projecting from a fully aware state is much more difficult
(but feasable of course), so be prepared to spend some time in training
(usually a conscious projection can be attained in a few days for the
gifted to a few months for the ungifted, like I was).
It seems that there are higher states of projection, apparently in some
all-mental levels, but in an objective, all-mental, universe. I have
yet to get into these, but hopefully some of you will get there in a
few years. Let the community of projectors of consciousness know your
discoveries at this time, as it is all about sharing. Indeed, projecting
your consciousness is even more than a life-changing experience, it is
a matter of protecting your freedom, your freedom to exist as a mind and
a body, and to use both to their extreme limits, and even beyond. Noone
can take that from you, even locked into the smallest and deepest prison
of all. It is not even about believing, it is about trying by yourself
to push your limits out of the ordinary, out of the known into mostly
or fully unknown territories, and discover your true nature doing so.
See you in other levels of consciousness.
K.
Comments :
Logic guy, on January 20th 2008 at 5:32 pm :
Science guy: I think you havent read properly my comments because everything I said was not intended to justify the existence of astral projections or any other psi phenomenon. That is clear if you read again my posts that my only point was to state that *not everything can have a formal proof*.
I allowed myself to draw a parallel with Galileo which I must admit is not entirely justified. The only reason why I dont classify this article as a hoax is because I know personally the author of this file. I had many discussions with him IRL about this topic and I dont see a reason why everything inside the article would be lies. You can say its badly or incompletely interpreted, that there is no verifiable theory explained, but he made observations about the phenomenon (and not just him!), which are studied for a long time by agencies interested in taking advantages of these hidden human capabilities.
Just like scientists, keptune has been for years digging into the state of the art in psychology, psychanalysis, and still-to-be-explained psychic phenomenons. Such background work does not appear in the article and the paper definitely lack references of the huge (and mostly non-advised) work on this topic. But hey, its a Phrack article about a personal experience. Its not a research article about developing a formal theory of psychic phenomenons.
I allowed myself to draw a parallel with Galileo which I must admit is not entirely justified. The only reason why I dont classify this article as a hoax is because I know personally the author of this file. I had many discussions with him IRL about this topic and I dont see a reason why everything inside the article would be lies. You can say its badly or incompletely interpreted, that there is no verifiable theory explained, but he made observations about the phenomenon (and not just him!), which are studied for a long time by agencies interested in taking advantages of these hidden human capabilities.
Just like scientists, keptune has been for years digging into the state of the art in psychology, psychanalysis, and still-to-be-explained psychic phenomenons. Such background work does not appear in the article and the paper definitely lack references of the huge (and mostly non-advised) work on this topic. But hey, its a Phrack article about a personal experience. Its not a research article about developing a formal theory of psychic phenomenons.
Science guy, on January 20th 2008 at 2:17 pm :
Awe come on folks! Godel...Goshmel! We should all remember that despite Logic guy's arguments of Godel's Theorem, that nothing can be proved, there is still no theory to support any mechanism for the existence of psi phenomenon. Without data and evidence, there is nothing for a theory or mechanism to explain. Without a theory and mechanism, data and evidence drift aimlessly on a boundless sea. Until psi proponents can elucidate how thoughts generated by neurons in the sender's brain can pass through the skull and into the brain of the receiver, skepticism is the appropriate response to psychic phenomenon. Until psi finds its Darwin, it will continue to drift on the fringes of science.
And since Godel's theorem only reinforces dr_Skeptics premise that Astral Projection cannot be proved by a test suggested by keptune, it was a poor choice of arguments in support of astral projection.
I'm afraid, despite what Logic guy says, Galileo had a little more than "observations" to support his ideas that the planets circle the sun because it's a well known fact that observations alone will not accurately describe the orbits of the planets. A system of mathematics of continuous change, developed by Issac Newton, now known as calculus, is required since the gravitational forces on a planet are constantly changing. Therefore, he had data generated by mathematics and theories of gravitation and ellipses developed and supported by other scientists such as Newton and Keplar. Hence data, evidence (observations) and theories or a mechanism to explain his observations. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to compare this article to Galileo's situation. Since no supporting theories were proposed to explain just how one might project their consciousness. Just saying it can be done is not enough. Bold statements do not make a science. And don't forget, we now except Galileo's ideas over that of the Church, who said the earth is the center of the Universe!
The law of gravity can be considered factual, despite Godel's theorem, meaning that it has been confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. The projection of consciousness can be considered nonfactual because it has never been confirmed to any extent.
After all, would anyone like to tell me that their cellphones are worthless simply because Godel's incompleteness theorem says that the theory of electromagnetism cannot be strictly proven?
Believe what you want, but don't misuse science to confirm your beliefs.
And since Godel's theorem only reinforces dr_Skeptics premise that Astral Projection cannot be proved by a test suggested by keptune, it was a poor choice of arguments in support of astral projection.
I'm afraid, despite what Logic guy says, Galileo had a little more than "observations" to support his ideas that the planets circle the sun because it's a well known fact that observations alone will not accurately describe the orbits of the planets. A system of mathematics of continuous change, developed by Issac Newton, now known as calculus, is required since the gravitational forces on a planet are constantly changing. Therefore, he had data generated by mathematics and theories of gravitation and ellipses developed and supported by other scientists such as Newton and Keplar. Hence data, evidence (observations) and theories or a mechanism to explain his observations. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to compare this article to Galileo's situation. Since no supporting theories were proposed to explain just how one might project their consciousness. Just saying it can be done is not enough. Bold statements do not make a science. And don't forget, we now except Galileo's ideas over that of the Church, who said the earth is the center of the Universe!
The law of gravity can be considered factual, despite Godel's theorem, meaning that it has been confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. The projection of consciousness can be considered nonfactual because it has never been confirmed to any extent.
After all, would anyone like to tell me that their cellphones are worthless simply because Godel's incompleteness theorem says that the theory of electromagnetism cannot be strictly proven?
Believe what you want, but don't misuse science to confirm your beliefs.
dr_Skeptic, on January 19th 2008 at 2:22 pm :
My final statement:
As said Logic guy, I also tend to think that everything that is not formally proven cannot be considered true. Therefore, I do not believe there is any rational basis for believing in astral projection. So keptune can take his rational test and shove it up his..., well you know what I mean...
@Ballan:
Here's one more for you:
"Refuse to lower yourself to the level of your antagonist."
-=-=-
Everyone have a great New Year and thanks for the entertainment! My upcoming book will reflect on these arguments.
-=-=-
As said Logic guy, I also tend to think that everything that is not formally proven cannot be considered true. Therefore, I do not believe there is any rational basis for believing in astral projection. So keptune can take his rational test and shove it up his..., well you know what I mean...
@Ballan:
Here's one more for you:
"Refuse to lower yourself to the level of your antagonist."
-=-=-
Everyone have a great New Year and thanks for the entertainment! My upcoming book will reflect on these arguments.
-=-=-
dr_Skeptic, on January 19th 2008 at 12:51 pm :
@Logic guy
Seems you're are only arguing with yourself now, Logic guy. As I said, I was only joking. I am quite aware of all this. Ballan make me laugh!
Seems you're are only arguing with yourself now, Logic guy. As I said, I was only joking. I am quite aware of all this. Ballan make me laugh!
dr_Skeptic, on January 19th 2008 at 12:41 pm :
@Ballan
"Everything people say or do is ultimately rooted in the belief that those actions will lead them to happiness."
"The person who confesses ignorance shows it once, the person who conceals it shows it many times." --Japanese proverb
"Looking for lasting happiness outside yourself is meaningless. It is like expecting to become fit by watching other people exercise."
"Nonviolence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice--nonviolence springs from love, cowardice from hate."
"Everything people say or do is ultimately rooted in the belief that those actions will lead them to happiness."
"The person who confesses ignorance shows it once, the person who conceals it shows it many times." --Japanese proverb
"Looking for lasting happiness outside yourself is meaningless. It is like expecting to become fit by watching other people exercise."
"Nonviolence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice--nonviolence springs from love, cowardice from hate."
Logic guy, on January 19th 2008 at 12:23 pm :
The incompleteness theorem is not subject to incompleteness itself, because as indicated in its name, its a theorem, and not a theory. For your information, the theorem is not due to a lack of formalism, a lack of logic, a lack of intelligence, or anything else. It has even been proven mathematically and verified by computers.
But lets stop the formal masturbation and take a simple example : the liar paradox. Everyone knows it or almost and it consist of finding whether or not this sentence is true: "This sentence is false"
If the sentence is true, then the sentence is false
If the sentence is false, then its false that the sentence is false.
So is the sentence true or false ?
You cant prove either one or the other. Such a simple question on such a simple sentence does not even have a proof ! While this result may or may not apply to (dis)proving lucid dreams and astral projections, the point is that you cant claim to have a formal answer to all the questions of the universe. If you believe they do not exist, you should bring a proof of it, or accept that they might not be a proof of it (just like the people who think it is real, in the other direction). You could even work on proving that the problem is undecidable if you have nothing else to do.
Now thanks for stopping this flame war and keep your energy for contributing to Phrack. The deadline is January 31 2008 and AFAIK there is still no article for the next hacking your brain.
This will be my last post on this matter.
But lets stop the formal masturbation and take a simple example : the liar paradox. Everyone knows it or almost and it consist of finding whether or not this sentence is true: "This sentence is false"
If the sentence is true, then the sentence is false
If the sentence is false, then its false that the sentence is false.
So is the sentence true or false ?
You cant prove either one or the other. Such a simple question on such a simple sentence does not even have a proof ! While this result may or may not apply to (dis)proving lucid dreams and astral projections, the point is that you cant claim to have a formal answer to all the questions of the universe. If you believe they do not exist, you should bring a proof of it, or accept that they might not be a proof of it (just like the people who think it is real, in the other direction). You could even work on proving that the problem is undecidable if you have nothing else to do.
Now thanks for stopping this flame war and keep your energy for contributing to Phrack. The deadline is January 31 2008 and AFAIK there is still no article for the next hacking your brain.
This will be my last post on this matter.
dr_Skeptic, on January 19th 2008 at 1:57 am :
@Logic guy
Alas, I am aware of Godel's Theorem...In any event, it should be noted that although the incompleteness theorem is often thought to support some form of skepticism with regard to mathematics, it is argued either that we cannot, strictly speaking, prove anything in mathematics or that the consistency of theories like PA or ZF is shown to be doubtful by the theorem.
In many cases no explanation is given of how the skeptical conclusion is supposed to follow. Therefore, the abrupt conclusion from incompleteness to possible inconsistency has no immediately apparant rational basis.
Despite this I am willing to accept that logically speaking it is impossible for us to fully "prove" any proposition. But, of course, this really only brings us back to my original dispute of keptune's article which is his alleged "proof":
"A test that many projectors like to do is putting a
playing card on top of a furniture without looking at
it unless they are in a physical projection, in order
to check it later and confirm the projection."
As I have stated previously, albeit, in different ways and perhaps not clearly. I am perfectly willing to accept "philosophical arguments" for lucid dreaming and astral projection as long as empirical evidence and scientific reasoning is kept out of the arguments as this only demands a scientific and rational analysis. Which I have said I do not believe is possible, and that is really all that I have been trying to say, despite all the insane comments that I am trying to prove something or that I am right.
Therefore, if anyone wants to argue with me now, you will have to argue Godel's Theorem. (Which I have indeed attempted, but only time will tell how well...) Any takers?
Thank you Logic guy!
@Ballan
I do not disagree with you, Ballan, but I AM sorry you are taking this personally.
Perhaps my apology will help.
Alas, I am aware of Godel's Theorem...In any event, it should be noted that although the incompleteness theorem is often thought to support some form of skepticism with regard to mathematics, it is argued either that we cannot, strictly speaking, prove anything in mathematics or that the consistency of theories like PA or ZF is shown to be doubtful by the theorem.
In many cases no explanation is given of how the skeptical conclusion is supposed to follow. Therefore, the abrupt conclusion from incompleteness to possible inconsistency has no immediately apparant rational basis.
Despite this I am willing to accept that logically speaking it is impossible for us to fully "prove" any proposition. But, of course, this really only brings us back to my original dispute of keptune's article which is his alleged "proof":
"A test that many projectors like to do is putting a
playing card on top of a furniture without looking at
it unless they are in a physical projection, in order
to check it later and confirm the projection."
As I have stated previously, albeit, in different ways and perhaps not clearly. I am perfectly willing to accept "philosophical arguments" for lucid dreaming and astral projection as long as empirical evidence and scientific reasoning is kept out of the arguments as this only demands a scientific and rational analysis. Which I have said I do not believe is possible, and that is really all that I have been trying to say, despite all the insane comments that I am trying to prove something or that I am right.
Therefore, if anyone wants to argue with me now, you will have to argue Godel's Theorem. (Which I have indeed attempted, but only time will tell how well...) Any takers?
Thank you Logic guy!
@Ballan
I do not disagree with you, Ballan, but I AM sorry you are taking this personally.
Perhaps my apology will help.
dr_Skeptic, on January 19th 2008 at 1:52 am :
@Ballan
How can this be "Perfectly true"??? When the incompleteness theorem is in itself, self disputing??? Is the Incompleteness theorem not a complete and formal system in itself??? In which case it cannot be proven!!!
Of course, this all sounds like circular reasoning to me which I agree is a fallacy in thinking. And I am, of course, only joking, but I couldn't resist :) Difficult as it is, we must try to construct operational definitions that can be tested, falsified , and refuted. Please read my more formal dispute above...
How can this be "Perfectly true"??? When the incompleteness theorem is in itself, self disputing??? Is the Incompleteness theorem not a complete and formal system in itself??? In which case it cannot be proven!!!
Of course, this all sounds like circular reasoning to me which I agree is a fallacy in thinking. And I am, of course, only joking, but I couldn't resist :) Difficult as it is, we must try to construct operational definitions that can be tested, falsified , and refuted. Please read my more formal dispute above...
Ballan, on January 18th 2008 at 11:35 am :
@dr_skeptic
1. When you include in the beginning of your message "@Ballan" and I do write "@drSkeptic", this is when it becomes a 1on1 issue !!! You disagree ??? Then you are dumb ... probably not stupid, but dumb.
2. Can you prove your existence?
Can you prove that you are living a worthy life?
Can you prove that you are good or evil?
Can you prove existence or non-existence of God?
3. You deny that you are not following your pleasure instincts!? Another dumb comment. Even writing this post you are pleasing yourself. As for molesting kids and raping women, I'd never have thought about that example, but you still did. And if you had the urge to do that, if that was pleasing for you, you'd probably do it.
4. It's a shame that you went so low. I enjoyed your efforts and I respected you for your obvious willing to understand what gears the world around us. Not anymore.
What a pity ... I hope you find your inner peace sooner or later. You have a long road ahead of you ...
####
@Logic guy
Perfectly true. One cannot define and prove completely the rules of a system being inside the system. That is if the universe is a closed system. Something we could only speculate about.
1. When you include in the beginning of your message "@Ballan" and I do write "@drSkeptic", this is when it becomes a 1on1 issue !!! You disagree ??? Then you are dumb ... probably not stupid, but dumb.
2. Can you prove your existence?
Can you prove that you are living a worthy life?
Can you prove that you are good or evil?
Can you prove existence or non-existence of God?
3. You deny that you are not following your pleasure instincts!? Another dumb comment. Even writing this post you are pleasing yourself. As for molesting kids and raping women, I'd never have thought about that example, but you still did. And if you had the urge to do that, if that was pleasing for you, you'd probably do it.
4. It's a shame that you went so low. I enjoyed your efforts and I respected you for your obvious willing to understand what gears the world around us. Not anymore.
What a pity ... I hope you find your inner peace sooner or later. You have a long road ahead of you ...
####
@Logic guy
Perfectly true. One cannot define and prove completely the rules of a system being inside the system. That is if the universe is a closed system. Something we could only speculate about.
Logic guy, on January 16th 2008 at 2:02 pm :
Hello,
I am not familiar with lucid dreams or anything like that and I tend to think that everything that is not formally proven cannot be considered true.
However (and I speak mostly for you, Dr_Skeptic), not all truths are provable. This is a fundamental result of constructive mathematics known as the incompleteness theorem of Godel. Any system that is sufficiently expressive to include Peano Arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency. You can argue that you would use a meta-theory to prove things about the theory, thus eluding the incompleteness theorem, but the meta-theory, if we want it to be valid, has to possibly get expressed into the theory itself, thus it is still the subject of incompletness.
Recent advances on such fundamental result leads to thinking that it is also applicable to biological/life facts expressed in formal theories that can express PA. Does it make lucid dreams and astral projections true ? Certainly not. Does it make it false ? Neither.
I am not against skepticism, but the same skepticism was deployed by the vatican to object the findings of Galileo. Galileo was not bringing proofs of his findings but only observations, and I think thats what this article is doing. I will not develop the comparison any further but you get the idea.
Just one reference if you are interested:
The causal incompleteness of programming theory in molecular biology (by G.Longo & al)
I am not familiar with lucid dreams or anything like that and I tend to think that everything that is not formally proven cannot be considered true.
However (and I speak mostly for you, Dr_Skeptic), not all truths are provable. This is a fundamental result of constructive mathematics known as the incompleteness theorem of Godel. Any system that is sufficiently expressive to include Peano Arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency. You can argue that you would use a meta-theory to prove things about the theory, thus eluding the incompleteness theorem, but the meta-theory, if we want it to be valid, has to possibly get expressed into the theory itself, thus it is still the subject of incompletness.
Recent advances on such fundamental result leads to thinking that it is also applicable to biological/life facts expressed in formal theories that can express PA. Does it make lucid dreams and astral projections true ? Certainly not. Does it make it false ? Neither.
I am not against skepticism, but the same skepticism was deployed by the vatican to object the findings of Galileo. Galileo was not bringing proofs of his findings but only observations, and I think thats what this article is doing. I will not develop the comparison any further but you get the idea.
Just one reference if you are interested:
The causal incompleteness of programming theory in molecular biology (by G.Longo & al)
dr_Skeptic, on January 16th 2008 at 8:42 am :
@mindgames
Can you prove any of your claims? Or is this just more nonsense?
Can you prove any of your claims? Or is this just more nonsense?
tinkerbot, on January 15th 2008 at 10:41 pm :
@mindgames
I tink mind hacking possible too. don't know much, though. can u give more info? what technology needed? just read keptune article. very interesting!
I tink mind hacking possible too. don't know much, though. can u give more info? what technology needed? just read keptune article. very interesting!
mc, on January 14th 2008 at 7:26 pm :
Well, we will find manipulators and stop the sociopathic behaviour for you.
mindgames, on January 14th 2008 at 6:00 pm :
He all, i only now jumpt into the discussion?
would like to make a statement.
1 hacking of the mind is possible and is ongoing now in silence while nobody condiders it possible, the number victims and people expericing this, is growing. Not all victims explain it as technolgy, it feels like something supra natural, so some think it is supra natural, me personally i think it must be technology, because it is aswell hacking on an intelligent and purpuse minded electronical devices.
comments and questions welcome, i like clear statements and rational arguments, hope not to hear just that it is nonsense, hope to hear questions, and arguments. Only in that case i can explain more about this rather complex and well hidden problem.
greets Monika
would like to make a statement.
1 hacking of the mind is possible and is ongoing now in silence while nobody condiders it possible, the number victims and people expericing this, is growing. Not all victims explain it as technolgy, it feels like something supra natural, so some think it is supra natural, me personally i think it must be technology, because it is aswell hacking on an intelligent and purpuse minded electronical devices.
comments and questions welcome, i like clear statements and rational arguments, hope not to hear just that it is nonsense, hope to hear questions, and arguments. Only in that case i can explain more about this rather complex and well hidden problem.
greets Monika
dr_Skeptic, on January 13th 2008 at 4:23 pm :
@Ballan
I thought I might elaborate on some more fallacies of thought from the master of mind twisting.
Ballan, on January 4th 2008 at 2:48 am wrote:
"a) I cannot care about the opinion of ignorant people."
Ignorant? Let me say something about ignorance.
You are making the same mistake many unread and poorly-educated Americans make when it comes to science: Believing something for which there is no proof. In effect, what you are doing is telling me: I'm going to believe this until someone can prove my belief is unfounded. This is exactly 100% backwards from the way educated people see the world. Imagine what the medical profession would be like if doctors followed YOUR example? "Mr. Smith. There is absolutely no evidence that you have stomach cancer, but I THINK you do, therefore you should assume you have cancer until YOU can prove that you don't." YOU are assuming That OBE's are Real simply because you want to believe in them so that this stupid psychic phenomenon will be more interesting to you. Of course, you are free to believe anything you want--but don't expect educated people to take you seriously. We should ONLY believe things that there is forensic proof of. POSITIVE in FAVOR of something, NOT a lack of evidence disproving it.
"People are hypocrites.
Probably the only exceptions are kids and retarded people.
Pleasure is what controls us."
This is your justification for your belief!?! Well, we'd might as well run around and rape young women then! Or Molest young children, or, or,...etc. After all, PLEASURE is what controls us, right!?! Perhaps YOU maybe.
"I've been there, where you're coming from.
I have a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics (major: Analysis), Bachelor Degree in Biology (major: Neural Networks) and a Bachelor Degree in Physics (major: Theoretical Physics)."
Did you tell us this so we would accept you as an expert or authority? No mater how weird it all seems, a college graduate in endorsing it? Perhaps you should stick to your field of Mathematics. Oh by the way, where are your equations on Chi/ki and chackra's??? Seems I recall something called Maxwell's Equations in support of Electromagnetic theory. Where are the supporting mathematics on psychic phenomenon???
"I hope we BOTH know that this has become a 1on1 issue."
I'm sorry you're taking things personally. I would say these things to anyone making these kinds of statements.
Ballan, on December 18th 2007 at 1:57 am wrote:
"I wished "to diffuse and confuse" :))) That's something new for me :)"
Obviously, you've never studied Cryptography.
Still think I'm spamming? Remember, these are your comments. Who's doing the spamming here? The person making the extraordinary claims with no evidence or the calm non-insulting skeptic?
I thought I might elaborate on some more fallacies of thought from the master of mind twisting.
Ballan, on January 4th 2008 at 2:48 am wrote:
"a) I cannot care about the opinion of ignorant people."
Ignorant? Let me say something about ignorance.
You are making the same mistake many unread and poorly-educated Americans make when it comes to science: Believing something for which there is no proof. In effect, what you are doing is telling me: I'm going to believe this until someone can prove my belief is unfounded. This is exactly 100% backwards from the way educated people see the world. Imagine what the medical profession would be like if doctors followed YOUR example? "Mr. Smith. There is absolutely no evidence that you have stomach cancer, but I THINK you do, therefore you should assume you have cancer until YOU can prove that you don't." YOU are assuming That OBE's are Real simply because you want to believe in them so that this stupid psychic phenomenon will be more interesting to you. Of course, you are free to believe anything you want--but don't expect educated people to take you seriously. We should ONLY believe things that there is forensic proof of. POSITIVE in FAVOR of something, NOT a lack of evidence disproving it.
"People are hypocrites.
Probably the only exceptions are kids and retarded people.
Pleasure is what controls us."
This is your justification for your belief!?! Well, we'd might as well run around and rape young women then! Or Molest young children, or, or,...etc. After all, PLEASURE is what controls us, right!?! Perhaps YOU maybe.
"I've been there, where you're coming from.
I have a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics (major: Analysis), Bachelor Degree in Biology (major: Neural Networks) and a Bachelor Degree in Physics (major: Theoretical Physics)."
Did you tell us this so we would accept you as an expert or authority? No mater how weird it all seems, a college graduate in endorsing it? Perhaps you should stick to your field of Mathematics. Oh by the way, where are your equations on Chi/ki and chackra's??? Seems I recall something called Maxwell's Equations in support of Electromagnetic theory. Where are the supporting mathematics on psychic phenomenon???
"I hope we BOTH know that this has become a 1on1 issue."
I'm sorry you're taking things personally. I would say these things to anyone making these kinds of statements.
Ballan, on December 18th 2007 at 1:57 am wrote:
"I wished "to diffuse and confuse" :))) That's something new for me :)"
Obviously, you've never studied Cryptography.
Still think I'm spamming? Remember, these are your comments. Who's doing the spamming here? The person making the extraordinary claims with no evidence or the calm non-insulting skeptic?
dr_Skeptic, on January 13th 2008 at 11:36 am :
Mind Twisting!?! Who's twisting who's mind here....really!
Ballan, on January 11th 2008 at 1:00 pm :
Rated: M
@redshirt
Hi,
what you're describing sounds like a lucid dreaming or more like, as I call it, "mind twisting". That's the case when you can voluntary send (inject) impulses straight to the brain and create a virtual reality.
In your case you were sending familiar vision impulses thus recreating your well known environment. With practice you'll be able to recreate different aromas, tastes or even the feeling of physical contact.
When astral projection happens you certainly would know that :)
The moments before separation, you'll experience the so called vibrations - your body starts shaking for a while (few seconds to a minute), you'll feel high ki/chakra/electric intensity just bellow your belly and seconds later if you don't get distracted, scared or asleep you'll "wake up" and see and sense with closed eyes ... travel, without moving.
Being in the astral planes is strange experience. There are many different "creatures" ... yeah, I know how it sounds ... there are some books describing all the "fauna" that you could meet there, their properties and hierarchycal place. Some "creatures" will scare you with their screams or try to seduce you or just "play" with you.
That's why self control is very important.
And a final thought. Don't just go wander in the planes. Ask yourself what you wanna know and think about that ... it could be your future or you might wanna meet someone (someone else who's projecting or even people who have passed away) or just "play" with the environment ... there are also techniques to heal yourself or other people.
OR if you get really skillful you might reach/meet "The Source" ... YES, that's the term that is used ... long before the Matrix :)
Good Luck!
@redshirt
Hi,
what you're describing sounds like a lucid dreaming or more like, as I call it, "mind twisting". That's the case when you can voluntary send (inject) impulses straight to the brain and create a virtual reality.
In your case you were sending familiar vision impulses thus recreating your well known environment. With practice you'll be able to recreate different aromas, tastes or even the feeling of physical contact.
When astral projection happens you certainly would know that :)
The moments before separation, you'll experience the so called vibrations - your body starts shaking for a while (few seconds to a minute), you'll feel high ki/chakra/electric intensity just bellow your belly and seconds later if you don't get distracted, scared or asleep you'll "wake up" and see and sense with closed eyes ... travel, without moving.
Being in the astral planes is strange experience. There are many different "creatures" ... yeah, I know how it sounds ... there are some books describing all the "fauna" that you could meet there, their properties and hierarchycal place. Some "creatures" will scare you with their screams or try to seduce you or just "play" with you.
That's why self control is very important.
And a final thought. Don't just go wander in the planes. Ask yourself what you wanna know and think about that ... it could be your future or you might wanna meet someone (someone else who's projecting or even people who have passed away) or just "play" with the environment ... there are also techniques to heal yourself or other people.
OR if you get really skillful you might reach/meet "The Source" ... YES, that's the term that is used ... long before the Matrix :)
Good Luck!
dr_Skeptic, on January 10th 2008 at 11:01 pm :
@Ballan
Since you have stated that you have made your last post, please do not feel obligated to respond to this post, since I am merely responding to clear up your misconceptions about my statements.
I appreciate your desire to list your academic credentials. I too have several degrees in the physical sciences (i.e. a Bachelor's Degree in Electronics Engineering, a Master's in Physics and Psychology and a PhD in Computer Science) but I do not see their relevance to this discussion. I'm sure you will agree that none of this makes either of us an expert or authority on this subject.
If your original post did include the vulgarities you stated, then it is probably appropriate that it did not get accepted. Since, as I previously stated, what purpose does it serve, in defense of your cause, to throw insults back and forth? So how DO we have a dialogue about psychic phenomenon and the paranormal and keep our emotions in check?
As I stated in my last post, I have no ax to grind with believers. I have no qualms with this discussion as long as people are merely stating their experiences or beliefs, but when you say you can PROVE your claim, PROVE that your belief is the right one and so forth, as you and keptune have, then you are entering the realms of science and these claims must be challenged and your "proof" must be shown and collaborated, and I am sure you must know this since you have degrees in science yourself.
Ballan wrote:
"c) In the end, it all comes to what you believe in."
Not when you say you can PROVE your beliefs. What we need are controlled, repeatable experiments and empirical evidence, not anecdotes--stories recounted in support of a claim.
another Ballan quote:
"So, if you find pleasure in quoting online resources, or trying to prove you are the one with all the answers"
On the contrary, I have no answers. It is you who claim to have answers and PROOF. I quoted the online resources in order to give a baseline and incite into what I am talking about in the event that some are not aware of them or have not read them. All I am asking is that you and keptune PROVE your claims. If I have provided any answers at all it is only that claims of "PROOF" must be supported by theories, experiments and empirical evidence otherwise you are only doing psuedo-science.
I look forward to reading your phrack article and hope it will shed some light on these alleged "PROOFS" you have claimed and that you will be open to discussion on it.
-=-=-
And Everyone have a Happy and Safe New Year!
-=-=-
Since you have stated that you have made your last post, please do not feel obligated to respond to this post, since I am merely responding to clear up your misconceptions about my statements.
I appreciate your desire to list your academic credentials. I too have several degrees in the physical sciences (i.e. a Bachelor's Degree in Electronics Engineering, a Master's in Physics and Psychology and a PhD in Computer Science) but I do not see their relevance to this discussion. I'm sure you will agree that none of this makes either of us an expert or authority on this subject.
If your original post did include the vulgarities you stated, then it is probably appropriate that it did not get accepted. Since, as I previously stated, what purpose does it serve, in defense of your cause, to throw insults back and forth? So how DO we have a dialogue about psychic phenomenon and the paranormal and keep our emotions in check?
As I stated in my last post, I have no ax to grind with believers. I have no qualms with this discussion as long as people are merely stating their experiences or beliefs, but when you say you can PROVE your claim, PROVE that your belief is the right one and so forth, as you and keptune have, then you are entering the realms of science and these claims must be challenged and your "proof" must be shown and collaborated, and I am sure you must know this since you have degrees in science yourself.
Ballan wrote:
"c) In the end, it all comes to what you believe in."
Not when you say you can PROVE your beliefs. What we need are controlled, repeatable experiments and empirical evidence, not anecdotes--stories recounted in support of a claim.
another Ballan quote:
"So, if you find pleasure in quoting online resources, or trying to prove you are the one with all the answers"
On the contrary, I have no answers. It is you who claim to have answers and PROOF. I quoted the online resources in order to give a baseline and incite into what I am talking about in the event that some are not aware of them or have not read them. All I am asking is that you and keptune PROVE your claims. If I have provided any answers at all it is only that claims of "PROOF" must be supported by theories, experiments and empirical evidence otherwise you are only doing psuedo-science.
I look forward to reading your phrack article and hope it will shed some light on these alleged "PROOFS" you have claimed and that you will be open to discussion on it.
-=-=-
And Everyone have a Happy and Safe New Year!
-=-=-
redshirt, on January 8th 2008 at 11:13 pm :
Ok, I'm not sure if this would be a projection/lucid dream, but it does seem similar.
You've probably heard of qi/chi/ki, right? You might not believe that this kind of "life force" exists, but I believe it does (how else can you explain pushing someone's hand away with when there's about four inches of empty space between them?).
One night I was laying in bed after messing around with some ki; I had been making balls and absorbing from my surroundings. I was tired and probably well on my way to falling asleep completely with my eyes closed when I decided to force all my stored ki out of my body.
Suddenly, it was as if my eyes were open; I could see the table next to me. There weren't any light sources, but I could still see. BUT, I couldn't move my body AT ALL. My mind told my legs and arms to wiggle, but they didn't.
This freaked me out a bit and the vision disappeared. I ended up opening up my physical eyes and being surrouned by pitch black. I decided to see if I could do it again, so I closed my eyes and willed the ki out of my body. Once again I had a vision of the table, except that I looked around a bit this time. I could see my arms, legs, and body on the bed and, like the first time, there was some kind of dim ambient light that rendered everything in grey.
I freaked out and woke up.
I don't know if this would count as a projection/lucid dream, but I do know that I could see with my eyes physically closed.
You've probably heard of qi/chi/ki, right? You might not believe that this kind of "life force" exists, but I believe it does (how else can you explain pushing someone's hand away with when there's about four inches of empty space between them?).
One night I was laying in bed after messing around with some ki; I had been making balls and absorbing from my surroundings. I was tired and probably well on my way to falling asleep completely with my eyes closed when I decided to force all my stored ki out of my body.
Suddenly, it was as if my eyes were open; I could see the table next to me. There weren't any light sources, but I could still see. BUT, I couldn't move my body AT ALL. My mind told my legs and arms to wiggle, but they didn't.
This freaked me out a bit and the vision disappeared. I ended up opening up my physical eyes and being surrouned by pitch black. I decided to see if I could do it again, so I closed my eyes and willed the ki out of my body. Once again I had a vision of the table, except that I looked around a bit this time. I could see my arms, legs, and body on the bed and, like the first time, there was some kind of dim ambient light that rendered everything in grey.
I freaked out and woke up.
I don't know if this would count as a projection/lucid dream, but I do know that I could see with my eyes physically closed.
Ballan, on January 4th 2008 at 5:48 pm :
@Dr_Skeptic
Hacking has nothing to do with Spamming!
I never post twice in a row !!!
===
Happy New Year everyone!
===
Anyway, here's a censored, short version of my post.
Probably the post got rejected because of the:
N word
C word
B word
T word
etc.
===
First: I hope we BOTH know that this has become a 1on1 issue. This shall be my last post here for many reasons.
a) I cannot care about the opinion of ignorant people.
b) No need to spam the forum.
c) In the end, it all comes to what you believe in. No living person, is easily converted into other believing/perception for the mere fact that that would mean he/she lived a "wrongful" life.
d) I don't mind what other people think. Diversity is what makes a population strong.
etc. ...
I've been there, where you're coming from.
I have a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics (major: Analysis), Bachelor Degree in Biology (major: Neural Networks) and a Bachelor Degree in Physics (major: Theoretical Physics).
It's good to have a solid knowledge base.
But not enough.
Education is nothing if you don't have the curiosity, perception and open mind needed for self exploration.
People are hypocrites.
Probably the only exceptions are kids and retarded people.
Pleasure is what controls us.
So, if you find pleasure in quoting online resources, or trying to prove you are the one with all the answers, or even if you're doing this just for fun and the sake of objection and provoking other people ... keep doing it ... but not on this forum.
That's just not the place for that.
=======
@*
I wish and I have to say many other things but I'll keep those for myself for now.
Maybe you'll read my Phrack article some time in the future.
Peace!
Hacking has nothing to do with Spamming!
I never post twice in a row !!!
===
Happy New Year everyone!
===
Anyway, here's a censored, short version of my post.
Probably the post got rejected because of the:
N word
C word
B word
T word
etc.
===
First: I hope we BOTH know that this has become a 1on1 issue. This shall be my last post here for many reasons.
a) I cannot care about the opinion of ignorant people.
b) No need to spam the forum.
c) In the end, it all comes to what you believe in. No living person, is easily converted into other believing/perception for the mere fact that that would mean he/she lived a "wrongful" life.
d) I don't mind what other people think. Diversity is what makes a population strong.
etc. ...
I've been there, where you're coming from.
I have a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics (major: Analysis), Bachelor Degree in Biology (major: Neural Networks) and a Bachelor Degree in Physics (major: Theoretical Physics).
It's good to have a solid knowledge base.
But not enough.
Education is nothing if you don't have the curiosity, perception and open mind needed for self exploration.
People are hypocrites.
Probably the only exceptions are kids and retarded people.
Pleasure is what controls us.
So, if you find pleasure in quoting online resources, or trying to prove you are the one with all the answers, or even if you're doing this just for fun and the sake of objection and provoking other people ... keep doing it ... but not on this forum.
That's just not the place for that.
=======
@*
I wish and I have to say many other things but I'll keep those for myself for now.
Maybe you'll read my Phrack article some time in the future.
Peace!
dr_Skeptic, on December 22th 2007 at 2:38 pm :
@Ballan
Ballan, on December 20th 2007 at 12:46 am :
"Couldn't post my next response.
Is there a text limit?
#Incorrect antispam value"
Interesting, I thought this was a forum for Hackers... :)
There is no text limit, at least, not that I have found. But if you have a long comment, you should type it in a text editor and cut and paste it into the comment box, otherwise you time out the machine. As the error you got tells you.
I would think a hacker could easily determine this. Isn't that what hackers do, try different things until they find something that works?
Sorry, I had to tell you...well, actually I'm not sorry...
Ballan, on December 20th 2007 at 12:46 am :
"Couldn't post my next response.
Is there a text limit?
#Incorrect antispam value"
Interesting, I thought this was a forum for Hackers... :)
There is no text limit, at least, not that I have found. But if you have a long comment, you should type it in a text editor and cut and paste it into the comment box, otherwise you time out the machine. As the error you got tells you.
I would think a hacker could easily determine this. Isn't that what hackers do, try different things until they find something that works?
Sorry, I had to tell you...well, actually I'm not sorry...
dr_Skeptic, on December 22th 2007 at 2:13 pm :
@prashu
At last, someone with intelligence speaks up. Someone who wishes to debate the issue and not the debator!
"I think you have cited a rule somewhere down that goes something like this:
"Arguments from authority carry little weight--'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.""
I also cited that "in science there are no authorities, at best there are experts."
First, let's clear something up. I am not an expert or a researcher or an authority, I have never claimed to be, and I do not assume any of you are either. . It is all of you who are trying to pin this name on me. (are you trying to find something to ridicule again?) I am merely a skeptic who has no ax to grind with believers and I hold no grudge against such beliefs. Beliefs rest on faith and means suspending the requirements of proof and logic. When poeple say they believe in such things because it conforts them, because they have faith, because of personal revelation, or just because it 'works" for them, I have no qualms with these reasons. But when others say they can PROVE their claims, PROVE that their belief is the right one and so forth, such claims demand a scientific and rational analysis.
Remember it is keptune in his original article who claimed that this could be proven by objective testing:
"A test that many projectors like to do is putting a playing card on
top of a furniture without looking at it unless they are in a physical
projection, in order to check it later and confirm the projection."
Also, Ballan made the comment on October 22th 2007 at 4:46 pm :
"I could think up of many ways to test if projecting and OBE are "real" in the common sense of the word but that's not the point."
I have tried these tests and cannot confirm them and cannot find anyone who has or can.
I merely challenge those statements. Where have I said, "MY WORD is UNSHAKEABLE"? If you cannot "UNSHAKE" it, then what am I to do?
Fallacy #7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness
"No. If you want to do science you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging letters, calls, faxes, and (now) E-mails with your colleagues, presenting papers at conferences, publishing in peer-reviewed journal, and the like. Galileo paid his dues and learned to play the game. Walter Wanabee must do the same."
And as the prack staff said, "I personally think that keptune's article is not a an article that report a scientifically proved reality, as pointed n5naa in his comments. As such, it should not be interpreted as a bible of religious content, and every point of it should be questioned."
All I am doing is questioning these points. It is all of you who are becoming emotional over this.
As to your statement: "Now are you an authority on this subject or ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT there could be another FULLY CORRECT AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE way of looking at things."
And what way would that be? Again, the ball is in your court.
At last, someone with intelligence speaks up. Someone who wishes to debate the issue and not the debator!
"I think you have cited a rule somewhere down that goes something like this:
"Arguments from authority carry little weight--'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.""
I also cited that "in science there are no authorities, at best there are experts."
First, let's clear something up. I am not an expert or a researcher or an authority, I have never claimed to be, and I do not assume any of you are either. . It is all of you who are trying to pin this name on me. (are you trying to find something to ridicule again?) I am merely a skeptic who has no ax to grind with believers and I hold no grudge against such beliefs. Beliefs rest on faith and means suspending the requirements of proof and logic. When poeple say they believe in such things because it conforts them, because they have faith, because of personal revelation, or just because it 'works" for them, I have no qualms with these reasons. But when others say they can PROVE their claims, PROVE that their belief is the right one and so forth, such claims demand a scientific and rational analysis.
Remember it is keptune in his original article who claimed that this could be proven by objective testing:
"A test that many projectors like to do is putting a playing card on
top of a furniture without looking at it unless they are in a physical
projection, in order to check it later and confirm the projection."
Also, Ballan made the comment on October 22th 2007 at 4:46 pm :
"I could think up of many ways to test if projecting and OBE are "real" in the common sense of the word but that's not the point."
I have tried these tests and cannot confirm them and cannot find anyone who has or can.
I merely challenge those statements. Where have I said, "MY WORD is UNSHAKEABLE"? If you cannot "UNSHAKE" it, then what am I to do?
Fallacy #7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness
"No. If you want to do science you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging letters, calls, faxes, and (now) E-mails with your colleagues, presenting papers at conferences, publishing in peer-reviewed journal, and the like. Galileo paid his dues and learned to play the game. Walter Wanabee must do the same."
And as the prack staff said, "I personally think that keptune's article is not a an article that report a scientifically proved reality, as pointed n5naa in his comments. As such, it should not be interpreted as a bible of religious content, and every point of it should be questioned."
All I am doing is questioning these points. It is all of you who are becoming emotional over this.
As to your statement: "Now are you an authority on this subject or ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT there could be another FULLY CORRECT AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE way of looking at things."
And what way would that be? Again, the ball is in your court.
prashu, on December 22th 2007 at 10:20 am :
@skeptic
you seem like an over eager beginner in meditation trying to show everyone that HIS WAY is THE RIGHT WAY.
You as a practitioner of meditation should know that there are many different ways and many different paths to the SAME GOAL!
If you do not know this, then you should go and ask your INSTRUCTOR to elucidate on it. But if you do know it, then you SHOULD NOT claim that YOUR WORD is UNSHAKABLE and treat other people as itelligent beings capable of making CORRECT decisions on their own.
I think you have cited a rule somewhere down that goes something like this:
"Arguments from authority carry little weight--'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."
Now are you an authority on this subject or ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT there could be another FULLY CORRECT AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE way of looking at things.
Either way.... :)
you seem like an over eager beginner in meditation trying to show everyone that HIS WAY is THE RIGHT WAY.
You as a practitioner of meditation should know that there are many different ways and many different paths to the SAME GOAL!
If you do not know this, then you should go and ask your INSTRUCTOR to elucidate on it. But if you do know it, then you SHOULD NOT claim that YOUR WORD is UNSHAKABLE and treat other people as itelligent beings capable of making CORRECT decisions on their own.
I think you have cited a rule somewhere down that goes something like this:
"Arguments from authority carry little weight--'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."
Now are you an authority on this subject or ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT there could be another FULLY CORRECT AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE way of looking at things.
Either way.... :)
twiz, on December 22th 2007 at 5:10 am :
> if so, Mr.Skeptic, this place is not for you - it's for hackers.
we have no regard for "experts" and "researchers",
Please, don't intend "hackers" with that "we".
How can you hack without knowledge, without _respecting_ knowledge, without being thankful to people who devoted their life studying some subject and present you the outcomes of those studies saving you the time of achieving them ?
You can challenge ideas. Some of them might turn out as being just plain wrong. That's fine. But I can't see where "deliberately" deciding of not caring about "experts and researchers" work can be of any help.
Or, even, any mature.
we have no regard for "experts" and "researchers",
Please, don't intend "hackers" with that "we".
How can you hack without knowledge, without _respecting_ knowledge, without being thankful to people who devoted their life studying some subject and present you the outcomes of those studies saving you the time of achieving them ?
You can challenge ideas. Some of them might turn out as being just plain wrong. That's fine. But I can't see where "deliberately" deciding of not caring about "experts and researchers" work can be of any help.
Or, even, any mature.
dr_Skeptic, on December 22th 2007 at 3:33 am :
You see? You have nothing to support your claims. Only more ridicule of the person. Only to provoke emotion and obscure rationality.(The Genetic fallacy: where one attacks the person rather than their arguments.) You are incapable of intelligent discussion.
Like I said, you are people whose thinking has gone wrong in some way. As I said these posts are not for you. They are for the many innocent people who are reading this forum and not commenting. Despite what you may think, many more people are reading this forum than are contributing and they are not all hackers. These facts that I have presented are for them, not you. My opinion is the same as those I have presented.
The fact is, you have no grounds to stand on except that it "Feels real."
Like I said, you are people whose thinking has gone wrong in some way. As I said these posts are not for you. They are for the many innocent people who are reading this forum and not commenting. Despite what you may think, many more people are reading this forum than are contributing and they are not all hackers. These facts that I have presented are for them, not you. My opinion is the same as those I have presented.
The fact is, you have no grounds to stand on except that it "Feels real."
Seaker, on December 21th 2007 at 8:02 pm :
@Hex
that was what i tried to say!
that was what i tried to say!
Ballan, on December 20th 2007 at 3:46 pm :
Couldn't post my next response.
Is there a text limit?
#Incorrect antispam value
Is there a text limit?
#Incorrect antispam value
Hex Machina, on December 20th 2007 at 10:50 am :
@Skeptic:
Ballan's right, you know.
how can you even bring yourself to replying, if you have no opinion, only quotes?
Quotes, quotes, and more quotes.
do you believe those "scientists" and "experts" are better than you?
That they have more authority in this matter than me and you?
if so, Mr.Skeptic, this place is not for you - it's for hackers.
we have no regard for "experts" and "researchers", in fact, i would have more faith in the words of some lamer calling him self Crasher-Masher than Sir. Albert Emily-Hudson Miltontowerberg.
Ballan's right, you know.
how can you even bring yourself to replying, if you have no opinion, only quotes?
Quotes, quotes, and more quotes.
do you believe those "scientists" and "experts" are better than you?
That they have more authority in this matter than me and you?
if so, Mr.Skeptic, this place is not for you - it's for hackers.
we have no regard for "experts" and "researchers", in fact, i would have more faith in the words of some lamer calling him self Crasher-Masher than Sir. Albert Emily-Hudson Miltontowerberg.
dr_Skeptic, on December 20th 2007 at 12:23 am :
@Ballan:
On December 18th 2007 at 1:57 am Ballan wrote:
"What is pseudo-science?
Whatever the current science models can't accept or can't prove."
This is the common misconception most people have about the difference between science and pseudoscience.
So, how DO we tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, or between science and nonscience? This is why I have posted Sagan's ten tools for Baloney detection and Shermer's Boundary Detection kit. This is how we really tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. Scroll down a few posts to read them.
Unnamed sources report that on December 18th 2007 at 1:57 am Ballan wrote:
"What you say is like stating that gravity didn't exist until the empirical laws were discovered :)"
This comment is known as Pirsig's Paradox:
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/articles/noghosts.html
@Seaker:
Why restate something that someone else has already said more elegantly than I ever could when I can just refer you to their original comments.
On December 18th 2007 at 1:57 am Ballan wrote:
"What is pseudo-science?
Whatever the current science models can't accept or can't prove."
This is the common misconception most people have about the difference between science and pseudoscience.
So, how DO we tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, or between science and nonscience? This is why I have posted Sagan's ten tools for Baloney detection and Shermer's Boundary Detection kit. This is how we really tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. Scroll down a few posts to read them.
Unnamed sources report that on December 18th 2007 at 1:57 am Ballan wrote:
"What you say is like stating that gravity didn't exist until the empirical laws were discovered :)"
This comment is known as Pirsig's Paradox:
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/articles/noghosts.html
@Seaker:
Why restate something that someone else has already said more elegantly than I ever could when I can just refer you to their original comments.
dr_Skeptic, on December 19th 2007 at 9:45 pm :
In my opinion most believers in such things are not hoaxers, flimflam artists, or lunatics, but are normal people whose normal thinking has gone wrong in some way.
You could also say my opinion of all this is that it is just a bunch of
Psychic Drift:
Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/PsychicDrift.pdf
But at least I can site some scientific evidence to back up my opinion:
Such as, Demon-Haunted Brain by Michael Shermer
If the brain mediates all experience, then paranormal phenomena are nothing more than neuronal events
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/Demon-Haunted_Brain.pdf
Or,
Illusion mimics out-of-body experiences from the journal nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070820/full/070820-9.html
Or,
Out-of-body experiences created in lab from the journal science:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/2013934.htm
Is this clear enough for you?
For those who need a more visual experience here are some video's on YouTube about Out-of-Body Experiences and Remote Viewing:
Out of Body Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0
Remote Viewing Experiment Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40QVp8_P0LY
Remote Viewing Experiment Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY4MTKa2ldI
For more Video's See:
http://www.skeptic.com
What do you have to support your claims? Just that it "Feals Real?" Are you not aware of the many ways your brain and your senses can be fooled?
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/images/illusions.jpg
Or the many fallicies of thought that cause smart people to believe weird things?
Shermer's 25 Fallacies of Thinking
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/Shermers_25_Fallacies_Of_Thinking.txt
Or,
Why Smart People Believe Wierd Things by Michael Shermer:
Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/SmartPeopleBelieveWeirdThings.pdf
You could also say my opinion of all this is that it is just a bunch of
Psychic Drift:
Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/PsychicDrift.pdf
But at least I can site some scientific evidence to back up my opinion:
Such as, Demon-Haunted Brain by Michael Shermer
If the brain mediates all experience, then paranormal phenomena are nothing more than neuronal events
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/Demon-Haunted_Brain.pdf
Or,
Illusion mimics out-of-body experiences from the journal nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070820/full/070820-9.html
Or,
Out-of-body experiences created in lab from the journal science:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/2013934.htm
Is this clear enough for you?
For those who need a more visual experience here are some video's on YouTube about Out-of-Body Experiences and Remote Viewing:
Out of Body Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0
Remote Viewing Experiment Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40QVp8_P0LY
Remote Viewing Experiment Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY4MTKa2ldI
For more Video's See:
http://www.skeptic.com
What do you have to support your claims? Just that it "Feals Real?" Are you not aware of the many ways your brain and your senses can be fooled?
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/images/illusions.jpg
Or the many fallicies of thought that cause smart people to believe weird things?
Shermer's 25 Fallacies of Thinking
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/Shermers_25_Fallacies_Of_Thinking.txt
Or,
Why Smart People Believe Wierd Things by Michael Shermer:
Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe
http://www.n5naa.com/ssl/shermer/SmartPeopleBelieveWeirdThings.pdf