Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Intermission Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 3 of 3
Topic:
The Department of Positive Out of Body Possibilities
This thread has 41 replies. Displaying posts 31 through 42.
OP | Post 31 made on Monday July 16, 2007 at 00:59
Tim Brewer
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
16
To whom it may concern,

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

[Link: freewebs.com]

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

Thank you,
Tim
Everything in life takes it's allotted amount of time, and this topic is no different.
Post 32 made on Monday July 16, 2007 at 08:24
Jay In Chicago
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
1,658
Tim... Do you want to die?


Anybody that quotes Carrol Burnett should want to die.

Just think of how much more valid your views would be from the other side.
Jet Rack ... It's what's for breakfast
Post 33 made on Saturday July 21, 2007 at 12:41
HiFiRobbie
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2006
1,559
There Is NO Spoon...
Problems worthy of attack, prove their worth, by hitting back. -Piet Hein.
OP | Post 34 made on Wednesday July 25, 2007 at 20:38
Tim Brewer
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
16
On July 16, 2007 at 08:24, Jay In Chicago said...
Tim... Do you want to die?

Anybody that quotes Carrol Burnett should want to die.

Just think of how much more valid your views would be
from the other side.

Dear Jay in Chicago,

Thank you for your insight about Carrol, and I don't know why my mind has saved that quote all these years, but it is true, and I plan on explaining it more in the future with inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Induction (philosophy))
Jump to: navigation, search
Inductive reasoning is the complement of deductive reasoning. For other article subjects named induction, see Induction.
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.
All billiard balls struck with a cue move.

You are also right about your other statement; If we had the right tools and mind set in place for my idea, then out of body afterlife could get a lot done from that end of the problem.

By the way, I also had a great time on my vacation this year over the 4th at Ogden Dunes next to Chicago. It was great seeing the city over the lake during the day and at night.

Have you ever been to Ogden Dunes before?

Thank you,
Tim
Everything in life takes it's allotted amount of time, and this topic is no different.
Post 35 made on Friday July 27, 2007 at 11:48
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,427
OP | Post 36 made on Tuesday July 31, 2007 at 02:37
Tim Brewer
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
16
To whom it may concern,
From Transformer,
[Link: museumofhoaxes.com]
As someone who has just read through this thread from start to finish in one sitting, I must say:
My understanding of your theory thus far:- You have had a left brain SOBE.
- You want to prove that the possibility of having a left brain SOBE means that human thought can exist outside the human body.
- This includes that human consciousness or thought can exist post-death.
- You believe that the Brain Gate machine offers a new potential way to test this.
- You have also developed a simpler method to test this which relies on a touch sensor, and a light.
- Based on your personal experience, you have come up with needed additional equipment to bypass what you see as obstacles (not being able to hear, not being able to read things which aren’t large and easy to read).
- You have posted your theory in the same manner as you have here in multiple forums.
- You believe that for someone to successfully communicate with the physical world we all know when they are not in their body, they need to believe in the possibility, and train to do it, during their physical life.
- You are not easily deterred from your goal, truly believe in your idea, and believe that if it can be proven in a mathematical theory, the results will benefit all of mankind.
Your communication skills are good in the sense that you can write coherently and eloquently, however you seem to be having problems putting your thoughts into a format that others can understand.This is something that I deal with every day working in the training field. Preparing training materials is essentially finding a way to tell someone how to do something, however the key to doing it successfully is to do it in a way that your target audience can understand and identify with. I have worked with many extremely intelligent and knowledgeable professionals who exhibit the same issue that I see with you; you understand your theory and what you are trying to prove, but fail to translate it into terms and concepts that can be clearly understood by all. You tend to over-elaborate details and advanced concepts related to your theory, when the basic concepts remain to be understood by the audience.
In simple terms, you are failing to “dumb down” the information you are presenting, so that people can understand your basic concepts and ideas before you go onto discussing the advanced, or still uncertain parts of your idea. If my synopsis above is a good basic definition of what you have been trying to communicate all along, please feel free to use it moving forward. You should also consider how your explanations and posts compare to the synopsis I have provided and see if you can envision a way to “translate” you thoughts into similar statements moving forward.
1) Present your overall hypothesis. Keep it simple and easy to understand. Present it in terms familiar to those who you want to inform.
Example: Your title for the thread has a “fantastic” feel to it and leads to disbelief from the start. “Proving that human consciousness can exist outside the body” would be much simpler and to the point, and people would understand what you want to get across right from the start. This sets the tone for you to then explain in detail what you believe and how you wish to prove it. I understand that for you, this started with an SOBE, but your theory goes beyond that and the SOBE was simply a “eye opening experience”.
2) Present your goal. Right from the start, let people know what exactly you want to prove.
3) Present the “tools” you will use to test your theory. Explain what each tool will do, and why clearly and concisely.
4) Explain what led you to come up with your hypothesis. A personal experience is a fine way of coming up with a theory or idea (think Newton and the apple, even if it didn’t really happen great ideas really do start in similar ways) but it shouldn’t be the primary focus of your entire communication.
5) Present any open questions you have, or alternate possibilities you may have thought of. Once you have done the first four things, people will be ready to receive this information in the right context. This would include eventual results you might expect as a result of proving your goal.
6) Present what you need to continue testing and working on your theory. If you are requesting assistance, detail what that entails. One of your posts mentioned great cost associated, this may scare people off. I now have the impression that anyone can help you test your theory at a basic level using a touch sensor, a light or buzzer and a large-screen TV, along with a clear understanding of what your methodology for testing is. This simple setup is definitely something people may be interested in testing, mention the Brain Gate as another “optimal” test you can see, but don’t focus so much on it as it is clearly a lofty goal.Again, this is just a suggestion, but hopefully you will see the value. I think you have some interesting ideas and they just need to be presented in a different manner to get a different reaction. You still won’t get everybody on your side, but you’ll more likely get some curious and interested parties.
Please don’t get me wrong Tim, I’m not saying you’re a genius (although you could very well be) and I’m not saying you’re completely blinded and wrong. What I am saying is that you are indeed failing to accept some very real possibilities when it comes to your theory.
Basic fact is that as others have stated, it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE that your SOBE experience was more of a dream-like state. People CAN be influenced while dreaming, this is proven. People CAN think they are awake while dreaming, this is also proven. The truth is that despite your belief that you had a true and pure SOBE, it is entirely possible that you didn’t and were dreaming. You are convinced that it was an SOBE, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was beyond the shadow of a doubt.
It was not a dream, it was reality.
That said, there is nothing wrong with you truly believing that this was an SOBE, and the theory that you have come up with as a result of it could very well prove true. As long as you insist that is absolutely was an SOBE beyond the shadow of a doubt and that “nobody can understand”, however you will fail to interest anyone who doesn’t already believe in SOBEs. If you can’t interest these people, then you will never be able to prove your theory for a theory proven only by people who already believed it to be true, will hold very little value to the scientific community. It will also prevent you from enlisting the help of people who could help you to prove (or disprove) your theory in the long run.
It could, if it was treated like a customer service issue.
Example: If one person gets sick eating at a restaurant, nobody really takes the time to care, and it is considered an isolated situation, maybe they were already sick from something else, but if more than one gets sick at the same time, at the same restaurant, it is considered an epidemic, and action should take place to fix the problem. We are dealing with thousand of people who have had the same experience as I, so that would make it a epidemic. We all do not need to get sick to know that there is a problem.
This is what happened and I am pretty sure it’s exactly what happened and it was real, BUT I can’t be 100% certain until it is proven.”
Now take this theory that you have which resulted from an experience while you are still alive, and expand it to that it can happen post-death.
I would say first prove an SOBE can happen when someone is alive, focus on this as it is the heart of your theory and your personal experience. Once this is proven, then you can make the next step and say that if someone can exist outside their body, they can potentially exist as energy once they die in the same way. .
You’ve covered a lot of bases (testing different sensors, etc.) but you just need to present it properly, and define an order to your theory.
Presenting it as one big jumble of misaligned pieces just isn’t going to cut it if you truly want to see this worked on, or looked at by anyone who doesn’t already believe in SOBE thus isn’t already biased.
Also, please read what people write carefully. It is painful to see you misinterpret sarcasm and people poking fun at you as people trying to help you. Perhaps their sarcasm and poking is indeed helping you to further develop your theory on your own, but it is important to realize whether it was their intention or not. Otherwise you will find yourself wasting a lot of energy writing to them.
All right, that’s it. Hopefully this will help you to present your theory moving forward in a way people will be more willing to accept. I personally think your experiments sound interesting and would like to see them actually happen so that we can see what the results are.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to work within the scientific methodology and ensure that you do not set the results before the experiment takes place. You also need to take each step of your theory one at a time and prove it individually.
Thank you Transformer,
from Tim
Everything in life takes it's allotted amount of time, and this topic is no different.
OP | Post 37 made on Sunday November 11, 2007 at 03:43
Tim Brewer
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
16
Thank you for reading my thoughts,

Quick review about this topic:

I have a communication idea for future afterlife people, a back up plan, in case your options change for some strange reason, a just in case you find you are still having thoughts after you die.

I believe we need to build an Out of Body afterlife Museum, a place where people can really see out side the box, when it comes to information, and what a true purpose to evolution can do.

Energy, thoughts, waves, are all a part of what will be listened too, and then measured. Future out of body afterlife people will decide if they are up to this challenge. Our goal will be to give them all the tools they will need, because at some point we will want to try this as well.

This idea alone has never been tried before.

Example:
People say if it could be done, they would of done it before. That is an assumption, this topic needs follow through, and that is the one thing we are not doing year to date.

My idea is a back up plan to the possibility, if I am wrong, what did it hurt, but if I am right, we fix are internal bleeding as a culture once and for all.

This ain't no thinking thing, right brain, left brain, it goes a lot deeper than that.

Thank you for reading my thoughts,
Tim
Everything in life takes it's allotted amount of time, and this topic is no different.
Post 38 made on Sunday November 11, 2007 at 04:23
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,427
On July 31, 2007 at 02:37, Tim Brewer said...

On November 11, 2007 at 03:43, Tim Brewer said...

Been on holiday Tim?
Post 39 made on Sunday November 11, 2007 at 18:37
Damik
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2005
6,203
On November 11, 2007 at 04:23, djy said...

Been on holiday Tim?

An out of body one I hope!
I knew this was a mistake; my grip on reality's not too good at the best of times. Glitz, in "The Ultimate Foe"
Post 40 made on Monday November 12, 2007 at 05:34
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,427
Do you think this is an attempt at communicating from the "other side"?
Post 41 made on Monday November 12, 2007 at 17:51
Damik
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2005
6,203
If so I don't think it is much of a success
I knew this was a mistake; my grip on reality's not too good at the best of times. Glitz, in "The Ultimate Foe"
Post 42 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 05:10
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,427
He's obviously not using the right type of can . . .

Page 3 of 3


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse