Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You like the word lie, but it in no way negates anything I said despite your over use of it. The canard you are selling comes directly from your own words of "Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true" and it is directly to that that everything I wrote speaks. So no lies here on this side alas. But thank you for ignoring the vast majority of my post all the same as regards examples of being shown truth without direct experience. I guess anything that does not fit your narrative, gets filtered out directly.
You like the word lie, but it in no way negates anything I said despite your over use of it. The canard you are selling comes directly from your own words of "Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true" and it is directly to that that everything I wrote speaks. So no lies here on this side alas. But thank you for ignoring the vast majority of my post all the same as regards examples of being shown truth without direct experience. I guess anything that does not fit your narrative, gets filtered out directly.
Like I have said, you are confusing/conflating.
What I actually said was this:
"Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true. What you choose to see as 'lies' being told to you by those who experience these things and say so, is not thus a great reason for believing other explanations are true."
That was the context of my statement. If you want to understand what the experience is lke you ave to experience it for your self.
I also said:
"Nor will you ever convince those who have experienced such that they are liars because you say so. Or deluded or brain damaged or anything else."
And if you ever have the opportunity to experience OOBE you might want to change your opinion about it. Just saying. Until then it your belief about what is happening simply HAS to be regarded as opinion. Ther is no way around that matey.
I also said
"I would like at least one example of something you have been shown to be true which you have not experienced for yourself. Please try to keep your example in the context of the topic at hand."
And you replyied with acedotes re homicide detective and blind people which are not in the context of OOBEs.
In relation to both, you are the 'detective' or the 'blind person' and are saying that you 'cannot examine' or 'cannot see' because you 'cannot experience OOB' and on that reasoning decide what? That those who share there stories are lying?
Of course, that is entirely an opinion and has no relevance to the topic at hand.
What is the topic at hand?
Why this is the topic at hand.
"Has Anyone Here Ever Had An Out Of Body Experience?"
Not 'does anyone believe people who claim to have experienced OOB are lying about their experiences'? or 'is lack of evidence to support someone's experience a sign that they are lying'?
See?
When I said "Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true." it had to do with you personally. In order to have some kind of bearing on what is being spoken of you have to experience it for yourself. As blind as you are, I cannot explain the color 'yellow' to you.
And like I said as soon as I actually do conflate something, outside of your fantasy world, I will bear your advice in mind. But you simply asserting it does not make it so. The failing is yours in not understanding what I am talking about, not in mine by conflating anything.
But I like how you shift the goal posts from:
"Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true"
to
"If you want to understand what the experience is lke you ave to experience it for your self."
Nice back pedal there, but it was too blatant to go unnoticed. One statement is a truth claim, the other is an experience claim. I replied to the first statement, not the latter one you back pedalled into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
And you replyied with acedotes re homicide detective and blind people which are not in the context of OOBEs.
Actually I replied with a lot more than that, but thank you for proving my point about that filter I mentioned in my last post.
And like I said as soon as I actually do conflate something, outside of your fantasy world, I will bear your advice in mind. But you simply asserting it does not make it so. The failing is yours in not understanding what I am talking about, not in mine by conflating anything.
But I like how you shift the goal posts from:
"Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true"
to
"If you want to understand what the experience is lke you ave to experience it for your self."
Nice back pedal there, but it was too blatant to go unnoticed. One statement is a truth claim, the other is an experience claim. I replied to the first statement, not the latter one you back pedalled into.
yet the thread topic is "Has Anyone Here Ever Had An Out Of Body Experience?" so it was you who shifted the goalposts by bringing your unrelated opinion as to what you think the experiences are into the discussion in the first place.
All I was replying to was that you need to experience it for yourself before making any claim.
Not at all. I have been replying to both the topic AND where the topic has gone. And I reply to both in equal measure. That is not AT ALL comparable to you changing one statement into a completely different statement in order to dodge the reply to the former one.
Your exact and precise statement was that "Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true" and I have shown that statement to be patently false.
If you want to shift track into a discussion about needing to experience something in order to understand that experience, then fine, we can do that. And you and I might find more agreement there than you think.
But I will not make the shift while pretending it is not there.
Well I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply regard our recent interaction as being based on a misunderstanding.
If you agree with me that one needs to experience something in order to understand that experience, there is no argument. We agree.
Based on my posts, it is plain that i have been saying this all along. As I said, I don;t care HOW the experiences happened, only WHY they happened, and as I also said, Only I can answer that.
If experience was not needed to prove something as true our beloved scientists would all be out of a job .
How in the world could anybody say it's unnecessary?
Seems to me that people think that everything we have today is simply because it is true and fact .
But I'm afraid true and fact won't accomplish anything without hands on experience.
Well I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply regard our recent interaction as being based on a misunderstanding.
It would be nice if I could afford you the same courtesy. But as I said, I read the sentence "Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true" only one way. And I read the sentence "Direct experience is necessary in order to show things as being true" as a complete change of track.
Perhaps you mis-spoke in one of those, I can certainly give you the benefit of the doubt on that. We all do that sometimes. And I can certainly meet anyone in the middle on that one. Every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
If you agree with me that one needs to experience something in order to understand that experience, there is no argument. We agree.
The Indian culture have a word, Rassa or Rasa or Raza. I have never known how to render it into English. But it means the essence of a thing. Robert Heinlein invented the word "grok" to capture a similar concept. The Germans even have two words for the verb "to know" which is "wissen" and "kennen". And while on the face of it both words are the same, they have fundamentally different meanings. One is to know something intellectually. The latter is to KNOW it like it was your own.
So despite the disagreement between us, you should be under no illusion that I am not sympathetic to your latter view that you can not truly know the experience of another without experiencing it yourself. Hell the best of us navel gazers know that if you asked a room full of 1000 people to point at something blue.... they would all point at the same thing.... yet we have no FIRM evidence (we do have lots of evidence but for the point of this monologue you will grant me ignoring that)... that your experience of "blue" is the same as mine, or the person next to me or you.
So we agree on a hell of a lot more than you might expect. But as I said... the moment you declare that you need to have an experience in order to validate that experience or show it to be true.... I have got all kinds of "wrong" to rain down on that line of thinking.
But I think I can now safely return to repeating the point that got me the most amount of REPS on this thread today, which is to show that OBE is actually quite attainable by the average person. Either at a low level or a high one. And the "alien arm" experiment is one I wish everyone would try. Hell I would put it on the school curriculum if I could.... because that mere experience of looking at an arm, knowing it is NOT your arm with all of your mind.... yet to have your own brain try and tell you it is.... is actually quite an enlightening, consciousness raising and transformative experience. One that no one should enter into an OBE debate without having tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickstack
How in the world could anybody say it's unnecessary?
As I said above a few times. When claims from experience are directly contradictory and mutually exclusive.... then one quickly realises this is not the most useful tool for discerning truth that we have available to us as a species.
It isn't a genuine out-of-body experience unless you are in an OR or the back of a trauma ambulance and have flat-lined. You must be able to be resuscitated and be able to tell OR personnel exactly what they said and what they did while you were "dead", otherwise it's not a credible experience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
