toys in the attic said:

deranger said:

How could an experience not exist.  OBE is merely a label for an experience. 

---

Degranger:
All you are going to do is hurt yourself. If this thread goes on for 100,000 pages it will be at the same place. These people do not understand nor do they want to understand.

---

Well said Zen Buddy.

OrgoneConclusion said:

Perhaps it might actually help you.

If one can do PK, it can be observed as I claimed in the OP. Maybe you are actually coming around.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

If a paranormal phenomenon has any discernible effect on the physical world, then it can be measured and tested by normal means.

---

toys in the attic said:

You added the word perception to what I said. Since I didn't say that your post is meaningless.

---

Not at all, DMT entities are merely subjective perceptions, whether or not you mentioned this earlier is irrelevant. We all know that DMT entities exist as subjective perceptions, but there is a small crowd of wishful thinkers that believe they may be real in the objective world...

Icelander said:

You are making less sense with each passing post.

Now you're just being silly.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

You are making less sense with each passing post. First you say that PK is paranormal, then you say it isn't. Which is it?

---

Icelander said:

What few here seem to realize about their  "personal experience" is that it is meaningless if it is misinterpreted. And interpretation being completely subjective we cannot know if our interpretation is based in flawed logic or flawed emotionalism.

---

deranger said:

toys in the attic said:

johnm214 said:

Either way, it seems you need to explain orgone's point away- how the hell can something not be detectable yet exist?

---

How can you claim that you have the ability to detect everything? It is very reasonable to consider that your detection methods are inadequate.

---

This is exactly the attitude I am against.  It is pure arrogance.  I'll take your advice, this is going nowhere except in circles.

---

So instead of challenging a poster's logic, and answering criticism, in the search for the most logically defensible position, you call people arrogant, leave questions unanswered, and announce you are taking your toys and going home?


Great, thanks for playing.  (maybe it would go somewhere but circles if people would answer the criticisms leveled against their position?  Is that just crazy or what?  Better to announce your quitting the discussion while throwin ga charge of arrogance out.




And while I see you've allready decided the matter prior to my response to toys' question, not very open-minded brah, I'll provide it anyways.


Obviously some things may not be detectable.  By can be detected I mean that they will produce a phenomena that would be possible to observe, not that every phenomena is able to be observed.  This is quite obvious a point, I'm sorry if you somehow thought I was alleging perfect knowledge of the universe, but wouldn't it be smarter to construe a post in a way that doesn't allege such craziness?  "Can" means able, not presently or expediently able, in my post



In any case, this is all irrrelevant.  If it is capable of becoming known to people, then it is capable of being observed and tested, as teh very fact it is knowingly affecting a person means it is allready observed.


Anybody who claims they know of some parnaormal activity a) has the burden of proof, b) cannot claim that it is indetectable scientifically by the very fact that they were aware of it, as their very awareness is detection (even ignoring the consequent conclusion that the means of affecting the person could similarly be tested for)



It seems to me we have people answering the questions put to them, and another group ignoring all criticism.  How strange that the later is the group of people who claim the discussion is going in circles when they refuse to participate in the dialogue, and throw out personalisms.


Oh well, take your toys and go home.  Far better than to announce you quit in a huff then wait for someone to respond to the criticism you somehow (though you fail to say how) find ultimately dispositive of the debate.  I think you need to work on being more openminded

Quote:

par⋅a⋅nor⋅mal
  /ˌpærəˈnɔrməl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [par-uh-nawr-muhl] Show IPA
Use paranormal in a Sentence
–adjective
of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

---

Astral projection (a perception) has no full scientific explanation, so by definition the word fits.  I don't know why you can't understand this, but I have tried to help you.  Now I'm done, and I just gave a reasonable explanation.  Make up anything else you want

OrgoneConclusion said:

Here then let's recap:

A paranormal event cannot be experienced; then no one can know of it.

A paranormal event can be experienced, yet somehow does not interact with the world in any way.

Which is your stance?

---

deranger said:

Astral projection (a perception) has no full scientific explanation...

---

Ok, give me the partial scientific explanation.