Return Home
It is currently Fri Jul 19, 2024 9:48 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:19 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:16 am
Posts: 12
OK Campbell claims to have gathered all sorts of verifiable and repeatable lab results. If this is true then where are they? Why hasn't he published them? Why not make it available here? This is the biggest issue I have with this whole thing.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:25 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Where ever do you claim to have read that? It is totally contradictory to what Tom has in fact said. He spent 30+ years independently exploring and developing an understanding after his initial work assisting Robert Monroe which led to the creation of the Monroe Institute and their work. But he has never said anything other than be open minded and skeptical and explore for yourself. Experience within NPMR and OOBE in PMR is subjective and entirely personal. There is no such thing as an objective experience to report. Nothing has been said to the contrary here or elsewhere by Tom.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:00 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:16 am
Posts: 12
Ted Vollers wrote:Where ever do you claim to have read that? It is totally contradictory to what Tom has in fact said. He spent 30+ years independently exploring and developing an understanding after his initial work assisting Robert Monroe which led to the creation of the Monroe Institute and their work. But he has never said anything other than be open minded and skeptical and explore for yourself. Experience within NPMR and OOBE in PMR is subjective and entirely personal. There is no such thing as an objective experience to report. Nothing has been said to the contrary here or elsewhere by Tom.

Ted

I'm guessing you never read My Big TOE. He spells it out for you when he goes into his meeting with Robert Monroe, building the lab, specialized tools, and so on. He goes into some of their experiments and says they were obtaining SCIENTIFIC REPEATABLE data. Please don't waste my time with a BS reply. He also appeared on Coast To Coast where he made the claim again which is where I first heard of him and his book. The book I am reading now and almost completed.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:15 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
G0m3r wrote:OK Campbell claims to have gathered all sorts of verifiable and repeatable lab results. If this is true then where are they? Why hasn't he published them? Why not make it available here? This is the biggest issue I have with this whole thing.
Hi G0m3r and welcome to Tom's MBT discussion group. I hope you screen name here stands for "gomer" because if so I think it is smart.

The first step in communicating well for me is us using method dialectic of going back and forth in discussing what we are meaning with the words we use. You say the biggest issue you have with "this whole thing" is lack of peer review? Is this the correct meaning? And can you give a concise description of what "this whole thing" means to you. Thank you in advance. :)
Welcome again.
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:00 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Gomer,

You have no clue as to what you are talking about. I have read Tom's books several times and he chose me for board administrator for my general knowledge of his work. You need to seriously reconsider your understanding.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:58 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:16 am
Posts: 12
Ted Vollers wrote:Gomer,

You have no clue as to what you are talking about. I have read Tom's books several times and he chose me for board administrator for my general knowledge of his work. You need to seriously reconsider your understanding.

Ted

So basically claim I lack understanding because I don't share your view on this? How so very enlightened of you. Sad thing is I was expecting an arrogant reply like yours here. Thank you for proving my expectation correct. I find it sad that you refuse to acknowledge my questions and the fact that Campbell actually does claim to have done real SCIENTIFIC research which resulted in verifiable and repeatable results. If this is how you deal with an honest question I pity you.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:12 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:16 am
Posts: 12
bette wrote:
G0m3r wrote:OK Campbell claims to have gathered all sorts of verifiable and repeatable lab results. If this is true then where are they? Why hasn't he published them? Why not make it available here? This is the biggest issue I have with this whole thing.
Hi G0m3r and welcome to Tom's MBT discussion group. I hope you screen name here stands for "gomer" because if so I think it is smart.

The first step in communicating well for me is us using method dialectic of going back and forth in discussing what we are meaning with the words we use. You say the biggest issue you have with "this whole thing" is lack of peer review? Is this the correct meaning? And can you give a concise description of what "this whole thing" means to you. Thank you in advance. :)
Welcome again.
Love to you and yours,
Bette
Campbell's goal when he hooked up with Monroe was scientific study of the various states of consciousness and the existence of a "bigger" reality of which we are a subset. In his book he claims to have gotten very good scientific data which verified the existence of this other bigger reality over years of research with Monroe and his team. My issue is this claim. If he did compile this data why hasn't it been released? He's a scientist. Why hasn't he published his findings? This makes me wonder if his claims were true.

What this whole thing is about to me is understanding the true nature of reality and the world we live in. I'm 39 now. I discovered Monroe's work when I was in 11th grade. It intrigued me enough to try some of this on my own. Following some of his suggestions and a few others I was eventually able to verify to my own satisfaction, with an outside witness, the reality of OOBE or whatever you want to call it and existence of this "non-physical" reality. I feel the term non-physical is a bogus term which only applies in relation to our reality. In other words it really just depends on your POV.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:18 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Probably because it was intellectual material that belonged to Monroe, but you would have to ask Tom yourself of course. You may be off in several interpretations of what has been presented as well. Evidence that supports the nature of this Reality as a Virtual Reality and that this body/experience is NOT fundamental to what we really ARE as part of the nonphysical digital information system being called the Larger Consciousness System or AUM by Tom and some others probably IS PERSONAL in that YOU have to gather the data that YOU will be able to interpret as something that provides evidence that YOU can use to see if this model fits what you experience. You cannot get that in peer reviewed articles.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:29 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Those who have strong expectations can usually manage to construe whatever they encounter as they wish.

When what you state is so contrary to what Tom states as I have seen repeatedly, what can you expect me to say? Tom describes, and I find, such explorations to be subjective. Tom may have done his explorations on a 'scientific' basis as being a trained scientist applying his training and natural bent. That does not mean that he can convert subjective experience into objective experience. He is very good at what he does in analyzing his experience and converting it into a rational analysis and excellent model. He repeatedly explains that you must however seek your own experience and develop your own understanding from the same to establish your own proof. Much of that very old material is available on the Monroe Institute web site. There is a session that Tom experienced in conjunction with Dennis Minnerich where Bob Monroe discusses the recordings that were simultaneously but separately made of his conversations with Dennis and Tom as they interacted and experienced and created a seamless combination. But that is not the same as an objective experience that just anyone could experience. They would both have to be equally and well experienced and would find a different, if perhaps equivalent, experience.

If you took the trouble to do so, you would note that your comments are not new here but others have trod the same mistaken path before and received essentially the same answer. May you discover your errors. There is much that you do not as yet understand.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:36 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:16 am
Posts: 12
bette wrote:Probably because it was intellectual material that belonged to Monroe, but you would have to ask Tom yourself of course. You may be off in several interpretations of what has been presented as well. Evidence that supports the nature of this Reality as a Virtual Reality and that this body/experience is NOT fundamental to what we really ARE as part of the nonphysical digital information system being called the Larger Consciousness System or AUM by Tom and some others probably IS PERSONAL in that YOU have to gather the data that YOU will be able to interpret as something that provides evidence that YOU can use to see if this model fits what you experience. You cannot get that in peer reviewed articles.
Love
Bette

I doubt I'm off on what he said since he did say it in plain English. Anyway, it sounds to me like you are assuming quite a few things yourself. I'd rather just stick to my initial question. Also, he book is pretty easy to read and understand. It's not like reading a book on high level mathematics or string theory. It's pretty basic. Anyway, is this research/data being made available by the Monroe Institute? If it's available for a price it throws up MANY red flags. I've read most of Monroe's books and he struck me as someone who wanted to share this knowledge with the world and Campbell's book made it sound like Monroe also wanted to have this validated by the scientific community as a whole. So much screams scam or greed to me about this. If Campbell is telling the truth then the research exists and all it would take is to hand it over to a few researchers for verification. Why hasn't this been done?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:41 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Gomer,

Here is a link to the Monroe Institute Explorer Series of recordings which should contain the discussion to which I referred. http://www.monroeinstitute.org/download ... er-series/

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:14 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:16 am
Posts: 12
Ted Vollers wrote:If you took the trouble to do so, you would note that your comments are not new here but others have trod the same mistaken path before and received essentially the same answer. May you discover your errors. There is much that you do not as yet understand.

Ted

Again with the condescending attitude. I'm not interested in more subjective material. I wasn't looking to be trailblazer on this site either. I came here, as I said in my original post, to see why Campbell makes the claims he makes in his book yet hasn't released any of his research to be validated by other scientists. Any way, it's clear you have no answers to my actual question and would rather stroke your own ego than just answer the question I asked. Take care and I wish you luck in finding whatever truth you are seeking.

G0m3r


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:31 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Gomer,

Does your attitude always go before you and poison your path? You did after all make the choice entirely on your own to start a new thread under Rants - Negative Opinion. There are a dozen other headings you could have chosen and asked instead of demanding from the negative side. Do you find that no one wants to accommodate you with information because you go in blindly, not having in your own admission actually finished reading the books, not having prepared yourself by looking around the new environment to see what might be there and demand what would have been readily provided if asked for rather than demanded in a peremptory manner? The way this PMR VR works is to interact as best you can, and perhaps you are doing so. Then pay attention to the feedback received and trim your sails accordingly.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:48 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:33 pm
Posts: 7
I can't help but feel that Gomer had a point. He also didn't show any attitude in my opinion. I know what he is talking about. I guess he was better off asking Tom himself about this.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:13 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 685
G0m3r wrote: I doubt I'm off on what he said since he did say it in plain English. Anyway, it sounds to me like you are assuming quite a few things yourself. I'd rather just stick to my initial question. Also, he book is pretty easy to read and understand. It's not like reading a book on high level mathematics or string theory. It's pretty basic. Anyway, is this research/data being made available by the Monroe Institute? If it's available for a price it throws up MANY red flags. I've read most of Monroe's books and he struck me as someone who wanted to share this knowledge with the world and Campbell's book made it sound like Monroe also wanted to have this validated by the scientific community as a whole. So much screams scam or greed to me about this. If Campbell is telling the truth then the research exists and all it would take is to hand it over to a few researchers for verification. Why hasn't this been done?
If the book is so basic then why are you asking such basic questions? A person who actually comprehends the material wouldn't bother asking these kinds of questions because they would already know the answer. Perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are. In particular, the aside in the book where Tom jokes about "The Three Stooges" contains your answer. Yes, your question is likened to the level of Larry, Curly, and Moe.

You missed about 90% of the book's information. Think about that.

If you're almost done reading it I recommend you give it another go. Watching some more of Tom's YouTube videos helps, I find. In addition, there is a treasure trove of threads here with expanded concepts and information.

These are books written for the being level, not the intellectual level. I've read the books three times over now, and some sections even more than that. Each time the books have seemed completely different to me, and I plan to read them again eventually.

Get your ego in check and try again.

_________________
Mike


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited