E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane and Dan and Joe Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: June 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
The story has some interesting elements to it, but the most obvious
one is this: Regardless of what the dying man actually meant by "The
Car! The Car! etc." it did Nothing to stop the car from being
stolen.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
What has this got to do with whether the incident furnishes evidence of
clairvoyance or not?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Because I am not at all certain (given the limited details of the
story) that the dying man was talking about a stolen car, much less
his family's stolen car.
He could be talking about something completely different and the
family's connection to the "stolen car" could well be missing the
entire mark.
It could also be that the dying man was more or less just speaking
gibberish.....
That's always a possibility.
DAVE LANE continues:
Moreover, given your story, we have no details which tell us what
the man REALLY meant. We have, instead, what the listeners
apparently "believe" he meant. They--the listeners--found the
"meaning" in the car being stolen, even though it is quite plausible
and possible that the dying man could have been talking about
something else.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
All we need to know is that the man said something about a car and that
it was a car that was stolen. For example, in experiments in telepathy,
a subject looks at a painting while a sleeping person dreams. Upon
awakening the dreamer records the dream. An independent judge would
evaluate the degree of correspondence between the dream imagery and the
painting ... independent of what thoughts the 'sender' may have had
about the painting while looking at it.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
And you want to talk about the methodology of tests with me?
Geez, you have already assumed that the dying man was "sending"
something PSI-like.
I don't know what he was trying to send out... He could have just
been speaking gibberish.
I don't know; you don't know; Paul doesn't know.
The "listeners" interpreted what he said and have themselves
made the "connection."
Whether such a connection exists or does not exist cannot be
adjudicated via the details of this story.
That's my point.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
What is needed is a correspondence between the content of the two items.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I personally would be interested to know what the dying man himself
was trying to communicate. That part Paul does not reveal via his
story.
Geez, it could be all sorts of things.
Before I give into some trans-rational paradigm, I would at least
like to know that little detail.
Seems somewhat important, don't you think?
DAVE LANE continues:
What the skeptic would NOT do is accept the story at face value. He
or she would ask more questions, ask for more details, for more
context.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
This may or may not be what skeptics do. But scientists seem to operate
somewhat differently., In the design of typical psi experiments, details
have little relevance. If a 'sender' is looking at a painting of a car,
it matters little whether the dream is about teenagers making out in the
back of a car or whether the dream is about driving the wrong way down a
one way street.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
But, dear Joe, you have already made an assumption on Paul's story
that you don't know is true.
Was the dying man actually "sending" a message in PSI-like fashion,
or was the dying man simply saying something non-PSI related like,
as in a normal conversation.
Given Paul's story, I have no clue.
I don't see how his story relates to PSI experiments, since they are
quite clear about what they are trying to accomplish.
Both the sender and receiver know what they are engaging in.
Do we know such information from the dying man?
Do we really know what he was trying to intend?
I don't, given the story.
But maybe you have some psychic insight on the story that is not on
the page?
just teasing,
dave
--------------------
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
This test is not designed precisely. It is not designed at all. Have you
presented us an experimental protocol that specifies just what is to be
done, how many participants there will be and how the results will be
analyzed?
No.
You don't have an experimental design. All you have is a title 'The 5
Digit Test'.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Relax, Joe, this whole post started with a simple informal test
wherein I responded to some on Alt.religion.eckankar who claimed
that they could astrally read numbers off my wall.
Glen even asked for my home address to do such an adventure, and
when I agreed to give it to him, he backed out and said to me that I
shouldn't trust strangers on ARE.....
I wasn't trying to set up a research program.....
But I am all for you doing it.
Set it up.
Tell us how you want the test administered and how you think it
should be set-up and I will give you my input.
DAVE LANE continues:
In medicine you often start with very small tests and then if the
results look promising (there seems to be some point or some hope),
you can then move on to bigger arenas.
...
If we do get a "hit" on the five digit number ... then we could
follow that up with further tests. We do this in medicine all the
time. Why should the paranormal have "lower" standards?
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
It's really laughable that you mention the practices of medical
researchers to justify your shoddy experimental design. Medical
researchers have to develop extensively detailed experimental protocols
and have them approved before their experiments can go forward.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Shoddy experimental design?
Relax. When I go surfing with my buddies we often make-up simple
tests, like "Hey, I bet you can't do a carve on this 6 foot
close out."
So the guy does it and we come up with other tests.
We don't discuss experimental design or methodology at this stage.
We simply want to see if he can do it or not.
The same happens with all sorts of sports endeavors, all sorts of
medical endeavors (hey, I am going to fast for five days and see the
effect on my body).
We write it up, we explore further.
What you seem to forget is that I proposed this little test
informally in response to those who claimed on ARE that they could
do it.
Just like in surfing, I said, "Okay, DO it."
Now, clearly, one can become more sophisticated over time with their
tests (and if this turns you on, by all means go head),
But medicine often proceeds by those who are simply "testing" on
themselves a new method, a new diet.
We can become much more sophisticated as we proceed.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
If the research involved a new drug, they would have to conduct safety
tests and efficacy tests. In the course of doing these, the researchers
would have to specify *ahead of time* the details of the experimental
design --- who was to store the drugs, who was to prepare the placebos,
who designed the schedule for assigning patients to various control
groups, who was to administer the drug (without knowing whether it was
the real thing or a placebo), how often the patient was to come in for
monitoring, what sort of monitoring would be done, what sort of follow
up would take place after they stopped administering the drug and on and
on.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Joe, I am not trying to prove the paranormal.
I simply responded to the people on ARE who said they could astrally
read numbers/names/pictures off physical walls.
My response?
Okay, DO IT.
Now, you seem very concerned with research methodology, with design,
with procedure.
Okay, set up the test as you would like it and we can all engage in
it.
As for me, I simply called the bluff, just as we do in surfing.
A guy claims he can get tubed for ten seconds, we say, "Okay, bro,
DO IT."
Those here on ARE who say that they can astrally read the physical
numbers or pictures in my office, I responded by saying:
"Okay, DO IT."
My surf buddies don't get hot and bothered about research methodology
and about research design.
They either can do it or they can't.
Now, naturally, I applaud your sincere efforts to want to prove PSI
and the like,
but you seem to be mixing that up with how this whole debate
started.
I replied to Glen that I would give him my home address (he was
game, I though) and he backed out.
Okay, Tracy tried it and didn't get it right.
Now you want to up the ante a bit and set up a full fledged test for
a scientific publication.
Cool, I am game.
Now set it up, JOE.
I would be most happy to help you out on the details.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
David, you've given us no details of your experimental design. That is
not how a scientist operates, although that may be how a skeptic
operates who cares nothing about science.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm.... I thought it was pretty simple.
I got five numbers on my wall.
There are those on ARE who claim that they can astrally travel and
read those numbers.
I replied, okay, "DO IT."
---------
Let me put this in a much simpler way to you.
Imagine I asked my nephew to go get a telephone number for me
from the yellow pages (he makes the amazing claim that he can
actually read and memorize 7 digits in five minutes).
I don't think I would spend too much time with him on the various
aspects of "research design and methodology."
Instead, I would say, okay you got 5 minutes.
Go DO IT.
And guess what?
My nephew can actually do it.
He can read 7 digits and memorize them (I wanted to know the number
for a Pizza place, by the way).
Simple test and he passed!!!!!!
---------
You see, Joe, all your talk about research design and methodology
only covers up the obvious:
Those who make the claim are turning out to be lame;
and those who can't perform want squirm out of it.
-------
As my friend Aaron would say to me (If I made such a claim, like
"hey I can read five numbers in astral travel").
HEY, then shut up and DO IT.
Maybe my surf buddies should enter this discussion.
They have a low tolerance for excuses.
"Well, I could have gotten tube if I had the right board, or if
I was in the right mood, of if we discussed the conditions more."
My surf bros would simply shout:
"Yo, wanna-be. Either get tubed or stop making the claim."
------
Now, Joe, I am all for you setting up your own test and your own
conditions.
Go right ahead.
But the fact remains, NOBODY yet has read those five digits off my
wall.
-----------------------
DICK WRITES:
Getting back to Joe's original question: Not only is Eye-2 a dubious
methodology, Dave once recommended it himself. Or, am I going blind?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
First of all, Dick, you need to distinuish two points: 1. I don't
think OBE's or NDE's reflect "physical realities" in a straight one
to one correspondence. I didn't believe it in 86 and I don't believe
in 97.
2. I raised the 5 digit test for THOSE who believe the opposite:
that OBE's or NDE's can, at times, give one to one correspondence
about physical environments.
My views in 86 and 97 are the same in this regard: I don't think
OBE's can given accurate physical information (like five digits).
But, now here is a point that both you and Joe need to underline,
I proposed the five digit test FOR THOSE WHO THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN
ME.
In this way, I was simply opening the door to those who have a
contravening position, even though I don't hold such a view (didn't
in 86 and don't now).
Yes, I do think it is important to directly apprehend inner lights
and sounds and have all sorts of interesting OBE's and NDE's and the
like.
I am all for it, and I think Wilber is correct to some degree to
have us actually explore those realms directly.
Where my thinking has changed is simply over the ultimate
interpretation of that inner phenomena.
On that score, I have become more skeptical.
It's that simple.
DICK writes:
Whether an alien spaceship was following Comet Hale-Bopp, as apparently
the cult members believed, is not the issue. Some very improbable claims,
like Marconi's belief that one could send voices and music many miles
through thin air, have been proven true and have changed society forever.
But large claims require large proofs. (or, as is often said,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"). Marconi repeatedly
demonstrated his claims to skeptics, and his claims were accepted only
when other independent scientists had duplicated his results. Ditto every
other advance by science over the past four hundred years, be it the
polio vaccine, the law of gravity, or the special theory of relativity.
No theory should ever be viewed as a final truth, but rather as the best
explanation for the currently known set of facts. Each theory may be
overturned when confronted with new data.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nice passage.
DICK WRITES:
Our societal failing is not in making improbable claims, but in believing
these claims without skepticism and before duplication by independent
experts. Our only protection against repeating the tragedy of Heaven's
Gate is to learn and teach how science works. We must embrace the
scientific method. The lesson of Paul Kurtz, CSICOP, and all skeptics is
that we must challenge every claim until it meets the tests of scientific
proof. Uncritical thinking about any subject sadly begets uncritical
thinking in general, and ultimately can lead to the ultimate harm.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nice passage again, Dick.
Bravo!
DICK WRITES:
Just think, if Dave had been hitting the philosophy of science books back in 1972 instead of practicing his underwater takeoff at The Wedge, we
wouldn't be having this kooky discussion.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Very true, but I like to think that in 10 years from now my views
will change even further.
I wouldn't want to be dogmatic at 4, much less 40.
As for the "kooky" discussion, I think it shows how differently one
can think on a single subject.
DICK WRITES:
p.s. What will Dave do when he discovers that surfing was invented by the
ancient Malaysian ECK Master, Hopupu? The original beach boy, few know of
him because he was kicked out of the Varaigi for lacking a proper work
ethic.
Ola ke ali`i, ke kahuna
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hopupu? That snake? I was surfing with him at this nectar right
point off Bank Nal and he completely cut me off, even though I was
slotted right in the barrel....
That guy is kook.....
Tell him to go back to the valley.
--------------------------
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
You will note that David Lane refuses to state what would be a
significant result. He only says that if he gets one he'll do more
research.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
"refuses to state"?
Come again?
Five Digits on my wall. Get them ALL right.
Look, if I asked Tom, my surfer bro, to read the telephone number
off my fridge, I would want him to GET ALL THE NUMBERS RIGHT, since
that way I could make the phone call correctly.
Likewise, there are those who claim that they can do PRECISELY what
Tom can do physically, except that they do so in an OBE.
Alright, then just DO IT.
I am not testing you Joe, since you have a much different take on
OBE's (via Wilber). I also don't think OBE's reflect physical
reality, but then again I am not "testing" my theory.
I am "testing" rather those who make the opposite claim:
that they can do what Tom does physically.
It is so fudging simple that all this discussion overlooks the
blatantly obvious.
Tom would simply go read the telephone number and report it back to
me.
Why should are astral friends (who make these type of claims) not
just do the same?
According to these astral number readers, they are not do chance
picking; they are simply reporting back what they see.
Okay, let's see them DO IT.
My little test is a great start, but so far all I get is hot air.
-------------------------------------
DANIEL WRITES:
Both believers and disbelievers in the paranormal need to
question and examine their own assumptions. Everyone who is
willing to the "play the game" must ask what ARE the rules of
the game and everyone participating in the game must be fully
aware of those rules, etc. From reading much of what David
Lane has written about the paranormal, it would appear that in
the entire history of the paranormal. . . up to today, there is no
evidence, no testimony, no experiment or combination of any of
these that passes David's tests (standards, criteria). If 10 or 15
years ago, David's standards were *too* low, maybe they are
now *too* high? Could it be that David's "crossbar" is so high
that nothing could pass the test? If Glen or Tracie successfully
"guessed" the 5 digits, would that prove something to David?
What more would David require of Glen and Tracie? I'm not
implying that David should believe in the parnormal based upon
that one correct "guess." Testing and further testing should be
done. But from my own reading in parapsychology, many skeptics
would never be satisfied. Whatever the results, such
skeptics point out flaws. And if there are no documented flaws,
they look for *potential* flaws. "There must be dirt in the test
tube somewhere. I can't see it; I can't find it, but . . . . . . . ."
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I have told you repeatedly Daniel that I would be duly impressed by
the reading of five digits off my wall by someone who did it via an
OBE.
Naturally, we could follow it up with further research.
I don't think the bar is too high, especially when you remember that
all we are asking is for those who make SUCH claims to be able to
DO IT.
If they didn't make these claims, we wouldn't even be "testing"
them, right?
Babaji, it is alleged, is thousands of years old and is in a
physical body.
Okay, show up.
Some on this group claim that they can come to my office or home and
accurately portray what is physically there....
Okay, DO IT.
This has got nothing to do with my skepticism.
It has something to do with those who make the claims and being able
to verify it.
We are simply asking them to
DO IT.
------
DAVID LANE WRITES:
"Are you willing to admit that there is no proof of Elvis NOT living
on Venus?"
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
Of course I am willing to admit that there is no proof that Elvis is not
living on Venus.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Okay, given that, then we could conjecture just about ANY-thing and
not be able to prove its non-existence.
Thus, your argument about "Soul" has as much weight as trying to
disprove Elvis on Venus.
That was my point.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
Moreover, your own dissertation on the difficulty of proving that Elvis
doesn't live on Venus would seem to support an admission that we have no
proof that Elvis doesn't live on Venus.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, that was precisely my point. You could postulate ANY-thing and
not be able to "disprove" it.
That is why the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.
You need to show US why the soul exists, not the other way around
(me trying to prove the soul's non-existence).
Just as Elvis on Venus supporters have to show us just cause and
evidence why the King is running a Circle K on Retz (i hear Gakko
and him have formed a partnership), NOT the other way around.
JOSEPH P. WIRTES:
Similarly, recounting all the difficulties you would face in an attempt
to prove that Soul doesn't exist would seem to support an admission that
you have no proof of Soul's non-existence.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Geez, Joe, if you play this type of game, we could substitute Gakko
with Soul, Lucky Astral Charms with Soul, or Lane is 90 foot tall on
the planet Tuza, and get the same results.
You have to show us why the soul exists, not the other way around.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
If you are claiming to have knowledge the rest of us don't have (ie proof of Soul's non-existence), then present it. Otherwise, what is your
problem with admitting you have no proof of Soul's non-existence?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Well, I have no proof for green Icky men's astral body living in a sewer in
Jupiter "non-existence" either.....
You could, Joe, substitute anything in your equation and get the
same results.
Elvis, Green Gumby, Uncle Joe from Petticoat Junction, etc.
You have to show evidence for the soul's existence, just as those
who claim that Gumby is spiritual love and living on Mercury need to
show just cause......
Isn't this obvious by now?
------------------
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
I questioned the sincerity of such statements on the grounds of
behavioral denial. You don't walk your talk. No matter how often you
claim to be open to incoming evidence, no matter how often you have
proclaimed that you would be happy to be proven wrong about claims of
veridical OBE perception, the facts are:
1. that you proposed a test too vaguely designed to be meaningful;
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Too vague? I got five numbers on my wall. Read them via astral
travel. Tell me what they are. Pretty simple.
Joe, you seem to be forgetting the obvious.
If I asked a friend of mine to go into my house PHYSICALLY and write
down the telephone number off my fridge (it is the only number
there), and asked him to later tell me what it is, I wouldn't
consider that "REQUEST" (or is that "TEST"?) too vague.
I have done it a lot. My mother has done it a lot.....
And guess what, bro, nobody brings up methodology, quantum
mechanics, or Godel's theorem.
They simply do the obvious: get the phone number and report it back
to me.
All your purple prose ignores the obvious:
I have done this VERY test in REAL life.
It is called getting a PHONE number, bro.
Okay, so there are some cats here on ARE who claim that they can
read numbers while in an OBE.
I simply gave them the SAME request I have given my friends:
COME ON OVER and DO IT.
-------
Sorry, Joe, but I proposed this test not because "I" believe in such
excursions (see my letter to Dick), but rather to give an
opportunity for those who make such claims a chance to illustrate
why I may wrong.
Great start.
But nothing has happened yet, except your lame justifications, where
you continually overlook what we do in everyday life.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
2. you seem to have no grasp of the need for statistical methods of
analysis;
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I am all for the use of statistical methods of analysis, but what
you are forgetting (over and over again) is that if I asked my surf
buddy to PHYSICALLY read a telephone number off my fridge he would
DO it.
I don't think we would have a discussion about Heisenberg's
principle of uncertainty.
Remember, this little test of mine is a start (not a conclusion).
We do such little tests all the time.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
3. guessing game experiments can only yield statistics as to the
likelihood that the results are due only to chance. It is up to us
to infer the existence of a psi force when the statistics reach
whatever level we have set for ourselves;
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
If you really want to be formal, Joe, I wouldn't even infer Psi.
All we could do, given your modus operandi here, is say something
appears to be contravening chance.
What THAT is (if such did occur) is open to amazing amounts of
speculation and theorizing.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
4. a guessing game experiment can't discriminate between types of
psi forces, if indeed there are types. In particular, there would be
no way to determine whether correct results were due to veridical
OBE perception, telepathy (reading the mind of the experimenter to
get the answers) or clairvoyance. Indeed, what we now call veridical
OBE perception was sometimes called as 'traveling clairvoyance' in
the early days of psychical research.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Psi forces?
Geez, just read the fudging telephone number off my fridge.
Can we start with SOME-thing?
In the physical world, we do very simple tests like this;
we can even do further exploration after that.
But, Joe, why is it so difficult for THOSE who MAKE the claim to
perform?
There are those on this very group who have claimed to be able to
visit the "physical" house while astral travelling.
Okay, let's find out.
Just like, if my friend Tom Wegener (star in a hot new surf flick)
said he was going to be in my neighborhood, I might ask him to
go read the serial number on my Iron Cross longboard.
I even left the door open for him.
He goes in and DOES it!
We don't invoke Bohr, Einstein, or Wheeler.
So it is the same (given the arguments of those who claim to be able
to do this) with astrally reading the five digits on my wall.
GO DO IT!
I wouldn't have long winded discussions with Tom about Godel;
I just want the number read.
It's a start, Joe, and NOBODY has done it.
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
5. In the unlikely event that you admitted to obtaining
statistically significant results, Ockham's razor would require you
to avoid the hypothesis that veridical OBE perception had been
corroborated in favor of a less controversial hypothesis: that
clairvoyance exists.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
"Unlikely event"? Get a grip, bro. I would be most happy to reveal a
direct hit.
Why?
Because it would show that something spooky might be happening, and
I am for that.
Naturally, we would want to do follow-up.
Sorry, but your alternative hypotheses is not that simple.
What a statistically significant hit would point to is this:
A NON-CHANCE force.
Now what THAT may be is still open to lots of theories and lots of
ideas......
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
Consequently, the conclusion seems inescapable: Tests of the type you
allude to are not able to test for the phenomenon in question. Although
you claim to be open to new evidence, your test is guarranteed not to
find any. Only a psi cop would call that 'having an open mind about
paranormal phenomena'.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Huh? You seem to be missing a very important point here, Joe.
If I asked my brother Joe (I really do have a brother named Joe, by
the way) to read the number off my fridge and report it back to me
and he DID IT CORRECTLY, I wouldn't be in shock at all.
Why?
Because in this physical world, having somebody go walk over to your
fridge and report the telephone number to you accurately is
CONSIDERED NORMAL OPERATING PROCEDURE.
Okay, so we got some on this newsgroup who claim that they can do
the same as the above, but with one big difference:
They allege that they can do it while having an OBE......
So, just like with my brother Joe, I simply asked the following:
READ THE FIVE DIGITS OFF MY WALL.
I would propose the same type of little test if an intruder had come
into my house and said he was in my office while we were talking.
I would say, okay, "tell me what numbers I have on my wall."
IF he REALLY was in my office, it should be VERY SIMPLE to report
those numbers back to me.
So the same with these OBErs who make this type of claim.
IT SHOULD BE EASY.
Instead we have nobody getting the number right and
Joe indulging in Godel to explain why.
Can you imagine the physical "intruder" do the same?
"Yea, I am in your office Dave, but due to Godel's theorem it will
be impossible for me to read that five digit number off your
wall...."
Sure....
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
You have invited me to propose a test design. I decline to do so.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Okay, but I still have my five digits on my wall for anybody game to
do it via astral travel.
I also have a telephone number on my fridge.....
My nephew got it right, but he WALKED in with physical feet.
I am awaiting those who make such claims to do it with
Astral FEAT (pun intended).
JOSEPH P. WRITES:
This model won't be found in any text on empirical research
methodologies for two reasons:
1. It isn't an empirical methodology.
2. So far as I know, I made it up.
Using Wilber's terminology, it is not the methodology of an Eye-1 (eye
of the flesh) science. It is an Eye-2 (eye of mind) science, perhaps
even the variety he calls a mandalic science since it aims at gaining
insight into the operation of spirit by using the eye of the mind, a
dubious proposition, but less dubious than using the eye of the flesh.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Joe, I well understand why you think that physical tests won't
reveal the true nature of OBE's. I think the SAME! (see my letters
to Dick).
What I am "testing" here is THOSE WHO CLAIM DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU AND
I.
There are those who say that they can indeed "read" physical signs
and the like WHILE IN AN OBE.
That is why I proposed a very simple test.
I don't think OBE's and NDE's have anything to do with accurate
readings of far away physical environments.
My letters to Dick show that.
I am simply being open to those who have a much different view on
this subject than you or I.
-----------
DANIEL CALDWELL QUOTES LANE AND THEN COMMENTS:
"I don't think OBE's and NDE's have anything to do with accurate
readings of far away physical environments."
This is a *nice belief* for David Lane but from my own
personal experiences I know that I have been able to have
"accurate readings of far away environments."
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Gosh, Dan, you do seem to take things out of context, don't you?
I pointed out that I devised the five digit test to CONTRAVENE my
own views (and apparently those of Joseph Polanik's).
Yes, Danny, please do read the telephone number off my fridge.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
In a number of posts David Lane has assured people
that there MUST be a "simpler" explanation for these kinds of
expericences other than the "paranormal" one. By simpler he
must mean the "true" explanation. I have no idea how I
got out of the body nor can I control these experiences.
But next time I get out of the body I will try to read some digits and
see if I can remember them when I return to the body.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
"Must"?
Hmm, nice spin doctoring, bro, but Occam's RAZOR doesn't say there
must be a simpler explanation; it simply points out that if a
simpler explanation CAN suffice (and it is comprehensive) that we
should opt for that.
But, if such an explanation cannot comprehensively explain the given
phenomena, then we have to opt for a higher level explanation.
Yes, by all means, do some OBE's and try to verify what you think
can be duplicated in this physical world.
I am all for it.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
But if I'm not lying and I'm not deluded, then what could possibily
be the "real", "simpler"explanation? David seems to
have GREAT FAITH that there MUST be some other, more
down to earth explanation. Maybe one day David will
have just one OOBE in which he gains information from
"far away environments." When he can confirm it for himself,
then he may find that in spite of Occam's razor the truest
explanation may be a "paranormal" one.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Dan, it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about when
you mention Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't say that ONLY
simple explanations exists; it says, rather, that IF a simpler
explanation is available and explains the data correctly that we
should opt for that (don't multiply beyond what is necessary).
I have had OBEs Daniel.
But unlike you I have opted to look for alternative explanations
instead of accepting it at face value.
Feynman has also had OBEs and he too looked for alternative
explanations.
If the paranormal exists, danny, it should withstand some scrutiny.
No need to cheaply convert without sufficient evidence.
You may be a cheap slut, but I am a high priced hooker (just
teasing).
Read what Faqir Chand himself says about this very issue.
It was by his very doubting that he realized a much larger truth
that had not been expressed in R.S. circles.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
It's good to look for a simpler explanation, providing it is the
true one. But to deny "facts" when you know they are facts just
to comply with Occam's razor appears to me to be sheer
folly.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Facts???
Geez, Danny, please tell what "facts" you have.
I am quite open to them, but you have given me any.
You yourself admitted that you weren't sure if Babaji exists or not.
Are you being too skeptical, bro?
Don't you trust Yogananda and his "facts"?
I haven't denied "FACTS."
You just haven't given any concerning the very subject of this
debate (Babaji?)
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
As I said in my last post, from reading much of what David Lane has written
about the paranormal, it would appear that in the entire history of the
paranormal. . . up to today, there is no evidence, no testimony,
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Danny, please don't miss-state things.
Did I ever say there was "no testimony"?
Get your "facts" straight, bro, since you are misleading your
audience again.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
no experiment
or combination of any of these that passes David's tests (standards,
criteria).
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Danny, when did I say there were "no" experiments?
Why are you making things up?
I simply have not seen compelling evidence, though "I" (not you)
pointed to Joseph Polanik a case which would support his position
(see HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS).
Contrary to what you wrongly believe about me, I like to read
positive reports on the paranormal.
Geez, I even gave a graduate seminar on it at the Shirley Mac
Graduate school in Del Mar (otherwise known as the University of
Humanistic Studies).
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
There are thousands of case histories
of the paranormal as found in the personal lives of people living
in different countries and cultures, from ancient to modern times.
Not one of those experiences meet David Lane's standards.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, there are even MORE reports of Angels, UFO encounters, Virgin
Mary apparitions, and Elvis sightings.
Numbers don't constitute proof for your claim, but simply underline
the fact that people see lots of interesting things throughout
history.
Thousands used to attest to demon possession too, danny.
Thousands reported interactions with the gods, as well, including
Thor.
Does that mean that we "accept" at face value such testimonies as
REFLECTIVE of the TRUE nature behind such apparitions?
Hmm.... go read your Faqir Chand again.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Think of all the hundreds and thousands of psi experiments that
have been conducted starting back in the 1880s and 1890s up
to. . . .the present month. Apparently not one of those
experiments can meet David Lane's standards. And many of
these experiments in the last 20 years have been quite
sophisticated in their design and in the use of statistics. For example,
the various series of experiments conducted by the late
Charles Honorton. A good summary of many of these kinds of
experiments are given in the book on parapsychology by
Dr. Broughton. And yet in spite of the combined efforts of these
many parapsychologists to listen to criticism and hence to improve their
experiments, apparently not one single experiment has produced
any evidence that would "jump" over the crossbar of David Lane's
standards.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I have even pointed one very intriguing study out already Danny.
See HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS.
No, I haven't jumped over the crossbar Danny.
I am sorry, but it looks like two bucks will make you spread your
legs.
Don't get me wrong, I can be a prostitute too, but I won't whore
just yet.
Nothing wrong with keeping one's virginity in tact until the right
time.
Truth should be able to withstand some doubts, some tests.
No need for rushing conversions, especially since the topic of our
debate still has not shown up for cokes.
Oh where is Babaji?
Hmm....
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
It would seem that David believes only in a certain kind of "ESP," i.e.,
ERROR SOME PLACE. Certainly some of these experiences and
experiments have "errors" and "flaws". But many of these
experiences and experiments have no detectable "flaws". . . .
and many intelligent, reasonable people (with or without
PhDs) have come to conclusions quite different to those
of David Lane.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, and even a Harvard Professor believes that UFO encounters are
really happening with extraterrestials.
I have read this literature extensively and I am most open to
positive results (that is why I even mentioned HOW TO THINK ABOUT
WEIRD THINGS, a skeptical book, by the way), but clearly Danny the
results (as the APA points out) have been anything but compelling.
Yes, let's do more tests, just like we are doing with cold fusion.
But no need to convert cheaply.....
I still haven't seen Babaji, have you?
Is Elvis coming this week to Arizona?
I heard he has a book overdue.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Certainly it would be interesting to see if anyone can pass
the digit test that David has proposed. I hope a number of
people will volunteer.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
That's the spirit.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Maybe Babaji will also agree to appear in public. But I'm not
going to hold my breath.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
That's good; you would be dead by now if you did.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
I believe that science has a great deal to learn about the paranormal.
For the most part, scientists have ignored or ridiculed the paranormal
which has prevented a honest, open inquiry into this area.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I think you have it backwards.
Parapsychology has a lot to learn from science.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
If David Lane is so eager to conduct parapsychological tests,
I urge him to confer with various parapsychologists who have ALREADY
done experiemental work in this area. Has David Lane published one
paper in any parapsychological journal detailing his own psi experiments
and the results whether positive or negative?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Lest, you forget again Danny, you are the one trying to prove the
paranormal. Go right ahead and submit your findings.
As for me, I even taught two graduate seminars on the subject and
had many "believers" do tests and experiments of their own making.
"Eager"?
Hmm, I was simply asking for some fudging evidence about Babaji.
Do you have any, Danny?
--------------------------
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Notice David Lane's comment:
"But UNLIKE YOU I have opted to look for alternative explanations
instead of accepting it at face value." Caps added.
What does David Lane know about what I have or have not done?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
By listening to what you have explicitly stated here in this debate.
You have repeatedly argued against my skepticism (while at the same
turn offering no proof of your own).
Tell us in detail, Dan, why you take your OBE's as suggestive of
verdical encounters.
Perhaps within THOSE details an alternative explanation may arise,
just as it did with Faqir Chand (who, lest you forget, had some
really amazing OBE's)....................
DANIEL CALDWELL writes:
I most CERTAINLY looked for alternative explanations instead of just
accepting my OOBEs at face value. And as I have said before,
most of my OOBEs could be nothing more than vivid "dreams" or
"hallucinations." That is to say, even though the experiences were
vivid and quite unusual, there was nothing in the experiences that
convinced me that I was REALLY out of the body. Yet in other experiences
I was apparently able to see things that later were confirmed when I was
back in the body. In those particular OOBEs I looked for alternative
explanations but found none that fitted the FACTS of the experiences. Now
a skeptical outsider might suggest I was lying or that I was delusional to
such a degree that I am not a trustworthy witness. Some skeptics would
argue that it is more reasonable to assume one of those two alternatives
than to believe I had an real OOBE in which verifiable information was gained
of a distant physical locale.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I don't for a second deny the topology of your experiences, but that
is exactly the point: advanced technology looks like magic to the
unsophisticated.
Even in real life we can be "enchanted" and misled by street magic.
Just the other day, my nephews and I watched a show about a street
magician who "looked" like he could levitate, who "looked" like he
could twist his hands in all sorts of non-linear ways.
But what we did is NOT accept the "trans-rational" explanation but
rather worked quite hard to see if a very simple physical
explanation would do.
We found it and repeated some of his magic right there and then.
So the same, I would argue, with OBE's and NDE's.
Yes, there may well be something transrational, but I think we are
much better served by focusing on the empirical realm first.
Geez, that is why I have even been skeptical of my own guru.
Sometimes we can be deceived by what "appears" trans-rational when,
in point of fact (to cite Wilber), it is merely pre-rational.
By all means, do some more experimenting.
DANIEL CALDWELL QUOTES AND THEN COMMENTS:
David Lane writes:"No need to cheaply convert without sufficient evidence.
You may be a cheap slut, but I am a high priced hooker (just
teasing)."
Davey is so funny, isn't he?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Thanks, Dan.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
But as I said, I had SUFFICIENT evidence concerning
some of my OOBEs that I was willing to "convert", i.e., I was
willing, in light of this evidence, to conclude that I was able
to really get out of the body, etc. Of course, if Lane's and Feynman's
OOBEs didn't contain verifiable information I can understand why they
would opt for the "hallucination" theory about their OOBEs. The majority
of my own OOBEs fit this theory, too. But the exceptions convince me
that at least some OOBEs are more than mere hallucinations. If this means
I am a "cheap slut", fine I will wear the label.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Then, Dan, please tell us in detail why you think so.
I would be interested to know why.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Was Babaji the "very subject" of this debate?
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Go back to your original questions, bro.
You seem to have lost track of this key element.
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Babaji was only one example of among many in this
never ending debate.
I never claimed I had any evidence
(fudging or not) about Babaji. Next subject please.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, but you do seem a trifle perturbed that I am skeptical of him
and the claims made about him.
Next subject?
You were the guy who brought it up in the first place.
__________________________________________________
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
I have noticed that in this reply as well as in previous replies by Lane
that when I or others have spoken of people's paranormal experiences
or about parapsychological experiements, that Lane brings in the
most *extreme* examples. .. . the John Roger case with the hidden
tape recorder or "reports of Angels, UFO encounters, Virgin
Mary apparitions, and Elvis sightings" or reports of demons, Thor, etc.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
You better read closer, bro.
In that very section I pointed out a book which SUPPORTS Joe P.'s
position. See the book HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS.
As for pointing out extreme examples, I was actually showing you the
MOST popular examples--those with the largest numbers, those with
the largest constituency.....
DANIEL CALDWELL writes:
In these discussions has Lane dealt with the strongest evidence, the best
representatives of parapsychology??? [See the books by Broughton and Radin
for the kind of evidence that I would consider the "best representatives"
of parapsychology.]
No, Lane brings up the easiest targets. . . ...........J.R.. .demons......
angels, UFO encounters, Elvis sightings, Thor, etc. And then Lane throws in a
bunch of cute remarks, etc.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Hmm, I am the guy who pointed out HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS
which actually supports YOUR postion (and Joe P.'s).
Geez, learn how to read, bro.
I mentioned that very book to illustrate that I am well aware of
positive results, but that does not mean that the jury is in.....
Why don't you read the book?
It will actually help your case.
What you fail to understand (over and over again) is that I am skeptical
because I want the truth, not some petty version of it that cannot
withstand more tests of it.
If as you say OBE's can contain reliable physical
information, I would be most happy to say so.
That's why I proposed the five digit test.
You haven't given me your strongest case, Dan.
You have simply gotten irritated that I have become more skeptical
over time, even of those things closest to my heart.
Okay, give us your "strongest case."
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
In the above exchange, I was talking specifically about
parapsychological experiments conducted in a laboratory
setting, etc. but notice that David Lane in his reply jumps to
UFOs and then to Babaji and Elvis. . . .A cute reply by
Lane but here again he is jumping to the easiest target
whereby he can have some fun.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Jumps? I cited HOW TO THINK ABOUT WEIRD THINGS once again (lest you
missed it), which actually provides a very impressive "hit" about
remote viewing.
Try reading closely what I write, you may be surprised.
_____________________________________________________
DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
And elsewhere Dr. Hyman noted that:
". . .the critics [of the paranormal] . . .often BEHAVE IN RATHER EMOTIONAL AND
IRRATIONAL WAYS. Indeed, the level of the debate during the last 130 years
has been AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE
THAT SCHOLARS AND SCIENTISTS ADHERE TO STANDARDS OF RATIONALITY
AND FAIR PLAY."
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Nice quote and I want you to think long and hard over this debate
that we have been having.
I have proposed tests, I have doubted my own guru, I have asked for
evidence, etc.......
Re-read what you write, Dan; you may be surprised.
You asked for a public debate on this subject and I have tried to
respond to every one of your points.
I am most willing to be wrong.
Are you?
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
