Re "I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is 
more logically connected to well-established physics . . . ":
 I prefer a non-woo theory also. And Occam's razor suggests we should always go 
for the simplest explanation. But there's a lot of woo in physics: quantum 
theory, dark matter, fine tuning, wormholes, . . .

 Re "Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views":
 Maybe; maybe not. The thing about these psychological put-downs is that 
they're double-edged. Couldn't you claim that non-woo types are 
rigid/frigid/emotionally uptight people who are afraid to admit "there are more 
things in Heaven and Earth . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy". 
 Also, non-woo types can be playing the role of tough guy - the "no one makes a 
monkey out of me" kind of act. They think they're just being reasonable; maybe 
they're just being defensive.


 And don't underestimate the fun side of woo theories. As an example, it's 
certainly *possible* that the human race was seeded by aliens millennia ago. 
Speculating along those lines can be creepily entertaining. 

---In, <anartaxius@...> wrote:

 The brain seems to have a model of the body stored somewhere, somehow. 
Meditators sometimes experience this as seeing the body with eyes closed during 
meditation, which is interesting because the image of the body never includes 
the head, only the way the body looks like from the head during waking. It 
would seem the information for this internal image comes from the visual 
system, which has that perspective on how the body looks. Out of body 
experiences have been produced using laboratory methods, so it certainly seems 
possible that a woo factor need not be involved.


 A spiritual path is just a special sort of illusion, and people who hold to 
such views do tend to be threatened when those illusions are questioned, or 
seem to be undermined by science which has been eroding spiritual and religious 
beliefs for centuries. 

 As for authfriend's beliefs in this regard, as least for the point of argument 
she sometimes seems to hold some esoteric ideas, but unless she specifically 
states just what she believes in this regard, I am not sure at all what she 
believes. Her highly argumentative stance here might just be a product of her 
personality tendencies, and have less to do with what she thinks is true. After 
all, if you post something here, it is a near certainly that she will find 
something wrong with it. 

 It is not an absolute certainty because on rare occasions she has actually 
agreed with something you have said. I have tendencies too, for example, I will 
prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is more 
logically connected to well established physics, chemistry, or biology for 
which there is wide agreement for many basic functionalities of the world 
observed in these disciplines.

 Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views. The 
human mind does not seem to be naturally adept at creating coherent models of 
its experience but rather formulates these as the result of evolutionary forces 
that worked to ensure survival. Now that it is far less likely that an 
individual will die as a result of being eaten or lack of shelter etc. - the 
world views that were crazy in the far past were exterminated speedily when 
they did not work - but now they proliferate at an amazing pace and spread 
verbally through a society or group. They still bring death. The killing of 
doctors who perform abortions and 9/11 represent world models that spread from 
individual minds to a larger group. One only need to look at opposing political 
parties of any nation to see untested world views in practice. FLL itself shows 
little conformity between the world views of individuals of our strange little 
population here.

 ---In, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:

 I think what she's trying to say is that the scientists left out The Woo
 Factor. Cultists always need The Woo Factor.
 --- In, 
authfriend wrote:
 > This seems like it may explain
 out-of-my-body-into-somebody-else's-body experiences, but not just plain
 old out-of-body experiences.
 > ---In, 
 > wrote:


Reply via email to