James Randi is everyones favorite super skeptic. Frankly, I don't even think he would accept that the world is round if he could find some way to convince himself otherwise.

But, skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing...

First of all, people claim that he purposely picks mediums and psychics with almost no talent that are likely frauds in the first place, and THESE are the ones that get to do his tests.

Is this true?

Take spiritual mediums for instance.

If I round up some of the better spiritual mediums, say 10 or more, and I go out in the street and pick up 10 or so sitters at random, and have the mediums perform readings for them...

There you go. You will have a ton of data from the readings to go over. Honestly, if I was there overseeing such a test and some of the mediums are able to get SOLID hits that are way too complex to be a guess....well, I would have to concede at the minimum there is some sort of energy that I cannot detect that mediums are connecting with.

Has James Randi done such an experiment?
Does his assistant simply pick out the fakes and losers just to help hold up they're own viewpoint?
- Purposefully avoiding anyone likely to actually show true results?

The whole thing has me rather upset and confused. I myself AM a "Super Skeptic." I am an agnostic, but I prefer not to consider myself an atheist because I have met many atheist that are completely closed minded.

I believe that the afterlife is a definite possibility, that has not been proven or 100% dis-proven for me to make a real decision.

Dr. Who wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 10:24am:

James Randi is everyones favorite super skeptic. Frankly, I don't even think he would accept that the world is round if he could find some way to convince himself otherwise. But, skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing...

Hello: Skepticism is a stablizing mechanism. You need it to maintain sanity in the physical universe... but, the skeptic who has no working relationship with the non-physical world is doomed to petrify... physical world proof has limitations because they only prove physical world realities... there is a subjective world which is very real and actually controls the objective world... until you can balance between both you won't get very far...

S.

James Randi has had an OBE. He talks about his OBE on youtube.

PauliEffectt wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 7:19pm:

James Randi has had an OBE. He talks about his OBE on youtube.

And he is still a skeptic??

S.

Oh that's easy, I am sure he debunks OBE by stating that it is simply a trick of the brain and the whole thing involves the brain.

Any scientist would accept that simple explanation in fact!

That is unless the scientist was able to continue concrete repeatable OBE tests involving specific signs / words / numbers in a closed, blind, secure environment where the OBE experimenter can continue to report what the image being displayed is.

In response an OBE advocate/believer will simply say, well, it just doesn't work that way.

Then in response the scientist will say, well... then I cannot effectively test your supposed OBE.

In conclusion, OBE may be a real legitimate occurrence, yet it may also simply be a brain related illusion.

So therefore what IS the Bottom line scientifically?

OBE cannot be scientifically proven. Period.

Dr. Who wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 11:27pm:

Oh that's easy, I am sure he debunks OBE by stating that it is simply a trick of the brain and the whole thing involves the brain. Any scientist would accept that simple explanation in fact! That is unless the scientist was able to continue concrete repeatable OBE tests involving specific signs / words / numbers in a closed, blind, secure environment where the OBE experimenter can continue to report what the image being displayed is. In response an OBE advocate/believer will simply say, well, it just doesn't work that way. Then in response the scientist will say, well... then I cannot effectively test your supposed OBE. In conclusion, OBE may be a real legitimate occurrence, yet it may also simply be a brain related illusion. So therefore what IS the Bottom line scientifically? OBE cannot be scientifically proven. Period.

Hi Dr: I see what you mean. Funny how the human mind can weave itself deeper and deeper into the trap.

S.

Dr wrote:

'OBE cannot be scientifically proven. Period.'

How about this scenario: we take a number of people who claim to be able to obe. We have them 'go out of body'/ phase and collect information of relevence to them rather than numbers/letters etc. e.g what activity their children are engaged in at that moment. This information is collected. A control group is set up who claim no such proficiency and we have them attempt to do the same.We score both sets for accuracy. Lets say the OBEs have an accuracy of 37% while the control are 25%.Does'nt sound impressive. But as Dean Radin explains in The Conscious Universe small differences like this can become astronomically significant when subject to multi-centre replication and given statistical meta-analysis e.g. billions to one against chance. This is the case for things like ESP for example.

Rather than methodological problems its maybe more about scientific will and finance ...

This would be an acceptable test, however, the ones being viewed will be required to do something strange that they normally do not do for that day of the test period.

This is a requirement to rule out the natural ability to make a logical guess of what your loved one / friend is doing.

I would only say that from my understanding most people don't OBE into C1, so how is trying to what is basically remote view going to ever produce a high percentage of hits? I can appreciate the difference between seeking numbers and letters AND seeking info on something more important and close to the OBEer, but if most people OBE to an astral realm that resembles C1 but isn't then how do we make a solid conclusion?

hehehe Beau, you are jumping back to my original statement that OBE is scientifically untestable at an acceptable level.

;)

Dr. Who wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 11:27pm:

OBE cannot be scientifically proven. Period.

Here is an exert from an OBE experiment by Dr. Charles Tart, Psychologist. You can check out the whole article here:

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=50

Out-of-the-Body Experiences: Second Study

"....On the first three laboratory nights Miss Z reported that in spite of occasionally being “out,” she had not been able to control her experiences enough to be in position to see the target number (which was different each night). On the fourth night, at 5:57am, there was a seven minute period of somewhat ambiguous EEG activity, sometimes looking like stage 1, sometimes like brief wakings. Then Miss Z awakened and called out over the intercom that the target number was 25132, which I wrote on the EEG recording. After she slept a few more minutes I woke her so she could go to work and she reported on the previous awakening that:

    I woke up; it was stifling in the room. Awake for about five minutes. I kept waking up and drifting off, having floating feelings over and over. I needed to go higher because the number was lying down. Between 5:50 and 6:00 A.M. that did it. . . I wanted to go read the number in the next room, but I couldn’t leave the room, open the door, or float through the door. . .. I couldn’t turn on the air conditioner!

The number 25132 was indeed the correct target number. I had learned something about designing experiments since my first OBE experiment and precise evaluation was possible here. The odds against guessing a 5digit number by chance alone are 100,000 to 1, so this is a remarkable event! Note also that Miss Z had apparently expected me to have propped the target number up against the wall behind the shelf, but she correctly reported that it was lying flat...."

I think I saw that before or at least read the one experiment with the numbers already, but it's a nice link. Thanks!

Until recently I had always assumed Tart was from the turn of the last century. I didn't realize he worked With RAM. As trusting as I am I have to admit that it is a little suspect that the only person who gives pretty definitive proof of the OBE is no longer available. I mean, sheesh, I would have made very sure that I stayed in touch with her and if not, why wouldn't she come forward after reading Tart's book? I hate to say this because I am certainly a proponent of OBE and NDE and all, but it seems like a lot of the proof is hard to nail down. For example, the dentures story and the sneaker story with NDEs. These people just vanished after telling their story. I can't believe that researchers could be that lax when it comes to staying in touch. But still I am firm when it comes to consciousness being fundamental. I'm quite sure of it. :)

'This would be an acceptable test, however, the ones being viewed will be required to do something strange that they normally do not do for that day of the test period.

This is a requirement to rule out the natural ability to make a logical guess of what your loved one / friend is doing'.

The thing about the test is that nothing special is required because all we are doing is measuring the performance of the adepts against the non-skilled controls (under the same conditions) and seeing if they are significantly different. If there are a number of studies with combined odds with a miniscule probability of chance I would say something interesting is going on and open-minded skeptics are obliged to sit up and take notice !

Beau- I take your point about astral realm not correlating directly with the physical but there are plenty of anecdotal examples of 'matches' in the literature to make the test tenable. We don't need all hits (or even a majority) only statistically more than the control.I believe quite a lot of work has already been done with remote viewing (see Tart's 'End of Materialism' ).

:) Dave

The biggest problem we are faced with is, the moment the subject projects, in 95 out of 100 events he/she will project into the a nonphysical dimension, simply because it is the corresponding energy equivalent to the astral body. (I wrote a little article about that on my website http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Mechanics_of_Out-of-body_travel.html )

We are unlikely to get lots of hits under laboratory conditions. The only way one will probably ever feel convinced is by actually experiencing it oneself. Having said that in my early days I tried all sorts of tests to convince myself. Now I am convinced I enjoy spending my time when out of the body in "mapping" out our multidimensional territory.

Though I eagerly await the time when science delivers a "projection device" (parts of the brain which are active during lucid dreaming have already been identified according to New Scientist). This would increase our numbers. May be it is a numbers game.

I suppose some obe states are closer to the physical than others and some adepts are more likely to access these states than others. I remember my brother-in-law able to tell me where I was, the activity I was doing during an 'out' phase a few years ago through vivid impressions he received...  these are the type of 'hits' we would be testing for...

To All,

It should come as no surprize that the experience of an OBE cannot be "scientifically proven."  And it should be noted that a lack of "scientific proof" has no bearing upon whether OBEs are real or not.

Ask a scientist to prove that the experience of the  feelings of love, or hate, etc are real.  An honest scientist would have to say . .

There is no scientific proof that the experience of such feelings exists.  There is no scientific, physical world instrumentation that can directly measure the experience of these feelings.  There is only anecdotal evidence reported by those who claim to have experienced such feelings.  And, such anecdotal evidence is NOT and can never be scientific proof.

So, does the fact that the experience of such feelings cannot be scientifically proven to exist mean that the experience of such feelings doesn't exist?   Are you as the one reading this going to claim that such feelings are only a trick of the brain and therefore do not actually exist? 

Nonsense.

In my opinion, all the lack of scientific evidence proves, regarding the experience of such feelings, is that the method used to gather "scientific proof" in cases like this is sorely lacking.  Almost all of us would say that we experience such feelings, and that the lack of scientific proof in cases like this is meaningless.

For those of us who have experienced the feeling of love, or hate, or an OBE the Great Randi's "scientific proof" argument is a meaningless, diversionary, complete waste of time.

In my opinion there are some things within the realm of human experience that we can only prove to ourselves through our own direct experience.  The only way to proof the existence of such things to others is to teach them how to have their own direct experience and then come to their own conclusions.

Bruce

Related to what Bruce wrote, I don't believe we could scientifically prove that we are conscious, but obviously we are. I say this with the thought that hypothetically things could interact with each other in a functional way without being conscious such as computers do so (I'm assuming computers aren't conscious).

I would'nt consider James Randi a scientist  - more like a self-publicising showman !

I think science does have a (limited) value in that it can help unlock belief systems. For example consider a hard-core materialist, who is impervious to personal testimony but each positive double-blind study (or whatever) slightly opens the door of his awareness to receive more personal experiences. Imagine the knock-on effect of a Richard Dawkins or a Ray Hyman going public and declaring 'yes there is good,reliable evidence that Psi, telepathy,obes, psychokinesis etc. are real phenomena. ' Paradigm shifting !

Ah yes, in response to this I will say that through meditating and attempting to reach focus levels I have came to the conclusion that it is an insufficient way of proving the afterlife.

For instance, I can simply state it is all imaginary. In order to prove otherwise I need concrete test results I.E. the reading of numbers in a room etc. (Obviously this only tests remote viewing.)

The whole concept of focus levels and traveling there / interacting with others there is completely 100% scientifically untestable and unverifiable. There-go, any and all attempts to utilize this suggested method to experience "personal proof" of the afterlife is 100% insufficient and unacceptable to me.

I honestly don't think I am being unfair at all. If there is no way to prove it's not your imagination, there is no way to prove it to me that this is a real thing. Everything I have ever experienced while meditating has been pure make believe that would make Mr. Rogers proud.

Edit: Trust me, I am not the same as James Randi however. He would simply say the afterlife doesn't exist and all this focus level stuff is nonsense.

Now remember, I am NOT saying that at all. These focus levels "Might" exist. But since you cannot prove they exist, they must continue to be questionable in my mind.... until I have a way of testing it. Like, if I entered the focus levels and met Michael Jackson and he said to look under a rock in such a such a place and his watch would be there... well this is testable, verifiable, scientifically acceptable data.

Anything less is insufficient evidence and will do nothing to ease my mind. In fact, the more unprovable data I receive, the more I am forced to get upset and question everything, and the less I believe the afterlife exists.

See? A person like me is desperately wanting proof, but this system does not appear to offer it.

I understand your dilemma. Belief is not an acceptable option. I found myself in the same situation when I was starting out, even when staring at my sleeping body from the other side of the room. I considered the possibility that I was simply nuts. In the end I had to accept it and trust my experience, simply because I was as conscious as I was in normal waking life and didn't need proof that I was real there. The fact that I visited "strange new worlds" didn't help, though over the years I was able to make sense of it and marveled at the incredible richness of our multidimensional universe and the human mind. Reading other peoples experiences at least reassured me that this was a natural state of consciousness, at least for some us.

Bruce made a good point, can you prove emotion? No, because in the end we are dealing with subjective experiences.

Scientific proof is sadly limited as we have established, but nobody has given up yet. The most intense and serious work done by scientists is into Near Death Experiences. That is a start. The main problem is that we are dealing with non-physical phenomena. Science is limited by its physics and it's outdated methods which are only applicable to the physical world. All this is beginning to crumble, quantum physics, now scientists are questioning the Big Bang theory and very soon there will be a general acceptance that everything boils down to consciousness.

My suggestion to your dilemma? Practice OBE until you succeed and find your own proof. Until then you will probably find the best support from NDE. Sadly, your dilemma won't go away. Telling yourself that it is all imaginary may just be as valid as an answer as you can hope for on this forum.

Good luck.

.... you could take an alternative approach. Consider from your perspective there are essentially two unprovable hypotheses (a) Death is the end  (b) The Afterlife exists. Since both are unproveable it is as logical to believe in one as the other.

The solution:  choose the option which brings you the greatest possibilities, happiness, creativity, positivity, etc. in your current physical life.
If you choose option (b) you will never be proved wrong..... with option (a) you might ! 

A true scientist or anyone who wishes to discover something they previously don't know, should be willing to open themselves up to having their own experiences, specifically experiencing something they have not yet experienced.  And going about that in the wrong way won't give you real proof that something does or does not exist.

There are even those folks who are so bent on finding THE perfect proof to the point that even when they have experiences that are beginning to challenge their closed-minded beliefs they still choose to talk themselves out of it.  They stop and get off the road that was leading them to not only what they were looking for, but for more of that bigger picture...things they hadn't even considered. 

I agree with Bruce that if you want any kind of experience and proof, you need to have your own experiences.  But I will take it further and add that you need to ALLOW yourself to have them.  Close-minded thinking won't do that. 

I'm finding out the hard way that in order to open the door,  you have to let go of all those left-brain-type thinking patterns that are anchoring you solidly inside your closed-minded belief reality.  Those thinking patterns will shut down every possibility and opportunity to experience reality through your "other" senses.  You will shut off any connection to seeing what else is out there, locking you inside your own beliefs.  The problem there is...it's not that you're not able to prove that those other things exist.  All you're able to prove, though, is that your own beliefs exist. 

I say "close-minded" not as an insult, but as a fact that if you want to open yourself up to these other possibilities you have to, obviously, be willing to open yourself up to them.  To not do so is the same as sitting in your car in the your driveway and saying over and over "I want to experience driving my car".  Well guess what?  If you never do the necessary things that actually get the car in motion, you'll just be sitting there not going anywhere. 

Yes, but I am not close minded, because I can make the following completely open minded statement:

The afterlife may or may not exist.

I will further add that the ONLY way to REALLY prove the afterlife does not exist, is to completely disprove all theories in regards to it existing.

With that in mind, I still require MORE than "Experiences."

I need to be able to TEST the afterlife. I need DATA. FACTS. FIGURES.

If you go OBE I need a way to verify this. Be it a not yet invented video camera that can record a spirit wandering outside the body....

Be it knowledge obtained from OBE which can later be verified, such as a lost watch, a set of numbers, etc.

Anything less than concrete evidence is really insufficient, and in all of the focus and TMI data I have looked at, does not seem to exist. They simply do not provide the evidence which I require.

So, where do I go? Where do I get this evidence? Do I need to set up lab experiments and test mediums? Do I need to set up a card with numbers and attempt to read them off OBE?

Well? I need some suggestions here, because nothing less than conclusive data will suffice.

Wild claims require wild data, facts, and results.

Thanks.

"It is" possible to understand through experience that the after life exists without obtaining the kind of evidence a person like James Randi would look for.

When I had what I refer to as my night in heaven experience it was very clear that what I was experiencing is true and is what reality is about. I understood this in a manner that is beyond what our rational mind can come up with. I very clearly understood how it was possible for the afterlife to exist without having to think about it. It was very clear that our life in this world isn't what our existence is about.

Also, if you communicate with spirits on a regular basis, after a while you realize that you are communicating with beings who don't rely on physical bodies in order to exist, and that something other than your mind is responsible for what you experience.

It is possible to experience yourself in a way where you are more, or should I say something other than, a physical body.

When I read how some near death experiencers are certain of the spiritual reality they experienced, I am able to relate to their certainty because of what my night in heaven and other experiences have shown me.

Certainty isn't an unobtainable myth for people who have obtained it.

I believe that rather than trying to receive scientific evidence, a person would be better off growing spiritually so eventually he (or she) reaches the point where he can experience in a way that is certain. If you open up to divine dove, you open up to what comes with it.

There have been many careful experiments conducted which use such things as the reading of cards in OBE and other means. Perhaps reading up to date info on TMI lab work or the type of research being conducted by other metaphysical-based institutions, or even reading such books as McMoneagle's remote viewing books, can shed some light on objective evidence of non physical data. Vee

And in addition, there are the freshly emerging problems encountered by dumbfounded quantum physicists who have been forced by undeniable clear evidence to accept that impossible things are really happening all the time in quantum level reality. These things are not accessible by using the old Newtonian statistics methods. When I took statistics at university, I was struck even then by the way our professors and scientists mindlessly accept what appeared to me to be very dubious....the rules of how statistics work, and how proof works...especially now that we know beyond a doubt that, unfortunately, we get what we expect when we conduct an experiment. Just another example of creating our own reality by our expectations and intentions. Just underlines the power of intention. The entire statistical proof method of Newtonian science seems to me to be highly questionable and always struck me that way. Still, I passed the course anyway! You have to do that or you get nowhere. My doubt remain nevertheless. And it makes me mad and it made me mad then and still does. This mindless parroting of some rules someone made up when we didn't know a fraction of what we know now. Vee

I agree with you Vee. Many people don't realise that the supposedly 'solid' world is underpinned by a sub-atomic world- a haze of energetic particles 'buzzing' in and out of existence acting in a way contrary to the way we experience the macro world; suggesting that the material world is a lot less solid than we perceive/construct it to be.

Yeah, It's a hologram.

Dr. Who,  are you saying that  because you haven't found that "missing watch" or whatever proof, YET, that you believe you have disproved the existence of the afterlife?  How long have you been at this?

I`ve read in a book of an "OBE teacher" that he recommends putting cards on the top of a cupboard (the picture unknown to you, of course), trying to see them in an OBE, writing down what you see as soon as you wake up (in order to avoid your memory fooling you) and then compare whtether you get the right result. He claims it works. He also told me that it still is no proof whatsoever of the afterlife since ofc he was still alive. And no, no one in their right mind wants to go and prove this in front of a big audience.

I`ve been trying this myself for a couple of months. Unfortunately, I am not having a lot of luck getting into an OBE at all, let alone a conscious, ordered one. The only time it may have worked, it was still much like a dream, however I got one of the two cards right and the other one at least had the right color (but not the right number). This is interesting to me, but still no proof as it wasn`t repeateble nor 100% correct. But interesting, is it?

Maybe it will work better at some future time. If it would, then I can promise you 100% that I wouldnt even think of going to Randi or similar to "test" this^^. Not because I dont believe in myself, but because this is simply too unpredictable (Are you going to be able to go into OBE at all? If so, will it be a clear conscious experience? Will you have the willpower to do what you want? (I can tell you that part is hard), Will you be in the same "phase" as the objects you are trying to see? and so on and so on).

I`Ve come to the conclusion that it is, even for the scientific mind, possible to believe that an afterlife is NOT completely out of the question. I`ve also come to the conclusion that it is not verifyable at the current moment. And it may also be not true, this is also an option. Since I have no means of testing it at the moment, but I`ve had some interesting hints, I choose to believe in the possiblity and just hope for the best - it throws me into anxiety if I dwell on it toooooo much and I would suggest to anyone who feels similar to get something else into the focus of your life. Because, whatever the "truth" is - you are alive, you cannot change what you are and it will do no one good, least of all yourself, if you spend your life unhappy and apprehensive.

I've viewed a lot of youtube clips of Randi and he is very honest. I think the verifiability problem is to make these "psychic" experiments repeatable or re-producible.

Randi himself says that most "psychics" that claim para-normal abilities are amateurs and those are not the ones Randi is targeting with his price. Randi wants to challenge those, as he sees it, fake psychics that earn money on peoples stupidity.

I have also read a few articles on so called "cold-reading" and am now much more skeptic about certain claims. I would say that it's very healthy to read only one article about how cold-reading can be performed.

Besides, for you who haven't found Randi's youtube clip about his own OBE, here it is ->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwKkbd2e-c&feature=related

:)

Seems Randi was experiencing quite a real time fluctuation. Too bad he haven't gotten any more such experiences, which might make him experiment just a little - and eventually startle him. :)

I think there also is one TMI youtube clip about Remote Viewing (RV) and that Holmes "Skip" Atwater says that the biggest problem with RV is two-fold:

1. You don't always know when in time the remote place is viewed.
2. It is difficult to identify objects and make real-world items out of them as the view might not be detailed enough.

Here is Atwater explaining the problems with RV, listen to the first six minutes, specially between 4:01 - 5:46:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MonroeInstitute#p/u/94/Fc59il6fRfI

Right, this is where I am right now....

The afterlife may, or may not exist.

Proof being required. I need nothing less than a good number of scientific tests with real results.

If you can give me a solid 50 or 60 direct recorded scientific tests regarding the afterlife which involve details regarding the dead or details of cards or numbers being read off in an OBE experiment I will then "BEGIN" to lean towards the afterlife existing....

Frankly, I love how pro-afterlifers are. If someone is negative or uncertain in regards to the afterlife, automatically that person is labeled "closed minded" because they do not conform to your belief system (which you are basing on faith.)

I could say the same about you.... I could say that since you say the after life exists based on "experiences" which scientifically constitutes the same as "faith" and you are completely closed off to the fact that the afterlife may not exist that YOU, the pro-afterlifer are the one that is in fact closed minded.

Dr. Who wrote on Nov 15^th, 2010 at 8:54pm:

Right, this is where I am right now.... The afterlife may, or may not exist. Proof being required. I need nothing less than a good number of scientific tests with real results. If you can give me a solid 50 or 60 direct recorded scientific tests regarding the afterlife which involve details regarding the dead or details of cards or numbers being read off in an OBE experiment I will then "BEGIN" to lean towards the afterlife existing.... Frankly, I love how pro-afterlifers are. If someone is negative or uncertain in regards to the afterlife, automatically that person is labeled "closed minded" because they do not conform to your belief system (which you are basing on faith.) I could say the same about you.... I could say that since you say the after life exists based on "experiences" which scientifically constitutes the same as "faith" and you are completely closed off to the fact that the afterlife may not exist that YOU, the pro-afterlifer are the one that is in fact closed minded.

Obviously this post seems directed at me.  Dr. Who, if you re-read what I said you'll see that my "closed-minded" comment was not an insult. 

What I said was, there's a certain way of thinking that closes down the psychic and nonphysical senses.  And that to open yourself up to being able to have those types of experiences, you need to open up a new way of perceiving. 

I myself have recently seen this happen to me, so that's the experience I'm speaking from, first hand.  I recently realized that at the moments I'm able to see clairvoyantly, I'm "open" to that type of perception.  But as soon as I begin to analyze what I'm observing, or tell myself something like, "Oh I need to document this and start writing my notes", then it shuts off.  In other words, what I meant as closed-minded.  Literally speaking, if you are doing things that close off a part of the brain or mind's ability to perceive, that's the same as being closed-minded, wouldn't you agree?  I see that you took that comment to mean something other than what I explained.

So, the clairvoyance is an ability that literally is apart from the part of the brain that analyzes and is logical-thinking. 

I was trying to point out the differences between our right brain and left brain.  And it's the same thing that Bruce teaches about how our Perceiver and Interpreter work together.  They work in balance of each other, and too much of one and not enough of the other isn't conducive to meaningful experience and memory function, etc. 

I hope that makes more sense to you now.  It's too bad you took offense to what I see as great insight.

Vicky   

Dr Who,

reading your posts I get the impression of a political election. You put yourself in the position of a 'floating voter' unable to decide whether to put your vote in the box of the 'pro-afterlife' or 'dead-is-dead' candidate. But the thing is people on this board are not canvassers for the 'pro' party trying to get your vote; people here are just declaring their own truths- they don't need to convince you of anything. The message again and again is do your own research, your own exploration as no third party can do this for you because each individual has their own interpretation of what constitutes 'proof' and 'truth'.

Vicky, no way, it was intended for all pro-afterlifers since it seems to fit the majority of them.

Heisen, thus far, all of my own personal research has come up with (Spongebob's rainbow hand effect) "Imagination."
My current status on my OWN experiences and tests of the afterlife are leaning towards that it does not exist. One of the major factors is lack of solid evidence and the difficulty of proving that mind and body are separate.

Medical studies are learning more and more about the brain and how it works. Dementia and Alzheimer's being two of the major advocates of mind and body being completely linked and when they die, you die.

In fact, my studies are leaning more and more in the direction that life and sense of self is more of an illusion than anything. We believe life matters, we believe we matter. The reality is that we only think we matter in our own minds. If the entire world was destroyed tommorrow it wouldn't make a lick of difference in the long run.

I look at the afterlife because I see no meaning in life itself. I look at myself, at going to work every day, at having a beer, at having a wife, at playing a video game, at writing a book, at reading a book, and I say, wow, none of this really matters since in the end I have no true meaning. I will die and cease to exist. Having children to give yourself meaning is really just a way of fooling yourself. Even the memory of you will fade away completely within a life time or two maximum. And even if you are George Washington and people remember you years later, even this is an illusion in your mind, an attempt to give your life meaning.

Life, to me, is meaningless. Life itself, without some sort of continuance with death, has no real reason except the daily illusion of meaning we give ourselves.

Therefore, I make a futile attempt every day to pretend that life matters, all the while my mind is screaming and laughing maniacally. Inside I see the hideous and humorous worthlessness of it all.

When it all comes down to it, I wish I had never been born. It definitely seems unfair that parents can decide to create a life form and the life form being created has no say in the matter.

Oh yes, I know all the new age mumbo jumbo, the whole you picked your parents and chose to come here blah blah blah... well.... prove it if you are gonna say that type of stuff. I've heard that before from my new age friend Helga. (Who is actually a rather nice friend even though I am very negative at times!)

Anyways, In conclusion, life is meaningless to me.
Life should not exist. That's pretty much where I stand if the afterlife does not exist.

Oh, it`s you again, Jehova.

It is hard to live with a conviction like you have. I hope you find a lot of good friends and good moments to help you through it.

You may not want to hear this, but you may also want to think about this: Life does exist. I mean THIS life. Why? When it should not? When it is not possible to prove? In fact, everything exists in your mind only (meaning as your mind processes it). You unconsciously draw a lot of conclusions where the pure facts do warrant only agnosticism. Everyone does. It`s hard to shake the habit. Give EVERYTHING the benefit of doubt, science too and EVERY conclusion. Facts are facts, conclusions are conclusions and prone to change.

Dr Who:

It seems to me that you want your proof and you want it NOW ! But I would say that for most people it does'nt work that way. Its a more gradual process; cracks might open up in your belief system when you start finding anomalies running counter to it. For example a trusted friend (who has always been truthful) may relate a powerful obe/nde experience or a previously sceptical (high profile) scientist you respect says there is good data for mind being more than a brain function. Each not enough, on their own, to overturn your applecart but each slowly opening up your awareness to more ...

Keep your mind open you might be surprised what you may believe in 10 years time...

:)

Dr. Who wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 4:03am:

I look at the afterlife because I see no meaning in life itself. I look at myself, at going to work every day, at having a beer, at having a wife, at playing a video game, at writing a book, at reading a book, and I say, wow, none of this really matters since in the end I have no true meaning. I will die and cease to exist. Having children to give yourself meaning is really just a way of fooling yourself. Even the memory of you will fade away completely within a life time or two maximum. And even if you are George Washington and people remember you years later, even this is an illusion in your mind, an attempt to give your life meaning. Life, to me, is meaningless. Life itself, without some sort of continuance with death, has no real reason except the daily illusion of meaning we give ourselves. Therefore, I make a futile attempt every day to pretend that life matters, all the while my mind is screaming and laughing maniacally. Inside I see the hideous and humorous worthlessness of it all. When it all comes down to it, I wish I had never been born. It definitely seems unfair that parents can decide to create a life form and the life form being created has no say in the matter. Oh yes, I know all the new age mumbo jumbo, the whole you picked your parents and chose to come here blah blah blah... well.... prove it if you are gonna say that type of stuff. I've heard that before from my new age friend Helga. (Who is actually a rather nice friend even though I am very negative at times!) Anyways, In conclusion, life is meaningless to me. Life should not exist. That's pretty much where I stand if the afterlife does not exist.

Dr Who,
if what you believe is true, then stop whining about it and hiding behind the chic cynicism of 'it all means nothing anyway' which is the ultimate in easy copouts. If you wish you had never been born then you can end it any time you like and as the whole thing is an illusion and meaningless, nothing will matter anyway.
And if this is all an illusion, why are you on this board at all? Why not just kick back with a beer, watch your videogame and let the rest of your life unfold in its meaninglessness until your body finally gives out, or you can go early. None of it matters anyway.

OR: you can stop hiding behind the defence mechanism, look at the nature of beliefs and the nature of reality, and wonder if you're being prodded or impelled to make a quantum leap forward into a new understanding of existence. Are you going to make a leap of faith that life is far more than everyday existence, or is 'WWW Smackdown' going to be the most important thing in your everyday life.
No-one here's going to try and convince you of anything. Various folks here KNOW that there's more, others like myself BELIEVE that there's more and are waiting to experience something that proves TO US (and not anyone else) that this is all true FOR US (and no-one else), and some are on the sidelines unsure what to think.

At the end of the day, it's your call, and yours alone.

Hope you make it -you know what the alternative is already.

Best wishes and hopes,

David.
:)

  Very well said David--couldn't agree more.

  Btw, Dr. Who, the offer about the Hemi-sync still stands (& i'm less broke of late).

Proafterlifer? Count me in! :) :) :)

WWWsmackdown verses pure unconditional love.

The former won't do anything to make life meaningful, but PUL will do the trick more than enough. PUL makes it so everything seems precious.

Related to what David wrote, I found that even though you (I don't mean David specifically) are certain of the reality of a non-physical experience as it takes place, after such an experience is over the doubtful, body based, self defense instinct based rational mind tries to deny what you understood. This is because a mind that is based upon logic isn't capable of understanding what is beyond logic.

I found that putting my rational mind in its place was a prolonged process despite how certain my non-physical experiences were as I had them. If I consider them from the perspective I had while having them, their truth is obvious.

We need to make certain that the self defense instinct based rational mind doesn't determine what we try to understand. This part of ourself is interested in holding onto old false structures, not in finding something beyond itself.

What really helps is letting go of the limiting ideas and psychological issues that prevent you from opening up to divine love. When you are able to do so, you inwardly feel what is true in a way that is significantly more meaningful than what the rational mind can come up with. This love can be experienced to different degrees.

I found the following recently, and thought it might add something useful to this thread.  Sorry if it's long.

“A while ago, experimenting with remote viewing, I learned first hand that there is a big difference between accuracy of perception and accuracy of interpretation. This cleared up questions that had plagued me for years about the process of obtaining information from the other side. The mind is always ready to connect the dots. That’s how we make sense of the world. But it’s also how we sometimes delude ourselves.”

“Think of your mind as containing two active elements, the perceiver and the interpreter, which weaves a story from whatever has been perceived, connecting the dots as best it can, enabling us to make at least tentative judgments when we have insufficient data. That’s well and good, but it brings its own dangers, because accurate perceptions don’t guarantee accurate interpretations.

In fact, because particularly accurate perceptions often carry strong conviction, and because that conviction can rub off on interpretation, the paradoxical truth is that sometimes the better the perception, the greater the chance that the interpretation will go seriously wrong. And because you remember the strength of the feeling accompanying the perception, you may be tempted not to examine too closely whatever interpretation you have attached to it.”

...and later...

"The only alternative to taking things on faith, or refusing to think about them at all, is to do our own exploring. Explorers by definition move into poorly mapped or unmapped territory, and by their own experience help fill in the map for those who follow. It cannot be required of explorers that they always know what they are doing, or where they are going, nor can it be required of them that they not pursue leads that turn out to be dead ends. All that can be required is that they be resolute, honest, and a bit skeptical even of the maps they themselves help to draw.

"Therefore it follows that the very last thing an explorer can do or should do is to stick to the “respectable” or the “common sense” explanations and pathways. What kind of exploring would that be? Even more difficult sometimes, the explorer must be willing to continue despite doubts, suspicions and confusions. Sometimes you just have to keep on going and trust that eventually things will sort out."


From “Chasing Smallwood:  Conversations with a “past life” American about the challenges, opportunities and meaning of his time and ours” by Frank DeMarco