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

[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