Ugh.
I just read through this entire thread start to finish. I skipped very little content (a few things posted that weren’t really relevant to the topic at hand) the end result is:
Head dizzy, feeling parched, cohesive thought elusive…
*gets a drink (non-alcoholic… so far…), does a few things, comes back to write his piece*
Dear Tim,
As someone who has just read through this thread from start to finish in one sitting, I must say that at many points I was quite confused. I believe that I have understood the core of your beliefs at this point, and would like to first offer a synopsis to test my understanding and second offer some advice that may prove useful.
My understanding of your theory thus far:
- You have had an SOBE.
- You want to prove that the possibility of having an 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 BrainGate 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 t during their physical life.
- You are not easily deterred from your goal, truly believe in your theory, and believe that if it can be proven, the results will benefit all of mankind.
There is more, but I am going to stop there for simplicity’s sake. Please let me know if this seems accurate to you. I must admit that it took quite a bit to get all of this into a coherent mental image. It literally hurt my head to read through this information in the manner you presented it. I think your biggest challenge is one that many people face. 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.
First let us look at your communication:
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 yout 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.
Many of the replies I saw in the thread were simply people trying to get the point of what you were saying. You would give a piece, but then go onto a completely different topic, or simply repeat the same thing you said previously without stopping to consider why you were not being understood. You also failed at several points to correct people when they had misunderstood what you were saying, thus leading people to get even more confused as the thread progressed.
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 theory. 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. Had you started off this thread with information formatted in a similar manner, I think you would have found a much different response from all. Since your goal in communicating your theory is to enlist other to help you test your theory and concepts, I suggest this should be as much a focus as the theory itself.
Here are some simple steps you can take when communicating your ideas moving forward, many of them are simply elaborations of what is taught in High School English classes when you learn to write an essay, but it is easy to forget them when the context is different:
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 BrainGate 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.
I used to work with a brilliant man. He held a Masters in Physics and could rattle off theories and concepts like no-one else I have ever known. He could ramble deep-space theory and quantum mechanics that I didn’t even dream of understanding, and was part of many think-tanks on the subjects he worked with. Despite a staggering understanding of vastly complex concepts, he sometimes had great difficulty dealing with the simplest things.
Example: We worked in a tech support environment where I was the trainer and he was a support agent (not basic rudimentary support, more advanced). There were 300 people in our facility running exactly the same computer (hardware) with exactly the same OS and exactly the same basic software installed (all installed from the same image). The chat client that we used to communicate internally was on every machine, as well as the software that we used to log our trouble tickets. Every person in the center used both simultaneously except Mr. Physicist. I asked him why and he replied that the two could not work together. Further explanations from him were vastly detailed regarding the programming behind the two applications. In essence what he told me was that the Boolean equations used in the two programs, when they were run simultaneously, would tie themselves in knots. He had elaborate ideas of why and how to fix it and such that he began to share. At this point, I interrupted him and tried to interject a little bit of logic. I pointed out that 300 systems were running the software simultaneously and that his computer was the only one that seemed to experience this knotty (forgive me) problem. I theorized that through a process of deduction, I have to say that the two programs could, indeed run simultaneously and that perhaps the problem was unique to his machine and something that was wrong with his system. Right away, he told me that couldn’t be, and that the code for the programs was behind the issue and that if I examined the code and went through it with him I would see it too. I tried in vain to make him understand my reasoning, but it was “impossible” in his mind that this was true, and the only solution he could see was to rewrite the code for the applications. I ended up making him a deal. I would perform some basic troubleshooting and try some solutions and if they didn’t work, I would ensure he was paid to rewrite the code for as long as it took. This, he saw as a great idea and invited me to have my way with his system. I checked a few things, uninstalled both programs, cleaned out any trace that remained of them, re-installed them, and presto magnifico, THEY WORKED! Even once they worked simultaneously, he was dumbfounded and claimed it was “impossible”. He was so set in the theory and what he had determined was true, that he failed to see a potential other logical explanation or cause for what he was experiencing. I, however was able to weigh all possibilities and looked “outside” of his immediate environment to see what was going on in the big picture.
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.
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.
If you were to say “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” then you will show logic and reason, and people from the scientific community will understand and get you. Until then, they will only see that you are convinced of something being 100% true that you nor anyone else can prove. Then you 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. Again, this is quite a stretch. Even if you can prove that SOBEs are real using your experiment, it does not necessarily imply that it could happen after you die, once the tissue that comprises your physical body is gone, many circumstances are changed. I see two separate theories here that you seem to be trying to prove at once. 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. There are still problems as your SOBE may turn out to be a form of psychic projection and telekinetic influence which isn’t possible post-death, but those are paths to cross once you’ve cleared the first hurdle.
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. You haven’t presented anything that has convinced me that your experiment is structured enough to offer any real evidence should it actually be performed yet though. 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.
I fear that this forum as a group is now tainted because of the way this whole deal was presented to it. Your best bet is to put everything together and make it cohesive, and then take it to a group who may be receptive to participating in it and helping you prove or disprove.
Inductive reasoning is a dangerous method of creating a theory due to its very nature.
Inductive reasoning is notoriously unrelaible at coming to conclusions and lacks any logical structure. David Hume noted in his treatise of induction that the generalisations it throws up are only practical if the induction is constant. The future MUST resemble the past for the whole thing to work. Inductive reasoning is different from deductive reasoning, which is scientifically favoured because of its logic. Inductive reasoning does not allow for deviations or anything which can prove the theory wrong.
And as Karl Popper said, in research, anything that supports the theory is useless. You should seek to find data to disagree with it- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
Induction does not allow this.
Thank you Renquist,
Before I respond to Transfrmr, Let me ask you a question.
I seek to find data from science that can’t disagree with my idea- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
It can’t be this easy, can it? We already know that science can’t disagree with it.
I want to add more, like how some fields of science actually help my possibility.
Now what type of reasoning am I really looking for?
I seek to find data from science that can’t disagree with my idea- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
It can’t be this easy, can it? We already know that science can’t disagree with it.
No, it can’t be that easy, Tim.
Everyone with a theory hopes that science can’t disagree with it. But science is about proving. It shows that something can be done, shows set steps of how it is done and achieved and then can reproduce the results time and time again, every time, using those steps.
Just because science “can’t disagree” with you doesn’t mean that it “can agree” with you. You have to prove that it agrees with you and will agree with you every time the experiment is done.
But it’s been many, many years since my high school (and some college) science classes so I’ll let those more qualified handle things from here.
Inductive reasoning is a dangerous method of creating a theory due to its very nature.
Inductive reasoning is notoriously unrelaible at coming to conclusions and lacks any logical structure. David Hume noted in his treatise of induction that the generalisations it throws up are only practical if the induction is constant. The future MUST resemble the past for the whole thing to work. Inductive reasoning is different from deductive reasoning, which is scientifically favoured because of its logic. Inductive reasoning does not allow for deviations or anything which can prove the theory wrong.
And as Karl Popper said, in research, anything that supports the theory is useless. You should seek to find data to disagree with it- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
Induction does not allow this.
Thank you Renquist,
Before I respond to Transfrmr, Let me ask you a question.
I seek to find data from science that can’t disagree with my idea- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
It can’t be this easy, can it? We already know that science can’t disagree with it.
I want to add more, like how some fields of science actually help my possibility.
Now what type of reasoning am I really looking for?
Thank you,
Tim
Deductive reasoning, where a conclusion is reached by examining previously known premises, is scientifically more logical than inductive reasoning. We see this via
1) All men are mortal (major premise)
2) Big Wullie is a man (minor premise)
3) Big Wullie is mortal (conclusion)
This allows for flaws and abnormalities and uses more than one premise to draw a conclusion. Inductive reasoning is, in essence, taking a series of phenomena and, based on a recurrence, forming a rule based upon it.
1) All observed crows are black (premise)
2) All crows are black (conclusion)
Naturally this lacks logic. Any abnormality such as an albino does not fit into the pattern. The logic is unsound and unscientific.
While deduction can produce flawed conclusions, this can only happen if the premises are flawed themselves. This applies to any form of reasoning. Deduction, however, produces cocnlusions that are not entirely certain or concrete- even if the conclusion is solid, its logical basis allows for abnormalities. However, induction does not allow for these. Inductive conclusions are solid and as such often erroneous- the world rarely has anything that is truly constant or solid. Induction is logically flawed and academically seen as weak.
“I seek to find data from science that can’t disagree with my idea- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
It can’t be this easy, can it? We already know that science can’t disagree with it.”
Saying that you already know science can’t disagree with your theory is both bold and erroneous. If it was that easy then it wouldn’t be a possibility it would be a fact. If you look for data that agrees with your theory you may indeed find it.
If I want to prove all humans are white then I can go to Shetland to prove my theory. I will undoubtedly only encounter caucasians there. I have found data to prove my theory.
If I attempt to disprove my theory I would go to Kenya and see black people. My theory is disproved.
“A theory is only a theory until it is disproved.”
True words. Proving a theory is important. Proving that it cannot be disproved is probably just as important.
I seek to find data from science that can’t disagree with my idea- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.
It can’t be this easy, can it? We already know that science can’t disagree with it.
No, it can’t be that easy, Tim.
Everyone with a theory hopes that science can’t disagree with it. But science is about proving. It shows that something can be done, shows set steps of how it is done and achieved and then can reproduce the results time and time again, every time, using those steps.
Just because science “can’t disagree” with you doesn’t mean that it “can agree” with you. You have to prove that it agrees with you and will agree with you every time the experiment is done.
But it’s been many, many years since my high school (and some college) science classes so I’ll let those more qualified handle things from here.
If you’re trying to prove the unproveable, then the scientific method of looking for disagreements probably isn’t such a good idea
