This is true. But what I am saying is the it is the INDIVIDUAL WHO ultimately DECIDES what is real... to them.

You can tell me that I hallucinated the experience but I can decide that I did not. It was certainly real to me.

But just to let you know how much of a skeptic I am in certain things, when I get back into this practice I intend to do as Robert Monroe did and validate what has been seen by remote viewing or projection in order to further prove to myself that it was real within the confines of this shared reality.

Even so, all reality is self created in my opinion. I do have other "proof" of astral out of body interactions with other people who also remember the experience, therefor being a shared experience, it seems to be more real because of the agreement that it happened.

Agreements are part of any shared reality.

JB

ok. Completely irrelevant then. The test would OBVIOUSLY not ready to begin just yet, with me and you in seperate countries and all.

Do you agree with that last sentence?

We can only try our best to understand what the other means, nit picking at little things i have said though IS pedantic. For you to tell me that there was not a note on my head at this present time was completely irrelevant and petty, because of course there is not one right there right now. If this is the only thing you can pick at to argue about then i wont bother with this debate.

I won't debate the pettiness issue any further as that door swings both ways, and is ultimatley unproductive. I have already apologized for my half of it. (More than half actually as I am the one who instigated it.)

As far as "nit picking goes", let me reiterate that I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I've stated what mine is regarding the terms "mind", "brain" and "self" and I'm trying to discover what your viewpoint is so I can "know what you mean" when you use them.

Anybody else ever tried Astral sex?

pedantic.–adjective
1.ostentatious in one's learning.
2.overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

I think that when two people are attempting to communicate and they don't quite understand each other or meanings of certain words or phrases, then details are very important.

Otherwise, this kind of conversation can develop into a complete full blown misunderstanding based on completely different premises. From there is can degenerate to insults and frustration.

I say nip it in the bud. Lets attempt to really understand each other and communicate.

I understand that you do not believe it is possible to "get out of your body" or otherwise experience this. You have never done it to your knowledge, so I understand your skepticism.

Now, will you please define, for me, what you are? Are you your body, mind and soul? Or just your body? Or just your brain? Or just your mind?

Do you believe in soul or spirit or do you identify with just your body and brain?

JB

i for one have been out of my mind... also at times no God to be found, hole in my soul ... out of body is completely plausible, in fact i have experienced it myself.

Why are you asking me to define terms that i have not used? How will that help you 'know what i mean'? I did use the term 'brain', but thats it. My definitions of the other terms are not relevent because im not continuing with this pointless debate any further.

You did, in fact, use the term "me" in a context that implied that it was different from "the brain". I have simply been trying to understand the difference - or even if there is any - from your viewpoint. But if you refuse to even try to explain it, then my feelings can best be expressed by this saying - "If you cannot define the words you are using, then you don't know what you are talking about."

I already rephrased that bit so you would understand, and you read it because you made a point of quoting it. Now what other defintions of words that i HAVE used would you like? Since you think it is so relevent to this topic.

If your "brain" believes something to be true,real, having actual substance in objective reality, your body will act and respond to it as such, even if it is not "true, real, having actual substance in objective reality".

If the brain "thinks" "believes" something is true, it is.

Two great books to read
"The Brain That Changes Itself"
"The Mind and The Brain"

is that an offer?

Allright, let’s go in that direction then.

In my view, “the brain” does not perceive – at least not any more than “the liver” or “the heart” perceive. Like the heart and the liver, I see it as simply an internal organ that responds to stimuli. It does not “create” thought, but “responds to” thought. In my view, it is the “self” (or “I” in all its conjugations, which I assumed was what you were referring to by the term “you”) which “perceives” and “creates thought”. So do you see where I might be confused by your first statement, followed by a lack of definition for the term “you”?

Dan99 has not attempted to answer any of my inquires about what or who he is so I am going to assume he either does not know, or just does not want to say what he thinks.

I will ask again, and if I get no response, I will give up.

Who do you identify with?

The Body, the mind, the brain? Or do you believe in spirit or soul?

What are you?
Do you have a brain or are you the brain?
Do you have a mind or are you the mind?
Do you have a body or are you the body?
Do you have a soul or are you the soul?

JB

OK OK i see why you were confused, but if you are still confused after i rephrased it for you then that is your problem i am afraid. This is now getting REALLY boring, so thank you for the debate but it is now over.

Well put JB. That's pretty much what I'm trying to find out. With the added question of "What, in his view, is the difference, if any between any or all of them?"

Reality is what you perceive it to be.

I'm up for it.

"new unknown knowledge" means knowledge that exist outside the realm of reality that you normally exist in ... in other words what new knowledge was gain from your experience in that other reality