Talk:Astral projection

Astral travelling is only a mind experience

An astral travelling is only a mind experience. A person sees in his mind a film. A person who this film sees, is in a situation between sleep and wakefulness. The person in this situation believes that it is not a dream but it is a reality. Any drugs help that the person comes into this situation, namely half wakefulness-half sleep. The another ways for this situation are hypnose, meditation, yoga etc. The brain control needs firstly that the mind is empty and any thoughts are not so much complex. Then it starts the astral travel, if the mind of person is arranged. Comparison: The red pill and travel in the Matrix film:

• Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.... Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.... Remember, all I'm offering is the truth, nothing more.... Follow me.... Apoc, are we online?
• Apoc: Almost.
• Morpheus: Time is always against us. Please, take a seat there.
• Neo: You did all this?
• Trinity: Uh-huh.
• Morpheus: The pill you took is part of a trace program. It's designed to disrupt your input/output carrier signal so we can pinpoint your location.
• Neo: What does that mean?
• Cypher: It means buckle your seat belt, Dorothy, because Kansas is going bye-bye.
• Neo: Did you...
• Morpheus: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real. What if you were unable to wake from that dream. How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?
• Neo: This can't be...
• Morpheus: Be what? Be real?

--81.213.142.44 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

quoted from: http://www.ix625.com/matrixscript.html --81.214.110.130 (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first started experiencing astral projections (pre-adulthood), I wanted to find out whether it was just a really intense dream state, or actually a sensory state with objective ramifications. So what I did was to take a (non-digital, stopped) clock, and behind my back set it to a random time (using the button in the back of the clock). Then, without looking, I placed it in a (half open) closet, making sure not to look at it. The experiment, therefore, was to show whether I'd be able to tell the time randomly set with the clock (I may as well had used dice, or whatever). The result was that, in the obe mode I saw the stopped clock and everything, but it displayed a time other than what I later learned it was, leading me to conclude that it is, in fact, a dream state rather than a one with objective abilities. (at least it was for me, at that time) El_C 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A highest quality film in dream

An astral travel experience seems so real that it is just like a highest quality three dimensional film. Man can say that it is like a theater in dream and better than watching a film in wakefulness. Comparison:

Dream Theater - Forsaken

Forsaken

For a while i thought i fell asleep

Lying motionless inside a dream

Then rising suddenly

I felt a chilling breath upon me

She softly whispered in my ear

(Forsaken)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4m8bf_dream-theater-forsaken_music --81.214.110.130 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nymph

Some angels wanted sexual relations with beautiful women. They came down to earth and made for themselves fleshly bodies like those of humans. At the present day they disturb still some of women. And sometimes make for themselves bodies like women. So they will to make sex with some of men.

Genesis 6:2: The sons of the true God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.

Jude 6,7: And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home- these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1120469514869&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Cyber_Counselor/CyberCounselingE/CyberCounselingE

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agartha&oldid=228132433#Agartha_-_Tartarus_-_.22pitch_black_caverns_of_underworld.22_-_a_status_symbol_of_sinned_angels --81.214.110.130 (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Veridical information

An editor removed content re. the search for "veridical" OOB perception on the grounds that the editor does not understand the word. The word is commonly used in studies, including those cited here. The editor's ignorance of the material being edited is compromising the quality of the article and, together with the removal of accurate accounts of such studies and persistent replacement with OR backed with faulty citations, is perilously close to vandalism. The editor is recommended to submit suggestions for changes to the talk page. Redheylin (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence was removed:

Although there have been a limited number of investigations directly examining the validity of the astral projection hypothesis and the perception during it, more typically reports of such experiences are problematically subjective and anecdotal, and the more quantitative of such studies have not reliably detected anything to support the astral hypothesis.

This is fully supported by the cited references, especially the Blackmore reference. The following was also removed:

Psychological studies have suggested possible neurological mechanisms for out-of-body experiences, without appeal to supernatural explanations.

which, again, is a gloss of two studies on the subject. Instead this has now been replaced by a weirdly detailed account of one of the two studies cited here. It is true that the term "veridical" is used in some of the studies that were cited in the lead, but neither of the two studies being discussed used the term. I had attempted to settle on a more neutral wording of the last clause in the sentence that would satisfy all concerned. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding this matter. I will recuse myself from further discussion here for a period of one week, or until the matter is resolved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal beat me to the punch. Lede looks good right now.Simonm223 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted the Ring/Lawrence reference that was removed on grounds of being worthless hearsay. In reality, it's a scholastic peer-reviewed paper that's based purely on witness-corroborated reports. Ring's earlier work is important enough to be discussed in the older Blackmore article that Sławomir Biały replaced it with, so the worthlessness of this more directly relevant reference appears to be solely based on personal opinion. K2709 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for a citation from the source to back the following statement;

"more quantitative of such studies have not reliably detected anything to support the astral hypothesis.[5]"

and also for an explanation of why the full analysis of the Blanke paper has been destroyed. In my view this, plus the removal of the normal language of papers on this subject (veridical, paranormal) appears to be a "dumbing down" to a NNPOV-OS. As the editor puts it, "detail" is "weird" and he prefers a "more neutral" language than scientific studies can provide - his own language, untainted by the "weird" terminology of the people he misquotes. Redheylin (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV isn't involved with my comment, but you need to ensure that the article is written for laymen, not experts. A "weird" term like veridical should be avoided. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be somewhat twisting Sławomir Biały's comments. He did not say that detail is weird and he certainly never said that the word veridical is weird. He said that the account of one paper was "weirdly detailed", presumably meaning that it was strange and apparently tangental to go into specific detail about one particular paper at that point. "Veridical" is a term often used by Susan Blackmore, that's true, but it is an unusual word and I agree with others that its inclusion, certainly at this point, does not help comprehension. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Must agree that comprehension trumps many other considerations. The encyclopedia should be useful to laymen as well as scholars. I'd consider the use of "veridical" if the word was hyperlinked to a definition or contextual detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Irbis - terms that are important enough in the nomenclature of cited scientific studies as to be used in the titles need to be EXPLAINED, not cut with the comment "whatever that means". The citation has been used, it is there to be seen and read, and it seems reasonable to ensure that the "layman" can figure out what the paper is going to be about. You would not venture, I think, to delete the word "quark" from an article on subatomic particles on similar grounds and that is why I am saying, as long as universities support study of "Astral Projection" is as long as this article must continue to map their findings and explain their terminology. Not to do so is leading to OS, NPOV, edit war and vandalism, because the object of the recent edits was to obscure and dumb down the "weird detail" of the current state of knowledge. At present you are arguing in favour of this, since you apparently agree that detail be avoided, so that the sources cannot be understood, so everything must be cut out except false citations and OS. Right, one more time:

I am looking for a citation from the source to back the following statement;

"more quantitative of such studies have not reliably detected anything to support the astral hypothesis.[5]"

Either take care of this or allow me to revert to a version backed by this source. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass removal of wiki-links by Irbisgreif

Do people like this? I find this minimal linking quite a barrier to navigation. How obvious is it now that eg. Sylvan Muldoon has an wiki article about him? K2709 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well just recently I have seen a lot removed - text, pics, links, citations - I've seen worthwhile, non-controversial, wiki style edits reverted - but no constructive contributions at all. I cannot get even one of them to check citations and it looks like none of them has read the cited papers. They must all be relying on their points of view, for all the signs I can see. I'd call this destructive editing. Redheylin (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taoism

Re: this paragraph:

Taoist projection practice similarly involves development of an energy body. Energy drawn into the lower dantian is condensed and refined through chi kung circulatory techniques before being shot upwards along the thrusting meridian to exit through the crown to a point above the head. After this, consolidation of the second body's consciousness may be furthered by applying exercises including the small circulation of chi within the second body itself.

This wasn't intended to be an edit war, I merely pressed undo as part of the act of removing the one remaining sentence of chia-specific material that the paragraph deliberately no longer depends upon. This is why it shows up as a warring-style repeat revert rather than civilised diff-able edit. Please explain why this paragraph referencing a run-of-the-mill Dorling Kindersley overview book is considered so dubious. K2709 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed the Mantak Chia ref; as he is categorically not a reliable source for orthodox taoism that satisfies me. I can't comment on Paul Brecher as I've never heard of him so I'm satisfied. But I am just one guy. It would be useful to point out that Taoism is not always homogeneous.Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)