A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 26, 2017 12:17 am

Confidencia wrote:Pain is something that can be anticipated and remembered. If the predictions are consistent with confirming results, how would you know that you have really been hit or that something is really there?


This is indeed gibberish and meaningless.

Of course, pain can be anticipated and remembered. If I hit you with a big stick, you are going to feel pain and remember it. Of course, I can predict you will feel pain and your pain confirms that prediction. I can tell you have been hit by a stick by simply observing the stick hitting you.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Fri May 26, 2017 12:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:So, here you are on a science forum, claiming science isn't researching something that you can't even describe. Try a religious forum.
Confidencia wrote:A subjective experience does not lend itself to definition.
Soooo.... you are complaining that science isn't researching something paranormal, that can't be defined and thus can't be researched by science? Doesn't that seem a little bit stupid as a complaint to you?


Not if read in its correct context.


Confidencia wrote:
I am neither for or against OBE's
Your subjective opinion doesn't matter.


Hence the reason why I say I'm neither for or against it.


Other people have claimed they had the experience of out of body experiences. Scientists determined the common elements to these experiences and formulated working hypotheses. These hypotheses were subjected to repeatable scientific experiments and conclusions drawn.


Conjecture.

How the Brain Creates Out-of-Body Experiences
http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of ... ained.html


Perhaps you might want to read that report again. It is inconclusive. They are still not 100% sure how the brain perceives the body's location in space. This will always be a problem until they can come to the understanding that consciousness is not a product of the brain. It is not the brain that is perceiving. The brain only transmits and receives information from its environment, it is supported by its environment.

You are way behind the times
What makes your comments so silly is that you are way behind the times. Science has already recognised that people do feel they have out of body experiences and has explained these experience with clarity. It is normal science.


It maybe normal science but normal science isn't always sure what normal is let alone clarity.

You seem totally unaware about these developments and yet here you are claiming that some other sort of paranormal reason exists that you can't even define, let alone explain. The matter has already been dealt with and a scientific explanation already exists.


I am perfectly aware of science and their shenanigans.
There are many scientific explanations for it, they have been trying to explain this phenomena for eons. But unless they rewrite their text books they are not going to have much luck.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Fri May 26, 2017 12:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote:Pain is something that can be anticipated and remembered. If the predictions are consistent with confirming results, how would you know that you have really been hit or that something is really there?


This is indeed gibberish and meaningless.

Of course, pain can be anticipated and remembered. If I hit you with a big stick, you are going to feel pain and remember it. Of course, I can predict you will feel pain and your pain confirms that prediction.


My pain would confirm feeling, not your prediction.

I can tell you have been hit by a stick by simply observing the stick hitting you.


No doubt. You can observe the observation and the object of observation but not the observer.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Fri May 26, 2017 1:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gibberish.


Exactly!

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 26, 2017 1:03 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Other people have claimed they had the experience of out of body experiences. Scientists determined the common elements to these experiences and formulated working hypotheses. These hypotheses were subjected to repeatable scientific experiments and conclusions drawn.
Confidencia wrote: Conjecture.
It's not conjecture. It's hard science. You can read all the papers, working hypotheses and repeatable experiments, yourself.

Alternatively you can keep posting fuzzy claims, on a science forum, that claim some sort of magical subjective paranormal event is going on that you can't even describe in any detail.



Confidencia wrote:Perhaps you might want to read that report again. It is inconclusive.
I only posted one experiment from a decade ago. Are you asking me to post all the more recent experiments?

Confidencia wrote:It maybe normal science but normal science isn't always sure what normal is let alone clarity.
Excuse me, but aren't you the person who can't even define what you claim an out of body experience is? It is you who is not being clear. :lol:

Confidencia wrote:I am perfectly aware of science and their shenanigans.
You are posting on a science forum. Try a paranormal forum.

Our forum's official motto is "promoting science and critical thinking" not "let's exchange fuzzy paranormal anecdotes" :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 26, 2017 1:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I can tell you have been hit by a stick by simply observing the stick hitting you.
Confidencia wrote: No doubt. You can observe the observation and the object of observation but not the observer.
Bull-shit. I can simply video myself observing and watch that later. That's how you record the experiment. :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10227
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 26, 2017 1:06 am

Con: can you read? I mean: at all?

YOU say: "My pain would confirm feeling, not your prediction."===Ummm, Matt predicted your feeling: "I can predict you will feel pain and your pain confirms that prediction." In fact, if questioned closely, Matt could predict the pain of everyone reading your nonsense.

"No doubt. You can observe the observation and the object of observation but not the observer." ////From the solipsistic stance you take: "the observer" is the only thing the observer observes. But quite inconsistently, you confirm the observers observation yourself......................put it down to mere coincidence?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Fri May 26, 2017 7:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Other people have claimed they had the experience of out of body experiences. Scientists determined the common elements to these experiences and formulated working hypotheses. These hypotheses were subjected to repeatable scientific experiments and conclusions drawn.
Confidencia wrote: Conjecture.
It's not conjecture. It's hard science. You can read all the papers, working hypotheses and repeatable experiments, yourself.


Look, all I'm saying is unless you experience it for yourself you are not going to know. You can talk all the paper work you like but it will not give you the experience no more than the word bread will satisfy your hunger. You must eat!

Alternatively you can keep posting fuzzy claims, on a science forum, that claim some sort of magical subjective paranormal event is going on that you can't even describe in any detail.


Well since you have not experienced it the description will not make much difference .

Confidencia wrote:
Perhaps you might want to read that report again. It is inconclusive.
I only posted one experiment from a decade ago. Are you asking me to post all the more recent experiments?


In the more recent studies, have they solved the question of location?

Confidencia wrote:
It maybe normal science but normal science isn't always sure what normal is let alone clarity.
Excuse me, but aren't you the person who can't even define what you claim an out of body experience is? It is you who is not being clear. :lol:


When I say it cannot be described I do not mean it cannot be described per sa. You know very well that if you try to described it in a positive way you will end up contradicting yourself. It is like trying to describe what is real in terms of positive affirmations. It cannot be done.

Confidencia wrote:
I am perfectly aware of science and their shenanigans.
You are posting on a science forum. Try a paranormal forum.


Sir, I am fully aware of that thank you very much.

Our forum's official motto is "promoting science and critical thinking" not "let's exchange fuzzy paranormal anecdotes" :lol:


You can have all the critical thinking you like if it's in the wrong direction it is not going to be much of a ctritque.
Last edited by Confidencia on Fri May 26, 2017 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Fri May 26, 2017 7:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Con: can you read? I mean: at all?

YOU say: "My pain would confirm feeling, not your prediction."===Ummm, Matt predicted your feeling: "I can predict you will feel pain and your pain confirms that prediction." In fact, if questioned closely, Matt could predict the pain of everyone reading your nonsense.

"No doubt. You can observe the observation and the object of observation but not the observer." ////From the solipsistic stance you take: "the observer" is the only thing the observer observes. But quite inconsistently, you confirm the observers observation yourself......................put it down to mere coincidence?



Not in reality. The source of observation is always prior to that which it observes. Just as the body of a torch is always prior to its beam of light - in daylight you see everything but daylight.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Fri May 26, 2017 7:43 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:I can tell you have been hit by a stick by simply observing the stick hitting you.
Confidencia wrote: No doubt. You can observe the observation and the object of observation but not the observer.
Bull-shit. I can simply video myself observing and watch that later. That's how you record the experiment. :D


"Video myself" and "watch later" both come under the banner of observation. The observer cannot be in the picture. If you are in your house and you want to observe it as a whole, must you not step out of it and look from afar to bring the whole thing into focus?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19639
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri May 26, 2017 10:57 pm

This place seems an odd choice for you. Others got tired of the source of your musings?
Hi, Io the lurker.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10227
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 27, 2017 12:41 am

Confidencia wrote:Not in reality. The source of observation is always prior to that which it observes. Just as the body of a torch is always prior to its beam of light - in daylight you see everything but daylight.


gibberish: Unintelligible talking. Sadly, it works with writing as well. Ha, ha..........there are tautologies, but here, its more broken circles.

I'll play for one round:
1. That which is observed exists whether or not it is observed.
2. Torch and "its" beam of light: pure tautology.
3. in daylight you see everything but daylight. No, just the opposite all you see is the daylight. Basic Physics.

Do you have anything substantive to offer? I mean, can you say what is to be gained by understanding reality the same way as you propose it?....... what changes from the illusions we live under now?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat May 27, 2017 1:33 am

Confidencia wrote: Look, all I'm saying is unless you experience it for yourself you are not going to know. You can talk all the paper work you like but it will not give you the experience no more than the word bread will satisfy your hunger.
You really are an idiot. No scientist has ever seen an atom or experienced an atom. Yet atoms are real.

How do you know arsenic or strychnine are really poisonous, with no personal experience? May I make an obvious suggestion that you try some direct observation?
:lol:


Matthew Ellard wrote:Excuse me, but aren't you the person who can't even define what you claim an out of body experience is? It is you who is not being clear. :lol:
Confidencia wrote:When I say it cannot be described I do not mean it cannot be described per sa. You know very well that if you try to described it in a positive way you will end up contradicting yourself.
That's hilarious. You are saying you can't describe your own paranormal claim, in any detail, because you already know it doesn't make any sense.

This is comedy gold! Your aren't being serious are you!
:lol:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19639
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat May 27, 2017 1:39 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. in daylight you see everything but daylight. No, just the opposite all you see is the daylight. Basic Physics.

Hmm, I think what you see is whatever reflects that daylight? But then again, you do see the light, lol.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Sat May 27, 2017 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat May 27, 2017 1:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Bull-shit. I can simply video myself observing and watch that later. That's how you record the experiment. :D
Confidencia wrote:"Video myself" and "watch later" both come under the banner of observation. The observer cannot be in the picture.
Who said there was only one observer? (think about it)

Matthew Ellard wrote: If you are in your house and you want to observe it as a whole, must you not step out of it and look from afar to bring the whole thing into focus?
No. I simply tell the bloke holding the camera, filming my house, to get some extra shots from different angles. :lol:

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Mon May 29, 2017 11:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Look, all I'm saying is unless you experience it for yourself you are not going to know. You can talk all the paper work you like but it will not give you the experience no more than the word bread will satisfy your hunger.
You really are an idiot. No scientist has ever seen an atom or experienced an atom. Yet atoms are real.


Exactly! So how do you come to the conclusion that they are real ? Are you just conversing for the sake of autosuggestion?

How do you know arsenic or strychnine are really poisonous, with no personal experience? May I make an obvious suggestion that you try some direct observation? :lol:


You may indeed, since you are further hammering home my initial point. In your own mind you see whatever you want to see. Does this make it real?


Matthew Ellard wrote:Excuse me, but aren't you the person who can't even define what you claim an out of body experience is? It is you who is not being clear. :lol:


I've already gave you a definition but it can't be explained in any more detail than that. You will end up eating your own words has you seem to be doing here and completely unaware of it too.


When I say it cannot be described I do not mean it cannot be described per sa. You know very well that if you try to described it in a positive way you will end up contradicting yourself.
That's hilarious. You are saying you can't describe your own paranormal claim, in any detail, because you already know it doesn't make any sense.

This is comedy gold! Your aren't being serious are you!
:lol:


No. I am saying it can be described in itself but in itself, of what use is a positive or negative affirmation?

Perhaps you should look at what you are saying in more detail yourself, you are casting a net which is full of contradictory holes
You derive your own meaning, if people like it they will further investigate it and quite possibly substantiate it. If they don't they will investigate and refute. It does not mean that it is not true or false, it can be either yet in reality it is none.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Mon May 29, 2017 11:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: Bull-shit. I can simply video myself observing and watch that later. That's how you record the experiment. :D
Confidencia wrote:"Video myself" and "watch later" both come under the banner of observation. The observer cannot be in the picture.
Who said there was only one observer? (think about it)

There are many observers but the act of observing is one.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
If you are in your house and you want to observe it as a whole, must you not step out of it and look from afar to bring the whole thing into focus?
No. I simply tell the bloke holding the camera, filming my house, to get some extra shots from different angles. :lol:


Telling a bloke holding a camera, to get extra shots from different angles, is an inventory and not of your own focussed experience. (Think about it)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 29, 2017 11:12 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: You really are an idiot. No scientist has ever seen an atom or experienced an atom. Yet atoms are real.
Confidencia wrote: Exactly! So how do you come to the conclusion that they are real ?
Through all the other scientific forms of evidence, you don't know about, such as statistical evidence, electromagnetic evidence, that the atom behave in exact ways we can predict in repeatable experiments, mathematics and so on. Ever heard of the Large Hadron Collider . :lol:


Matthew Ellard wrote: How do you know arsenic or strychnine are really poisonous, with no personal experience? May I make an obvious suggestion that you try some direct observation? :lol:
Confidencia wrote: You may indeed, since you are further hammering home my initial point. In your own mind you see whatever you want to see. Does this make it real?
Nope. You are simply showing your hypocrisy. You claim only personal experience can show if something is real yet you won't drink arsenic or strychnine and rely on science and statistics to tell you they are poisonous. :lol:

Matthew Ellard wrote:Excuse me, but aren't you the person who can't even define what you claim an out of body experience is? It is you who is not being clear. :lol:
Confidencia wrote: I've already gave you a definition but it can't be explained in any more detail than that.
You didn't give any definition at all. Quote me where you did? :lol:

Quick test for Confidencia
1) Can you write down what the scientific methods is?

2) If you disagree with the scientific method then why the hell are you posting on our science forum?

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Mon May 29, 2017 11:31 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Confidencia wrote:Not in reality. The source of observation is always prior to that which it observes. Just as the body of a torch is always prior to its beam of light - in daylight you see everything but daylight.


gibberish: Unintelligible talking. Sadly, it works with writing as well. Ha, ha..........there are tautologies, but here, its more broken circles.

I'll play for one round:
1. That which is observed exists whether or not it is observed.


For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it. How do you propose to do this when you are dead?



2. Torch and "its" beam of light: pure tautology.


I say it's pure logic. Besides language is tautologic how ever which way you use it in a positive vein. Look at it closely without your imagination and you will see that when you use it you invariably repeat yourself in an endless succession of contradictions. Unless of course you use it as a tool of negation.

3. in daylight you see everything but daylight. No, just the opposite all you see is the daylight. Basic Physics.


I am not talking about the physical properties of light but light itself. When light interact with matter you get an electromagnet spectrum. This is your basic physics, physics has nothing to do with reality.


Do you have anything substantive to offer? I mean, can you say what is to be gained by understanding reality the same way as you propose it?....... what changes from the illusions we live under now?


You see the false as false. Knowing the truth does not put you at any advantage, knowing what is real and what is not has no useable benefits. The reality is intrinsically in and of itself, since it stands alone it needs no support.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 30, 2017 12:02 am

Confidencia wrote: For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it.
This has already been dismissed as completely wrong. How do explain oxygen and nitrogen? Have you seen them? Do you doubt their existence?

Confidencia wrote: When light interact with matter you get an electromagnet spectrum.
No. Light is in itself, already an electro-magnetic wave form. It doesn't have to interact with anything to be as such.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Tue May 30, 2017 12:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: You really are an idiot. No scientist has ever seen an atom or experienced an atom. Yet atoms are real.
Confidencia wrote: Exactly! So how do you come to the conclusion that they are real ?
Through all the other scientific forms of evidence, you don't know about, such as statistical evidence, electromagnetic evidence, that the atom behave in exact ways we can predict in repeatable experiments, mathematics and so on. Ever heard of the Large Hadron Collider . :lol:


Have you ever heard of quantum mechanics?


Matthew Ellard wrote:
How do you know arsenic or strychnine are really poisonous, with no personal experience? May I make an obvious suggestion that you try some direct observation? :lol:
Confidencia wrote:You may indeed, since you are further hammering home my initial point. In your own mind you see whatever you want to see. Does this make it real?
Nope. You are simply showing your hypocrisy. You claim only personal experience can show if something is real yet you won't drink arsenic or strychnine and rely on science and statistics to tell you they are poisonous. :lol:


If you could see beyond your preconceived notions you may get an inkling as to what I'm saying. You may be interested to know, if you consume arsenic at a very small dose over a period of time you can become immune to it effects.


Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]Excuse me, but aren't you the person who can't even define what you claim an out of body experience is? It is you who is not being clear. :lol:
Confidencia wrote:I've already gave you a definition but it can't be explained in any more detail than that.
You didn't give any definition at all. Quote me where you did? :lol:


It is when you are aware that you are sleeping .

Quick test for Confidencia
1) Can you write down what the scientific methods is?


Investigate, test and evaluate.

2) If you disagree with the scientific method then why the hell are you posting on our science forum?


No I do not disagree with the scientific method. Only the standard model of scientific testing is very limited and not very thorough in its evaluating process that is all.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 30, 2017 12:21 am

Confidencia wrote: Have you ever heard of quantum mechanics?
Yes. In another current thread I have asked a person (Steve Klinko) making similar claims to yours, what exact phenomena of quantum mechanics is he invoking. He doesn't know. You see many bull-shit artists throw the word "quantum mechanics" into their religious claims without having a clue what "quantum mechanics" is. Quantum mechanics is the name given to a set of known phenomena at an atomic level. Scientists know the resulting phenomena but not how wave-particles work.

Which exact quantum mechanical phenomena are you invoking? Show us your supporting mathematics?

What makes your argument ridiculous, is you are claiming that only things you can observe are real yet simultaneously you are now invoking quantum mechanics which you have never observed.

Can you see how ridiculous your hypocrisy is?





Matthew Ellard wrote:Quick test for Confidencia
1) Can you write down what the scientific methods is?
Confidencia wrote: Investigate, test and evaluate.
COMPLETE FAIL

I suggest you now go away and read a basic children's science explanation for how the scientific method works, as you are posting on a science forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Tue May 30, 2017 12:27 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it.
This has already been dismissed as completely wrong. How do explain oxygen and nitrogen? Have you seen them? Do you doubt their existence?


When you go to sleep at night you are not even aware of your body let alone the universe and its properties. Besides there's no need to explain anything that isn't really there. I do not doubt the existence of these things but by the same token I do not equate existence with reality.

Confidencia wrote: When light interact with matter you get an electromagnet spectrum.
No. Light is in itself, already an electro-magnetic wave form. It doesn't have to interact with anything to be as such.


Call it what you like but unless it interacts with something there is not even an electromagnetic spectrum, there is nothing.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Tue May 30, 2017 12:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Have you ever heard of quantum mechanics?
Yes. In another current thread I have asked a person (Steve Klinko) making similar claims to yours, what exact phenomena of quantum mechanics is he invoking. He doesn't know. You see many bull-shit artists throw the word "quantum mechanics" into their religious claims without having a clue what "quantum mechanics" is. Quantum mechanics is the name given to a set of known phenomena at an atomic level. Scientists know the resulting phenomena but not how wave-particles work.

Which exact quantum mechanical phenomena are you invoking? Show us your supporting mathematics?

What makes your argument ridiculous, is you are claiming that only things you can observe are real yet simultaneously you are now invoking quantum mechanics which you have never observed.

Can you see how ridiculous your hypocrisy is?





Matthew Ellard wrote:Quick test for Confidencia
1) Can you write down what the scientific methods is?
Confidencia wrote: Investigate, test and evaluate.
COMPLETE FAIL

I suggest you now go away and read a basic children's science explanation for how the scientific method works, as you are posting on a science forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


The standard scientific method is fine if you're at the apprentice stage. But at some point you will have to go beyond it into intelligent understanding. Otherwise you will simply see what the mind suggests you see.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 30, 2017 12:52 am

Confidencia wrote: Call it (Light) what you like but unless it interacts with something there is not even an electromagnetic spectrum, there is nothing.
No. Your general ignorance is showing. Light waves can interact with other light waves. That is the whole basis of the split screen experiment for photons. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 30, 2017 12:56 am

Confidencia wrote:The standard scientific method is fine if you're at the apprentice stage. But at some point you will have to go beyond it into intelligent understanding.


No. You have already contradicted yourself as you are very confused with little education. You first claimed that nothing existed if you could not observe it. You then invoked "quantum mechanics" which you have never observed as the reason. :lol:

Can you see the ongoing confusion in your contradictory claims? Yes or No?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Gord » Tue May 30, 2017 11:24 am

Confidencia wrote:The standard scientific method is fine if you're at the apprentice stage. But at some point you will have to go beyond it into intelligent understanding. Otherwise you will simply see what the mind suggests you see.

Wow. Just...wow.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Tue May 30, 2017 12:32 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote:The standard scientific method is fine if you're at the apprentice stage. But at some point you will have to go beyond it into intelligent understanding.


No. You have already contradicted yourself as you are very confused with little education. You first claimed that nothing existed if you could not observe it. You then invoked "quantum mechanics" which you have never observed as the reason. :lol:

Can you see the ongoing confusion in your contradictory claims? Yes or No?


I do not see myself in the picture so I cannot possibly make a contradictory statement, against what? You on the other hand see yourself as something in particular amongst other things, naturally there will be a conflict of interests. Where there are no others how can a contradictory statement or even a statement as such exist?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby gorgeous » Tue May 30, 2017 12:50 pm

Gord wrote:
Confidencia wrote:The standard scientific method is fine if you're at the apprentice stage. But at some point you will have to go beyond it into intelligent understanding. Otherwise you will simply see what the mind suggests you see.

Wow. Just...wow.

--------------------"The only source of knowledge is experience." - Albert Einstein
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Tue May 30, 2017 2:06 pm

gorgeous wrote:
Gord wrote:
Confidencia wrote:The standard scientific method is fine if you're at the apprentice stage. But at some point you will have to go beyond it into intelligent understanding. Otherwise you will simply see what the mind suggests you see.

Wow. Just...wow.

--------------------"The only source of knowledge is experience." - Albert Einstein


It is most certainly a good place to start but experience on its own is invariably based on the past and the past is rooted in memory. Reality cannot be contained in a memory. It needs no such support, besides knowledge presupposes ignorance. Where there is knowledge there is ignorance.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Confidencia » Tue May 30, 2017 2:16 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Call it (Light) what you like but unless it interacts with something there is not even an electromagnetic spectrum, there is nothing.
No. Your general ignorance is showing. Light waves can interact with other light waves. That is the whole basis of the split screen experiment for photons. :D


Of course but there must have been an initial interaction of light before the photon, the photon could not have come into existence otherwise.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10227
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 30, 2017 8:25 pm

Con: thanks for taking my "one Play" to task by answering each point I raised. I think such specificity is a great approach to actually coming to grips with a subject/point of view. I see, it doesn't always work as gibberish can be equally and likewise parceled out. Call it: intelligent knowing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Shen1986 » Tue May 30, 2017 8:42 pm

Confidencia wrote:First you must understand one thing, you are only the observer. You cannot observe the observer only the observation and the object of observation


My Deepak Chopra meter broke after reading this whole but I will reply even when its a bunch of chopra woo.

Not true. I can observe the observer like I can observe every living being which is a observer. Also science is progressing so fast that we will be even able to observe thoughts and images of people - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22031074

Confidencia wrote:Once you've understood this you should think of consciousness as a recorder and the mind its register and the brain its regulator.
And you will have a better understanding of how consciousness functions. The mind arise in the consciousness and registers information so that the brain can hard wire it as a programmed function.


Evidence please for this. I mean real evidence not just some hypothesis which can be made up by any person who can talk.

Confidencia wrote:Nobody and nothing we know externally produces this consciousness, yet it is at the root of everything sensate. It came from nowhere and it goes nowhere, so it is always the case. From the brains perspective a loss of this consciousness is merely a lapse in memory, the consciousness has not gone anywhere. It is always the case.


Contradiction. There is no nowhere. There is always somewhere or something. If there is consciousness there must be a source even religions folks have it sorted out that consciousness comes from god or gods or is a reincarnation etc. So your definition of consciousness is merely nothing and gives no answers at all which again brings me to the conclusion that your hypothesis is false because it gives no answers.

Confidencia wrote:The brain function via memory, out of this memory patterns are created. When the brain partially shuts down or is in trauma these patterns are temporarily or permanently suspended. In the case of a trauma where the structure of the brain has been compromised the brain attempts to repairs itself. Where there is irretrievable brain damage the consciousness simply move out of that body and remains dormant for a while. From the perspective of consciousness if the tool is damage it cannot use it. The body is a tool of expression. Consciousness produces all forms fills them with life until they are exhausted. If you like you can call consciousness the soul since it is the major player in every events.

If you think about it it is only because we are governed by memory why the magicians and illusionists can do their tricks. The greatest illusionist is consciousness itself. You think you are here living an independent existence when really you are not. Modes of thought, ways of thinking, patterns of creation and destruction - their existence is rooted in memory.
For instance, when you go to sleep at night you remember falling asleep but you don't remember the sleep why? Because you only know the memory pattern of going to sleep and waking up. As a person you are dependent on the memory patterns as part of your day to day functioning hence the reason why you ordinarily go blank when the brain partially shuts down as in sleep or swoon.


Why are you adding a new layer to the formula when its not needed?? There is no need for a consciousness/soul type when all are memories, our mind everything are just memories and the brain. This is like adding something special because you want to believe in something special so far there is no evidence that there is something special at all. Its just your believe and your wish full thinking that you want a special layer in it.

Confidencia wrote:You ask. "Why do I not remember my time in the womb"? Because you were never in the womb. The body developed in the womb along with its brain. The womb was the bodies environment hence the reason it did not need a fully functional brain during the time it was there, it had no use for one. In the womb it is attached to a fully developed body with a fully functional brain through out the gestation period. When this body is born it immediately starts collecting data for itself from its new environment. As the body grows the mind develops and utilises this information to form an identity. This identity is what we know as the person or personality. It is the consciousness that mistakes this identity of a person for itself. As a person you only know a virtual reality you are blind to what is real because the memory patterns that forms this virtual reality obscures it. It is not the consciousness that is at fault but the conscious experience (this virtual reality) generated by the brain


I was never in the womb??? Even Deepak Chopra agrees that we are born beings. We are born in wombs. Also you did not define what consciousness is? You got here many contradictions and are just twisting because you did not define what consciousness is you claim here that its not the personality of the person that its not the mind of the person so what it is. Oh boy after reading this you do not know what you actually believe.

Confidencia wrote:This is way you can't trust conscious experience because it is rooted in memory. If you have to remember it then it is not real. You have to be aware that you are conscious to get the whole picture. To be conscious of awareness is only partial and based on memory.
It is for this reason why I say it is inconclusive, you cannot effectively test a subjective experience objectively or an objective experience subjectively since they are both renditions of brain consciousness. You can only know it for yourself.


Good luck with your life then when you cannot trust even my own conscious experience. I am here truly amazed that you can write Confidencia or read because all this is done from conscious experience or even turn on the PC or mobile phone. So it end here for me.

Missed one:

Confidencia wrote:Again it is not as if the consciousness has gone anywhere. If you become aware that you are conscious and remain aware of your consciousness you will remember your sleep and enter that state of waking sleep or OBE. When I say waking sleep I do not mean paralysis I mean you are aware that you are sleeping.


Lucid dreaming? Science already has evidence that its nothing paranormal and nothing special: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dre ... c_research

So nothing new here. The response is filled with contradictions and I did not get a definition of consciousness or what it truly is or where it does come from. Even religion has some answers about their souls but nothing like this is found here folks.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10227
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 30, 2017 8:50 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Quick test for Confidencia
1) Can you write down what the scientific methods is?
Confidencia wrote: Investigate, test and evaluate.
COMPLETE FAIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method[/quote]
Matt: Con's description seems right on the mark to me...he just doesn't understand it. What do you think is missing?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 30, 2017 11:21 pm

Confidencia wrote: Investigate, test and evaluate.
COMPLETE FAIL
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: Con's description seems right on the mark to me...he just doesn't understand it. What do you think is missing?


Firstly, a scientific experiment, using the scientific method is meant to test a hypothesis.. You will note that Confidencia has refused to set out a working hypothesis under the claim that "out of bodies experiences" are subjective to the person experiencing them. In reality Confidencia cannot set out a hypothesis at all, as OBEs have conflicting claims where they can both pass through walls and floor ( not interact with reality) and yet also see things ( react with reality). The paranormal OBE claim is already self conflicting.

Secondly, an experiment must have a falsifiable result (potential result). You cannot have an experiment that lets any and all results confirm the hypothesis being tested.

Thirdly, the scientific method does not prove that a claim is true, but rather that that claim is more probable than the previous tested hypothesis and this is where Confidencia is totally failing. We already have working and tested hypotheses that fully explain why people think they are experiencing OBEs that are decades old. I have listed them. In contrast Confidencia is refusing to form any first hypothesis at all as he knows he can't and it doesn't make sense.

"Yes we have no Neutrinos"
There is a good book called "Yes We have no Neutrinos" which offers a chapter describing the required elements of the scientific method and then applies errors in that methodology to classical science failures like "cold fusion" claims, "N-waves" claims, IQ test claims, "Biosphere II's claims and so on.


Here is the "boss of logic" Popper's view on Falsifiable Hypothesis Experimentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 30, 2017 11:30 pm

Confidencia wrote: For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it.
Let us destroy this basic "non-dualist" religious claim by Confidencia as a working example.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. All the evidence, ranging from Cosmic Background Radiation, the half life of certain elements, the cycles required to form third generation suns like ours and so on, all point to this age.

Life on Earth however is only 3.7 billion years old. Therefore is we pretend the first self replicating molecule "could observe the universe" (which is a stretch) there were no observers for the first 10 billion years of the Universe, yet we directly know the universe existed.

Therefore we can falsify Confidencia's silly religious claim in seconds.
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10227
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 30, 2017 11:54 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: Investigate, test and evaluate.
COMPLETE FAIL
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: Con's description seems right on the mark to me...he just doesn't understand it. What do you think is missing?


OK.........we agree. Your critique goes to his understanding/application rather than the definition he gave.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 31, 2017 12:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: OK.........we agree. Your critique goes to his understanding/application rather than the definition he gave.
Confidencia intentionally missed the whole point about comparing his non-existent" defined claims, to actual scientific hypotheses, that have been tested.

What's going on here, is that I'm forcing Confidencia to actually state what his claim is and forcing him to set out his hypothesis. He is squirming and will continue to refuse to do that, because he knows I will immediately point our the logical conflicts. This is why Confidencia has now changed tact to posting meaningless Depak Chopra propaganda
:D

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: A recent "proven" Out of Body Experience

Postby gorgeous » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:32 am

Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26367
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Confidencia tells more lies

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:08 am

Confidencia wrote: For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it.
Let us destroy this basic "non-dualist" religious claim by Confidencia as a working example.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. All the evidence, ranging from Cosmic Background Radiation, the half life of certain elements, the cycles required to form third generation suns like ours and so on, all point to this age.

Life on Earth however is only 3.7 billion years old. Therefore is we pretend the first self replicating molecule "could observe the universe" (which is a stretch) there were no observers for the first 10 billion years of the Universe, yet we directly know the universe existed.

Therefore we can falsify Confidencia's silly religious claim in seconds.
:D


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests