A new theory

[HOMER-16]

Okay. Fist of all, hi I'm new.

 

I really don't know which forum this theory should go into. Since it delves into some pseudoscience topics though It might fit here.

 

My theory is basically that while our bodies are on this dimension, our minds are on another.

 

I think that these two dimensions are entangled or merged together. I think that happened with the big bang. They say that two membranes collided and bounced off eachother to create the big bang. I say what if they never separated?

 

Astral Projection is when you move in a 'second' body to move around. You can go through walls, get to any destination quickly and change your form. You can't do that in this dim. but if our minds are in a second, overlaying one it would make sense.

 

I believe that in this second dim. there is no regard for space and time. Meaning you can go anywhere at any time in this. Astral I believe is whn you move inside this dim. via your mind, while still connected to your body. (or else you'd die>) Ind I don't know if this is true or not but you supposedly can meet dead spirits in this plane. If this is true, that should confirm that our minds are on another level and when we die, we are merely cut off form this dim.

 

If this is true it could help explain entanglement theory, noetics, and almost every occult practice to date.

 

So any comments, questions or debunking?

[Sisyphus]

The first thing I would ask is, why do you believe any of that? That's not all, but it's a good place to start.

[insane_alien]

most obvious flaw to point out is that you are using 'dimension' incorrectly.

 

you're using dimension in the third rate 30's sci-fi manner.

 

dimensions are pretty simple things. we are familiar with 4 (up-down, left-right, forward-back, future-past) there are a few more(maybe) considering some string theories but it isn't a case of moving back and forth between dimensions(this is in itself is nonsensical.)

 

also, another major flaw, do you have any proof of astral projection at all? no anecdotal stuff but actual experimentation with repeatable results to back it up?

[Sisyphus]

 

My theory is basically that while our bodies are on this dimension, our minds are on another.

 

"Dimension" does not mean some place. Dimensions are things like length, width, and depth.

 

What we call the "mind" appears to just be a property of the body, specifically the brain. So saying the mind is somewhere else is a bit like saying the molecules of this thing I'm sitting on are in one "dimension," but it's "chairness" is in another.

 

I think that these two dimensions are entangled or merged together. I think that happened with the big bang. They say that two membranes collided and bounced off eachother to create the big bang. I say what if they never separated?

 

Who says that?

 

Astral Projection is when you move in a 'second' body to move around. You can go through walls, get to any destination quickly and change your form. You can't do that in this dim. but if our minds are in a second, overlaying one it would make sense.

 

Astral projection "is?" So you've witnessed this?

 

I believe that in this second dim. there is no regard for space and time. Meaning you can go anywhere at any time in this.

 

I don't know what this means. "Moving" and "going" are concepts of space and time.

 

Astral I believe is whn you move inside this dim. via your mind, while still connected to your body. (or else you'd die>)

 

Again, disconnecting the chairness of my chair from the molecules that make it up? And if I do it will stop being a chair, while being physically unchanged?

 

Ind I don't know if this is true or not but you supposedly can meet dead spirits in this plane.

 

Supposed by who?

 

If this is true it could help explain entanglement theory, noetics, and almost every occult practice to date.

 

Methinks there are simpler explanations for supposed occult practices. I don't know what you mean by "entanglement theory."

[HOMER-16]

The first thing I would ask is, why do you believe any of that? That's not all, but it's a good place to start.

 

I have had some success with AP and other things that solidify this belief. (Psychic being one of them).

 

most obvious flaw to point out is that you are using 'dimension' incorrectly.

 

I do agree on that, I use the word 'dimension' for ease and simplicity. (that and the fact I don't know a better word)

 

also, another major flaw, do you have any proof of astral projection at all? no anecdotal stuff but actual experimentation with repeatable results to back it up

 

While I've never totally astraled, I have gotten close enough to know t's possible.

 

I think that these two dimensions are entangled or merged together. I think that happened with the big bang. They say that two membranes collided and bounced off eachother to create the big bang. I say what if they never separated?

Who says that?

 

String theory I believe.

 

Ind I don't know if this is true or not but you supposedly can meet dead spirits in this plane.

Supposed by who?

 

Many people. I just googled it just to make sure and just about everyone says that. (And yes I do know that 90% of the internet is crap. But I look for consistency)

 

Astral projection "is?" So you've witnessed this

 

I've gotten close, but I know people who have

 

I don't know what this means. "Moving" and "going" are concepts of space and time.

 

I should've said without relevance to this plane.

 

Methinks there are simpler explanations for supposed occult practices.

 

Such as?

[insane_alien]

While I've never totally astraled, I have gotten close enough to know t's possible.

 

as i said before, any actual evidence and not just anecdotes?

[HOMER-16]

No, no tangible evidence. But as soon as i do get some I'll let you know.

[Sisyphus]

No, no tangible evidence. But as soon as i do get some I'll let you know.

 

You should let James Randi know, too. Then you'll be rich!

 

What does "close enough to know it's possible" mean? Daydreaming?

[Mokele]

If the mind were on a separate "dimension" from the body, why does physical damage to the brain alter the mind?

[HOMER-16]

I think as the mind as merely the controlling feature, not what makes us, us.

 

Think of it like a computer, your personality is based upon the operating system, memories are the programs on the computer. The mind though, is the entity using the computer.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Close enough meaning I was at the onset of projection. There is a stage just before it called the vibrational stage where you can feel some kind of energy. I have definately gotten to this stage several times and felt rejuvinated each time the next mourning. Also there is the fact that several times I've felt something leave my body.

 

Anyway, lets leave AP alone for now, it's apperant that it cannot be proven or disproven at this time. So just assuming it's correct what of the rest?

[insane_alien]

any proof of your claims?

[StringJunky]

Our mind is a function of the neural network in our head,,,if we damage our brain, we damage our mind (as Mokele said)...this demonstrates that our mind is not a 'ghost' in a machine, which knocks AP on the head because their's no ethereal mind in the first place..

[Mr Skeptic]

Not really, they simply claim that the brain allows the mind/spirit to interact with the body. I'm not sure if that can actually be disproved, but at the least it can be shown to be superfluous.

[HOMER-16]

If you want proof of the AP stuff. http://www.paganlibrary.com/reference/monroe_techniques.php

 

Our mind is a function of the neural network in our head,,,if we damage our brain, we damage our mind (as Mokele said)...this demonstrates that our mind is not a 'ghost' in a machine, which knocks AP on the head because their's no ethereal mind in the first place..

 

That is merely the going theory. It hasn't been proven yet that that is the case.

 

Now listen, all you are questioning AP. Why? What's so wrong about it? You see it as ethereal and mystic and immedeately claim it wrong. Superfluous, yes. Impossible not in the slightest.

 

Any way, like I said, lets get off the issue of AP. Otherwise this'll just break down into an I'm right, you're wrong debate that'll surely end up in the trash bin.

[JillSwift]

If you want proof of the AP stuff. http://www.paganlibrary.com/reference/monroe_techniques.php

 

 

 

That is merely the going theory. It hasn't been proven yet that that is the case.

 

Now listen, all you are questioning AP. Why? What's so wrong about it? You see it as ethereal and mystic and immedeately claim it wrong. Superfluous, yes. Impossible not in the slightest.

 

Any way, like I said, lets get off the issue of AP. Otherwise this'll just break down into an I'm right, you're wrong debate that'll surely end up in the trash bin.

Parsimony.

 

Until and unless an entity is necessary to explain something or itself is evidenced, it is pointless to include that entity in an explanation.

 

In this case, there is no evidence for mind duality of any stripe. There is no need for a separate entity to explain the mind when emergence does the job just fine.

 

This isn't the same as claiming duality to be impossible.

 

Evidence is everything.

 

Check out this post, too: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45406

 

It may help you understand why some ideas can be immediately discarded as useless.

[HOMER-16]

Well yes that is usually the case but only for the final proof.

 

But if things don't have evidence and you just discard them, then no one will bother to find out if it's true or not.

 

You can't just say something's wrong just because the explanation seems to unbelievable. Just like people thinking the Earth was motionless in the center of the universe, the Sun was pristine, and the Earth was flat. All of which was later proved false.

 

Same here, just because we can't prove it now doesn't diminish if it is correct or not and some theories can be based from them.

 

Think, if this is proved wrong, this gets scrapped.

[insane_alien]

well, everytime someone goes to test stuff like astral projection it comes back negative.

 

we're pretty sure its a bunch of hooey for a number of reasons

 

1/ there is no one hypothesis on astral projection, every 'psychic' you ask has their own version(s) of it

 

2/ there is no internally consistent hypothesis of astral projection, meaning they are all self contradicting at some point or another

 

3/ it has never been shown to occur in a controlled setting. ever.

 

4/ there is no single definition of astral projection.

 

these are some pretty big problems.

 

that and the only evidence FOR astral projection is anecdotal. this isn't good evidence for a very good reason. people lie. people misinterpret. and people can believe something so much that they think it is actually real despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

it is also known that psychics use cold reading and lie to the audience when they do that speaking to the dead relative thing they do. and these are the same people that claim astral projection. so it doesn't look good for their character when it comes to how much weight we assign to the anecdotal evidence.

 

basically, there's zero evidence and zero credibility.

[JillSwift]

Well yes that is usually the case but only for the final proof.

It's true for the whole of the process.

 

But if things don't have evidence and you just discard them, then no one will bother to find out if it's true or not.

 

You can't just say something's wrong just because the explanation seems to unbelievable. Just like people thinking the Earth was motionless in the center of the universe, the Sun was pristine, and the Earth was flat. All of which was later proved false.

Straw man, no one has said to discard an idea "just because the explanation seems to unbelievable".

 

What I am saying is: We can and must discard ideas not based on evidence.

 

If we think we see a phenomenon, we test it. If our tests fail to give evidence of the phenomenon, then the original observation is mistaken.

 

Same here, just because we can't prove it now doesn't diminish if it is correct or not and some theories can be based from them.

 

Think, if this is proved wrong, this gets scrapped.

Until and unless we can evidence an idea, we can not base further ideas upon it.

 

In the case of "astral projection", any properly blind test fails to produce a result every single time. Thus there is no basis for "astral projection" as an exosomatic phenomenon.

 

However (and if you watched that TED talk I liked to, you'll see this) the idea of astral projection is one of those ideas that can be tweaked and changed to make it avoid finality of conclusion. Any negative test can and has been "explained away" by adding a new facet to the phenomenon. e.g. "It can only happen under conditions not met in a lab".

[HOMER-16]

I rest my case then. However just for finality I'll continue to attemp AP. If anything happens I'll let you know.

[padren]

Using scientific data and theory (ranging from information about the big bang, string theory, quantum theory, dark matter, etc etc) as concepts used in postulating a new theory does not automatically make that new theory a scientific theory.

 

There is nothing wrong with theories about supernatural phenomena, philosophy, or meta-natural mechanics[1] of the universe. These however, are not scientific theories unless they are testable in a scientific manner. Science advances our understanding of the world through shared knowledge and to share knowledge the criteria for validation has to be very high because people will always be willing to share information they are certain is accurate even if it contradicts information others are certain is accurate. This immediately flags that certainty is no guarantee of accuracy.

 

If I saw a ghost tonight and even had a long conversation, and the ghost made an accurate prediction about my future tomorrow that came true - that could convince me, but it would not effect my views with regards to science, nor would I try to convince people in the scientific community as to the validity of my experience.

 

It could be completely true and yet it would not matter. My own subjective view of the world may change, but I would have nothing to share with others that could demonstrate the veracity of my experience. Even if my experience was 100% true it would be better for science to ignore it.

 

That is not a weakness of science, but it's strength. It is far better to cautious than cavalier when we are talking about facts that we as a species can agree on. It is important for the work done in Brazil by a biologist to be so carefully documented and tested and retested that when another biologist in India picks up that paper they can be confident that the claims are well established. Work that is speculative is documented as such, but only speculations that can lead to shared knowledge really have any usefulness to others.

 

Feel free to explore any number of philosophical theories about the universe and/or meta-universe, but understand the only evaluation tools others will be able to use is their own personal bias with regards to if it fits a model of the universe they like. You have no other tests that can be effectively shared beyond yourself. One's personal bias is fine too for such theories, but it's really important to differentiate between those and scientific ones.

 

 

 

[1]: Made up the term since I don't know the right one - but lots of philosophies define structures in the universe that are invisible and non-accessible to humans alive under normal conditions, that are effectively untestable. Nirvana, limbo, heaven and hell, "the astral planes" and "the cosmic library" etc. All these structures are defined in these philosophies as components in how a model of the 'meta-universe' works and how what we see on a daily basis in the observable universe fits into that model.

[HOMER-16]

I never claimed this to be a scientific theory. Just a theory. I'll add more tomorrow...

[throng]

Well, personally I'm into the whole inner peace bit.

 

I think we conceive time as a sequence of events without really grasping this is actually the relationship we have with consciousness (intelligence).

 

Intellicenge is not really the thoughts themselves, it is the potential for thought, which we experience as awareness.

 

The remarkable aspect of that awareness is one can quieten all the thoughts and have a sensation of letting them drift off to the sides or leave them behind, which results in the experience of opening a huge expansion of soft velvety darkness. Awareness doesn't need a subject (thought) to be aware of. It is existant in the absence of thought.

 

So... in that emptiness the mind is very clear, time and location are rather meaningless things in that it simply doesn't occur, for these are aspects of motion that aren't sensual in the stillness of thoughtless awareness.

 

Maybe that is not science, and to be frank a thread of this nature surprises me in this forum, but the art of perception outweighs quantifiable measurements in a way like taking a swim offers more intimacy with water than the all the measurements applicable to H20.

 

I recommend others practice meditation, because it is very relaxing, increases the ability of concentration and brings mood into contentment, not to mention the observation of ones own mind is far more intimate an understanding that the measurements made by ECG.

[JillSwift]

I never claimed this to be a scientific theory. Just a theory. I'll add more tomorrow...

This is a science forum, though. If this isn't a scientific theory, why discuss it here?

[A Tripolation]

This is a science forum, though. If this isn't a scientific theory, why discuss it here?

 

Not that I'm taking anyone's side, but if that's the case, why even have a forum? How do you discuss scientific theories? I thought those were pretty much as factual as information gets. How do you argue against what has been proven to be as true as gravity?

 

I think that Homer-16 was trying to say that he meant it as an idea, and not something that is able to stand up to the scientific method relative to the stuff that is published in all those journals that make my head hurt.

[bascule]

My theory is basically that while our bodies are on this dimension, our minds are on another.

 

Our bodies are physical; our minds are metaphysical. They are in two different "worlds" in that regard, but rest assured our brains are located safely in this dimension.