i didn't know where to put this but i wanted to ask where i can find the sources for a study claimed by Thomas Campbell where they had 2 sound proof booths and recorded the conversations and found out that it matched up perfectally or something along those lines - any other studies would be nice to have also

2822,

The original source will not be an easy find -- that data was recorded in the early to mid 70s (some 35 years ago) at the Monroe Institute. The Monroe Institute is still there (just Google them) -- hard to tell how good their record keeping has been -- but if they are like other small institutions, digging up a a set of two 35 year old cassette tape is hard enough, finding tape that old that is still readable is even more problematical.

Tom C

[quote="twcjr"]2822,

The original source will not be an easy find -- that data was recorded in the early to mid 70s (some 35 years ago) at the Monroe Institute. The Monroe Institute is still there (just Google them) -- hard to tell how good their record keeping has been -- but if they are like other small institutions, digging up a a set of two 35 year old cassette tape is hard enough, finding tape that old that is still readable is even more problematical.

Tom C[/quote]

Couldn't the experiment be reproduced and recorded? What is going on today with you personally? I know you don't have anything to do with the Institute anymore but from what I gathered from listening to your lectures online you aren't exactly inactive. Is it all solo? Thanks for putting those lectures up.

RP

Yes, it is all solo. Yes experiments could be repeated.

Consciousness is personal and thus subjective. The only proof that carries any weight or is of any significance is what you can prove to yourself as you do your own experiments. There are well documented scientific studies of paranormal events by the hundreds and perfectly clear unambiguous individual paranormal experiences by the tens of millions. There is no point or value in doing paranormal things for people to watch or study -- it makes no difference to anyone's personal growth. It is more entertaining to watch a bear balance a ball on its nose while riding a unicycle -- and just as enlightening.

The "proof" that is so interesting to you is a red herring that leads nowhere valuable -- a distraction, and often used as an excuse for not evolving the quality of one's consciousness. Because the experience of consciousness is personal and thus subjective, the "proof" must lie within your own personal experience. Any experience of consciousness (i.e., somebody else's consciousness) coming from outside your own experience has no ability to change you in any significant way (to change the quality of your intent). If the change you seek is only intellectual, there are already hundreds of facts and studies available that will inform your intellect. If you refuse to accept any of them as "proof" because they conflict with your beliefs, then more facts will not fix that situation. Go watch the bear instead - it's probably a better use of your time than trying to prove to your intellect that you live in an objective material reality rather than a virtual reality based upon the experience of consciousness. There is no intellectual proof - if you are seeking intellectual proof, you are looking for the end of the rainbow sticking into the ground somewhere. Proof must come from personal experience. As systems of information, experience and consciousness are non-objective and non-physical.

Tom

hi tom,

don't you think it would be a nice thing to dazzle the minds of the unaware masses, by conducting such an experiment and putting it on youtube and/or the news? would it make them think, or would it be forgotten by the time they get to the commercial break? :-)

greets from germany

chet

Hi chet,
Welcome to Tom's MBT discussion forum. Can you prove to me that you were born, and that the woman you believe gave birth to you (and if this topic has emotional baggage for you I appologize in advance) is your mother. Dazzle me with that, for what dazzle is worth.

Proof is in your experience. You should trust your own experience better than anything, right?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

hi bette,

good point, I only have the witness testimony from my mother...
but you know how it is with these, one saw a green car, the other a red one, and
the third a blue plane :-)

greets chet

Replication is not a bad idea.

A big part of the task would be to set up the experimental design.

But a big question would relate to the Psi Uncertainty Principle. Can that remain unviolated AND still yield the data necessary to result in p<.01% ....or less?

If an experimental design (should it, could it, be conducted over and/or wsith the web, somehow, so that the results would convince all that watched as it unwound? Preferably in real time? etc. etc. etc.)

It's a project that Tom might do well to take on by the horns: Not only can he spiff the whole thing up before hand to meet the most fastidioous sniff tests that science guys can come at it with, but even a peer-reviewable-grade experiment, well planned, can also be substantive enough for a fresh, not long, book, which could be at press within weeks, maybe, and likely a big house can be persuaded to pick it up, and cover the costs of productions in advance. (The book has to be cleverly laid out in advance, but well done, it should sell well). Then TWC can do a fresh round of visits to Big Radio, and the attention to the new book will bring attention also to the old.

-just brain-storming

Montana

That would tip it Montana, for sure, I mean probably. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Everything Tom said makes sense when dealing with this type of phenomena. In my corner of the world, I have been able to prove the reality of things such as shared dreaming, or dreams that come true to my closest friends and family, and only because they were there at the time.

Having any precognitive information that validates into something everyone can objectify as true is difficult because the experience itself is as subjective observed as when it comes true meaning everyone would have to be at my perspective watching the pattern match which is impossible.

I have a friend who I have proven that some of my dreams come true, also shared dreams with this person and showed them examples of phenomenology. What do they believe today? It's still all not true, and he's an atheist. Yet at the time when the proof was available he believed in the results. Why not today? He doesn't even remember those old revelations because it's been over 20 years since we explored the phenomena as teenagers.

Another friend, proved the OOBE experience, proved precognitive dreams... what happens next. He's the most fundamental Christian I know today. Sometimes proving things is meaningless and pointless to others. For the many people I have demonstrated this, none of it seemed to spark their interest or growth in these areas.

It really just ended up being dead weight. Tom is right, if you want proof, you need to prove it to yourself.

Yes Ian (YAD), it will take enough individuals knowing for this tip (like Gladwell spoke of) to happen. I think it is going to happen pretty soon, relatively speaking....
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I am not sure what role knowing this information will play in our conscious evolution, however my son indicated that he had 1 dream come true today. It's great that today I have friends and family who are engaged in their own experiences. He still hasn't read my Monroe books or MBT which I have recommended. One day.

My wife however, she's the total skeptic materialist so I just sound like a nutty batter even though I have told her dreams that have come true. She always forgets which just makes me shake my head because what's the point. I don't write my dreams down anymore. No time to commit to hours a day of writing.

YADster,

I totally agree that the the best evidence is first person, "it happened to me!" experience.

Aside/ Maureen Caudill (A TMI vet) says that she straight away teaches spoon-bending in her workshops near first thing, because it is fun, it loosens up the atmosphere for anew group, and primarily because, when the person bends the spoon, one of the thoughts that happens is "Oh Shit! I can't've hoaxed myself! This must be real!" /Aside

TWC is doing the science game though, and scientists, by agreement, 'talk' to each other in carefully controlled manner. So to talk that language, to communicate effectively with other scientists, he has to do it the way it's done, with double blind, carefully thought out experiments to isolate variables, pre-defined chance cut-offs, the whole 9 yards.

Of course, if he really wants to get at it and turn on other scientists, he should just flap on over and introduce himself in NPMR. Greg Braden, Richard Hoagland, and many others would love to meet him there, I'm sure. I would go to Hoagland first, and show up in a dream. Definitely go in star-trek drag, appearing as Mr. Spock. Drive up in a Porche that also looks like the SS enterprise, and offer to take him for a ride. If he doesn't go lucid when the thing goes into warp drive, just casually remark that this is a dream, and would you like to learn some new physics stuff, etc. A great advantage to befriending Richard: He has more PMR media contacts than God.

Here's a target, Tom: http://www.enterprisemission.com/hoagland.html

And he clearly stated on Coasttocoast recently that he would love to learn about 'torsion physics', if only someone would teach him. Surely there is something torsive to be found in NPMR...?

-just my slant,

Montana

Montana,

The proof is in the pudding as Tom says. I have never bent a spoon personally so until I see it happen or do it myself, it remains as an unknown to me but I am open minded to it. When it comes to phenomenology, my only experience with it came from making changes to a precognitive dream before they came true.

The changes manifested here, and some of the manifestations were absolutely awe inspiring to say the least. I mean, the scale of some of the manifestations were fairly significant. Unfortunately, one of them affected another person permanently and I do have some ethics now in regards to playing around and tampering with this reality through dreams. It's too much power for me to just toss around haplessly in satisfying my curiosity so I don't pursue it anymore.

Just learning and growing with the experiences with as much ego detachment as possible.

hi all,

a friend and I wrote the monroe institute, if is any "oobe/ campbell" study material from the 70's still exist...

thats the answer we got:

> The recording and documents you desire from so many years ago have
> long since disappeared.
> The experiences Tom speaks of are relatively common subjective
> experiences here at the Institute and we don't regard them as
> research findings but curious.
>
> Sorry we could not be of more help,
>
> Skip Atwater
> The Monroe Institute


greets chet