/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6603516
im interested


have a bump

>>6512831
>putting faith in science

>anyday

Pleb.

>>6512763
>There's even been rewards for $1m, if anyone could just prove their abilities.

Nope. All bullshit. Doesn't exist.

>>6511428
>He's wondering what would make him see these "auras" around people

IIRC, seeing auras is just teaching your brain to understand things around us better, it's like learning a new language. But then again OP did claim he did nothing but smoke weed, so he might just associate people with colours and he just claims it's auras because for him personally, there's no other reasonable explanation.

>>6510517
>Are you seriously trying to call reputed philosophy 'random ramblings'?

Philosophy is not factual science.


>Look kid

And stopped right there. It's been fun talking, come back when you'll grow out of your pseudo-intellectual phase and get interested in real science.

>>6510504
>not read anybody like Campbell until you've exhausted the philosophical canon

Not sure if serious or just pseudo-intellectual


>A lot of the things he said have been written about more formally/profoundly hundreds of years before he was even born.

The difference being that he actually has data to back him up and it's not random rambling.

>>6510487
If i were you i'd drop the philosophy and instead learn to write a sentence without sounding pretentious

>>6510476
I just said what the context was comming from what you thought the context was, can you not read anon.

>>6510452
And the context is that he's talking about a greater reality based on consciousness to people unfamiliar with the greater reality, and that because the people are unfamiliar with the experiences, he is a charlatan. To which i replied you should try experiencing it yourself to gain a better understanding of what he's saying

>>6510405
So you don't understand the non-physical experiences and data he presents so he's a chartalan?

make it easy for yourself and try experiencing them yourself, that would help

>>6510381
A charlatan is a person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge. A fraud.

Starting with his personal life wasn't a good move in starting the first chapter of the first book, but the information presented was needed as a basis for what you were about to continue to read, and in no the information is making him a charlatan since it has scientific backing.

>Not because of the information he presents, but the way in which he presents it.

Let's say i agree, but he's far from being a charlatan, in the direct sense of the word, far from it.

>>6510353
>If you have an opinion, keep it to yourself, don't publish a trilogy of books about it

>Only ignorant or deluded people will buy into it.

Not to mention the fact that your innitial claim was that he was a "charlatan"

If you don't like the format, that's a whole new thing, but he barely figures as a charlatan when he has factual data behind it.

>>6510336
I did, it basicly resumes to "Meh, it's probably bullshit because i don't believe it" you brought zero substantial data to refute any of his research.

>>6510321
So in other words

>It's against my belief system so i'll call it bullshit.

Heh, the exact types he's been talking about in the books.

>>6510309
I thought you said he was a "charlatan"

What exactly did he present that is spreading disinformation and lies to the public.

>>6510285
What exactly makes him a "charlatan" mind asking?

>>6501074
>I'm convinced it will require nothing less than the Theory of Everything to solve this shit.

Thomas Campbell has such a Theory of Everything. You should check it out.

>>6496042
>Ask for factual scientifical studies that refute a study as it is considered pseudo-something

>hur dur tripfags

welp, guess we're done here.

>>6495948
That's not enough scientific refutation for me, and only poor excuses to dismiss real phenomenons from biases and belief systems.

>>6495951
and this is what, exactly?

>>6495894
since the experiences felt during the process look alike, its safe to assume they can be the same thing, once being done at our own will while the other happening from a mechanical process, a process we have yet to understand

>>6495907
>>6495911

Like i said it was the first to pop into my head

Campbell did a series of such experiments too as noted in his book, chapter 10

>We repeated that experiment with similar results. It wasn't a phenomenon that depended on the two of us. Nancy Lea and I shared equally astonishing joint experiences. We tried other things as well. We read three and four digit numbers written on a blackboard next to the control room. Somebody would write a random number and we would read it while our bodies lay asleep. Then they would erase it and write another one, and so on and on

With some quick googleing you can find many others

>>6495880
No, i mean actualy scientific experiments done in labs

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/thehub/out-of-body-experiences-validated-by-scientific-study

this one is the first to pop in my head but i had a link somewhere with several dozens of experiments such as this one.

>Unless you are telling us somebody actually won the James Randi paranormal challenge? Thats a million dollars, you know.

Have you actually seen the money they supposedly promised? ? let alone the the application for the prize?

That is just a way for people to mock anything they don't personally agree with, the money does not exist.

>>6495884
No need to make a show out of it, anon.

Still waiting that source btw

>>6495745
>Since we can recreate them at will without death being involved and studied (in high-G-training)


What high G training? haven't found any research on those, so feel free to post any.

>We can safely rule out after death experiences and we also have zero cases of experiences/memories being made after complete brain death, motha fucking dead!

There are studies where people during an OBE can read digit numbers hidden someplace in the room by the observers and when they come back to their body they correctly name all of them. With this in mind we can safely assume that after we die, we still continue to exist non-physicly. Our "soul" therefor is nothing but our consciousness that does not depend entirely on physicality to exist.

>>6495732
>Study what brain areas are used for what in that persons brain

what?

>Based upon that you can see what he thinks he's seeing... of course, this is not possible so far

Not possible but there are many surveys where people recollect the same experiences. The same "light at the end of the tunnel", recalling of speaking with dead relatives, floating above the operation table and so on.

If we can assume that that NDE's are nothing but OBE's happening with our will, we can use similar studies (http://www.monroeinstitute.org/thehub/scientists-scanned-a-womans-brain-during-an-obe-what-they-found-was-amazing)) to figure out what's going on

They can work well in understanding the phenomenon before a machine allows us to monitor the brain.

>>6495737
I'm in a hurry so i only read parts of it. So far i can say there is no proof the brain releases DMT and that strassman himself recognised he wasn't well familiar with the brain at all. There was that other study about CO2 but it doesn't prove anything conclusive.

If the thread survives when i get back i'd like to continue the conversation on the matter.