Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[pixelsmith]

I have some catching up to do, as far as the last several pages of this thread. I would like to comment on one of things often mentioned of the NDE's, and that is the final moment before "coming to" -where the subject experiences "slamming back into the body" often described feeling as if running straight into a brick wall. I find those who describe such similiar aspects of the overall experience, very interesting.

I think I had a NDE when I crashed my car and broke my neck (the first time). I can still to this day remember the event very clearly. At first it was as if an alternate scenario took place in that I clearly saw myself steer my car around the vehicle stopped in my lane and I pulled in front of the car and stopped. Instantly after that vision I was floating above what seemed to be about 40-50 feet looking down on the accident scene. I could see the accident, I slammed into a car parked in my lane with no lights on and occupants were along side the road, another car had smashed into the back of me as well. I watched for less than a minute and then there was this whooshing/sucking sound and I was sucked back into my body and a guy was banging on my window asking if I was alright. I had severely fractured C5.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think I had a NDE when I crashed my car and broke my neck (the first time). I can still to this day remember the event very clearly. At first it was as if an alternate scenario took place in that I clearly saw myself steer my car around the vehicle stopped in my lane and I pulled in front of the car and stopped. Instantly after that vision I was floating above what seemed to be about 40-50 feet looking down on the accident scene. I could see the accident, I slammed into a car parked in my lane with no lights on and occupants were along side the road, another car had smashed into the back of me as well. I watched for less than a minute and then there was this whooshing/sucking sound and I was sucked back into my body and a guy was banging on my window asking if I was alright. I had severely fractured C5.

Wow! What a story. (the first time! OMG!) I broke T7 in my back about 8 years ago. Not fun. I can't even imagine breaking your neck as it's bones are so much more delicate and intricate by design.

Pixelsmith = Iron Man IMO

This account is beyond fascinating and demonstrates the extremely mysterious nature of non-locality as related to consciousness. I believe that what you did was to literally remote view Pixelsmith. Same exact thing possibly. Thanks so much for sharing this incredibly relevant information.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff,
I have just been trying to determine what you mean when you say consiousness. I don't grok your definintion, not because I disagree with it, but because I don't understand it. I can't parse "frequency based energy " brother.

My allusion to this type of thing being systemic in UFO and paranormal circles and a genuine source of communication and P.R. problems is good topic of discussion I think, but maybe better suited to another thread.

OK, jump past that. So, are you wanting me to falsify a hypothosis?
Is this the brain as receiver vs. generator argument?
Again, I do not understand the model as you and others describe it. I'm just dense I guess. I can't understand the terminology. It sounds like something is being said that is very technical in nature, I'm just applying some basic techniques in attempting to understand it and not getting anywhere. It just makes no sense.

If we jump on down the line further, are you talking about an unknown force permeating the universe giving rise to sentience in properly configured matter, I.e. brains? Is that close?

trainedobserver,
These are extremely difficult concepts to grasp if what we are doing is using previously held concepts concerning cognition. There is no relation apart from the basics.

Lets get something straight before we go any further. I LIKE YOU. You are extremely intelligent, and honestly, I have already learned more from you than you realize, most likely. For instance, the term "grok". Fascinating!

I am however no expert in physics, consciousness, technical manuals, or anything else relevant to this discussion. I am suggesting ideas here loosely, that I have read about.

The thing is, I have provided an understanding of where this info is precisely coming from which no one has addressed apart from one member here referring to DR. Elizabeth Rauscher on a youtube video as a crank, quack, or woo woo.

Here is the person that I feel deserves tremendous respect for her extremely hard and very real scientific efforts. She is the person that both addressed remote reception of consciousness and demonstrated the geometrically configured model which represents as much.

Elizabeth A. Rauscher PhD | Physicist

Take a look at the scientific publications this woman is responsible for. It's absolutely mind blowing!!

I absolutely DARE ANYONE on this forum to falsify what she has presented within this body of work in terms of theoretical evidence that clearly supports the same.

trainedobserver, I have no doubt that in many ways that I am a uneducated moron compared with yourself. I have absolutely no problem with that, because as you know, in other technical fields I possess a GREAT deal of knowledge that you may not. Most people don't, that's a fact. Highly practical technical knowledge (as is yours) that is proceeding to evolve at a literally unparalleled historic pace that I am depended on daily to effect corrections with professionally.

This is just what makes the world go round as we aid one another via our individual professional expertise.

That is why I suggest we stop attacking the messenger here and start focusing on the theoretical REALITY of what I have repeatedly referred to as the remote reception of consciousness.

Don't look to me for theoretical absolutes, look to the sources I have been providing here for days now.

Come on my friend. Instead of focusing on what I write as being technically incorrect, what not just ask what I mean via "frequency based energy". FBE just refers to a frequency specific conversion process that I do not understand whether as much occurs internally or externally with respect to the brain itself. So, how can I honestly comment on this aspect any more so soundly at this point? I have already admitted uncertainty with respect to the matter.

There is assuredly much ignorance on my behalf, as there is on MOST human beings that live here on planet Earth. I have never claimed otherwise. I just want to discuss this material in a fun and vigorously enthusiastic discussion forum. That's what I have been hoping to do here.

In light of the UFO phenomenon, IMO, it doesn't get any more crucial in terms of a better understanding of relevant observations.

 

[Randall]

This account is beyond fascinating and demonstrates the extremely mysterious nature of non-locality as related to consciousness. I believe that what you did was to literally remote view Pixelsmith.

Or maybe it demonstrates how the brain can be knocked into a state of lucid unconscious ( like a lucid dream state ), where our mind is attempting to make sense of the event on a subconscious level by producing 3D imagery based on the experience. In that case there would be no "non-locality of consciousness" nor any "remote viewing" going on. Given that there has been insufficient evidence to support the claims made that OOBEs represent actual perceptions of objectively real environments, why would you be so quick to "believe" the less likely explanation? I've run across other accounts of similar experiences where what was perceived in this manner do not correspond to the actual events. Also note that at first Pixel was knocked into another perception of what had taken place. This is evidence that his mind was in fact manufacturing the perceptions, not that he was actually floating above the scene.

 

[pixelsmith]

Wow! What a story. (the first time! OMG!) I broke T7 in my back about 8 years ago. Not fun. I can't even imagine breaking your neck as it's bones are so much more delicate and intricate by design.

Pixelsmith = Iron Man IMO

This account is beyond fascinating and demonstrates the extremely mysterious nature of non-locality as related to consciousness. I believe that what you did was to literally remote view Pixelsmith. Same exact thing possibly. Thanks so much for sharing this incredibly relevant information.

I broke C2 in 1999. Nothing strange happened that time although it was a far more severe break along with other injuries and a far more violent crash. Before and after of my awesome Volvo is below.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@Jeff - please don't misunderstand me. I stand by what I've said in that I dislike it when the new-age types use words such as frequency and vibrations and also energy. But don't take that as meaning I am totally against anything other than the strictest use of such terms cos I'm not. I even gave examples that I think are fine. I simply was replying to the individual post by Trained as it made me think of those many times I've heard really terribly airy-fairy-new-agey use of them. It was not directed to anything you have written at all.

For instance, I may say something like, 'the band has amazing energy in their playing..etc' or something similar. What I am totally against, because it is so vague and unhelpful, is a use such as, 'the quartz crystal is great for raising one's vibrations to a more wholesome frequency...' and I am sure we have all encountered that kind of thing.

Hope that is 'crystal' clear!

 

[Jeff Davis]

I broke C2 in 1999. Nothing strange happened that time although it was a far more severe break along with other injuries and a far more violent crash. Before and after of my awesome Volvo is below.

Pixelsmith,
I am honestly sad to say that your x-volvo was a bad ass machine! That thing...I've never even seen a Volvo like that. It's drawn out like an old Jag. Again, that was just too sad that you injured yourself so severely and lost that killer ride in the process, but I just had to rave about the car for a moment. What a classic!

 

[Jeff Davis]

@Jeff - please don't misunderstand me. I stand by what I've said in that I dislike it when the new-age types use words such as frequency and vibrations and also energy. But don't take that as meaning I am totally against anything other than the strictest use of such terms cos I'm not. I even gave examples that I think are fine. I simply was replying to the individual post by Trained as it made me think of those many times I've heard really terribly airy-fairy-new-agey use of them. It was not directed to anything you have written at all.

For instance, I may say something like, 'the band has amazing energy in their playing..etc' or something similar. What I am totally against, because it is so vague and unhelpful, is a use such as, 'the quartz crystal is great for raising one's vibrations to a more wholesome frequency...' and I am sure we have all encountered that kind of thing.

Hope that is 'crystal' clear!

Goggs,
Thanks so much for this! I thought I was on the poop list for sure, and when I saw the "your IP has been banned"...I figured I was a gonner. I am glad you were not making the comment in reference to what I posted. Thanks again brother!

 

[Randall]

Goggs,
Thanks so much for this! I thought I was on the poop list for sure, and when I saw the "your IP has been banned"...I figured I was a gonner. I am glad you were not making the comment in reference to what I posted. Thanks again brother!

If I may interject. I haven't seen you do anything I would consider worthy of being banned. Sometimes you seem somewhat incoherent and rather passionate about your posts, ( at least compared to my usual cool Vulcan demeanor ), but you've never crossed the line ( in my view ) to where I think you deserve a complaint, let alone to be banned. We're all a pretty tolerant fair minded bunch here ( or so I like to think ).

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yip Jeff - I haven't seen anything remotely like behaviour that is ban-worthy from you.

Which begs the question: What are YOU feeling guilty about?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yip Jeff - I haven't seen anything remotely like behavior that is ban-worthy from you.

Which begs the question: What are YOU feeling guilty about?

Jeff Davis<----Looks down half whistling/humming, "you know, this is going to require some serious introspection".

Honestly, it was just a paraweird moment for me because of having seen the IP ban flag repeatedly on my terminal at work, after having signed on, and posted one of my typical argumentatively rebellious posts. (not me!)

Which reminds me Goggs, if you ever want to have one GREAT drunken time, or if you're like me and are just plain smashed on life most of the time, minus the drink, listen to The Jellyroll Kings, as they provide us with that one and same social phenomenon known as, "the guilty bended knee plead and sob routine" as only the evicted human male can provide us with.

I give you, what was that damn song's name now? Oh yes, it's song #9 entitled, Have Mercy Baby.

 

[trainedobserver]

Jeff,

Well, all I can say is that I'm having a conversation with you and not Elizabeth Rauscher.
I don't hold to the remote consciousness model, because it isn't necessary, and quite frankly doesn't make sense to me. I can't take Rauscher's work on faith. I had one religion and it wore me out.

"refers to a frequency specific conversion process"

Frequency specific? As in a band-pass filter? Conversion? Converting what into what?

So, given that you are reading Quantum biology books. "Frequency specific conversion" sounds like you are talking about frequency specific radiation conversion, essentially sensory apparatus like eyes and ears.

I am trying to have a fun discussion. I am trying to understand what you "believe" rather than what you think Rauscher believes. I really am trying to point out some very large holes in your arguments in the spirit of discussion. If you aren't interested in understanding what those are well, I'm good with that too.

It isn't about education, job, or experience. It is about the clear expression of ideas. Language is thought.

 

[pixelsmith]

Pixelsmith,
I am honestly sad to say that your x-volvo was a bad ass machine! That thing...I've never even seen a Volvo like that. It's drawn out like an old Jag. Again, that was just too sad that you injured yourself so severely and lost that killer ride in the process, but I just had to rave about the car for a moment. What a classic!

it is a fairly rare ride made for 2 years. it was a rust free car totally restored at a Volvo dealership in San Diego CA, it had oversized sway bars and racing shocks, 5 speed and factory air. I loved that car. I flew out to CA and drove it back to MN with a big smile on my face the whole way. It always took a long time to fuel it up because i had to answer so many questions from people wondering what it was. i get first dibs to buy it back when the guy wants to sell it.

 

[Tyger]

Then you agree with me. Very good.

Very revealing. Not the first time I have seen you give a pat on the head to someone - says a lot about your agenda. Very revealing. You are also selective. Because what I said was this: We all may be wrong. We usually are a certain percentage of the time. You are too certain of your 'rightness' to be right. Why does it matter so to you to be right all the time?

What I was saying was that we all are wrong sometimes, and that includes you. To repeat: You are too certain of your 'rightness' to be right. The odds are against your being right.

 

[Randall]

Very revealing. Not the first time I have seen you give a pat on the head to someone - says a lot about your agenda. Very revealing. You are also selective. Because what I said was this: We all may be wrong. We usually are a certain percentage of the time. You are too certain of your 'rightness' to be right. Why does it matter so to you to be right all the time?

What I was saying was that we all are wrong sometimes, and that includes you. To repeat: You are too certain of your 'rightness' to be right. The odds are against your being right.

Perhaps you've missed my point. It's not that I don't get that everyone including me can be wrong. If someone can demonstrate with evidence and/or sound reasoning that I'm wrong, then I'll be the first to thank them and adapt my views. What I was getting at is that back here in this post we see you responding to a point I had made about experts and authority figures, which boiled down to the observation that, "the so-called experts can be wrong".

Since then, you have clearly stated that we can all be wrong. That logically includes all the so-called experts as well. Logically it follows that you therefore agree with me that the so-called experts can be wrong. The consequence of this is that we both recognize ( or at least should recognize ) that truth is the ultimate authority, and everything else is secondary. This means that all one has to do to prove the so-called experts wrong, is provide sufficient evidence and/or reasoning. One doesn't need any degrees or experience to do that, only sufficient evidence and/or a sound rationale. Or am I wrong in assuming that you think the so-called experts can be wrong? Surely you don't think they're infallible? Do you?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff,

Well, all I can say is that I'm having a conversation with you and not Elizabeth Rauscher.
I don't hold to the remote consciousness model, because it isn't necessary, and quite frankly doesn't make sense to me. I can't take Rauscher's work on faith. I had one religion and it wore me out.

"refers to a frequency specific conversion process"

Frequency specific? As in a band-pass filter? Conversion? Converting what into what?

So, given that you are reading Quantum biology books. "Frequency specific conversion" sounds like you are talking about frequency specific radiation conversion, essentially sensory apparatus like eyes and ears.

I am trying to have a fun discussion. I am trying to understand what you "believe" rather than what you think Rauscher believes. I really am trying to point out some very large holes in your arguments in the spirit of discussion. If you aren't interested in understanding what those are well, I'm good with that too.

It isn't about education, job, or experience. It is about the clear expression of ideas. Language is thought.

trainedobserver,
You know, the problem here is that you're right. My mind will rarely stop wrestling with something until, at least to the best of my understanding, it "feel's" the matter has been reconciled to some level of contentment. There is no question, I have learned some VERY key facts from you already. #1 of these things would be "don't blame someone for being formally acute".

I understand that ALL formal training grounds can be synonymous with the most brutal of battle grounds. That training comes with a price. I just wanted you to know TO, that I respect that price, and the same has done me some real good here.

Lets start over my friend. How about this? Are you somewhat familiar with Ingo Swann's exploration of Jupiter? This is what I am referring to by "remote consciousness". Astral Travel is a term that we both most likely associate with those famous adds from the 70s by the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC - Introduction in the backs of boys life and various comic books we read as kids. I don't know, but to a kid who is in the process of considering such fantastic imaginings as super man and whatnot, not really that far off the mark.

The point here is that Pat Price and Ingo Swann absolutely, under extremely guarded and controlled conditions, demonstrably provided strong and clear experimental evidence to the effect that the process is no fantasy in the least. If this is the case, which to the best of my understanding it is, how can remote consciousness not be a reality?

IMO, for relativity to exist, if one explores the universe in the form of pure information, there must be a complete universe consisting of nothing but complete information to begin with. Is this not the precise and same logical model we accept for physical reality in the whole of universe?

What DR. Rauscher did was to do what I or most others could never do. She translated as much to a mathematical geometric formula for empirical proof's sake. That's why I pointed you to her.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Perhaps you've missed my point. It's not that I don't get that everyone including me can be wrong. If someone can demonstrate with evidence and/or sound reasoning that I'm wrong, then I'll be the first to thank them and adapt my views. What I was getting at is that back here in this post we see you responding to a point I had made about experts and authority figures, which boiled down to the observation that, "the so-called experts can be wrong".

Since then, you have clearly stated that we can all be wrong. That logically includes all the so-called experts as well. Logically it follows that you therefore agree with me that the so-called experts can be wrong. The consequence of this is that we both recognize ( or at least should recognize ) that truth is the ultimate authority, and everything else is secondary. This means that all one has to do to prove the so-called experts wrong, is provide sufficient evidence and/or reasoning. One doesn't need any degrees or experience to do that, only sufficient evidence and/or a sound rationale. Or am I wrong in assuming that you think the so-called experts can be wrong? Surely you don't think they're infallible? Do you?

I have had this discussion before on serious science forums. The ones where you get booted for just typing the letters UFO. It always comes down to the fact that in the scientific world in which we live, which is to state basic reality, nothing can ever be emphatically, unequivocally, proved. EVERYTHING is open to revision. If this is not the case, science never existed to begin with. This is the scientific process. Proof is always in a state of possible temporal existence.

 

[trainedobserver]

Are you somewhat familiar with Ingo Swann's exploration of Jupiter? This is what I am referring to by "remote consciousness".

Yes, you are now referring to "remote viewing" right? Which is a different animal than "Astral Travel" as say Monroe or Campbell describe it. And a completely different subject than, "What is consciousness?" from my point of view.

If you are going to go with Campbell's hypothesis that reality is essentially a software program running in some cosmic machine then one could say reality is nothing but information. I don't agree that that is the most likely or the most practical of way of thinking about things and it is ultimately unfalsifiable.

Do I think the phenomena of remote viewing is proof that the human mind projects outside of the human skull to go to a remote location? Not really.

Is everything connected to everything else? Yes, physically and systemically. Do I understand all the ends and outs of those connections? No, and there are plenty of theories. The ones that make sense to me, that I can understand, I seriously entertain. Are we transmitting and receiving information that we aren't conscious of? Sure, through various and different means.

The situation is "reality" isn't what it at all appears to be, and our awareness of it is occurring inside an illusion, as part of it. In fact for all practical purposes, inside a rule driven hallucination generated by the jelly between our ears driven by information supplied by the senses and its own internal electrochemical processes. Therefore we are in a word, "F****d" as far as determining what the nature of reality is outside that illusion and our design specifications. We can and do have to work within its constraints however. I think that is the real hard problem of consciousness.

All we have are models. What model makes the least assumptions? Which one can be verified in whole or part? Which one produces practical results in goods and services? Those are the kinds of questions I try to ask myself.

Sorry if dragging things off into semantics (about energy and frequency) is frustrating, but I think it is crucial in my own thinking about these things.

 

[Randall]

I have had this discussion before on serious science forums. The ones where you get booted for just typing the letters UFO. It always comes down to the fact that in the scientific world in which we live, which is to state basic reality, nothing can ever be emphatically, unequivocally, proved. EVERYTHING is open to revision. If this is not the case, science never existed to begin with. This is the scientific process. Proof is always in a state of possible temporal existence.

The only way "EVERYTHING" in science is open to revision is if the laws of physics in the universe change in the future, which although possible, doesn't change the fact that until then, many things in science have been proven. For example, in the science of astronomy, it has been proven that the Sun is a star and that the Earth is a planet and that it and other planets orbit the Sun, which in turn is part of a much larger collection of stars called a galaxy; and that is only a miniscule fraction of the things that science has proven. And simply because it's "open to revision" at some point in the future, like when the Earth is swallowed up by the Sun isn't relevant to the fact that it's been proven in the here and now. I honestly don't know where you come up with these specious statements. This one also has little or no relevance to the post you quoted. So what's the point you're trying to make ( if any )?

 

[starise]

I have had this discussion before on serious science forums. The ones where you get booted for just typing the letters UFO. It always comes down to the fact that in the scientific world in which we live, which is to state basic reality, nothing can ever be emphatically, unequivocally, proved. EVERYTHING is open to revision. If this is not the case, science never existed to begin with. This is the scientific process. Proof is always in a state of possible temporal existence.

I agree science is still trying to catch up.

Obviously much of science can be proved to some extent and these precedents have been the steps that we move up on in terms of scientific explanation. It could be that the methods used in the past in order to "prove" something are later found to be suspect even though these same steps helped mankind to get to a breakthough. I think going back and making corrections to past inaccuracies are the health of any scientific endeavor. The problem is that when a scientist makes a determination and his findings are written into text books, and especially when he has the support of his peers, it seems almost impossible to get the idea changed. Let's face it, one role of a professor is to publish. Not always for the sake of advancement. They need to publish in order to remain viable. I'm thankful for the professors and scientists but I can also see holes in the this approach to advancement.

Do you think science has the ability to give meaning to life? In my opinion science can give better understanding but not really meaning. So does the pursuit of ultimate understanding guarantee meaning? I would argue no. If this were true then only some people could attain meaning and purpose. Why? because if the concepts were above the IQ of the average Joe then they couldn't grasp them. I think all human beings have a purpose and can have meaning in life. Thankfully we are designed to have meaning and purpose even if we don't have full understanding. I think that belief in a deity stems from this innate understanding, an instinctual understanding on the metaphysical level that there is more and we are part of that more. Just because our scientific understanding hasn't arrived there yet doesn't discount it. From the time we are born we are gathering understanding of our surroundings, the point being it's all working now whether we understand it or not. So which is more important to belief or non- belief - having more understanding or having more purpose? If you base all of your belief on your human ability to understand you will be sorely disappointed. One of the greatest leaps in human understanding is to know how little we actually understand. Hypothesis, conjecture and theory don't count.

Maybe there really are people out there that are simply logs with brains. I don't really believe that but ufology and trainedobserver come close .

The problem sometimes lies in making the question and then demanding the answer, or creating the answer for the question. Case in point- The Bible doesn't attempt to tell you how old the universe is. It states events. It isn't a book made for scientific explanation. Someone created the answer-(the Bible tells us how old the universe is.) Really? I don't read that. Someone says creation is exacly 6000 years old. They created yet another answer. I don't really know exactly, the Bible doesn't say exactly, but if you pose an exact answer some scientist somewhere might try to validate it. There are accomidating alternate explanations to that question that in no way invalidate the book.

Should science be trendy? It would seem that it goes with the most popular ideas of the day. And a person would put their total trust in something like this?