Can blind and deaf people see and hear in the astral plane?

[loseyourname]

I have no idea what this means.

It's a rephrasing of Kantian metaphysics, best I can tell.

 

[loseyourname]

I recall that protein synthesis (an event that can occur within a single cell, autonomously) has been shown to be an important part of the development of memory. EEG's measure electrical movement from one cell to another. In other words, at least one step in the formation of memory occurs within individual cells, and EEG's are certainly *not* measuring that event, as they measure cell-cell communication (electrical impulse.)

It seems (at least formally) possible that for people who have become EEG-flat, events like protein synthesis could still occur within cells, in the absence of cell - to - cell (electrical impulse) communication.

Perhaps the (protein - synthesis portion of) memories are being formed in cells, while the brain is flat - line, and when the pateint is resuscitated, those "memories" can finish their normal progression including cell-cell communications via neuron function.

It would be odd if all cellular processes stopped just because neurons stopped firing, after all.

-patty

p.s. I'm really sorry for garbling so much of that. I think it's a good idea, I am just not fluent in neurological jargon.

One problem with that is that for a memory to form, it needs to be a memory of something, so there will still need to be communication across a neural net of some sort. Unless the cell is remembering its own subcellular processes.

 

[Burnsys]

Personaly i think that it's an issue with the brain experiencing time...
I gues in the pior moments of the brain death experience of time is heavly distorted, all the experiences the patient describes as NDE are really activity during the prior moments of the No brain activity with an anormal experience of time..

Don't you ever had a very long dream and when you wake up you realize you where asleep olny for a couple of minutes? Like if all the dreaming didn't fit in the time you where asleep

Just what i think...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One problem with that is that for a memory to form, it needs to be a memory of something, so there will still need to be communication across a neural net of some sort. Unless the cell is remembering its own subcellular processes.

Ultimately the argument hinges on what seem to be detailed memories of real events.

 

[Spin_Network]

This is one topic I'm really into at the moment and possibly the one which will one day really bring the truth to us when we die. I'm currently on an astral website, and you know what, the people on there gave the best answer ever to astral projection." Try it"! they give courses on there as how to leave your physical body. I've heard alarming accounts from people I know who've had OBE's and it's amazing. Even blind and deaf people on how they can hear and see in the astral plane. It goes to prove that consciousness really IS a great mystery. I think of us as the "ghost" as such in a physical body.

Out Of Body Experience and Near Death Experience's share a common factor, in that when Humans are within the Womb, the brain is functioning by gathering information, prior to birth. The transitional journey from a contained Liquid Environment, to an uncontained environment of Gas/Air is a pretty automated action. The infant Brain has to prepare for the burst of Photons that will infuse the brain at birth. The mind having no prior knowledge of the outside 'gas', world produces a virtual 'image' in order to calibrate the transition of liquid to air.

The "Bright-light-at-the-end-of-a-Dark-Tunnel" is nothing more than the event of Birth, the transition from Liquid to Gas and Unconscious to a Conscious environment. Its a Phase transition that could be thought of as a "Near Birth Experience", which happens to be the same event played at certain dangerous time's in Human Experience, say life threatening events, traumatic episode's, or situations where the mind is put out of conscious 'action' during a medical operation for instance.

Memory impregnation (the events made in the mind of information processed), can be played back at anytime in one's life. The OBE is nothing more than the Primordial foundational event captured and processed by the Brain, its the same event as NDE, the common factor is the "Bright light at the end of a dark tunnel", is the FIRST, and sometime's LAST event recalled by Human beings, for the Conscious Human it may cause Hallucinory products, for the semi-conscious, it may invoke one to treat the event as religeous spiritual "Awakening"?

Now the really interssting thing is that you do not have to be in any of the situations stated above, to experience OBE or NDE, you can play with your mind to such an extent that you 'recall' the experience, and intepret this as Astro-Projection?..some religions have people who withdraw from the conscious world, and come out of their experience detailing all manner of mis-intepretations, but all they are really doing is imposing an deprevivation of external information, they stop the "real-world" information reaching the brain/mind, and therefore the mind pulls information from memory, this will no doubt include the "Near Life Experience" I have stated.

There are other events that can play an important part in forming logical deductions from your surrounding environments, these are the Basis of General Relativity which Einstein so eloquently provided.

Its a Fail-Safe premordial action that is often misunderstood, is actually a Near Life Experience Memory (transition from unborn to born) rather than a Near-Death-Experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The explanation offered for this is that activity exists deeper in the brain than can be meaured with a typical EEG machine. I don't know if or to what extent this issue is resolved.

Whooooooah, that should read "can't", not "can".

The explanation offered for this is that activity exists deeper in the brain that can't be meaured with a typical EEG machine. I don't know if or to what extent this issue is resolved

 

[SGT]

Dr. Karl Jansen has reproduced NDEs with ketamine, a short-acting, hallucinogenic, dissociative anaesthetic.

The anaesthesia is the result of the patient being so 'dissociated' and 'removed from their body' that it is possible to carry out surgical procedures. This is wholly different from the 'unconsciousness' produced by conventional anesthetics, although ketamine is also an excellent analgesic (pain killer) by a different route (i.e. not due to dissociation). Ketamine is related to phencyclidine (PCP). Both drugs are arylcyclohexylamines - they are not opioids and are not related to LSD. In contrast to PCP, ketamine is relatively safe, is much shorter acting, is an uncontrolled drug in most countries, and remains in use as an anaesthetic for children in industrialised countries and all ages in the third world as it is cheap and easy to use. Anaesthetists prevent patients from having NDE's ('emergence phenomena') by the co-administration of sedatives which produce 'true' unconsciousness rather than dissociation.*

According to Dr. Jansen, ketamine can reproduce all the main features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into the light, the feeling that one is dead, communing with God, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, strange noises, etc.

This, of course, does not prove that NDE's don't exist, but the fact that they can be artificially produced is some indication that those experiences may have a physiological explanation.

 

[Badass]

Within respect, what many of you open minded skeptics forget is the so real accounts of what people see of themselves out side the human at the time of brain death and watching themselves being resuscitated. The descriptions they give the surgeon who proves them correct. Looking at the consciousness out side the body is a bit like a TV transmition. If you turn the TV off there is no picture but the signal is still coming through. What's really always fascinated me is the fact that our vision is better than the best DVD recorder and doesn't require many volts to keep it going. Look at the smallest creatures that move, they have no huge power supply but the energy in them makes them move. FASCINATING!

 

[Johann]

The NDE anecdotes don't hold up to the scientific method, and aren't therefore worth much time if you are discussing some topic like "the physical constitution of self."

I didn't think we were discussing science. You are the one claiming to be able to enter altered states of consciousness and have weird experiences. I didn't see you offer a scientific explanation for your experiences.

If your question is: "Do we survive physical death?" then you may find these anecdotes useful, but as a scientist I see them as lacking in several areas.

As I said, I don't find those anecdotes useful at all when it comes to what happens after we die. For one thing, people who have NDEs have not really died, so they really don't experience what it feels to be dead.

(Incidentally, you used the term "essence" first, I merely used it because it seemed to be your preferred term. I have no particular interest in discussing what may happen after we die.)

Incidentally, you mentioned "death" first

 

[Johann]

The same is true for hallucinations. Most people never experience one.

That is not true. We experience hallucinations every night. If we didn't dream, we would have a hard time understanding what a hallucination is.

Is this true for animals too?

Last time I checked you and I were animals.

Seeing compression waves is equivalent to tasting or smelling them. Can yo do it?

Some people actually can. It's called synesthesia.

Neurologists may not know the precise nature of the phenomenon, but "astral" folks only make up explanations, without any evidence.

I really don't understand what science has to do with any of this. All those science folks sound like some skeptics in Christopher Columbus' time complaining his claims of having discovered a new continent lacked "scientific rigour" and were based on "anecdotal evidence". It's just nonsense.

 

[SGT]

That is not true. We experience hallucinations every night. If we didn't dream, we would have a hard time understanding what a hallucination is.

Are you saying that dreams are hallucinations? Have you any cite for this?

Last time I checked you and I were animals.

Since you are nitpicking, is it true for other animals?

Some people actually can. It's called synesthesia.

Yes, about 1 in 2000 people can present this phenomenon, but this does not make sound a visual phenomenon.

I really don't understand what science has to do with any of this. All those science folks sound like some skeptics in Christopher Columbus' time complaining his claims of having discovered a new continent lacked "scientific rigour" and were based on "anecdotal evidence". It's just nonsense.

Last time I checked, Columbus died thinking he had arrived to India. Americo Vespucci is who said the land discovered by Columbus was a new continent. And I never heard that there were sceptics about this. Can you provide some cite?

 

[pattylou]

I didn't see you offer a scientific explanation for your experiences.

That's because I haven't.

 

[Johann]

That's because I haven't.

I'm not getting your point. I realize you're not making any claims, but you did offer your personal testimony, and then said something I interpreted as a statement that personal testimonies are worthless.

You must have learned something from your experiences, and I see no reason why you seem to think you see no value in sharing it with other people. Who cares if it's not "scientific"? Are we supposed to only learn things from "scientists"? That would make us rather ignorant.

 

[pattylou]

I didn't think we were discussing science. You are the one claiming to be able to enter altered states of consciousness and have weird experiences. I didn't see you offer a scientific explanation for your experiences.

As I said, I don't find those anecdotes useful at all when it comes to what happens after we die. For one thing, people who have NDEs have not really died, so they really don't experience what it feels to be dead.

Incidentally, you mentioned "death" first

Actually: For having quoted so much of my post, you left out the most important sentence. Here was the discussion:

Originally Posted by Johann
That could explain why objective reports are almost non-existent in the case of OBEs, but very common in the case of NDEs.

(Response from me:) I included NDE reports in my search, and didn't find any compelling reports. Ex: the famous "shoe" NDE was touted as something the patient couldn't have seen beforehand. Later we learned that the shoe was easily visible from many vantage points outside the hospital.

Our next exchange:

Originally Posted by pattylou
I included NDE reports in my search, and didn't find any compelling reports.

{response by you:) When people say that, I really don't understand. I'm sure you have read reports of people describing details of procedures being done to them, or events happening in different rooms at the hospital, or objects that were only around when they were unconscious. You may doubt some stories, even most stories, but to remain indifferent is something I can't quite understand.

And I responded directly to that, by saying:

It boils down to what sort of process you use to decide something is "real."

In other words, you said you don't know why people remain indifferent to reports from NDE'ers, and I responded that if you rely heavily on the scientific method to decide if something is real, then reports by NDE'ers, by virtue of being anecdotal (as well as other problems), are not something that will have much "wow" value. You will remain indifferent to them.

 

[pattylou]

I'm not getting your point. I realize you're not making any claims, but you did offer your personal testimony, and then said something I interpreted as a statement that personal testimonies are worthless.

You must have learned something from your experiences, and I see no reason why you seem to think you see no value in sharing it with other people. Who cares if it's not "scientific"? Are we supposed to only learn things from "scientists"? That would make us rather ignorant.

Indeed, there is a lot to be learned from such experiences, and I highly recommend that people try to achieve these states. Here are some of the value I see from such experiences:

1. It certainly expands one's understanding of the breadth of the human condition
2. It allows an experiential framework within which one can understand the "jargon" used by people such as Robert Bruce
3. It is certainly a type of "escape" and that can be a coping mechanism in times of stress.
4. Many people claim these experiences are transformative.
5. It gives one a greater appreciation for the philosophical question "What is real?"

But the main claim (claim made most often and many times the only claim made) on any OBE/NDE website is that these experiences point to a spirit-world. Scientifically, that conclusion is not justified. Some people reach this conclusion, and shouldn't, in my opinion. If you are not one of these people, I apologise for assuming that you are.

 

[Johann]

Actually: For having quoted so much of my post, you left out the most important sentence.

OK. It's hard to tell which sentence is more important, they all look the same

In other words, you said you don't know why people remain indifferent to reports from NDE'ers, and I responded that if you rely heavily on the scientific method to decide if something is real, then reports by NDE'ers, by virtue of being anecdotal (as well as other problems), are not something that will have much "wow" value. You will remain indifferent to them.

I still don't understand why people behave that way. It doesn't seem natural to me, and it's not the way most people behave. It sounds rather nerdish, if that's a word.

 

[pattylou]

Well, I admit I'm a nerd. :nerd smiley:

(Why don't we have a nerd smiley?)

http://www.it-mate.co.uk/new/icons/smiles_lrg/nerd.gif

 

[pattylou]

I still don't understand why people behave that way. It doesn't seem natural to me, and it's not the way most people behave. It sounds rather nerdish, if that's a word.

Many people make the argument that if you start living without application of critical thinking, all sorts of problems crop up. Beliefe in every strange idea takes hold and before you know it you have a president suggesting that creationism should be taught alongside evolution at the taxpayer's expense.

 

[Johann]

Indeed, there is a lot to be learned from such experiences, and I highly recommend that people try to achieve these states.

Actually, in that I disagree. I think people shouldn't play with things they can't understand or control. But that's just me.

Here are some of the value I see from such experiences:

As a matter of personal opinion, all those values can be had from things like art, music, meditation, religion.

But the main claim (claim made most often and many times the only claim made) on any OBE/NDE website is that these experiences point to a spirit-world. Scientifically, that conclusion is not justified.

Could the conclusion be justified in ways other than "scientifically"? Or are all truths of the universe available to science?

Some people reach this conclusion, and shouldn't, in my opinion.

Other than "because it's not scientific", why?

If you are not one of these people, I apologise for assuming that you are.

I do believe in a spirit-world, but simply as a matter of religious faith; it has nothing to do with paranormal phenomena. Do you think you still need to apologize?

 

[Johann]

Many people make the argument that if you start living without application of critical thinking, all sorts of problems crop up.

Many people make the argument that if you don't accept Jesus as your personal saviour, you will burn up in hell. If I were to bother with people making arguments, I'd go insane. Life is complicated but not that complicated; most of the time commonsense is enough, and when it isn't, all you have to do is wait and things will make sense by themselves.

Beliefe in every strange idea takes hold and before you know it you have a president suggesting that creationism should be taught alongside evolution at the taxpayer's expense.

But you don't need science to refute creationism, commonsense is enough.

If people said "you can't travel outside your body because the notion doesn't make sense", I'd have no problem with it, but to claim "it's not scientific" conveys a sense of authority that is not just there.

 

[pattylou]

Could the conclusion be justified in ways other than "scientifically"? Or are all truths of the universe available to science?

I suppose it depends on how a person defines "spirit." If the definition only includes things like : Those aspects of the human condition that relate to meaning, emotion, consciousness... then perhaps NDE illuminates some part of the 'spirit' world - but in this case we are speaking wholly subjectively. Spirit is being defined subjectively, and the NDE would be subjective, and meaning derived from it would be subjective. Note that there is no reason to say that this sort of "spirit" is separate from the physiology of the body, and it may expire at death. But it can still be called human spirit.

As far as surviving physical death (which is usually, but not always, included in definitions of spirit), then as far as I know you cannot defend such a belief rationally, through critical thought/the scientific method. You would need to defend it through faith. Faith may easily allow you to conclude an afterlife, non-scientifically. There is nothing "wrong" with faith. It is a definite part of the human condition. But by its nature it is not within the scope of science, and cannot be proven or disproven. People who hold a belief based purely on faith will not be able to convince others of the "rightness" of their belief through rational argument, because their belief is... a matter of faith.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Edit: Oops! Switched can to cannot.

 

[pattylou]

If I were to bother with people making <Jesus is your savior> arguments, I'd go insane.

Well... I had considered many posts ago, not engaging in this discussion ... so I suggest that the "sanity" of either position: Jesus-as-savior vs. survival-of-death, is a matter of perspective.

If people said "you can't travel outside your body because the notion doesn't make sense", I'd have no problem with it, but to claim "it's not scientific" conveys a sense of authority that is not just there.

OBE's can be subjected to experimentation, and the reported results (Tart, etc, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread), by and large, have not held up the position that an 'essence' leaves the body and perceives the world.

I'm open to the idea that we are clever enough to apply science to these issues. In fact that is why my husband and I have our little home-made experiments. But if it OBE's were a clear and straightforward case of people leaving their bodies and seeing the world objectively - and given that so many people claim to be able to manage these experiences --- don't you think we would have plenty of papers documenting such feats? And, we don't.

You said earlier that NDE's (as opposed to OBE's) seem to have more verifiable details surrounding them (patients reporting what doctors say etc.) You said here: "to claim "it's not scientific" conveys a sense of authority that is not just there."

Can you explain to me how NDE's are scientific?

 

[Johann]

I suppose it depends on how a person defines "spirit." If the definition only includes things like : Those aspects of the human condition that relate to meaning, emotion, consciousness... then perhaps NDE illuminates some part of the 'spirit' world - but in this case we are speaking wholly subjectively. Spirit is being defined subjectively, and the NDE would be subjective, and meaning derived from it would be subjective. Note that there is no reason to say that this sort of "spirit" is separate from the physiology of the body, and it may expire at death. But it can still be called human spirit.

So I guess we can easily agree that we do have a spirit, given that a rational definition of "spirit" is possible. That is good progress.

As far as surviving physical death (which is usually, but not always, included in definitions of spirit), then as far as I know you cannot defend such a belief rationally, through critical thought/the scientific method.

Not even if, for some reason we do not yet understand, it is true?

You would need to defend it through faith.

Not necessarily. I can defend it by dying, going to heaven, waiting for you to get there, and saying, "see, I was right". No science or faith required.

People who hold a belief based purely on faith will not be able to convince others of the "rightness" of their belief through rational argument, because their belief is... a matter of faith.

Actually, people become convinced of the "rightness" of all sorts of beliefs everyday. It's called "religious conversion", and is often the result of rational argumentation.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Well... I had considered many posts ago, not engaging in this discussion

Too late now

so I suggest that the "sanity" of either position: Jesus-as-savior vs. survival-of-death, is a matter of perspective.

This is an imbroglio and there's no easy way out of it, not even by appealing to sanity, much less by appealing to science.

You said earlier that NDE's (as opposed to OBE's) seem to have more verifiable details surrounding them (patients reporting what doctors say etc.) You said here: "to claim "it's not scientific" conveys a sense of authority that is not just there."

Can you explain to me how NDE's are scientific?

I didn't say they are scientific, I said science is not the most reliable authority in the matter. If you are a nurse in a hospital, you see a patient tell you where you put his dentures while he was under cardiac arrest, and you're not freaked out by the episode, all I can think of is that you must live in some alternate reality where mathematical equations and pompous jargon matter more than humans and their experiences.

There was a researcher who spent several years studying NDE-like experiences induced by ketamine (forgot his name). He was rather skeptical and convinced he was going to find a physiological explanation for the phenomenon, but the more he got involved with it, the less convinced he became. He ended up giving up his research and accepting he couldn't really understand what was going on. What is true is true, and if science can't deal with it, too bad for science. Fortunately we don't need science for most things anyway.

 

[pattylou]

That is good progress.

Progress towards what? Descriptions that are so vague as to be both irrefutable as well as completely worthless?

I think I'll bow out of the conversation now, thank-you-very-much.

 

[SGT]

There was a researcher who spent several years studying NDE-like experiences induced by ketamine (forgot his name). He was rather skeptical and convinced he was going to find a physiological explanation for the phenomenon, but the more he got involved with it, the less convinced he became. He ended up giving up his research and accepting he couldn't really understand what was going on.

You mean Dr. Karl Jansen, that I mentioned in my previous post? To my knowledge he didn't give up. He showed that experiences provoked by ketamine are undistinguishable from NDE. This does not prove that NDE are physiological and not spiritual, but shows that we don't need the spiritual interpretation.

What is true is true, and if science can't deal with it, too bad for science. Fortunately we don't need science for most things anyway.

Sure, love, friendship and other important facets of human life are totally independent of science. But science has allowed that our planet can support 6 billion human beings, has provided a longer and more healthy life, so we can better enjoy the things that are science independent. and science has created the computer and the network you are using to post your ideas.

 

[Johann]

You mean Dr. Karl Jansen, that I mentioned in my previous post? To my knowledge he didn't give up. He showed that experiences provoked by ketamine are undistinguishable from NDE. This does not prove that NDE are physiological and not spiritual, but shows that we don't need the spiritual interpretation.

Thanks for reminding me of his name. Here is an excerpt of an interview with Dr. Jansen where he talks about his book:

Those who think that I am anti-spiritual and very biological will find [in the book] that I have drastically altered my views after several life-changing experiences.

I do recall reading that Jansen has ended up subscribing to the spiritual view, but I can't look it up right now.

I'm not saying that proves anything about the spiritual, I was simply trying to show that the subject is not as simple as some people, in their ignorance of the subject, think it is. The more you study it, the less simple it appears. The spiritual explanation is not a good one, but it's the only one that fits the data. All this scientific talk about brain processes simply does not correlate with known facts.

love, friendship and other important facets of human life are totally independent of science.

That and much, much more. I find these forums something of an aberration; some people give science too much credit for too many things. In reality things are not like that; the domain of applicability of science is quite restricted.

science has allowed that our planet can support 6 billion human beings, has provided a longer and more healthy life, so we can better enjoy the things that are science independent. and science has created the computer and the network you are using to post your ideas.

Nobody is saying science is a bad thing. But when people say that the scientific method is the only valid way of discovering what is real, that sounds to me like ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Johann]

Descriptions that are so vague as to be both irrefutable as well as completely worthless?

So much anger... :shy:

 

[PIT2]

You mean Dr. Karl Jansen, that I mentioned in my previous post? To my knowledge he didn't give up. He showed that experiences provoked by ketamine are undistinguishable from NDE. This does not prove that NDE are physiological and not spiritual, but shows that we don't need the spiritual interpretation.

This research concludes something different:

Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

 

[zelldot]

We only use 10% of our brain, what is the other 90%?

 

[SGT]

We only use 10% of our brain, what is the other 90%?

We use 100% of our brain. Read this

 

[zelldot]

Things to read:
http://www.oberf.org/stories_obe.htm
http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/faq/obe16.html
http://www.bwgen.com/presets/desc466.htm

something to try:
http://www.astraldynamics.com/library/?BoardID=30&BulletinID=422

 

[Fractal Freak]

There is evidence that you can stimulate the right angular gyrus of the brain which is along the temporal lobe which deals with feelings, emotions, touch, etc. With a few mV of current, you can induce an OBE. This article is published in Nature and can be found at the following link.

http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020916/full/020916-8.html

 

[PIT2]

There is also this interesting OBE experiment in which a person saw a 5 digit number during her OBE:

The number 25132 was indeed the correct target number. I had learned something about designing experiments since my first OBE experiment and precise evaluation was possible here. The odds against guessing a 5digit number by chance alone are 100,000 to 1, so this is a remarkable event! Note also that Miss Z had apparently expected me to have propped the target number up against the wall behind the shelf, but she correctly reported that it was lying flat.

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/display/ctt_articles2.cfm?ID=50