Anthony Peake on Skeptiko

[shoegazer]

It was interesting to see that many users associated with the Skeptiko website have some negative comments about the theories of Anthony Peake. Any opinions on this?

http://www.skeptiko.com/anthony-peake-n ... ual-death/

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-p ... dcast.html

[CFTraveler]

Yep, they talked about 'smug' tones, but the tones of their comments was smugger than smug, and most of them didn't even bother to listen to it.
Too bad, whatcha gonna do.

[Derkein]

Its an excellent site that reviews many folk with many 'theories and viewpoints, and thereby has a 'readership with an equally wide set of view and opinions.

The simple fact is that Tony's specific 'theories are a minority viewpoint, so despite having mainly positive reactions on this site, will generate a lot of what could be viewed as negative or questioning responses from the wide community of those who consider 'fringe reality' things likely or at least possible.
Many of these folk will have there own views, often supported (in their view at least) by evidence or experiences that may seem to contradict Tony's viewpoints. That these folk should voice these views, especially if they support them is absolutely correct.
Compare this to the randi site where the views are generally as closed as religious fundamentalist'

I think it is quite right and very proper that the views and theories of someone presenting them should be examined and challenged, and those challenges competently met and answered, else those other concepts would need to be integrated as valid. We should be looking for unquestionable or at least reasonably supportable ideas which meet any challenge, not cheerleaders.

To quote quote Tony from that interview
"I always say to people, “Please, please, please just because I come to these conclusions now doesn’t necessarily mean that in six months’ time somebody won’t come along and give me another bit of information that I can put into the mixture that will actually change my ideas and concepts.”

That is the correct attitude and is key to me being here at least.

[CFTraveler]

Yes, but what I read in the forum was mostly "don't bother to read it " and "thanks for saving me from having to read it". That's not looking at a theory and taking it apart, that's something else altogether.

[Derkein]

I suppose its all in the viewing, there were some like that but also some quality comments. I am still finding it interesting going back and reading the comments. I may add some of my own viewpoints here.

[Derkein]

The two parts in quotes from a response in the referred post. My view in red

"On the "80% right" during OBE observations -- that's very good observation on Peake's part. I've made this point again and again, but very few really take it on board: in OBE training you =train= to see accurately. You do not =start off= as accurate but you do become more so."

Just as our senses and filters deceive us in 'reality' as shown in a number of quality documentaries eg Do you see what I see, they also deceive us in the astral realm. In some ways we see things without our normal filters, because these things stretch our credibility, but in others we simply cannot process what is occurring properly because it is outside our normal experience
Some training is simply allowing filters similar to those which affect our views of the real world and are mistakenly taken to be 'improvement' or as gaining experience.

"Similarly many other astral projectors such as Robert Bruce have agreed that the projection environment is kind of an underlayer to reality, a substrate that is not as steady as physical reality. One teacher put it very well: you are in a new environment and just like a child you have to learn to perceive it accurately"

I see this as the intersection of differing consciousnesses in the same realm, some lucid, some dreaming, some clearly very at home there.

[shoegazer]

Yep, they talked about 'smug' tones, but the tones of their comments was smugger than smug, and most of them didn't even bother to listen to it.
Too bad, whatcha gonna do.

The skeptiko website is owned by a fundamentalist christian who brings religion and deity into most of his comments, he is a conman with no real knowledge on parapsychology, he is just exploiting it for his own agenda.

After I said to him that most parapsychologists and paranormal researchers have been either atheists or non-religious he banned me from his website and forum.

[Derkein]

Yes, but what I read in the forum was mostly "don't bother to read it " and "thanks for saving me from having to read it". That's not looking at a theory and taking it apart, that's something else altogether.

There is too much of that on all forums (and life), skeptic or otherwise. The whole idea is to look at the evidence, confirm or refute each aspect, and then make your own informed decision. To many don't do any of this, they just jump on one bandwagon or another, and/or are happy to simply accept anothers conclusions.
Having said that, we all do it to a certain extent, with the more intellegent and less gullible generally (I hope) driven by prior effort spent in certain areas from which you already have made an informed decision, which you have decided would take some significant supportable new evidence to change.. . . Which is far to often sadly lacking.

[shoegazer]

I recently found this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skeptiko_forum

The forum was set up by Alex Tsakiris, a Christian theist[1] who has stated that "atheists would make terrible parapsychologists".

What does religion have to do with parapsychology, obviously Tsakiris does not understand parapsychology!

[Derkein]

I don't consider Tsakiris to know much about anything.

Religions are populated by folk for a number of different reasons including
Indoctrination
Reveleation
Perceived events/occurrences
Despair

So it seems to me there can be great overlap between the reasons/causes for considering parapsychology and religion albeit the interpretation of the cause is somewhat different