People think that being out of their body will prove that they are
not a body or better that they are eternal.

      What actually happens is the being begins to wonder if they are
dreaming, and doubt being self casting, causes a crash and burn.

      They then figure that if they are out of their body because the
body were dead, they would know for sure, but maybe they are just
hallucinating that the body is dead when in fact its still alive.

      How would they know.

      Just looking down upon a dead body doesn't prove squat.

      "The problem with drugs is when you go up you see that all the shit
isn't true, but when you come down you wonder."

      Doubt = wonder = crash and burn.

      What the being WANTS is proof of eternality.  The only thing that
can be eternal is a zero dimensional entitiy that HAS no space or time
to die in.

      Only when the being can contact direct consciousness of Ex Temporal
Eternality, (timelessness), and can operate freely the flip flop from
out of time into time, will he then have the proof that he desires.

       At that point he will probably be too busy going to sleep
forever to care.


Pip ( wrote:
>Pragmatic definition of "proof":  Whatever it takes to convince someone
>of something

>No matter what formula, ritual, or set of rules constitutes a "proof",
>it always boils down to proving something to someONE - a person.  This
>person will be convinced by the proof.  Then there is the degree of
>convincedness.  Would you bet $10 on it, or stake your life on it? Where
>does "certainty" fit in? Everyone has different standards (or
>metaprograms) regarding proof also.  For some you smile and they are
>convinced while others won't be convinced if it kills them.  The
>"scientific method" is an attempt to define a "proof" acceptable to all,
>but it's just another standard that means nothing by itself.  Same with
>mathematics.  There is actually a very large tome dedicated to proving
>logically that 1 + 1 = 2*. If you were the only person on Earth, how
>would you prove things to yourself?  That would be your standard. Well,
>you ARE the only person on Earth, when it comes to proof. Proof is

>So let's say you want to see if one's consciousness can exist outside
>the brain or without a brain.  What WOULD convince you it does?  Would
>you be convinced if the Pope said it, you read it in a scholarly book,
>saw it on TV, had an OBE, an NDE, talked to a ghost, mocked up a past
>life experience, moved a pencil with your thoughts, none of the above?
>I suggest starting there.  Design an experiment, practical or not, that
>would convince you, if that's possible.  A proof is as a proof does.  So
>if you were convinced, then what?  Is it important?  What would it mean?
>  Meaning is as meaning does.  How would it affect you, your thinking,
>or your life.  Do you really want to know?  Maybe not.



>> wrote:
>>>Mike wrote:
>>>>Well ok, on the subject of proof it seems we are.
>>>That is true that one of my purposes is to get "proofs" about the
>>>spiritual domain.



- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Thu Aug  9 01:31:55 EDT 2007

================ ====================
Sat May 30 03:06:02 EDT 2015
Send mail to saying help
================== ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Sun May 31 20:01:56 EDT 2015