proof of astral travel

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Not true. There have been many ESP experiments that show evidence that such phenomena exists. Examples: The Ganzfeild Experiment, Clairvoyant Dream experiments, Pearce-Pratt experiments, Sense of Being Stared at experiments and others.

These experiments alone show something weird is going. Does mainstream science care? No. It conflicts with there basic assumptions.

So, even if Erin did those experiments and they actually gained recognition (not likely) she and the scientists involved would be harshly criticized. Not lifted up on the shoulders of objective scientific research.

I can't speak for the Ganzfield, clairvoyant dream or Pearce-Pratt experiments, but I did wade though Sheldrake's "sense of being stared at" work.

Sheldrake's methodology isn't even close to being called reputable science, which is why it isn't taken seriously.

And even if there was something "weird" going on, that doesn't mean for a moment that it's supernatural. It just means that we don't understand it. To draw a straight line between something we don't understand and supernatural phenomena isn't rational. I personally don't understand how electricity works, but that doesn't mean it's particularly weird.

That's not to assume that there isn't something supernatural going on. It's just that we can't automatically leap to that conclusion everytime something happens we don't understand.

*edited to add*

I just did a quick Google search on Pearce-Pratt experiments. Seems that proper double-blind protocol wasn't used, and both Pratt and Rhine (one of the investigators) were already believers. A 1960 research project about the P.P. experiments showed that there was ample opportunity for errors - however unintentional - to creep into the process. There's a brief look at it here.

[VetTechJess]

what about the CIA's top secret classified experiments with astral projection and remote viewing ?!?!

It was called Project Stargate or Operation Stargate, I forget which.....

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

I can't speak for the Ganzfield, clairvoyant dream or Pearce-Pratt experiments, but I did wade though Sheldrake's "sense of being stared at" work.

Sheldrake's methodology isn't even close to being called reputable science, which is why it isn't taken seriously.

And even if there was something "weird" going on, that doesn't mean for a moment that it's supernatural. It just means that we don't understand it. To "draw a straight line between something we don't understand and supernatural phenomena isn't rational. I personally don't understand how electricity works, but that doesn't mean it's particularly weird.

That's not to assume that there isn't something supernatural going on. It's just that we can't automatically leap to that conclusion everytime something happens we don't understand.

*edited to add*

I just did a quick Google search on Pearce-Pratt experiments. Seems that proper double-blind protocol wasn't used, and both Pratt and Rhine (one of the investigators) were already believers. A 1960 research project about the P.P. experiments showed that there was ample opportunity for errors - however unintentional - to creep into the process. There's a brief look at it here.

If the controls were tight enough and the results were statistically significant the only explanation is a mental effect, coincidence and human error already having been ruled out.

What exactly was wrong with Sheldrakes methodology? Seldom do I hear any specific complaints, just the usual "no way it can be true" argument.

As for Pearce and Pratt:

"... And then Pearce supposedly stood on a chair near a door and looked down through a transom in the door into Pratt's office, where he watched him record the sequence of cards. To bolster his explanatory scenario Hansel included a diagram of the rooms as he remembered them. The diagrams were not up to scale because Hansel couldn't get a hold of the floor plans. If you had he would have found his peeking hypothesis impossible."

"On the few occasions when Pratt and Pearce met and compared their unsealed duplicates before both of them had delivered their sealed records to Rhine, the data could not have been changed without collision, as Pratt kept the results from the unsealed records and any discrepancy between them and Rhine's results would have been noticed."

As for the claim that Rhine was the only evaluator of the material this is false:"After the study ended, other researchers examined the raw data sheets to double check the hit rates (they matched), to see whether the sequence of trials were adequately random (they were), and to see whether the results tended to cluster in bursts of hits (they didn't)".

So, much for improper double-blind protocol. The controls were sufficient (whether they were believers or non-believers) and the results were astronomically above chance. The only explanation appears to be telepathy.

Another interesting experiment was reported in 1923 and was done at a university (forget which) in the Nederlands. They experimented with a man named Van Dam who claimed to be telepathic. Their results were also statistically significant.

I know remote viewers have been tested as well. As article was published in Nature (in the 1970s I believe) by scientists Targ and Puthoff in which they reported positive results. Although they received criticism, the detailed examinations of the critiques found them unable to explain away the reported results.

[Tribe]

For people who want some documented tests, look up Robert Monroe, he did tests under scientific conditions with blind controls to both him and the researchers to which the only way he could have viewed certain things (images, words, items) was if he was out of his body. His life work culminated with the Monroe Institute. He wrote one of the classic books on OBE's, worth reading.

[Ninja]

You talk like science has already reached its peak... but technology is still in its infant stage. We might think we're so advanced now, but in a 1000 years they will be laughing at 'those primitive cavemen' that still *snort* used a computer to check Steve's forum.

I think astral travel has not been scientifically proven yet, because the means to do so have yet to be invented.

[Dave Kaminski]

Ninja, would you really like that kind of stuff to be invented?

I know I'm coming from a "mindset of fear" but come on... that's pretty powerful stuff.

"I think, therefore I am" would no longer hold any weight. "I think, therefore they are" would be more like it.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Sam988

I disagree. There were many things that i didn't believe to be true and after i saw some proofs (or the lack of proofs), i couldn't help but change my beliefs, and that's what i did numerous times on numerous subjects.

I imagine you believed it was possible?

I think the saying is an if and only if statement in itself.

If and only if no proof is proof enough, their mind will never be changed.

They who cannot believe it to be possible will never see it as possible - they will deny it to the grave. You gave your ideas a chance of thought and they succeeded in that chance.

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

Ninja, would you really like that kind of stuff to be invented?

I know I'm coming from a "mindset of fear" but come on... that's pretty powerful stuff.

"I think, therefore I am" would no longer hold any weight. "I think, therefore they are" would be more like it.

No, but I think it will be invented someday. And it will be a very dark day indeed.

[Fullcrum]

I think the main issue here is that Erin's priorities do not lay with convincing anyone that this stuff is true. It's so obvious to her, and it works for her, and she's proved it hundreds of times; Steve believes it, too.

I don't think attempting to prove astral projection to scientists aligns with what she believes is her worldly purpose. Maybe if she had different priorities, like "changing mainstream consciousness", "advancing science", or "getting things out to the public", she'd be more interested. But I think her mindset is more like "Help people raise their consciousness", "help them find their purpose in this plain and the next", and things of that nature. So she'd be more than happy to help you raise your consciousness, but proving astral travel to scientists feels like a useless expenditure of energy, at least for her.

Am I right Erin? Correct me if I'm wrong .

[Erin Pavlina]

You're right. I am the teacher that appears when the student is ready. I am not the evangelical that knocks on your door during dinner and tries to convince you of something you're unaware of and uninterested in.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

...I am not the evangelical that knocks on your door during dinner and tries to convince you of something you're unaware of and uninterested in.

No side gig distributing Jack Chick style spiritual development pamphlets on the subway?