The Department of Negitive Out of Body Possibilities

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

Please fill free to explain anyway you like, why it is not possible to communicate with future out of body afterlife energy thought people.

We have the technology, we have the patients, we can provide the training,
all we need is your support, please take the time to look at this topic, at this point in our history.


"When you were growing up, what did you always thought happened to you after you die?"

Thank you for your time and effort,

:crowded: Tim :crowded:

[wollery]

I'm reposting the following post from the other thread because it directly addresses the OP for this thread.

Ah, Tim, I think I see your problem. You seem to think of the energy used for thought processes as some sort of coherent "lump" of energy, that is constantly in existence. It isn't. It is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form of energy to another, and actually has to be in order for anything to happen.

Energy can be considered as the potential to do something, but in order to do that thing the energy must be converted to a different form (e.g. gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when an object is dropped, electrical potential energy is converted to heat and light in a lightbulb).

The energy that we use for the thinking process is gained from stored chemical energy in our food, converted to electrical energy in the brain's neurons, and then dissipated as heat energy when we think. When the body dies the supply of energy is cut off, and the brain uses up the last of the energy that's stored in the brain, most likely in the form of an OBE. Once that energy is used up the brain dies.

So, the question for you is simple. Assuming for a second that Out of Body People exist, you have to show where they get the energy required to think, or operate the machine you want them to operate. As soon as they do either of these the energy they have will be used and converted to a different form of energy, most likely heat. In order to keep thinking they need a source of energy, and you need to show what that energy source is before we go any further.


As a little aside, you stated in an earlier response to me, that the chance of OBEs being real was 50%, give or take a little depending on circumstances. You've taken an either/or situation, and equated that to a 50/50 probability. This shows quite well that you also have no idea of statistics or probability. I'll give you some examples to illustrate this point. If I roll a dice I can get a six, or I can get another number. So, I have an either/or situation, but the probability of getting a six when I roll a dice is 1 in 6 (assuming the dice isn't loaded), not 1 in 2, so the either/or situation doesn't result in a 50/50 chance. To take an even more extreme example, when I go out of my home I will either be hit on the head by a meteorite, or I won't. The probability of me being hit on the head by a meteorite is so small as to be virtually zero - it's practically incalculably small, not 50/50 as your approach to probability would suggest. And what we know about the science of the situation would tend to suggest that the probability of OBEs being real is significantly less than the probability of me being hit on the head by a meteorite when I go out tomorrow.Until you can show an energy source for these "future out of body afterlife energy thought people" or at least make a viable suggestion as to why they don't need a source of energy (good luck with that) this conversation is going nowhere.

In summary, we can't communicate with them because everything we know about how the Universe works says that they don't exist.

As for your other question - when I was young I thought that after death I would be eaten by worms. Then ducks'd come an' ate up t'worms.
Altogether now - On Ilkley Moor bar t'at, On Ilkley Moor bar t'at, On Ilkley Moor bar t'at.

[Miss Anthrope]

:hb:

[Oualawouzou]

We have the technology, we have the patients, we can provide the training,
all we need is your support


You exhibit an abysmal grasp of the very science upon which you claim to base your theory (or whatever you wish to call it) and you are looking for support to contact poorly defined entities that have never been shown to exist and could only exist if pretty much everything we know about the Universe turns out to be wrong. That doesn't strike you as a wee bit of a problem?

Actually, your whole theory sounds sort of like a cadavre exquis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadavre_exquis).

[Loss Leader]

To whom it may concern,


First of all, what's up with this? Why do you address your posts like this? Anyone who bothers to read it is, by definition, a person who might be concerned. So there's really no reason to start off like this. It's a strange affectation.


Please fill free to explain anyway you like, why it is not possible to communicate with future out of body afterlife energy thought people.

Second, I want to make it clear that NOBODY on this forum has ever said that "it is not possible to communicate with future out of body afterlife energy thought people." All they have said is: 1) our current understanding of the universe doesn't seem to have room for such a thing; and 2) you have shown absolutely zero evidence that it is possible.

When it was first argued that the world was round, most everyone thought it was ridiculous and impossible. But all of the evidence of the world's shape that existed at that time was consistent with a round earth. When it was first argued that the sun was the center of the universe, people were outraged. However, all of the evidence that the earth was the center of the universe also supported the evidence that the sun was the center. As more evidence was gathered, it became more likely the the sun was the center and then that neither the earth nor the sun was the center.

In the case of your theory, the evidence we currently have is not consistent. It's not just that your theory explains current observations as well or better than current theory; it's that your theory is actually contradicted by the available evidence. So you first have to show that there's any evidence at all to support your position.

Can you do that?

"future out of body afterlife energy thought people"

What evidence do you have that "energy" can cohere? What evidence do you have that a thing can be made of energy? What type of energy is it? How can we measure this energy? Why can't we test for these people directly by detecting their energy? What evidence do you have that the afterlife exists? What evidence do you have that a coherent "energy" can use some of its energy to flip your switch or ring your bell or whatever? Since energy is used up (or converted in any case) when work is performed and since your beings are made of energy, wouldn't performing work to communicate with us diminish their total energy and use up their life force? What is your overall, unified theory of consciousness that is consistent with all current observations of brain behavior and also allows for your energy beings to exist?

Just answer those questions and we may be able to begin to help you piece together an experiment to prove your interpretation of the data.


We have the technology, we have the patients, we can provide the training, all we need is your support,


No, you don't. No, you don't. No, you can't. No, you don't.

[sinclairmcevoy]

Why do you need the support you seek here? If you have the people and the training as stated, then why not just do it, prove it, publish it and be done with it? Personally, I would very much like to see positive results from this, but do not expect the same. How does one train for this?

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

I'm off Sunday, so I will have more time to answer your questions then,

Please take the time to check out this site, and give me your input.

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapter02.html

Thank you,
Tim

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please fill free to explain anyway you like, why it is not possible to communicate with future out of body afterlife energy thought people.


Because "future out of body afterlife energy thought people" don't exist.

I'm "posative"!

[wollery]

To whom it may concern,

I'm off Sunday, so I will have more time to answer your questions then,

Please take the time to check out this site, and give me your input.

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapter02.html

Thank you,
TimThat page is nothing but anecdote and appeal to authority. About as convincing as a 5 year old with chocolate covered fingers and a chocolate smeared face protesting vehemently that it didn't eat the missing chocolate bar.

Any chance you'll ever actually answer the direct questions that have been put to you?

[Tim4848]

Thank you DavidS,

I came across something on another topic here at this site,

And I believe we need to talk about it.

The topic is

Danger: Radiation!
PopeTom (Th June 2007)

It doesn't have to be paranoia; it could be a perfectly reasonable action to take in response to a recognized lack of expertise. Suppose...

That is me, I am not paranoid, I lack expertise


He's not a nuclear technology ace, and he knows it.

I'm not a (you name it), and I know it.

He's heard all kinds of stuff from all kinds of people, ranging from "nothing to worry about, there's no danger" to "nothing to worry about, it's already given you cancer". He thinks he trusts the experts who tell him he's OK,

So the story is not exactly right, I trust results, not experts.

but he has nagging emotional doubts.

Maybe that thought that came to me while I was shooting a shot in pool

A few minutes with a counter can relieve his fears by giving him a verification in terms he can understand;

Just give my a few years with the Doctor's and patients who operate Brain Gate, just give me some opportunities with them, and it all could work out better than anything Paris Hilton could be doing right now.

even if it's not a truly definitive test, it's a piece of personally verifiable information that's either consistent with the stories that tell him he's safe or a flag that he might need a more competent assessment.

I'm glad to see he has options, or does he, because most of us are just following the Cloud or crowd of people who run our life's, just floating from one false believe to the next, making comments about this or that, or having this need to be excepted, showing somebody in our life that we can perform those back flips, while all the time, it takes time out of our day.

What's the difference between reality and wonderland?

I look at the woods by my house and I give them the value of a Wonderland, a place with no time, a place where the right brain and the left brain can work in harmony, moving through different terrains, with an ability to adjust to any situation, with little or no effort, unfortunately now, I am the guy waving the stick down the paths to get rid of spider webs, because these paths get traveled on less.

I understand you tried this and you tried that, so it can't be possible.

Imagine you are an ant, you stand on one side of the river, and I am an ant on the other side of the river. You can not see me, and I can not see you.

one day my mom ant goes to close to river and the river takes her, she goes right under the water, real close to our side of the river, we figured she was too heavy like the rest of ants, and she could not swim like the rest of us ant's, and went on with our ant life's. They accepted it, end of story, left to many loose ends, left you wondering, that is the way I feel about this topic, too many loose ends, loose ends that nobody wants to talk about. Believe it or not, I would rather listen to your thoughts on a subject that has all it's loose ends, and have you explain them to me.

Who is your expert, who do I go see that gives me the Truth on this topic?

If I feel I'm going crazy, I can go see Dr. Phil, who do I see for your evidence?

What expert do you have that I can sen an e-mail to right this minute who is going to prove to me that out of body afterlife is not possible?


Thank you,
Tim

[Eos of the Eons]

:boggled:

Wooogly googly.

Who is your expert, who do I go see that gives me the Truth on this topic?

What expert do you have that I can sen an e-mail to right this minute who is going to prove to me that out of body afterlife is not possible

"Take me to your leader" :p

A. How old are you?
B. Have you not read a word of the other posts?

First of all, you're making the claim. You prove it. We're waiting...

Where is this afterlife, and how do you figure it is there? Cuz other people have said so?

Why do you care if there is an afterlife?

Show me how you can get away from your physical body after you are dead. There is ample evidence that when you die there is nothing else except decay. There is no leaving of the body of some weird energy. There is no bunch of "souls" hanging out anywhere.

Undetectable you say?

If this soul energy is so undetectable, then how did we discover it in the first place? Well, we didn't. Somebody made it up. It's pretty hard to accept that you will never see, hear, touch, taste, or think ever again. But guess what, we only see, hear, touch, taste, and think because of our brain. Nerve impulses are sent to the brain by our sense organs. When we die everything dies, the sense organs, the brain, etc.

There is no evidence that some weird energy that we cannot detect lives on after we die.

You are claiming there is, so YOU prove it. And what and where is this "afterlife" exactly? You claim there is one, so prove it.

[Tim4848]

I'm reposting the following post from the other thread because it directly addresses the OP for this thread.

Until you can show an energy source for these "future out of body afterlife energy thought people" or at least make a viable suggestion as to why they don't need a source of energy (good luck with that) this conversation is going nowhere.

In summary, we can't communicate with them because everything we know about how the Universe works says that they don't exist.


You also know as I know, that we don't know, and anything else is assumption and nothing more, except that I am willing to give one of us a possible opportunity, to prove the other wrong.

I do not need to find this energy, and I do not expect you to do it as well, because that is not necessary, because all we have to do is place the ground work in place for the out of body afterlife to do that.


If you are not willing to put forth an effort toward this positive possibility, then it makes you come across as a very cold person, is that the way you want to come across as, somebody who is so curtain, that they are willing to argue about it in such a way that it does nothing but makes you look UN-caring, caring is to always have a open door policy about this topic, until it can be settled one way or the other. People don't give up on people stuck in the mine, they stay at it, regardless ho it might turn out, because they realize there is still hope.

As for your other question - when I was young I thought that after death I would be eaten by worms. Then ducks'd come an' ate up t'worms.

Believe what ever you want to believe, that is fine, but as you should know by now, my plan is a process that ends with a result in the future, it is not about producing it now.


Altogether now - On Likely Moor bar t'at, On Ilkley Moor bar t'at, On Ilkley Moor bar t'at.

Thank you,
Tim

[Tim4848]

Dear Wollery, I do not know what I did, but I am unable to break your questions down the way I would of liked, give me some time to let your question sink in and let's see if I can come up with a natural thought.

Thank you,
Tim

[Eos of the Eons]

What a load of doo doo.

"If YOU don't BELIEVE ME, then YOU are cold, uncaring, and negative". wah wah wah

How judgemental and negative Tim is. Ask him for proof of something ridiculous, and you get called names, judged on your personality, etc. etc.

What a cold dim view you have of others Tim. I'm sorry that education and reality have no place in your brain, but don't say others that embrace these things are the ones who are uncaring.

I care a great deal about others, and that is why I don't go around telling others they are horrible people if they don't believe in stuff that I do.

[strathmeyer]

"When you were growing up, what did you always thought happened to you after you die?"

When I was a child I was taught that you went to a wonderful place when you died. Since my life was horrible, it was obvious to me that if I was going to believe that I would have to kill myself.

[Tim4848]

Dear Eos of the Eons,

I'm sorry, I thought we were in the Negitive side of the topic.

Tim

[wollery]

Tim, you asked for people to put forward reasons why your idea might not work. I did that, and you say that I come across as cold and uncaring, for doing exactly what you asked.

Negative doesn't mean abusive in the context of this thread. It means reasons against the theory. If you aren't willing to discuss those reasons then I'm afraid that most people will probably stop talking to you altogether.

[Tim4848]

Dear Wollery, I am sorry about my comments, I just get aggravated some time when some people don't seam to get what I am trying to say, at times.

I will be the first to say that my grammar and spelling needs lots of improvements, we can hire a person to do that for me, it's the thoughts that are important, and getting them in print, that is what is important, attacking me takes a natural experience and effects it. To be in dead zone thought, is a positive place, creating positive results, when questions get asked, but other negative remarks are placed in there, then you in turn, are not helping yourself. I am a person, I work, help raise a family, and I am into so many other things, but I take the time, to just let my thoughts go on this topic.
There is this guy I was talking too, on a different site about my topic, and I thought he was tough at times, but he said after visiting this site, that people here are tougher. I do not know if that is true or not, but I do know that my thoughts do take me out of pain and into pleasure just like it does for so many different people everyday.

I sorry about calling you cold, and I will try and do better in the future.

Thank you,
Tim

[calebprime]

Tim, some more advice.

(You are right that this is a tough place to post.)

-If you don't like what people say to you, you can try to change your style, or you can find a different forum.

-You can simply "lurk"--read other's posts, but not post yourself.

-If you do post, expect the people here to respond critically, even with ridicule. You are not a scientist or engineer or mathematician--professions which are useful in a place like this.

-Try to stick to one idea. Like me, you are distractable and circumstantial.

-Go over your posts and edit them for spelling, word-choices, etc.
This will help you clarify your own thoughts, and it will help you present your own ideas.

-Question your own ideas--read your stuff as if someone else wrote it, and you were trying to understand it.

Again, I think you would do better to find some other forum, not a skeptic's forum--I say this in all kindness.

Sometimes I think some people who post here deserve to be treated with scorn. I don't think this about you. I just don't think you'll make yourself happy by posting here.

If I didn't care at all, I wouldn't be saying this.

Best of luck,

caleb

[Tim4848]

Dear calebprime, if all the replies were as good as the one you just gave, I would be crazy to go to a different site.

That was a very good evaluations, and it gives me something to focus on while moving forward with these thoughts.

Thank you,

Tim

[my_wan]

This thread goes to show how distorted your perception of the debate is. There is no positive or negative attitudes with regard to the debate. Only negative attitudes toward you for failing to follow any logic. You seem to be saying well since this absolutely proves my thesis wrong I'll put it in the negative category so I can continue wasting my time with maybes in the positive category. The evidence for or against belongs within a single logical framework so they can be judged as a whole.

Take my question I have asked repeatedly. Almost begged you to answer it. You surely consider it to belong in a negative category. Yet if you can actually answer it even if in a way to keep the question open it would be a very positive part of your idea.

You see Tim we can all believe what we wish and we don't have to agree. You came here wanting to establish some matters of facts, even if presumably those facts have yet to be established. Factual matters require evidence that is independent of what anybody believes or what their attitude is. You are getting a lot of negativity from people because you refuse to rationally consider even your own positive evidence much less the negative. Instead you praise calebprime for being positive when he never mentioned any evidence positive or negative.

[Oualawouzou]

-If you do post, expect the people here to respond critically, even with ridicule. You are not a scientist or engineer or mathematician--professions which are useful in a place like this.

Just wanted to put some emphasis on this. Being a scientist or engineer or mathematician helps, that's for sure, but if you're not, merely acknowledging that other people here are experts in these domains helps tremendously.

Maths make my head spin. Yet I'm interested in science, but I fully understand the limits of my own knowledge. Whenever I post about one of these subjects, I take great pain in phrasing it such that I invite criticism and correction if need be. I have never been ridiculed, even when I had barely a few posts under my belt. People were more than happy to respond to me and, if need be, to repeat what they had previously said in different terms to help me get a clear picture of the situation. Humility will get you a *long* (and pleasant) way.

I am convinced most posters here take the "education" part of JREF to heart. :)

[Molinaro]

....and let's see if I can come up with a natural thought.

Thank you,
Tim



I would recommend against anyone holding their breath waiting for this to hapen. :o

[Stir]

Tim:
When people here ask for evidence, it is important for you to understand what they expect in response (if you don't meet those expectations, you will be criticized or even ridiculed). The evidence they want is not names and background information of famous and distinguished scientists that share your beliefs and opinions, but rather hard facts describing actual physical phenomena, either 1) published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or 2) reproducible relatively simply, say in a well provisioned laboratory, under controlled conditions. They will also appreciate well-reasoned and scientifically supportable explanations of such phenomena. No amount of other discussion or explanation by you will be respected absent that sort of evidence. If you can't provide such evidence, there is really very little value in your posting your theories here, and if you can provide such evidence, I would love to see it.

[my_wan]

Tim:
When people here ask for evidence, it is important for you to understand what they expect in response (if you don't meet those expectations, you will be criticized or even ridiculed). The evidence they want is not names and background information of famous and distinguished scientists that share your beliefs and opinions, but rather hard facts describing actual physical phenomena, either 1) published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or 2) reproducible relatively simply, say in a well provisioned laboratory, under controlled conditions. They will also appreciate well-reasoned and scientifically supportable explanations of such phenomena. No amount of other discussion or explanation by you will be respected absent that sort of evidence. If you can't provide such evidence, there is really very little value in your posting your theories here, and if you can provide such evidence, I would love to see it.

I would settle for a basic thought experiment that;
1) Has a reasonable explanation of why its previously not been observed.
2) Does not directly contradict established empirical data. ("Directly" may be interpreted liberally.)
3) Can reasonably be tested by those skilled in that art.

That's very little to ask for such outrageous claims.
Qualifications;
Saying that you observed it does not qualify. No science is accepted until the skeptics observe it also. (Repeatability) This is what peer review is. Personally I don't even require that it be in an officially peer reviewed journal. Those journals will however provide the base of knowledge on which to make judgments.

Some may consider this watered down. If we accept in principle that someone may be in the process of establishing a previously unknown truth it's not expected that they have it completely worked out for peer review. In this case some feedback on the logical structure and counterexamples of the argument is of the most value. It is those that refuse to even consider any logic that gets ridiculed. The worst thing you can assume is that just because someone provides a counterexample (regardless of attitude) they should be ignored for being hostile or a non "bleever".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dear Wollery, I am sorry about my comments, I just get aggravated some time when some people don't seam to get what I am trying to say, at times.

I will be the first to say that my grammar and spelling needs lots of improvements, we can hire a person to do that for me, it's the thoughts that are important, and getting them in print, that is what is important, attacking me takes a natural experience and effects it. To be in dead zone thought, is a positive place, creating positive results, when questions get asked, but other negative remarks are placed in there, then you in turn, are not helping yourself. I am a person, I work, help raise a family, and I am into so many other things, but I take the time, to just let my thoughts go on this topic.
There is this guy I was talking too, on a different site about my topic, and I thought he was tough at times, but he said after visiting this site, that people here are tougher. I do not know if that is true or not, but I do know that my thoughts do take me out of pain and into pleasure just like it does for so many different people everyday.

I sorry about calling you cold, and I will try and do better in the future.

Thank you,
Tim

Perhaps the person who could improve your spelling and grammar is you. At the very least, by now you should've (not "should of") figured out the correct spelling of "negative".

Also, the truth is neither negative nor positive. Just because it goes against your ideas, does not make it negative.

The fact that you are a person is obvious and trivial. The facts that you help raise a family and are into many other things are irrelevant.

The truth is that your notions of discorporate people make no sense at all, and you've yet to offer any coherent explanation.

[tracer]

Dear Eos of the Eons,

I'm sorry, I thought we were in the Negitive side of the topic.
I'd still like to know what "negitive" means, and how it differs from the more pedestrian "negative".

[aggle-rithm]

It's pretty hard to accept that you will never see, hear, touch, taste, or think ever again.


It's easier to accept if you consider the fact that, in order to never see, hear, touch, taste or think again, there would have to be a YOU that could hypothetically do or fail to do all this seeing, hearing, etc. But there isn't.

In other words, to say that someone who doesn't exist can never see, hear, touch, taste or think is a little nonsensical...IMHO, of course.

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

Information from:
http://www.worlditc.org/c_07_senki_00_content.htm

"I spent a period of time deliberating on a machine or an apparatus which could be operated by personalities who have crossed over to a different area of existence, or into a different sphere. I believe that, if we are to make true progress in psychical research, we will have to do it in a scientific manner with scientific equipment." (THOMAS ALVA EDISON)


I believe BrainGate is the scientific equipment we need, not looking for an atom in a haystack.

Information from:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Parapsychology:--Harnessing-Your-Etheric-Energy&id=43114

In bridging the gap between science and the unexplained, faith allows for confident progression into new endeavors to gain additional understanding of the mind and body.


BrainGate is that new endeavor.

Thank you,
Tim

[my_wan]

To whom it may concern,

Information from:
http://www.worlditc.org/c_07_senki_00_content.htm

"I spent a period of time deliberating on a machine or an apparatus which could be operated by personalities who have crossed over to a different area of existence, or into a different sphere. I believe that, if we are to make true progress in psychical research, we will have to do it in a scientific manner with scientific equipment." (THOMAS ALVA EDISON)


I believe BrainGate is the scientific equipment we need, not looking for an atom in a haystack.

Information from:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Parapsychology:--Harnessing-Your-Etheric-Energy&id=43114

In bridging the gap between science and the unexplained, faith allows for confident progression into new endeavors to gain additional understanding of the mind and body.


BrainGate is that new endeavor.

Thank you,
Tim

I still need to know what makes braingate so different from other cheaper technology we all have in our possession. Admittedly braingate could allow far more fluid communication but what it is actually detecting is in no way unique from your radio. The training before death isn't even necessary. Learning to use it after death should be just as easy unless the dead can no longer learn. All you have to do is spend 60 bucks at radio shack and ask the dead to give it a shot. You could even write instructions on the wall and wait.

Example;
A simple receiver hooked through an amplifier. If you think the braingate is so unique look at the frequency range in use by it by tuning the antenna accordingly. The braingate just uses antennas embedded under the scalp. Now write a message on the wall with instruction on giving a particular Morse code message and wait and wait and wait and wait for that one particular message. All the ghost has to do is pass back and forth through the antenna to tap out the given Morse code message. When you get tired of waiting tune it to a different frequency range. If you get a response then you can try a braingate and let them signup on instant messenger.

But you still haven't answered. We know that braingate works by placing antennas under the scalp. So why would the dead need you or your equipment to get our attention?

Happy tunning:egggoofy:

[Tim4848]

I still need to know what makes braingate so different from other cheaper technology we all have in our possession.

Maybe there is no difference, maybe it is just the way we go about it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7099/index.html

Neuroprosthetics: In search of the sixth sense p125
Implants in the brain could one day help paralyzed people move robotic arms and legs. But first, scientists need to work out how our brains know where our limbs are

Admittedly braingate could allow far more fluid communication but what it is actually detecting is in no way unique from your radio.

I agree with you, but I'll take the more fluid communication. Place a sensor by the ceiling, and wait.

The training before death isn't even necessary. Learning to use it after death should be just as easy unless the dead can no longer learn. All you have to do is spend 60 bucks at radio shack and ask the dead to give it a shot. You could even write instructions on the wall and wait.

You can't ask the dead, because they can not hear, they might not even be able to read. When playing out this theory you have to always expect the worst, not that the worst will happen, but it saves time for now.

Example;
A simple receiver hooked through an amplifier. If you think the braingate is so unique look at the frequency range in use by it by tuning the antenna accordingly. The braingate just uses antennas embedded under the scalp.

I still feel you need to compare the embedded one to the other one first, I'm not saying yours might not work, but it goes back to what they have said before, they would want this type of proof in a laboratory situation.

Now write a message on the wall with instruction on giving a particular Morse code message and wait and wait and wait and wait for that one particular message. All the ghost has to do is pass back and forth through the antenna to tap out the given Morse code message. When you get tired of waiting tune it to a different frequency range. If you get a response then you can try a braingate and let them signup on instant messenger.

But you still haven't answered. We know that braingate works by placing antennas under the scalp. So why would the dead need you or your equipment to get our attention?

Happy tunning:egggoofy:


Good question,

I just related it to my out of body experience.

[my_wan]

I agree with you, but I'll take the more fluid communication. Place a sensor by the ceiling, and wait.


Buy it yourself then and leave us alone.

Note to self;
Wooers love to develop technologies before the effect is found.
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7320/horsecarthu2.jpg

[Tim4848]

Buy it yourself then and leave us alone.

Science is alone

http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=afterlife&sp-c=10&sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=date&sp-q-9=NATURE&submit=go&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all


2. Opposition to science
James T. Bradley

SUMMARY: A molecular biologist explores the gulf between spirituality and his own rationalist viewpoint.

CONTEXT: ...basis for absolute truth, and cites a 2003 Harris poll showing that 90% of Americans believe in God and 84% in an afterlife. The truth, according to Silver, is that “modern science — as a body of knowledge, as a profession, and as a...

Nature 444, 271 - 272 (15 Nov 2006) Books and Arts

Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link




Note to self;
Wooers love to develop technologies before the effect is found.
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7320/horsecarthu2.jpg

Futurology: How to use science fiction. The Economist (June 8, 2006; subscription req'd). "Three tests to evaluate visions of the future ... First, is the imagined world really an allegory for some aspect of the present day? ... The second test for evaluating a sci-fi scenario is whether it makes the mistake of assuming that technology alone shapes the future. ... The final test is to ask whether a prediction is compelling enough to become self-fulfilling, by inspiring inventors to implement it. ..."

Thank you,
Tim

[my_wan]

Science is alone
No just you.

[wollery]

Tim, I have absolutely no idea what that last post of yours was meant to illustrate, or what point you were trying to make. It seems totally unrelated to the subject at hand, or the post you were responding to.

[Tim4848]

I'm sorry wollery, I was thinking too long outside the box.

http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/april02/out_of_the_box_thinking.html

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

I'm sorry wollery, I was thinking too long outside the box.

http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/april02/out_of_the_box_thinking.html

Thank you,
TimOkay, I'm not going to respond with the first thing that came into my head. It's far too easy, and far too cruel. :rolleyes:

[Tim4848]

Dear wollery,

my wan seams to think that I am the only one interested in this possibility, when it shows that 84% of Americans believe in the afterlife.

CONTEXT: ...basis for absolute truth, and cites a 2003 Harris poll showing that 90% of Americans believe in God and 84% in an afterlife.

He wants me to go off on my own and try and make it a reality, and I want us to go more this direction;

The final test is to ask whether a prediction is compelling enough to become self-fulfilling, by inspiring inventors to implement it. ..."


I really liked your last reply, I'm going to save that one!

Thank you,
Tim

[Miss Anthrope]

Dear wollery,

my wan seams to think that I am the only one interested in this possibility, when it shows that 84% of Americans believe in the afterlife.

CONTEXT: ...basis for absolute truth, and cites a 2003 Harris poll showing that 90% of Americans believe in God and 84% in an afterlife.

He wants me to go off on my own and try and make it a reality, and I want us to go more this direction;

The final test is to ask whether a prediction is compelling enough to become self-fulfilling, by inspiring inventors to implement it. ..."


I really liked your last reply, I'm going to save that one!

Thank you,
Tim

Tim, millions if not billions of children believe in Santa Claus, that does not make him real. This is called the numbers fallacy.

And what is with this "the final test is to ask...". The final test is to ask something???

:bigcat

[Tim4848]

What do you think the final test to this topic should be?

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

Whether or not you can provide a viable theory of how these "future out of body afterlife people" can retain a coherent energy structure, and how they can think or interact with the material world without exhausting their energy.

Because without that you have nothing.

[Miss Anthrope]

What do you think the final test to this topic should be?

Thank you,
Tim

I'd settle for one coherent thought.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Tim, I see you're putting identical posts up on the Museum of Hoaxes forum. What's the deal?

[Tim4848]

Not every post JoeTheJuggler, but it does keep me busy.

[Tim4848]

coherent thought, I didn't even know I had one of them.

How does any energy survive?

http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/curious/caOc96JL.html

But perhaps one of the most unusual bacteria is one that is very highly resistant to what scientists had considered to be absolutely lethal radiation levels. Deinococcus radiodurans (said Din-o-coc-us rad-i-o-dew-ranz) is very remarkable for its ability to withstand radiation levels over 1000 times higher than that which would completely debilitate any human on earth. This organism was first found in food in the 1950's, food supposedly sterilized by radiation treatments.

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

And what, precisely, does that have to do with the question?

[Tim4848]

Does anybody have access to this article?

Electric Sense Sharper Than Thought
Greene
ScienceNOW 5 May 2004: 2

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/long/2004/505/2

I was just curious about it.

Thank you,
Tim

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for all your input so far on this topic, and I hope to talk to you more about it when I get back from a vacation.

http://www.near-death.com/jokes.html

After a preacher died and went to heaven, he noticed that a New York cab driver had been awarded a higher place than he.

"I don't understand," he complained to God. "I devoted my entire life to my congregation."

"Our policy here in heaven is to reward results," God explained. "Now, was your congregation well attuned to you whenever you gave a sermon?"

"Well," the minister had to admit, "some in the congregation fell asleep from time to time."

"Exactly," said God, "and when people rode in this man's taxi, they not only stayed wake, they even prayed."

Thank you,
Tim

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

Just something to think about on this topic:

AFTERLIFE
Posted by anthonynorth on June 24th, 2007

We all know about it, whether it exists or not. We know of ghosts and reincarnated entities, and we all have some knowledge of the idea that we might experience afterlife upon death.
Philosophers and priests have thought about it for as long as thinking man has existed. Alternatively, scientists have tried their best to sweep it under a thread-bare carpet. So what is the reality of afterlife?


TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING

This said, there are problems with our understanding of life and the universe that are not adequately addressed by science. For instance, it is known that the body exists as a co-ordinated lifeform, but it also exists as a congregation of cells, etc; and at its fundamental level, as an electrical vibration, as already mentioned.
Science accepts this, but is hazy when it comes to the relationship between each of these levels. But surely, if one leads to another, then interaction between the three levels must take place.
This logical assumption tells us that, if the information universe is a reality, then somehow it must connect to the conscious life form – i.e. us. Hence, if consciousness is in the information universe, we must ask: does it die upon death of the body? Or does it continue as some form of existence?

FUTURE SCIENCE

We are not at the stage of knowledge where we can answer. This is mainly because we are not asking the right questions, which should be: Do we live in an information universe or not? Is our ‘electrical vibration’ related to us or not?
A negative answer to either of these questions leaves us disconnected from the rest of existence, which is ridiculous. A positive answer leaves room for the tantalizing existence of an Afterlife of some kind.
And seeing that it would imply a connection between ‘us’ and the universe, then knowledge of this survival would be in the information universe. So therefore, somewhere, we would be aware of this.
So who knows, maybe SOME of those ghosts, communications and possessions are from somewhere else after all. Once we have discounted the fraudulent, spurious and delusional, of course.

http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/afterlife/

Thank you,
Tim

[Tim4848]

This thread is to the 80% of Americans who believe there is some type of afterlife.

I believe we can modify BrainGate to communicate with future out of body people in a way that can be measured.

And to the 20% that don’t believe in any type of afterlife.

I just want to acknowledge that an event has recently occurred, and you don’t want to be in denial when you hear all about it.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm


I believe we can modify BrainGate to communicate with future out of body people in a way that can be measured.

Thank you,
Tim

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

This Government knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

80% of Americans know the value of believing in afterlife, and it would be in their best interest to find out how their next President feels about this issue. The time is right to start funding this topic, what would it hurt?

Please feel to reply if you are part of that 20%.

Thank you,
Tim

[BlackKat]

I prefer this chart instead.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

It would probably behoove us to have the EPA to look into this.

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

The rest of his story.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

80% of Americans know the value of believing in afterlifeNo. 80% of Americans believe in an afterlife. Whether or not that belief has any value is another question entirely.

I've told you several times that the number of people who believe a thing is utterly irrelevant to whether or not that thing is true. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually read what I post. Either that or you have no other argument to put forward.

and it would be in their best interest to find out how their next President feels about this issue.I personally think it would be in their best interest to find out if their next president is sane, rational, level-headed, competent and capable of stringing a whole sentence together.

I guess we have different priorities in the world's most powerful and influential individual.

The time is right to start funding this topic, what would it hurt?Please refer to Hokulele's response in the other thread.

[Tim4848]

Dear Wollery,

I analyze everything you post, but I do not agree with every point you make.

Even if the 80% is not totally focused on the details, they are more likely to be open to the possibility, than the 20% that don't, and that is just for starters, you should never under estimate the free will of such numbers in the long run.

I see this topic getting more positive everyday in the eyes of the American public, you can see it in the movies they watch and the music that they listen too.

Everything in life takes it's allotted amount of time, and this topic will be no different. People do not like change unless there is something in it for them, and I will be glad to talk about that at some point.

Hokulele's response was nothing more than a list of "B's".

Question: Wollery, do you really live in China?

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

Dear Wollery,

I analyze everything you post, but I do not agree with every point you make.Glad to hear that you pay attention. Sadly that suggests that your reading comprehension is at fault, as evidenced by your following paragraph.

Even if the 80% is not totally focused on the details, they are more likely to be open to the possibility, than the 20% that don't, and that is just for starters, you should never under estimate the free will of such numbers in the long run.I will say this again, as plainly as possible. It does not matter how many people believe this to be true. What matters is whether or not it is true. 100% of people could believe in it, and it would make absolutely no difference to the facts.

To keep including the number of people who believe in an afterlife as part of your argument is futile and, frankly, rather annoying, since it has been pointed out many times that it is irrelevant to the points you are trying to make. It's also irrelevant from another perspective, since it fails to account for what sort of afterlife they believe in. Your version is that people hang around after death as some sort of "thought entity", whereas, I suspect, the majority of Americans believe that an afterlife is spent in heaven, or hell. So belief in an afterlife is not, as such, agreement with your ideas.

I see this topic getting more positive everyday in the eyes of the American public, you can see it in the movies they watch and the music that they listen too. Irrelevant to whether or not the phenomenon is real.

Everything in life takes it's allotted amount of time, and this topic will be no different. People do not like change unless there is something in it for them, and I will be glad to talk about that at some point.Irrelevant.

Hokulele's response was nothing more than a list of "B's".Those posts were in the other thread, try not to cross the threads too much it gets confusing for people who aren't following them that closely.

Question: Wollery, do you really live in China?Yes.

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern, I will be leaving on vacation Saturday, so if you have a good questions you want me to think about during that time, and answer when I get back, please feel free to post it before Saturday morning.
To save time, the questions should not be negative in nature.

Thank you once again for all your input, and I wish you all the best while I am away.

Tim

[wollery]

How do the "future out of body afterlife" people maintain the coherency of their energy, and how do they think or act without using up that energy?

I've asked this many times. It isn't negative, and you've never answered it.

[Tim4848]

How do the "future out of body afterlife" people maintain the coherency of their energy, and how do they think or act without using up that energy?

I've asked this many times. It isn't negative, and you've never answered it.

Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.

The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."

After the theory is applied, all those type of parts will fall into place.

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.

The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."That's a beautiful definition of an interesting philosophical idea, which in no way answers the question.

After the theory is applied, all those type of parts will fall into place.You clearly have the ability to look up words, as your lovely definition of the word holism demonstrates, so please look up the word theory, because at the moment you don't seem to have a clue what it means.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what you have isn't a theory, it isn't even a hypothesis, it's a vague idea.

[Tim4848]

Dear wollery,

Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and General relativity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Here is something to read while I am away if you like,

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14967

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5920

Thank you,
Tim

[cyborg]

Tim - are you or are you not willing to consider the possibility that every explanation you have formulated in your mind for the phenomena you have experienced is wrong or not?

Because no progress can be made whilst you mindlessly quote mine.

[wollery]

Dear wollery,

Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and General relativity.Well done. Now, bearing in mind that you have constantly compared your ideas to scientific research, and have proposed getting government funding in competition with scientific research projects, could you please reread that definition and explain how your ideas qualify as a scientific theory.

Here is something to read while I am away if you like,

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14967

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5920 Well, thank you Tim.

The first link is nothing more than a puff piece for a conference, and one doctor's views.

The second link, however, is actually evidence against your ideas. What it's saying is that in a study of people who had been technically dead for short periods those who experienced NDEs had a significantly higher proportion of members with abnormal brainwave patterns usually observed in people suffering from epilepsy. This strongly suggests that there is a link between brain malfunction and NDEs. In other words, there is evidence that NDEs are the result of an abnormality of material brain function.

[Tim4848]

Dear cyborg,

My answer at this time is no, but I am more than willing to read about why you feel it is not possible.

Thank you,
Tim

[wollery]

My answer at this time is no, but I am more than willing to read about why you feel it is not possible.Then what you are doing is most definitely not scientific.

[cyborg]

My answer at this time is no,

Then you are wasting your time here. This place is for people who want to honestly evaluate reality as it presents itself; not as we might wish it were.

Because you have basically said you are not willing to change your mind you are saying that it is in fact a complete waste of time for anyone to talk to you at all.

Thank you, call again. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

I am only as good, with what I have to work with. Please fill free to explain why I am wrong as long as you like on this topic, and I will have an open mind about it.

Thank you,
Tim

[cyborg]

So are you or are you not willing to accept that you may in fact be wrong about any or all ideas you might have in your noggin' at this particular moment?

[wollery]

Given his responses so far I'd say that's a no.

[Tim4848]

So are you or are you not willing to accept that you may in fact be wrong about any or all ideas you might have in your noggin' at this particular moment?

Accept it based on what?

I have no problem saying I am wrong with anything, if I am presented with better information than what I am working with, but as of this time I do not have that.

Thank you,
Tim

[Tim4848]

To whom it may concern,

The Department of Positive Out of Body Possibilities, now has it's own web site and forum.

http://www.freewebs.com/tim4848/

Please take the time to check it out and tell me what you think.

Thank you,
Tim