October 09, 2004

Tying Down Astral Projections

Writing about an entry you don't have permission to view

Gah! I thought I gave up this kind of thing long ago. I thought I could just retire from my forum-haunting days, wrap up that iron rod of debunkation, and rest in peace, the world saved, but no…

Sigh. One last job, eh?

http://www.astralpulse.com/

Can't be bothered being comprehensive here. So will pick out random bull…

No matter how you look at it, the act of healing profoundly taps the spiritual roots of your heart. The heart center (heart chakra) is the well-known key to all subtle energy healing methods. The reasoning behind this is deeply spiritual and mystical, but using the heart center is surprisingly easy if you go about it in the right way.

Let's look at it this way – healing is due to the action of your immune system, and the natural process of cell division. The heart has no spiritual roots, and small, brainless, aspiritual petri-dishes also heal, often 'miraculously'. The 'heart chakra' is not 'well known'. It is well believed among certain people, but it has not passed the test of serious evidence. There's more vague armwaving about 'deeply spiritual and mystical'.

For those interested in reading more on bio-energy, spiritual and metaphysical development, I recommend my book "Astral Dynamics: a NEW approach to OBE" (Hampton Roads, 1999, VA, USA). This book covers all aspects of basic training and development and can be used to develop any psychic ability, not just Astral Projection.

How curious. He recommends his own books. Ever hear of peer review?

The big questions in any discussion of subtle energy are: what is it and where does it come from. Subtle energy goes by many names, some ancient and some modern, including: Prana, Chi, Life Force, Soul Essence, Magnetic Fluid, Orgone, and the quantum physics contribution of the Zero Point Field.

ZPE is nothing to do with what he is on about. The ZPF is to do with virtual particles, and borrowed energy in tiny amounts. Decoherence prevents the large scale stuff he talks about.

Universal energy flows from the causal level, takes on elemental form and intent in the subtle level, and then physically manifests in the gross physical level as the finished product. Metaphysically speaking, on the causal and subtle levels, universal energy divides into the basic elemental forms: fire, earth, air, water and spirit. These are the elements of creation. These manifest in various combinations in the physical universe where they create physical matter and life.

About 2000 years out of date.

A healthy human energy body maintains itself by drawing into itself a natural flow of subtle life energy, enough to keep it alive and healthy. This energy is collected in many ways and from many sources, including breathing and eating. Energy is also exchanged between people in various ways, including touch, conversation, sex, etc.

NONE OF THIS HAS ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

This guy doesn't even attempt at rigour, doesn't even try to hide his lack of scientific understanding. He misquotes and misinterprets other people at the drop of a hat, and clothes everything in technical sounding names, vague descriptions that are ultimately meaningless, allusions to past authority, and a sense of self-importance, and hopes someone will fall for it.

And he makes a good living out of it.


- 9 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. I don't want to get into a huge debate over belief systems here – because it won't go anywhere. But I'd like to say I'm not someone who just eats up any shit that someone speaks. I believe there is more than just the physical world – I've experience astral projection, and I 'know' (in my mind) that it isn't simply a trick of the mind.

    I also believe there is more to us than just flesh and bone because of what I have felt and experienced when using Robert Bruces NEW (New Energy Ways) techniques . There is a free download on his site I think – try it out for a couple of weeks at least.

    The thing to point out is that yes the physical can heal by itself – in a petri dish for example, but that (as some of us believe) there is more to it than this. There is another 'layer' as it were that is strongly bound to the physical and that can affect it quite strongly in some cases.

    09 Oct 2004, 21:28

  2. But I'd like to say I'm not someone who just eats up any shit that someone speaks.

    Nah, you are merely human. Humans want to believe. Humans base their lives on pattern recognition. Humans have confirmation bias.

    I've experience astral projection, and I 'know' (in my mind) that it isn't simply a trick of the mind.

    Prove it. There has been much research into how magnetic field, meditation, drugs and so on can induce the feeling of astral projection.

    To know something we need to be certain what we refer to. It feels like an astral projection, but it could also be an altered state of mind, a pseudo-dream, or so on. Have you experienced all of those, to allow you to make such a judgement?

    I also believe there is more to us than just flesh and bone because of what I have felt and experienced when using Robert Bruces NEW (New Energy Ways) techniques .

    Let me be blunt (-er). Much of the stuff on that website is directly false. For example, either he is ignorant about QM re: the ZPF (and worse, unwilling to assuage that ignorance by learning about it), or he is simply lying to you to make money.

    There is another 'layer' as it were that is strongly bound to the physical and that can affect it quite strongly in some cases.

    In physicalism, that implies that this layer is also itself physical, since we define materialism in terms of influences and effects. And if it is meant to have a real, significant effect, then it lies in the jurisdiction of the scientific method. And if the believer of it still refuses to subject it to even the minimal level of skepticism, rigorous testing and so on… Then you fill in the blanks.

    10 Oct 2004, 12:08

  3. It's a question of objectivity vs subjectivity I suppose. I'm going to write an entry about it I think.

    I'm not that bothered with trying to prove anything (not that I could anyway), but I know what I've experienced and I believe it. It's not just a dream or anything like that – you just 'know'. Like someone whose had a near death experience – they will tell you it changes their life. They 'know' it wasn't just some brain fluctuation despite what the scientists will tell them.

    With regards to the physics stuff – if he's wrong then fair enough, I think he must have read some theory that seemed to fit with what he believed, and he wrote this down. Obviously when you're writing about these subjects you want to at least try and mention science at some point. He just got it wrong.

    10 Oct 2004, 18:08

  4. Obviously when you're writing about these subjects you want to at least try and mention science at some point. He just got it wrong.

    My problem isn't just that he stated the facts wrong. It's the idea that he is mistaken in his attitude towards science. I mean, to him, science is 'the science bit' on the shampoo ads. A collection of freeze-dried facts. And he is trying to spread this view.

    Science is about considering all possibilities, of mixing wonder with skepticism. It definitely isn't just a hoop to be jumped through, but a way of thinking of things in the mind.

    I have nothing much against religions and beliefs per se. So long as I am free to believe what I want. (nothing) Pseudoscience like this is to me far more threatening, because they implicitly create a straw-man fallacy (As when you said 'just some brain fluctuation') about what science is.

    Yes, science is in general reductionist. Yes, the general statement of observed facts and accepted theory derived from science does seem rather cold. But that isn't the fault of science itself – if anything, it is an effect of the general view of science as cold and insensitive, which tends to feedback on itself.

    What is, in the end wrong with 'just brain fluctuations'? Does it make any more sense for me to call christianity to be about 'just some guy called God'? Or whatever else? The point is this – the scientific view is not to put any unneccessary limits on the ability of 'just brain fluctuations', and thus be able to enclose the wondrous possibilities of the mind under a single paradigm. It is a matter of empowering apparently simple things, and not destroying complicated bodies. Who says brain fluctuations can't change your life? The fact that science attempts to explain and explore issues does not degrade whatever it is trying to explore – rather, it elevates it. If astral projections were true, then science would be happy to discover it. If astral projections were an effect of the mind, it doesn't mean the feeling and experience of it is made cheap and tacky, rather it means that we are again impressed by what the brain can manage. What is understood is no less profound than what is unknown.

    Which is more open minded – science, by assuming no limits to the capabilities of known principles until shown, and that usually eventually accepts any new effective principle which cannot be refuted, or this subjective faith, whose response to any new and potentially remarkable phenomena is to hide it behind wording that makes it an intellectual dead end? If we adopted this system to fire, we would still be praying to it. And despite, or perhaps thanks to the progress of science, we still watching the dancing flames.

    10 Oct 2004, 19:11

  5. Hmm, maybe I should make that an article.

    10 Oct 2004, 19:11

  6. I am in no way critisizing science – I love science. I know science doesn't make life cheap and tacky, I don't think it's just a hoop to jump through even though it may have sounded like that. I think you are making use of alot of arguments that always seem to come up in these debates, but which I have not even mentioend or said I disagree with.

    Anything that science tells me, I will believe. I just believe a bit more than what science can currently tell us.

    10 Oct 2004, 19:26

  7. Anything that science tells me, I will believe.

    Lord, no! I mean, think of the Royal Society's motto. "On the word of no man."

    The point of science is that we try not to believe in anything at all – other than perhaps the idea that always, a better theory can exist. A new idea for anything is there to be replaced. Good theories are ones that we have failed to destroy. For now.

    10 Oct 2004, 19:33

  8. I didn't mean it that literally… I feel I sound like some naive person who has never really understoof the importance/significance of science. The fact is I am a scientist myself (believe it or not). I did Bio and Chem at A-level which I loved, and always have done. I'm studying Computer Science here, although it's slightly different.

    I see we've made the front page too. I wonder if anyone else can join in?

    10 Oct 2004, 19:48

  9. I really like the gelatinous orange gunge that sits on top of Jaffa Cakes, y'know. Top stuff.

    11 Oct 2004, 04:42


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

October 2004

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Sep |  Today  | Nov
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Search this blog

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Ok this is odd, I got here via Stumble Upon… It's the first time I've come across a Warwick Blogs … by on this entry
  • I've been wondering the same question…what's the secret? I know there's an easier way. I'm just go… by Wanda on this entry
  • chinese? by confucian on this entry
  • Please… please we're not called global warming "deniers" we prefer to be called global warming "in… by Peter Jungmann on this entry
  • Now, to continue, if you need evidence that the 1998 anomaly was not due to solar activity, pick a d… by Zhou on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX