Reducing reality to a mechanical process of quantifyable parts.

Cut off and shoved below newtonian physics.

Scientific dogmatism.

Total Sophistry on some levels, example:

“If you can’t explain why it happened, it never happened!”

How to explain, when one wants only a certain kind of explanation?

Can you really ware a shoe on your head? Fully?

Can you really claim reality is a materialistic math equation?


Hmm, perhaps the only reality is that which enables the transaction of free will. In that… there could be many different layers.

There is a difference between saying, “I never say it, so I don’t think it happened” and “There is insufficient evidence for that, so your claim that it happened is dubious at best” and “What you have just stated strongly contradicts our present understanding of reality, as defined by . . .”

With respect to things like astral projections and the like, I place them firmly in the third category, because they rely on dualism as well as the existence of a spiritual plane (which I reject by the second category).

A plane of consciousness is a frame of mind, thankyou. :laughing:

I think you’re onto something, with that ‘free will’ comment.


Well, one’s sense of reality, and one’s view of reality, may become wider and more clear if that sensation is not limited, suppressed, reduced, confined, catagorized and verbalized.

Now, when I find frightening realm or mindset, or concept, I internally dive into it, instead of trying to distract myself from it, or judge it, etc. Instead, I choose to experience it as fully as possible, keeping alert during the whole process.
That’s allot different than cencorship and the supposed existence of monistic “laws of reality”.

I was just using it as an example, since it was handy. Nothin’ personal, you understand.

Only some models of astral projection rely on dualism; mine certainly doesn’t. What the term refers to is an experience in which consciousness seems to reside outside the body, perceiving events at a distance. A better, because more precise, term for the experience is “out of body experience” or OBE. There is nothing about the experience as such which cannot be described in terms of imagination, and that is how I describe it. In those terms, it ought to be noncontroversial.

The only controversial part of the experience is the occurrence of extrasensory perception in its context, and that is not fundamentally different in the context of an OBE than in other contexts where the center of awareness is not perceived to have left the body.

As for “spiritual planes,” again there is nothing about the experience of such planes which cannot be described in terms of imagination, and that is how I describe it. The reality of psi means, however, that imagination is not to be dismissed as “mere imagination,” but respected as having power and a reality of its own. Which is why I refer to imagination as one of the four modes of experience, the others being sensation, cognition, and emotion. We experience the reality of the world in these four modes, and all of them show us things that are “real” in their own terms (which does not mean they are “real” in terms of one of the others).

Navigator seams to be the new Prodigy Dan~…
Let’s see about this.

I have a question for you Navigator.

What would You consider the mode where imagination combines with the Physical/metaphysical to create reality or the Illusion of what your mind percieves to be such and apears real to the senses through experiance of the imaginative reality or physical coporial form?

Astral projection is another term for lucid dreaming. I don’t know what you mean by ‘a spiritual plane’ but there is no need for any of that to explain it.

Man, That’s random, why are you posting adult websites on a Philosophy Forum?

The alteration of probability.

Fair enough if you also believe that this plane of consciousness is also a frame of mind.