PROVE IT

I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline

aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: aiia

Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:

Can you provide any evidence of "astral body"?

Science of today is not yet equipped for such a proof.


So then, you cannot, not only prove it, you cannot even provide any evidence of it.

I [edited-aiia] thought so. Therefore, it is completely imaginary.

 

[I originally said "I didn't think so"]

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
aiiaSo then, you cannot, not

aiia wrote:
So then, you cannot, not only prove it, you cannot even provide any evidence of it.

I didnt think so. Therefore, it is completely imaginary.

I don't see how that follows logically.  Certainly, without seeing evidence, there's no justification for belief, but simply not seeing evidence doesn't falsify anything.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
QuasarX wrote:aiia wrote:So

QuasarX wrote:

aiia wrote:
So then, you cannot, not only prove it, you cannot even provide any evidence of it.

I didnt think so. Therefore, it is completely imaginary.

I don't see how that follows logically.  Certainly, without seeing evidence, there's no justification for belief, but simply not seeing evidence doesn't falsify anything.

QuasarX

Without evidence, there is nothing to falsify. But one can imagine anything.

As you probably know (quoting from Wikipedia) "falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports."

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2454
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:

Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:

Can you provide any evidence of "astral body"?

Science of today is not yet equipped for such a proof.


So then, you cannot, not only prove it, you cannot even provide any evidence of it.

I didnt think so. Therefore, it is completely imaginary.

The same thing I could claim about any scientific knowledge, which requires advanced devices, like an electron microscope, or a particle accelerator. Would it change anything on an existence of facts we already discovered by them? Nope. This is a similar case. Our machines and devices are too crude, to detect anything subtler, they're dead, anorganic, entirely material. This subtle matter and energies comes to interaction with matter only rarely, and in all such cases it's considered as a scam. For example, this is my favorite psi-wheel video and I really have no idea how this can be a scam, but according to all people who wants to look smart, it is. I say nothing, just i tried it too, and it worked with hands being close, but it didn't work at all with a source of heat, like a candle or a lighter... Strange, isn't it? I guess someone would soon pop up here with graphs of a heated air currents rotating a psi-wheel, but this isn't how it behaves when I try it.
Of course, it anyway can't be an effect of astral body, but only possibly etheric-material. Astral (emotional) body isn't material.

You can prove the existence of astral body to yourself, by practice and patience. Once you achieve a conscious movement around in dream, you can explore. You can then search for things, you can later verify in awaken state. You wouldn't be the first who did it. All such explorers did it, and succesfully. Their experiences matches each other.
It's also a popular entertainment among some teenagers. You know, watching female classmates when they sleep...or whatever they do at night, that's a better motivation, than just "proving something"  Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:QuasarXWithout

aiia wrote:
QuasarX

Without evidence, there is nothing to falsify. But one can imagine anything.

As you probably know (quoting from Wikipedia) "falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports."

Hmm, I don't know... I think there are at least some cases where just a definition would be enough to design a falsifying experiment for a proposition, without any initial evidence being provided to support the proposition in question.  But, even if you're spot-on 100% correct about this, not being able to falsify something still means that it hasn't been falsified.

In the case of a proposition without evidence to support it, and where the proposition is such that there's no obvious way to design a falsifying experiment, I think it's justified to make a number of skeptical statements about the proposition... but to make an outright claim stating that the proposition is false seems to be making a claim that's not adequately supported.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:aiia wrote:So

Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:

So then, you cannot, not only prove it, you cannot even provide any evidence of it.

I didnt think so. Therefore, it is completely imaginary.

The same thing I could claim about any scientific knowledge, which requires advanced devices, like an electron microscope, or a particle accelerator. Would it change anything on an existence of facts we already discovered by them? Nope. This is a similar case.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. What exactly is similar?


Quote:
Our machines and devices are too crude,to detect anything subtler,

How would you know this if there is no evidence of  "astral body" 

Quote:
they're dead, anorganic, entirely material.

Of course.


Quote:
This subtle matter and energies comes to interaction with matter only rarely,
Again how would you know this?


Quote:
and in all such cases it's considered as a scam. For example, this is my favorite psi-wheel video and I really have no idea how this can be a scam, but according to all people who wants to look smart, it is. I say nothing, just i tried it too, and it worked with hands being close, but it didn't work at all with a source of heat, like a candle or a lighter... Strange, isn't it? I guess someone would soon pop up here with graphs of a heated air currents rotating a psi-wheel, but this isn't how it behaves when I try it.

A video cannot be presented as proof of telekinesis.
Did you even bother to view the rebuttals? No? Are you afraid to be wrong? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG1ZSuiSmx4

Quote:
Of course, it anyway can't be an effect of astral body, but only possibly etheric-material. Astral (emotional) body isn't material.

If it is not material it does not exist.

Quote:
You can prove the existence of astral body to yourself, by practice and patience.

I will not waste my time.


Quote:
Once you achieve a conscious movement around in dream, you can explore.

What the hell is a "conscious movement around in dream"?


Quote:
You can then search for things, you can later verify in awaken state. You wouldn't be the first who did it. All such explorers did it, and succesfully. Their experiences matches each other.
It's also a popular entertainment among some teenagers. You know, watching female classmates when they sleep...or whatever they do at night, that's a better motivation, than just "proving something"  Smiling

Have you discussed this with your doctor?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
QuasarX wrote:Hmm, I don't

QuasarX wrote:

Hmm, I don't know... I think there are at least some cases where just a definition would be enough to design a falsifying experiment for a proposition, without any initial evidence being provided to support the proposition in question.  But, even if you're spot-on 100% correct about this, not being able to falsify something still means that it hasn't been falsified.

In the case of a proposition without evidence to support it, and where the proposition is such that there's no obvious way to design a falsifying experiment, I think it's justified to make a number of skeptical statements about the proposition... but to make an outright claim stating that the proposition is false seems to be making a claim that's not adequately supported.


But there is nothing except "astral body". What would be the definition of it?

"Nothing" cannot be considered a prospect for falsification.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

 

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

Prize money for proof of psychokinesis

Internationally, there are various individual skeptics of the paranormal and skeptics' organizations who offer cash prize money to anyone—or anyone who meets a criterion of eligibility, such as a certain level of fame—who can successfully demonstrate the existence of an extraordinary psychic power, such as psychokinesis, which is currently regarded by mainstream science as being paranormal in origin, according to an agreed-upon experiment. These prizes have remained uncollected by people claiming to possess paranormal abilities.[citation needed]. The James Randi Educational Foundation offers 1,000,000 US dollars to anyone who has a demonstrated media profile as well as the support from some member of the academic community, and who can produce a paranormal event under previously controlled, mutually agreed upon circumstances. The money is kept in an escrow account with Goldman-Sachs in New York.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:But there is

aiia wrote:
But there is nothing except "astral body". What would be the definition of it?

"Nothing" cannot be considered a prospect for falsification.

Right.  2 things though... "astral body" is not really "nothing"... there is an idea attached to it at the very least, and I think it's pretty well understood that it doesn't mean, for example, a rock.  But, you're right, there's not a definition there, and so it's not a prospect for falsification.  It's a pretty vague concept, at least as it's presented here, and it's not at all clear how such a thing could really exist, and if it did, what would its nature be.  But, the thing is, the more vague a proposition, the harder it is to say it's false.  For example, it's much easier to show that a Christian concept of a god is false than it is to show that a deist concept of a god is false.  The Christian concept of a god simply provides more ammunition, or another way of looking at it is that the Christian concept of a god more effectively shoots itself in the foot.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2454
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: I'm not sure

aiia wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. What exactly is similar?
A body, or exactly, a set of bodies with increasing subtility which makes the whole human, (emotional body is one of them) must be deliberately used, trained, and refined, if you should observe anything greater beyond a mere materialism.
 

This is similar to complicated laboratory tools, if you don't set them properly, or don't use at all, you can't see a cell, or an elementary particles. You can't blame the instrument, if you don't even use it appropriately.

aiia wrote:
 
Quote:
Our machines and devices are too crude,to detect anything subtler,
How would you know this if there is no evidence of  "astral body" 
No scientific evidence. But many identic reports from people, who can see the emotional body, or they consciously use it for exploration during a sleep. These reports matches the ancient vedic records about human nature, which describes the chakra system and a system of material and non-material human bodies, which are the vessels for a consciousness. Certain transcendental revelations by telepathic contact describes the same thing.  Surprisingly, all these data are mutually coherent. With an exception of one (Buddhistic???) scheme, which describes about 20 main chakras, but no world is perfect.


aiia wrote:
   
Quote:
  
Quote:
This subtle matter and energies comes to interaction with matter only rarely,
Again how would you know this?
 

Once someone estabilishes a transcendental contact with something or someone, he/she is able to receive a knowledge. Or delusions, when the contacted being (some kind of spirit) originates from the astral (emotional) plane of existence.
Anyway, people like my parents receives a material to verify. They try the suggested techniques, compare the received knowledge, give it to another members of the club, what they think about it, and eventually, they can very well determine if it's a nonsense, or if it has a true potential.
Years of experiences really speeded up this process and gave them a lot of experiences, this is why it became a routine. Delusional stuff is quickly rejected and people are warned about it, a promising stuff is further researched, and sometimes  practised and propagated, when it's something specially good.


aiia wrote:
 
A video cannot be presented as proof of telekinesis.
Did you even bother to view the rebuttals? No? Are you afraid to be wrong? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG1ZSuiSmx4 
Of course, I saw a video of this guy, but I really don't understand what does it mean. It seems like he claims "I'm a really big badass sceptic, and when I can do it, then it's really just a heated air current." This doesn't mean anything. I can't view this video right now (this isn't my trusty computer) but if I remember, there's not a test by a really heated air. All the claim, that the psi-wheel rotates by an air heated by hands, is ridiculous. The body temperature (hands are even colder) doesn't induce any sensible air current. And even if yes, then a really heated air, by a candle, doesn't turn the psi-wheel. It doesn't have a turbine shape, it can't respond by a controlled, regular, circular movement. This is what I observed at home.

aiia wrote:
  If it is not material it does not exist.
There are various degrees of materiality, just like there are various degrees of knowledge.

aiia wrote:
  
Quote:
Once you achieve a conscious movement around in dream, you can explore.

What the hell is a "conscious movement around in dream"?
In dream, we do everything spontaneously, we don't really know why we do, what we do. Most often, when dreaming, I gather up with guys (some people I don't know, but it looks like I know them in that dream) and go on some kind of adventure, or a task, we just go and do stuff... this is what I usually remember, it's my most common kind of dream.
But when I recall the fact, that I am dreaming, then I can do something different, than just a spontaneous actions. I can leave my predestined role in that dream, and try something different. For example, I'm a former smoker. Whenever I see a cigarettes in a dream, I smoke a like a factory, because I remember that smoking feels good. But I could make a conscious choice in a dream, to not light up a dream cigarette whenever it appears. This is the difference of conscious dreaming.

aiia wrote:
 Have you discussed this with your doctor?
  As I said, the science of today isn't equipped to even judge such things. Visiting a doctor with what I know, would be about as wise, as visiting a medieval doctor to get some soothing bloodletting or a truly refreshing skull trepanation.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:aiia wrote:

Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. What exactly is similar?
A body,

What body?

Quote:
or exactly, a set of bodies with increasing subtility which makes the whole human,

What set of bodies?

 

Quote:
(emotional body is one of them) must be deliberately used, trained, and refined, if you should observe anything greater beyond a mere materialism.

Prove there is anything beyond material.

Quote:
This is similar to complicated laboratory tools, if you don't set them properly, or don't use at all, you can't see a cell, or an elementary particles. You can't blame the instrument, if you don't even use it appropriately.

There is NOTHING similar between material and "beyond material".

Quote:
aiia wrote:
 
Quote:
Our machines and devices are too crude,to detect anything subtler,
How would you know this if there is no evidence of  "astral body"
No scientific evidence.

If there's no evidence of its existence, then it's imaginary.

Quote:
But many identic reports from people, who can see the emotional body, or they consciously use it for exploration during a sleep. These reports matches the ancient vedic records about human nature, which describes the chakra system and a system of material and non-material human bodies, which are the vessels for a consciousness. Certain transcendental revelations by telepathic contact describes the same thing.  Surprisingly, all these data are mutually coherent. With an exception of one (Buddhistic???) scheme, which describes about 20 main chakras, but no world is perfect.

Many alcoholics reported seeing pink elephants, snakes crawling out of their ears, and 2' giant insects chewing on their leg. But this is not deemed to be evidence of the existence of pink elephants, snakes crawling out of their ears, and 2' giant insects chewing on their leg. We are certain these people were halucinating from Delirium Tremens. Many people claiming to "see" the same thing is not evidence of what they claim to see exists. It is only evidence that many people claim to "see" similar things. 100's of year ago many people thought the earth was flat and many also thought ships could fall off the edge of the ocean. It is now known that those people were not correct. So many people believing and/or 'seeing' similar things is not evidence of that thing.

Luminon wrote:

Once someone estabilishes a transcendental contact with something or someone, he/she is able to receive a knowledge. Or delusions, when the contacted being (some kind of spirit) originates from the astral (emotional) plane of existence.
Anyway, people like my parents receives a material to verify. They try the suggested techniques, compare the received knowledge, give it to another members of the club, what they think about it, and eventually, they can very well determine if it's a nonsense, or if it has a true potential.
Years of experiences really speeded up this process and gave them a lot of experiences, this is why it became a routine. Delusional stuff is quickly rejected and people are warned about it, a promising stuff is further researched, and sometimes  practised and propagated, when it's something specially good.

Fantasies.


Luminon wrote:
Of course, I saw a video of this guy, but I really don't understand what does it mean. It seems like he claims "I'm a really big badass sceptic, and when I can do it, then it's really just a heated air current." This doesn't mean anything. I can't view this video right now (this isn't my trusty computer) but if I remember, there's not a test by a really heated air. All the claim, that the psi-wheel rotates by an air heated by hands, is ridiculous. The body temperature (hands are even colder) doesn't induce any sensible air current. And even if yes, then a really heated air, by a candle, doesn't turn the psi-wheel. It doesn't have a turbine shape, it can't respond by a controlled, regular, circular movement. This is what I observed at home.

He proved the psi-wheel can be faked.
The man claiming to spin the psi-wheel in the video you posted a link to did not prove he did it with psychokinesis.

Luminon wrote:
There are various degrees of materiality, just like there are various degrees of knowledge.

If it is material it is material. If it is not material it is not material. Something cannot be almost material or almost not material.

Luminon wrote:
In dream, we do everything spontaneously, we don't really know why we do, what we do. Most often, when dreaming, I gather up with guys (some people I don't know, but it looks like I know them in that dream) and go on some kind of adventure, or a task, we just go and do stuff... this is what I usually remember, it's my most common kind of dream.
But when I recall the fact, that I am dreaming, then I can do something different, than just a spontaneous actions. I can leave my predestined role in that dream, and try something different. For example, I'm a former smoker. Whenever I see a cigarettes in a dream, I smoke a like a factory, because I remember that smoking feels good. But I could make a conscious choice in a dream, to not light up a dream cigarette whenever it appears. This is the difference of conscious dreaming.

This might be shocking news to you, but dreams are not considered as evidence of anything other then the mind is active during sleep.

Luminon wrote:
aiia wrote:
Have you discussed this with your doctor?
  As I said, the science of today isn't equipped to even judge such things. Visiting a doctor with what I know, would be about as wise, as visiting a medieval doctor to get some soothing bloodletting or a truly refreshing skull trepanation.

...

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2454
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:What body? What

aiia wrote:

What body?

 

What set of bodies?

That would take a longer explanation. It would be more than enough, if I'd mention, that the physical body is a basic one, on which are layers of bodies with decreasing degrees of materiality, and varying functions. This is how it is for most of the time.
 

aiia wrote:
Prove there is anything beyond material.
I'd like to, but my Force isn't strong enough to psychokinetically pull a chair from under your butt. And to some individuals even this or more such events wouldn't be enought to prove anything, I've met such people. I can only move a psi-wheel, just like everyone else. For now.
The proof I have requires an opposite approach, to increase your own sensitivity toward the soft-material objects, so you would be then able to perceive them. This unfortunately means, that I can't do it instead of you, if you do it, you will have your proof. But only the right people for this purpose will really do it. This is why we're safe from a terrifying scenario, when hundreds of thousands of people would perceive non-material stuff and they would have their worldview messed up. Capacity of all madhouses would be pretty much exceeded. But fortunately, circumstances doesn't allow people to get their world turned upside down, every time they ask for it. 
 

aiia wrote:
There is NOTHING similar between material and "beyond material".
Are you some kind of separatist? Science seeks for an unifying theory of everything, which is gonna make all our lives better, and you seem to not help it at all, bad boy! Do you really know, what is matter? Yeah, protons and neutrons (screw the electrons, they're too small). No, wait, they are made of quarks, so matter is quarks! But these little things goes even deeper, science theoretizes about superstrings. How long it will take, before we will see even deeper into the matter? Somewhere along the way we abandoned the feeling of matteriality. Look at a void of an atom, and show me where it's material. And I don't mean the thick school drawings, but a real model, where the core is about as sized and lonely, like a ball in the middle of a soccer field, while electrons are somewhere on the border.

aiia wrote:
If there's no evidence of its existence, then it's imaginary.
There's a plenty of evidence, just not enough scientists is subscribed under it, so it doesn't spread far from the place where it occured. I know about a scientist, who understands both her job and a spiritual realms, but we need more of such people and they'll need a time and money.
No change goes easy, and you demand results, on which you could wait a few of decades.
 

aiia wrote:
Many alcoholics reported seeing pink elephants, snakes crawling out of their ears, and 2' giant insects chewing on their leg. But this is not deemed to be evidence of the existence of pink elephants, snakes crawling out of their ears, and 2' giant insects chewing on their leg. We are certain these people were halucinating from Delirium Tremens. Many people claiming to "see" the same thing is not evidence of what they claim to see exists. It is only evidence that many people claim to "see" similar things. 100's of year ago many people thought the earth was flat and many also thought ships could fall off the edge of the ocean. It is now known that those people were not correct. So many people believing and/or 'seeing' similar things is not evidence of that thing.
So, then an alcohol has encoded in it's chemical structure a projection of these specific hallucinations into brain? That would explain it, but it's rather a simple molecule. Or do we know why the delirium tremens triggers specific hallucinations? Can we count neural synapses, putting together a data file to play in brain, named pink_elephant.avi? I doubt such a "file" exists in every brain, all brains are filled with different information, so we're looking for a common source.
The explanation is focusing the intoxicated consciousness on a "frequency", where the mentioned hallucinated vermins can be seen. This supports the idea of a wide range of "frequencies", on which we exist. Material existence, material perception is the lowest point on this frequency range.


Luminon wrote:
  Fantasies.
And schizophrenia, and attempts to get famous. But not all cases, that's the point.

Luminon wrote:

He proved the psi-wheel can be faked.
The man claiming to spin the psi-wheel in the video you posted a link to did not prove he did it with psychokinesis.

But how mindfreak666 proved it? He just built a psi-wheel and used it exactly like any random psi-wheel experimentator does. He did not expose any attempt to fake it, he didn't fiddle with camera, or with computer effects, he didn't have a hole drilled in his desk, through which an air would flow and turn the psi-wheel.
The other guy didn't indeed claim much, he just showed, that his tools aren't faked, and then sat aside, and the psi-wheel rotated in one direction, then it suddenly stopped, and rotated in another direction, and again completely stopped...well, you saw for yourself.
Yeah, some frames in this video seems to be slightly flawed, but there's no sign that he would pause the recording, spun the psi-wheel, sit back behind the table, and started recording again. This would require an advanced studio techniques.
 

aiia wrote:
This might be shocking news to you, but dreams are not considered as evidence of anything other then the mind is active during sleep.
Yes.  But what is mind? It was proven, that consciousness can be fully awake, when the brain is sleeping (including delta waves). Mind exists, when no thoughts, memories, or perceptions are present, when a stream of consciousness is a steady pond.
As for mind, the only difference between sleep and narcosis is, that naturally unaffected brain is able to remember what was in mind. Under narcosis, brain usually doesn't provide such a record, from which a mind could later read.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.