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

[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