From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: (Re: MORE EXPERIENCE)->Burden of Proof
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:24:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.094535.27424@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mayor@ic17.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor) writes:
|> In article 29302@m.cs.uiuc.edu, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct01.104950.39732@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucsatsd@ucl.ac.uk (-8  Big Bad Bob (B3)  8-) writes in part:
|> >|> Anyway, it has no bearing on the real crux of my post, which was that the
|> >|> second body is electromagnetic, and that I have never found electricity to
|> >|> be problematic during OOBE, despite reasonable possibility of interference.
|> >
|> >Huh?  How can the second body possibly be electromagnetic?  No test has
|>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>   To me, this question is the first indicator of a Closed Mind.

Actually, that was rhetorical excess, in an effort to get someone to
produce some reason to believe that the s.b. might be "electro magnetic".
(Remember, I was responding to posts that asserted that the sb definitely 
IS electrical, so I felt I was allowed to make a strong statement
in contradiction to force the issue.)

|> 
|> >EVER detected such a second body on ANY electromagnetic frequency.
|> >Whatever the second body might be, it has been DECISIVELY shown NOT
|> >to be elctromagnetic.  Just what are you basing this claim on?
|> 
|>   Are you ABSOLUTELY sure of this.  I will tend to agree that the second
|> body is PROBABLY not electromagnetic in nature.  

Of course I'm not sure.  But I'm pretty sure.  :-)  

|> I know of NO works where
|> it has "been DECISIVELY shown NOT to be electromagnetic."  That is a pretty
|> large spectrum, and detecting higher and higher frequencies gets more and
|> more expensive for limited grant money.  
Actually, this comment is based on theoretical problems as well as the
lack of any observational evidence.  Just how in the world could VHF or
VVHF or VVVVHF be 'hiding' in the body, and be able to interact with
the normal 'first body'?  How could a body made up of HF something
be able to SEE, or to HEAR, and how would the experience of such a body be
communicated to our poor old 'first body'?

|> Alternately, what if the most
|> common second body "frequency" is close, or equal, to that of a more 
|> observable natural noise source.  Sublime patterns would be lost in the
|> background.

This makes little sense--this would mean that the "sublime patterns" would
be overwhelmed and destroyed by the strong natural sources.  This has
never been observed.

|>   I, myself, do not feel that the second body is electromagnetic in nature, 
|> yet I DO believe that it is linked to electromagnetics (ie. similar properties
|> or analogues).  In my EXPERIENCE, I have found definite similarities with
|> the second body and electricity.  But just as i am not convinced that
|> the s.b. is electromagnetic in nature, i am always ready to find out that i
|> am wrong.

In fact I agree with you.  We both disagree with the guys who were positive
that the 'second body' has been shown to be electromagnetic.  I think
the evidence is clear that the second body is not electrical, but I
will change that assessment if evidence comes to light.

|> But i digress.  You have seemed to DEMAND proof from all those that graciously
|> share their experiences and belief with us, yet you have not cited any of your
|> alleged sources.  So, in the interest of open minds and free interpretation,
|> Put Up or Shut Up!

I tend to think the burden of proof is on those who put forward a particular
hypothesis, to wit, that the S. B. is electromagnetic. 

Actually, I demanded proof ONLY for the assertion that the 'second body'
is electromagnetic.  This claim is subject to proof, and many studies have
been attempted which have basically shown that this is not the case.  I
have not argued about many other points, such as your claim that
"In my EXPERIENCE, I have found definite similarities with
the second body and electricity."  which I take at face value and
consider to be possibly imporatnt data.

I will now mention the basic source for the third time:

See Susan Blackmore, "Beyond the Body", and the hundreds of references
in the bibliography.  In particular, see Chapter 20, "Experiments to 
Detect the Double".

|> Sincerely,
|> cam mayor
|> 
|> ps.  In case you were wondering about *my* opinions, I am an electrical 
|>      engineer.  Currently, I am doing a master's degree in applied 
|>      electromagnetics.

I hope you take a little physiology and psychology too so you can 
seriously assess the status of the second body hypothesis.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body,alt.oobe