How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

[Rade]

All the talk in this thread about the "mechanists, physicalists, and scientismists" vs the "mystics" I find very strange. Reality is a mixture of the physical (matter) and non physical mystic (energy), we know this from Einstein now in exact form. When one meditates it makes sense that one would experience the two aspects of reality (e.g., the physical and mystic) in different proportions, as opposed to a person that does not meditate. The same can be said of the person that takes mind alternating drugs, or the mentally ill that hallucinates. In my view, neither physical nor mystical can take primacy, because the two are co-mingled from the start. Thus, when one mediates one does not somehow move outside the physical--not possible--not even if one reaches a state of experiencing pure energy in the form of light. Because E = Mc^2, without the physical (M) the non physical (E) light experience cannot exist (e.g. pure light is not possible to experience unless some quantum of matter is moving very fast indeed). Thus I hold that reality is a neutral monism of the physical + mystical and thus can never be experienced in pure form at either end of the E <----> M continuum. Meditation is but one of many ways to reach such union, but it is not a stairway to heaven. How can I say this ? Because I have experienced the union without mediation (nor drugs), thus mediation is sufficient but not necessary. The Buddha and Timothy Leary spent time on mediation and drugs to experience what was always available to them via rational thought as a system where the totality of the communal past is by volition brought forth to form the communal present.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Reality is a mixture of the physical (matter) and non physical mystic (energy), we know this from Einstein now in exact form.

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has alnmost no definite properties.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This assumes that only sense experience is susceptible of objective verification. I don't assume that, but neither you nor anyone else has shown me that union is an objective condition.

What do you mean by an objective condition? I hope you mean that union is actually occurring as it is reported, and not being colored by subjective bias or delusion. If you mean “objective” in the sense of being able to make it an object of scrutiny for external observers, I must believe you haven’t understood a thing I’ve said.

You blame the messenger by saying that we "haven't taken the time to first learn union." It is up to you who make extreme claims - that your experience justifies a complete boulversment of our understanding of the world is indeed an extreme claim - to present evidence.

First of all, what have I said that indicates bouleversement? There is nothing about union that can’t fit perfectly with what is actually known to be true of our universe. I have never denied the reality of physicalness, I have only said it may not be all there is.

Secondly, I haven’t made the extreme claims, it seems to me you have when you take the extreme position that only physicalness exits before there’s enough evidence to warrant that belief. It is extreme in my opinion to close the door on everything but one’s pet theory when one don’t know if it is true. At least I am trying to reconcile what is known with what I experience, and I haven’t closed a single door.

Third, I have presented evidence. Look at the history of my posts and you will see I have cited again and again those reports of accomplished union practitioners. Whether you like it or not, that is evidence.

You merely choose to dismiss reports of individuals like the Buddha, or Jesus, or Kabir, or Rumi, or Meister Eckhart, or Nanak, or Joshu, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Sheikh Farid, or Bernard, or Sengtsan, or Laotse, or Cassian, Pinhas of Koretz, or Brother Lawrence, or Kobo daishi, or Jakob Boehme, or Sarmad, or Sri Sarada Devi, or Maximus, or Milarepa, or Shah Nimatullah Wali, or Baha'ullah, or Richard Rolle, or Meher Baba, or Dov Baer, or Blessed Theodore, or Mira Bai, or Isaac of Syria, or Namdev, or Dogen, or Jerome, or Karaikkal Ammaiyar, or Catherine of Siena, or Rabia, or Benedict, or Mahadevi, or John of the Cross, or Patanjali, or Julian of Norwich, or Dhanna, or Julian of Norwich, or Lalleswari, or Angela of Foligno, or Bonaventura, or Suso, or Thomas à Kempis, Mother Cabrini, . . . all of whom would likely understand Hildegarde’s report, “. . . my soul has always beheld this Light; and in it my soul soars to the summit of the firmament and into a different air . . . the brightness which I see is not limited by space and is more brilliant than the radiance round the sun. . . . . sometimes when I see it . . . I seem a simple girl again, and an old woman no more!”

Teaching scientists how to achieve union . . .

Well, you can lead a mule to water . . .

. . . and going under the functional MRI scanner while in union are ways to begin.

What if the MRI scanner is too crude to detect it? My experience is that the essence of consciousness is homogeneous light. How is anything dependent on particle-ness or fields generated by them going to detect something that is particle-less and more subtle than what any physical tools can spot? If there is some preexistent consciousness-as-illumination, and if it is more subtle that all that’s physical, then it makes sense that it’s only observable by each individual consciousness learning to experience itself. Know thy self may be a more profound prescription than most imagine.

But see, again you insist that the experience be made physical somehow, and you insist that the physical-detection epistemology known as science be the arbiter of this issue. As I’ve asked before, who made science the end-all epistemology of the universe? It may be the only way some know how to know, but that doesn’t mean others haven’t learned to develop consciousness in an entirely different way that gives one an additional knowing avenue. That in fact is exactly what union practitioners claim, and why they also claim their experience of reality is more “real” than those who lack the experiential avenue they’ve developed (i.e., because they are experiencing more of reality).

Just sitting on your laurels and preaching will never convince any critical thinker you are correct.

Who is sitting on his laurels? I have done the work, most critics haven’t, yet they are full of opinions about it anyway. What quality of critical thinking is that? Just scoffing at millennia of inner practitioners isn’t much of an opinion, and demanding that one submit union experience to their laboratory tests is downright egocentric. It’s like, “Oh, so you say you feel love? Okay, then show evidence of love on this big machine I’ve got here. And if you can’t make that machine give readings, then you are deluded.” Yeah, all of humanity should limit their self-knowledge to what a bunch of glorified mechanics declare is the truth. Give me a break!

I can’t tell if you really don’t understand or if you are just trying to make me dizzy from repeating myself. From all that’s been said, how would one get the notion that someone can “think” their way to certainty about the experience? I don’t know much more clearly it can be said that how one empirically (empirical=experience) confirms the reality of union isn’t through thinking.

Thinking produces thoughts, union practice produces union experience, and to get to the point of practicing one feels attracted to it. It is a feeling avenue, not a thinking avenue. I know that scares a lot of people because often they’ve shut off feeling from getting hurt, or they relied on it improperly and so got themselves in hot water. But there is a very conscious way to develop and practice feeling, and that has been the basis of this very ancient practice we’ve been discussing.

So there is no MRI to make one feel better about it, there is no test to run by any machine. If one wants to know one has to have step out of one’s scientism comfort zone and open up to the experience. That’s it, there is no other way to investigate it. Personally I have no stake in whether anyone gives union a try; my goal here has been to try to bring a little clarity about the experience, and to defend it against baseless criticisms so that if someone might be interested at least there is an informed opinion amongst all the often pessimistic and erroneous speculation.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has alnmost no definite properties.

Of course you are right that energy has nothing to do with it (and neither do photons ), but it isn't fair to lump mindless mystical speculation with the reports of serious inner practitioners. Should we lump pseudo-science and science together?

 

[Royce]

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has almost no definite properties.

This is where you are dead wrong and showing your ignorance, selfAdjoint.
What is called chi or ki, the life force, has been studied and measured and it does have objective, observable, repeatable effects.

The "light" that we see and feel does have physical effects on us but I don't know that it has ever been studied or measured.

If subjective thought can make our bodies move, change states in response to purely subjective observations or experiences as in emotions or fright and this response can be measured then it obviously must be a physical energy with physical effects and properties.

Mystics and Martial Art practitioners can do amazing, impossible, things just using their minds and wills.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Royce,
I have read plenty about NDE and OBE. I did do a quick re-check after your post to see if there was possibly some evidence I have overlooked. As far as I know, the "holy grail" of a verifiable OBE is yet to be documented. Sure there are plenty of personal accounts, but just a personal account leaves too many unknowns about the individual personal history. Same with big foot or the loch ness monster. (at least those can be scientifically analyzed). There are just as many accounts of OBE that doesn't lead the experiencer to conclude that it was "caused" by God, if you care to look those up yourself. I don't really know if there is anything I could say that could not be turned around and dismissed as me just "speaking from ignorance." I am not trying to be critical of your beliefs because admittedly, I don't know. I'm not even sure if I really want to, or can, persuade you otherwise. But we run into the same roadblock that has been impeding any honest debate on the subject, because when one side says "we know", what's the use? I really must ask you, why are you here at Physics Forum? (keyword physics). If you know, then why not be content with your knowledge? If you still have doubts, then you don't know, you only think you do.
What I'm most interested in, and I believe is in line with the OP, is how this alleged universal conciousness operates. This is also a general question not just for you, but Les as well. I have always thought of God, if it exists at all, as existing in another dimension or a reality separate from our own. As Les has pointed out to me in another thread, that point of view leads to logical flaws such as omnipotence and the like. I agree that those ill-concieved notions can be logically dismissed. But, if you want to persuade me that God, in the form of a universal conciousness, exists in this reality, than I need to know some sequence of events. Les has told me that it is natural, and in being so, is governed by the same natural laws that you and a I are. Also, earthly evolution (and the paradoxes that arise from the appearence of trial and error) leads to the logical opinion that it too has evolved from a more primitive form.
First, how can a universal conciousness arise out of the same laws that govern us, and yet physicalists are scorned because they claim that our human conciousness did just that? Why are you right?
If you have an answer for that, then give me a timeline. Is it Big Bang--> universal conciousness-->ability to create-->planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us? What do you suppose? I've always assumed it was God--> big bang--> and the rest is history. Mine would assume that God is not governed by the same laws as us, nor does it assume that he is imperfect/perfect, (who are we to judge) nor does it rule out that he doesn't interact via our conscious minds. However, it does assume that any effect of the interaction would be physically measurable or at the very least mathematically/logically possible.
All pleasurable benefits of the union experience aside, that is no longer a question for me. I don't doubt that at all. What my questions are concerning is the stance that what you are experiencing is the interaction of the 2 realities, or whether it is actually one reality, or whether it is the result of an overactive imagination. Perhaps you've ruled out the last one for yourself, fine, let's proceed from there.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't really know if there is anything I could say that could not be turned around and dismissed as me just "speaking from ignorance."

Sometimes people do give opinions without the slightest knowledge of what they are talking about, and in the realm of turning inward, around here it goes on all the time. But I flinched at seeing the term “ignorance” used in the same sentence with selfAdjoint who, despite being PF’s resident curmudgeon , is one of the most broadly educated and capable thinkers around.

Les has told me that it is natural, and in being so, is governed by the same natural laws that you and a I are. Also, earthly evolution (and the paradoxes that arise from the appearance of trial and error) leads to the logical opinion that it too has evolved from a more primitive form.
First, how can a universal consciousness arise out of the same laws that govern us . . .

To say universal consciousness and physicalness arose out of the same laws isn’t the same as saying both are physical. I’d propose there are absolute laws which are more basic than anything we’ve yet discovered. I’ll say more in a minute.

. . . and yet physicalists are scorned because they claim that our human consciousness did just that? Why are you right?

Physicalism is only scorned by me when its believers won’t admit where the theory has serious evidential gaps, when they apply bad logic (in the form of improper inferences) to cover the gaps, when they only study and allow one sort of evidence (physical evidence), and when they “dismiss” anything that doesn’t fit their theories.

Personally I don’t see anything wrong with trying to make a theory work as long as it is honestly and objectively discussed, and other perspectives are treated respectfully.

If you have an answer for that, then give me a timeline. Is it Big Bang--> universal conciousness-->ability to create-->planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us? What do you suppose? I've always assumed it was God--> big bang--> and the rest is history. Mine would assume that God is not governed by the same laws as us, nor does it assume that he is imperfect/perfect, (who are we to judge) nor does it rule out that he doesn't interact via our conscious minds. However, it does assume that any effect of the interaction would be physically measurable or at the very least mathematically/logically possible.

I say the most logical sequence is: universal consciousness-->ability to create--> Big Bang--> planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us. Why? I have only two serious reasons to offer and that is 1) the quality of organization found (at the very least) in living systems, and the emergence of consciousness from a physical system. Neither of those traits can be adequately accounted for by any known physical abilities. Matter cannot be shown to self-organize beyond a few steps, matter cannot be made to produce consciousness. I’ll develop my argument from these “gaps” in physicalist theory.

In the thread I started “Define Physical” I suggested physicalness is defined by mass. I have since refined my definition to be: physicalness is the behaviors and effects of mass entities. It should be obvious that “mass entities” refers to all the types and combinations of basic particles that mass exists as (e.g., protons, quarks, etc.), oscillation and radiation are types of “behaviors” of mass (i.e., particles vibrate, radiate, etc.) and gravity is an example of an “effect” of mass (gravity only manifests when mass is present). In other words, no mass, no physical.

Not everyone agrees with that, but if for the moment we accept that as a working definition, then we can reason that it was orderly amassing that produced this universe and gave it “time”; and it was the organization of mass entities that produced the means for life as well as what provided the means for consciousness to show up in biology.

Okay, let’s look around for anything which can organize similar to the quality found in biology (I call that type of organization progressive). There is only one thing known in the universe that can organize anywhere close to progressive quality, and that is human consciousness.

So if we have to decide what happened way back before the Big Bang, what is the most logical order? If the only known progressive organizing force is consciousness, if we have examples of extended progressive organization (like the billions of years of it that led to humans), and if physicalness can’t be shown to do it, then it is more logical that consciousness developed first, evolved for eons until it was powerful enough to cause significant amassing (using, I say, the same laws that originally brought it about as consciousness), and it evolved enough to then serve as the progressive organizing force of this universe.

All pleasurable benefits of the union experience aside, that is no longer a question for me. I don't doubt that at all. What my questions are concerning is the stance that what you are experiencing is the interaction of the 2 realities, or whether it is actually one reality, or whether it is the result of an overactive imagination. Perhaps you've ruled out the last one for yourself, fine, let's proceed from there.

I would answer it is one reality. It is “something fundamental” that is generally unevolved but which has the potential to evolve. We know this is true because here we are, so the only question is in what order this evolution took place. I’ve given my logic for proposing consciousness came first, and we are little sparks of it encased in biology right now having been born here from the realm of consciousness.

As I’ve said, many who think this way are those who’ve learned to experience the “essence” of their own consciousness in the way called union. The history of this report is very ancient, and it is not investigated by science but by turning inward. So I do not understand the resistance by some to accepting there might an effective epistemology besides science. It's not like there is no evidence, there is tons of evidence if one wants to look for it.

But one can't evaluate the merits of an unfamiliar epistemology by subjecting it to one's own, and then when it fails to meet that standard declare the unfamiliar epistemology is bogus. In a culture of all union meditators, if someone evaluated science the same way they would most certainly conclude it is bogus since it produces nothing at all in the way of the type of insights union does.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Personally I don’t see anything wrong with trying to make a theory work as long as it is honestly and objectively discussed, and other perspectives are treated respectfully.

Agree 100%. Plus it is fun to discuss this, imo. What a great thread!

I say the most logical sequence is: universal consciousness-->ability to create--> Big Bang--> planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us. Why? I have only two serious reasons to offer and that is 1) the quality of organization found (at the very least) in living systems, and the emergence of consciousness from a physical system. Neither of those traits can be adequately accounted for by any known physical abilities. Matter cannot be shown to self-organize beyond a few steps, matter cannot be made to produce consciousness.

Interesting perspective. (now that's what I was hoping for as an avenue to explore). I still need to continue reading all those links you provided me, in case this is re-hashing a topic you've already discussed. Thanks Les.

 

[PIT2]

I have read plenty about NDE and OBE. I did do a quick re-check after your post to see if there was possibly some evidence I have overlooked. As far as I know, the "holy grail" of a verifiable OBE is yet to be documented.

Ive looked into this as well and these two links below are about the best I've found with regard to OBE/NDE:

On the first three laboratory nights Miss Z reported that in spite of occasionally being “out,” she had not been able to control her experiences enough to be in position to see the target number (which was different each night). On the fourth night, at 5:57am, there was a seven minute period of somewhat ambiguous EEG activity, sometimes looking like stage 1, sometimes like brief wakings. Then Miss Z awakened and called out over the intercom that the target number was 25132, which I wrote on the EEG recording. After she slept a few more minutes I woke her so she could go to work and she reported on the previous awakening that:

"I woke up; it was stifling in the room. Awake for about five minutes. I kept waking up and drifting off, having floating feelings over and over. I needed to go higher because the number was lying down. Between 5:50 and 6:00 A.M. that did it. . . I wanted to go read the number in the next room, but I couldn’t leave the room, open the door, or float through the door. . .. I couldn’t turn on the air conditioner!"

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

And a 13yr NDE study published in 2001:

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.

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? (22) Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope. (29,30) Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.

The theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.
http://www.merkawah.nl/literatuur/lommel-lancet.html

 

[Royce]

Royce,
I have read plenty about NDE and OBE. I did do a quick re-check after your post to see if there was possibly some evidence I have overlooked. As far as I know, the "holy grail" of a verifiable OBE is yet to be documented. Sure there are plenty of personal accounts, but just a personal account leaves too many unknowns about the individual personal history.

This has been discussed here before. I just tried to search for the posts but was not successful. I cited two cases of OBE that I knew about. One was talked about on Discovery (I think). Another was told to me by a personal friend and co-worker about his own personal experience. I have no reason to disbelieve either and no grounds to say that the are deluded or mistaken. Until proven differently I have to accept them at face value as there was nothing that was exceptional to other stories of OBE. I have no personal experience with either OBE or NDE.

What I'm most interested in, and I believe is in line with the OP, is how this alleged universal consciousness operates. This is also a general question not just for you, but Les as well. I have always thought of God, if it exists at all, as existing in another dimension or a reality separate from our own. As Les has pointed out to me in another thread, that point of view leads to logical flaws such as omnipotence and the like. I agree that those ill-conceived notions can be logically dismissed. But, if you want to persuade me that God, in the form of a universal consciousness, exists in this reality, than I need to know some sequence of events. Les has told me that it is natural, and in being so, is governed by the same natural laws that you and a I are.

The Universe is defined as everything that exists.
This is not my definition but one that was told to me
here in another thread. I accept it as valid and use it
frequently.

Therefore nothing exists outside of the universe.
If something exists it then must be the universe or part
of the universe.

Therefore the can be only one universe.
If there were more than one universe it would by
definition also be a part of the universe and would be a
subset universe of the universal set that is the One
Universe.

If it is exists it is real and a part of the One Universe that is also real.
If it does not exist it is not real. If it is not real it does
not exist.

Either something came from nothing without reason or cause or something is eternal, without beginning and without end.
I hold that something from nothing without reason or
cause is impossible and therefore absurd. Something
eternal while incomprehensible is the only alternative left
and therefore must be accepted.

If something exists and is eternal it then must be or be a part of the universe.
Therefor the Universe is eternal.

If something is eternal it must also be timeless for time implies and contains beginnings and endings.

Here Les and I differ. I hold that one aspect of the One Eternal Timeless Universe is consciousness and it too is eternal. It is my belief that the universe is God and God is the universe and is conscious. We being part of the universe are therefore part of God and conscious yet we have individuality and uniqueness.

I believe that God created us and the physical universe out of himself, his own energy, by his will. As I have said many time before; "God said, 'Let there be light- BIG BANG.'"

As there is only one and all that is, is of that one then if anything is natural all is natural. There is no, and cannot be anything, unnatural or supernatural. This is no Outsider nor Outside. There is only the one and all that is, is the one.

How all the works is way beyond me. Yes, I am ignorant of this. However I don't think that there can be any time line as the universe is timeless. There is no first second or third. There only is what is, what has always been and what always will be.

This is only my opinions and my beliefs.
I KNOW very little. All of this has been arrived at by meditation, contemplation and by sharing our thoughts and experiences here at Physics Forums and specifically the Philosophy Forum.

First, how can a universal consciousness arise out of the same laws that govern us, and yet physicalist's are scorned because they claim that our human consciousness did just that? Why are you right?
If you have an answer for that, then give me a time line. Is it Big Bang--> universal consciousness-->ability to create-->planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us? What do you suppose? I've always assumed it was God--> big bang--> and the rest is history. Mine would assume that God is not governed by the same laws as us, nor does it assume that he is imperfect/perfect, (who are we to judge) nor does it rule out that he doesn't interact via our conscious minds. However, it does assume that any effect of the interaction would be physically measurable or at the very least mathematically/logically possible.
All pleasurable benefits of the union experience aside, that is no longer a question for me. I don't doubt that at all. What my questions are concerning is the stance that what you are experiencing is the interaction of the 2 realities, or whether it is actually one reality, or whether it is the result of an overactive imagination. Perhaps you've ruled out the last one for yourself, fine, let's proceed from there.

I have answered many of your questions in my previous response. God, the creator or the universal consciousness made the initial rules, parameters and laws but once deciding on how or what method to use I don't think that he had much choice in the rest of it. It all has to follow logically and reasonably and be consistent.

As far as two realities or dualities are concerned, I think that I have answered that, there is only one reality and one universe and I believe that I have logically supported my position.

I have conducted my own little experiments, asked questions concerning something that I didn't understand and in time full understanding has come to me on that particular subject (or at least my questions were answered possibly by myself). I often experienced things that I had no prior knowledge of and only later learned the names or terminology and that other had also experienced similar or identical things.

As I have repeatedly said, I know very little. Much of what I say is speculation or conclusions that I have reached after years of thought and meditation and reading and discussions here. I am here not because I know, but because I don't know and would like to know more. This is one of the few places where I can air my thoughts and speculations and at least others will usually try to understand what I'm trying to say or ask and respond. I am here for me, for my own education and enjoyment. I am not here for you no anyone else, your education nor to force my views, opinions and beliefs onto anyone. I merely air them and the more argument that I get the better I like it. Like everyone the one thing that I hate is to be ignored or dismissed.

 

[Royce]

Sometimes people do give opinions without the slightest knowledge of what they are talking about, and in the realm of turning inward, around here it goes on all the time. But I flinched at seeing the term “ignorance” used in the same sentence with selfAdjoint who, despite being PF’s resident curmudgeon , is one of the most broadly educated and capable thinkers around.

I apologize, selfAdjoint. Possibly I presumed too much. I meant in no way to imply that you are ignorant nor did I mean any insult. I meant only to say that in this specific instance you were apparently not well informed. The word "ignorance" means to me un-informed or uneducated in this topic. I profess profound ignorance in many topics but have an opinion in most.
Again I mean no offense and hope that none was taken.

 

[Rade]

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has almost no definite properties.

But this is what I just do not understand--there are not "two" energies, there is only the energy of E = Mc^2. Thus both physicists and mystics must talk about the same energy since there is only one concept of energy (unless one moves outside this universe to another). As I see it, where both groups error is when they fail to realize that neither M nor E take priority--they are intermingled. I think the mystics view E as being possible without M or c^2 involved, physicists do not (due to relativistic theory)--is that what you are saying above ?

 

[RVBuckeye]

Ive looked into this as well and these two links below are about the best I've found with regard to OBE/NDE:
And a 13yr NDE study published in 2001:

Thanks PIT2. I've seen both of those before. As for the first, however interesting, it's 2006. That was in the 1960's and occurred once.
Here's another study you might find relevent, at least I do.

"Out of Body Experiences", Dreams, and REM Sleep
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7I9D1kJouxYJ:www.home.no/lucid/lucid/remobe.pdf+link:http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/7/44[/URL]
[QUOTE]In conclusion, the data and analysis presented here argue that out-of-body experiences are mental events that arise out of the same physiological conditions as wake-initiated lucid dreams. Both involve transitions waking to dreaming, and are accompanied by similar phenomenology such as vibrations, unusual auditory hallucinations, sleep paralysis, and a sensation of floating out of body. Using the proposed model for understanding metachoric experiences reveals that the difference between OBEs and lucid dreams lies solely in the semantic frameworks used. In the end, we suggest that in approaching the study of consciousness, the most fruitful approach may require us to abandon arbitrary distinctions between states and to recognize that all conscious experience derives from the activity of the brain. The primary function of the forebrain is the creation of complex models of reality that allow us to accurately predict the outcome of our interactions with the physical world. This function does not cease with the onset of sleep and is not dependent on external input to the sense organs.
In a final note, we would like to address the concerns of those for whom OBEs have provided revelation of existence beyond the limits of the physical body. Declaring OBEs dreams does not diminish their reality if, by the same argument, we declare that waking reality is a dream as well! The worlds we create in dreams and OBEs are as real as this one, and, further, they are unfettered by the constraints of the physical universe. In dreams,we have the potential to explore the true powers of the mind without the limitations imposed in the “real world” by the need to survive in a hostile environment. How much more exhilarating it must be to be "out-of-body" in a world where the only limit is the imagination, than to be loose in the physical world in a powerless body of ether! Freed of the constraints imposed by the physical, expanded by the knowledge that we can transcend all previously known limitations, who knows what we could be, or become?[/QUOTE]

EDIT: Here's a recent article on NDE's and sleep
[url]http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060410/full/060410-2.html[/url]
[QUOTE]People who have had near-death experiences are more likely to mix up dreams and reality than those who have not, researchers say.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rade]

I say the most logical sequence is: universal consciousness-->ability to create--> Big Bang--> planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us...If the only known progressive organizing force is consciousness, if we have examples of extended progressive organization (like the billions of years of it that led to humans), and if physicalness can’t be shown to do it, then it is more logical that consciousness developed first, evolved for eons until it was powerful enough to cause significant amassing ...

I do not view this sequence as being logical at all. Why ? For the simple reason that one cannot "first" have a progressive organizing "force" without there being some "things" to organize. Give me one example of a force acting on (organizing) itself, which is what would be required for your hypothesis to hold. No such example is possible. Does gravity act on itself ? Or strong force of atom ? Of course not. Thus I hold that the most logical sequence is (1) some fundamental things = existence (2) an organizing force that forms "things" into "objects" (OK, we call it consciousness to make you happy--others call it union of weak force, strong force, gravity, electro-magnetism) (3) a breakup of objects to form more complex objects during recombination (big bang), etc. etc. etc. to (4) present. And please, there is no "us" above "lesser animals" in any logical sequence to explain existence. All life on Earth has identical worth, many forms of animal life have consciousness. You may ask, where did first (1) some fundamental things = existence come from--easy answer, they had no beginning nor end, they just exist, always have, always will. Finally, you state that "consciousness evolved" But a force does not evolve, the things the force acts on evolve.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But this is what I just do not understand--there are not "two" energies, there is only the energy of E = Mc^2. Thus both physicists and mystics must talk about the same energy since there is only one concept of energy (unless one moves outside this universe to another). As I see it, where both groups error is when they fail to realize that neither M nor E take priority--they are intermingled. I think the mystics view E as being possible without M or c^2 involved, physicists do not (due to relativistic theory)--is that what you are saying above ?

They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You don’t really think one word cannot be applied to several different things do you? A quick survey of the English language will of course show you otherwise.

Energy in physics has no existential properties. It is only identified by the fact that it helps keep track of what moves/changes things or does "work." I presented the history of the how term energy is likely derived from Aristotle’s energia to help explain the quality of motion, or “vis viva” in things in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3252

In that thread Tom Mattson made the point, “In science, energy is a descriptive bookkeeping tool, and no causative power is ascribed to it.” You can also read Tom’s story about the woman who thinks because the energy concept in physics talks about not being created and not being destroyed, and it is part of everything, then it must be God, when really energy is merely a way to calculate and record change. People who use energy like this are just spewing new age nonsense because it has nothing to do with the physics concept of energy, and it has nothing to do with the kind of inner experience that union practitioners talk about.

In the past I’ve posted the following about how the popularization of the energy concept has led to misconceptions about it. Science writer Paul Davies writing in his book Superforce explains, “What made it appealing was that energy is always conserved, never created or destroyed.” Davies goes on to say, “When an abstract concept becomes so successful that it permeates through to the general public, the distinction between real and imaginary becomes blurred. . . . This is what happened in the case of energy. . . . Energy is . . . an imaginary, abstract concept which nevertheless has become so much a part of our everyday vocabulary that we imbue it with concrete existence.”

And so you must be wrong Rade. Because energy is merely a concept, there is no possible way to experience it and therefore be the mystical experience as you have speculated. And those who are accomplished at the sort of mystical experience we’ve been talking about here (union) do not talk about energy being God anyway (unless it is simply to describe vibrancy, like in this quote by the famous eleventh century mystic Benard “I confess, then, to speak foolishly that the Word has visited me—indeed very often. But, though He has frequently come into my soul, I have never at any time been aware of the moment of His coming . . . You will ask then how, since His track is thus traceless, I could know that He is present? Because He is living and full of energy.”)

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not view this sequence as being logical at all. Why ? For the simple reason that one cannot "first" have a progressive organizing "force" without there being some "things" to organize.

I'm not sure you understand the concept. The idea is that there is some fundamental stuff and conditions which is normally chaotic, but which could accidentally generate an evolving circumstance. The first thing to evolve would be that circumstance itself since that is its very nature (i.e., to evolve). If it has eternity in which to evolve, then it could become what we call “consciousness” of which one of its characteristics is organization. In this concept, its organizing aspect is what has shaped creation.

Give me one example of a force acting on (organizing) itself, which is what would be required for your hypothesis to hold. No such example is possible. Does gravity act on itself ? Or strong force of atom ? Of course not.

You haven’t said anything there that has anything to do with my point.

You may ask, where did first (1) some fundamental things = existence come from--easy answer, they had no beginning nor end, they just exist, always have, always will.

That’s what I’ve been saying. However, I suggested what first developed in those most fundamental of circumstances was a consciousness that evolved for eons until it could help guide the development of a universe.

Thus I hold that the most logical sequence is (1) some fundamental things = existence (2) an organizing force that forms "things" into "objects" (OK, we call it consciousness to make you happy--others call it union of weak force, strong force, gravity, electro-magnetism) (3) a breakup of objects to form more complex objects during recombination (big bang), etc. etc. etc. to (4) present.

Again, I don’t see much difference in this and what I said except I think it most logical for the fundamental thing to have evolved consciousness first since that would explain the organization found in life. I don’t want to get into another abiogenesis or evolution debate, but there is no suitable explanation for that organization.

Finally, you state that "consciousness evolved" But a force does not evolve, the things the force acts on evolve.

Geez, maybe you will stop giving us physics 101 every time someone uses a word that is also used in physics? Forget about force if you don’t like that term, call it the ability to organize on a grand scale, or whatever you want.

And please, there is no "us" above "lesser animals" in any logical sequence to explain existence. All life on Earth has identical worth, many forms of animal life have consciousness.

No one was talking about "worth," we were talking about the extent of evolution found in different life forms. As for me I think I am millions of years more evolved that most animals because of the quality of my consciousness.

 

[PIT2]

EDIT: Here's a recent article on NDE's and sleep
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060410/full/060410-2.html

"Of those who reported near-death experiences, 60% also reported having had at least one incident where they felt sleep and wakefulness blurred together. For those without a near-death experience the figure was 24%."

I wonder if those blurred wakefulness events occurred before or after they ever had a NDE. The article doesn't mention it. And also whether the near-death-events themselves were regarded as a blurred-wakefullness event. (that last one may sound like a dumb question but mistakes like these have been made before, and they resulted in nothing more than circular reasoning, like: "those people reported something weird, and when we define that weirdness as a dream, our study shows that they were dreaming".) Here is another story about the REM sleep of NDE'ers:

Many people who have undergone near-death experiences - a profoundly affecting glimpse of a loving afterlife - have abnormal brain waves, a University of Arizona study has found.

This is the first scientific confirmation that something extremely unusual is going on in the brains of people who briefly died, reported leaving their bodies and moving toward a loving, peaceful light or presence, then were resuscitated and returned to life.

But what the study does not reveal is whether the near-death-experience people had abnormal brain activity and unusual sleep patterns prior to their mystical experiences, or whether the experience caused the unusual brain and sleep patterns.
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/nde/001_pages/84.html[/URL][/quote]

The same question can also be asked about the EEG patterns of people who meditate:

[quote]Our study is consistent with the idea that attention and affective processes, which gamma-band EEG synchronization may reflect, are flexible skills that can be trained (29). It remains for future studies to show that these EEG signatures are caused by long-term training itself and not by individual differences before the training, although the positive correlation that we found with hours of training and other randomized controlled trials suggest that these are training-related effects (2).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/46/16369[/quote]

 

[RVBuckeye]

"Of those who reported near-death experiences, 60% also reported having had at least one incident where they felt sleep and wakefulness blurred together. For those without a near-death experience the figure was 24%."
I wonder if those blurred wakefulness events occurred before or after they ever had a NDE. The article doesn't mention it. And also whether the near-death-events themselves were regarded as a blurred-wakefullness event. (that last one may sound like a dumb question but mistakes like these have been made before, and they resulted in nothing more than circular reasoning, like: "those people reported something weird, and when we define that weirdness as a dream, our study shows that they were dreaming".)

Yeah, it would be nice to know what they define as "blurred wakefulness events". I suppose it's an episode of derealization or something. I'm actually surprised that it isn't a higher percentage across the board. Would they classify being "in the zone" one of those episodes? (kinda makes me feel ab-normal, since I can attest to both of those).

What also makes me a little leery of the spirituality people equivalate with the experience of NDE is that it seems to happen to people randomly. I mean, it seems that someone who, in reality, might be classified as a "sinner" by the religious community, is just as likely to be invited into the light as the religious person. And visa-versa. Wouldn't it mean that, if the light was some sort of stairway to heaven, the qualifications haven't really been adequately presented by the religous community. That would be an interesting choice for a follow-up study. Do some backround checks on those people who report NDE's, you might get a few murderers, rapists, and child-molesters in the mix. What would that imply?

The same question can also be asked about the EEG patterns of people who meditate:

If I remember correctly, syncronization of brain waves, as relating to altered states of conciousness and long-term changes in EEG patterns has been studied. I'll see if I can locate a study I saw again for you. I stumbled upon it while I was investigating a device called a brain-wave generator. Basically, they use binaural beat technology to induce brain wave syncronization. You probably knew that already though. I guess one thing that can be done is to ask an experienced meditator to try it out and see if it evokes the same sensations, as a means of comparison. Come on Les and Royce...do it for science. Pleeeeease

 

[PIT2]

What also makes me a little leery of the spirituality people equivalate with the experience of NDE is that it seems to happen to people randomly. I mean, it seems that someone who, in reality, might be classified as a "sinner" by the religious community, is just as likely to be invited into the light as the religious person. And visa-versa. Wouldn't it mean that, if the light was some sort of stairway to heaven, the qualifications haven't really been adequately presented by the religous community.

The NDE stories are hard to get a grip on, but what suggest to me that they may be real, is:

1. the verifiable OBE aspects 2. the complete certainty of the experiencers that what they experienced was real. 3. the contradictions of the NDE with how the brain is supposed to work. 4. the similarities between accounts

On the first point, I know the verified OBE's have not been proven beyond doubt. On the second point, I know people can be wrong. On the third point, i know what has been observed does not completely falsify the idea of the brain producing consciousness. Yet these things beg the question: why do they happen at all? Why produce the illusion of verified OBEs? Why is every experiencer so certain? Why have better functioning memory and senses when the brain is (about to) stop? Why hallucinate about dead relatives that tell u it isn't ur time to die yet, or a loving light showing ur entire life? Why the illusion of a timeless afterlife realm at all, instead of the local mall filled with giant praying mantisses?

And when i ask myself in what direction these things point, i seriously can't say that its in the "brain produces consciousness" direction.

That would be an interesting choice for a follow-up study. Do some backround checks on those people who report NDE's, you might get a few murderers, rapists, and child-molesters in the mix. What would that imply?

On this page u can read an interesting little bit about distressing NDE's: http://iands.org/distressing.html
I wouldn't worry about the idea that the afterlife doesn't quite work according to religious descriptions, as these have never been proper descriptions of reality and shouldn't be used to judge whether something is real or not.

 

[RVBuckeye]

The NDE stories are hard to get a grip on, but what suggest to me that they may be real, is:
1. the verifiable OBE aspects 2. the complete certainty of the experiencers that what they experienced was real. 3. the contradictions of the NDE with how the brain is supposed to work. 4. the similarities between accounts

Well, the link I provided a pretty balanced explanation of the verifiable aspects of OBE when they described the process of "mapping". The complete certaintly of its reality could stem from being A) an obviously unusual sensation, and B) the seemingly "verifiable" aspects. It is still an open topic on when the experiences take place. (all the accounts have been post NDE, who really knows that they didn't actually occur before the brain activity ceased). As for the similarities, apparently many people report seeing the light, and not during NDE's. (amongst a host of other possible explanations for that).

Yet these things beg the question: why do they happen at all?

Who knows?

Why produce the illusion of verified OBEs?

I could tell you my OBE story and why I feel the theory of "mapping" is a correct explanation for me. It's not an NDE, drug, or LD induced. But there were verifiable aspects to it that are completely explanable even though it took me several years to work it out, hell I was in fifth grade at the time.

Why have better functioning memory and senses when the brain is (about to) stop?

I don't know exactly what you mean here. Why do you think it's better? Because they can accurately recall their NDE in vivid detail? I can recall my LD's in vivid detail too.

Why hallucinate about dead relatives that tell u it isn't ur time to die yet, or a loving light showing ur entire life?
Why the illusion of a timeless afterlife realm at all, instead of the local mall filled with giant praying mantisses?

I'll refer you to your own link here.

And when i ask myself in what direction these things point, i seriously can't say that its in the "brain produces consciousness" direction.

For me, it's just the opposite. But that doesn't mean I'm right either. Right now, I'll say it more likely than not. I still hope you're right though.

I wouldn't worry about the idea that the afterlife doesn't quite work according to religious descriptions, as these have never been proper descriptions of reality and shouldn't be used to judge whether something is real or not.

I don't worry about that. If this is a glimpse of the afterlife, it leads me to one conclusion. It seems that everyone goes to the same place. There is no heaven or hell. If our conciousness is able to survive on after death, faith that you'll be in a better place, or equipping yourself by becoming familiar with your personal consciousness here on earth, will help you have a better "trip". If not, you'll be in a perpetual, eternal bad dream.

 

[PIT2]

Well, the link I provided a pretty balanced explanation of the verifiable aspects of OBE when they described the process of "mapping". The complete certaintly of its reality could stem from being A) an obviously unusual sensation, and B) the seemingly "verifiable" aspects. It is still an open topic on when the experiences take place. (all the accounts have been post NDE, who really knows that they didn't actually occur before the brain activity ceased).

Some certainly occur before brainactivity ceased, there are stories of people falling from a height and having a NDE before they hit the ground. This would indicate that these experiences can happen without any injury. Brain activity is supposed to stop in about 10 seconds after cardiac arrest, and many people do describe the events from their injury till their resuscitation in chronological order without interruption of consciousness. And these descriptions have every idication of matching objective reality.

During a cardiac arrest, the blood pressure drops almost immediately to unrecordable levels and at the same time, due to a lack of blood flow, the brain stops functioning as seen by flat brain waves (isoelectric line) on the monitor within around 10 seconds. This then remains the case throughout the time when the heart is given 'electric shock' therapy or when drugs such as adrenaline are given until the heartbeat is finally restored and the patient is resuscitated. Due to the lack of brain function in these circumstances, therefore, one would not expect there to be any lucid, well-structured thought processes, with reasoning and memory formation, which are characteristic of NDEs.

Nevertheless, and contrary to what we would expect scientifically, studies have shown that 'near death experiences' do occur in such situations. This therefore raises a question of how such lucid and well-structured thought processes, together with such clear and vivid memories, occur in individuals who have little or no brain function. In other words, it would appear that the mind is seen to continue in a clinical setting in which there is little or no brain function.
http://www.scimednet.org/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

"The studies are very significant in that we have a group of people with no brain function ... who have well-structured, lucid thought processes with reasoning and memory formation at a time when their brains are shown not to function," Sam Parnia, one of two doctors from Southampton General Hospital in England who have been studying so-called near-death experiences (NDEs), told Reuters in an interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/28/tech/main298885.shtml

As for the similarities, apparently many people report seeing the light, and not during NDE's. (amongst a host of other possible explanations for that).

The light is indeed a phenomenom that is mentioned in many other (mystical) experiences. I don't know if any other light matches the one described by NDE'ers though. I think a study to investigate the different types of lights would be usefull But i should also note that even if many aspects of NDE are present in other types of experiences, this says nothing about the validity of NDE. It merely says that the experiences can be triggered by different events. The fact that brainactivity is present in one event (dream, lsd, epilepsy) does also not prove that it is that brainactivity which produces the experience, especially when it turns out that these same experiences may occur at the moment the brain no longer functions (nde) - which is what makes the nde so interesting to me compared to the events where it can all be blamed on the brain.

I don't know exactly what you mean here. Why do you think it's better? Because they can accurately recall their NDE in vivid detail? I can recall my LD's in vivid detail too.

Many NDE'ers report that their senses become much much better during the NDE (some said their senses merged into one) and that their thoughts went much much faster. Les also talked about this with the aftereffects of his union experiences, but NDE'ers report similar things (only a bit more advanced, like 360 degree vision, seeing new colors, etc.).

During their NDE some also experience a life-review, far more detailed than u could remember ur life. If u tried to remember what happened to during ur childhood, u may come up with some important events, but u will definitely not succeed in remembering/reliving ur entire life in chronological order in perfect detail (let alone combined with the experiences of everyone uve interacted with, and all that in a matter of seconds or minutes). According to theory/assuptions which state that lucid thought and memory depends on structured brainactivity, these things are not supposed to happen to a brain that has little to no activity. Which makes it all the more odd that not only do these things happen, but also better than they do at any other moment during life. It almost seems as if the brain is an eliminative organ, instead of a productive one.

I don't worry about that. If this is a glimpse of the afterlife, it leads me to one conclusion. It seems that everyone goes to the same place. There is no heaven or hell. If our conciousness is able to survive on after death, faith that you'll be in a better place, or equipping yourself by becoming familiar with your personal consciousness here on earth, will help you have a better "trip". If not, you'll be in a perpetual, eternal bad dream.

Whether a distressing NDE is perpetual doesn't seem to be the case, because many people who report a bad NDE also report that they were 'saved' from it after awhile. From whatever I've read about it, it seems to all work quite perfectly well.

When I ask myself what an afterlife would look like if we could go on without our bodies, then i pretty much end up with the descriptions NDE'ers give. It is only when one imposes a beliefsystem on these experiences ("they cannot be real - the brain must do it somehow - never consider that they may be real") that one ends up with the explanations of them being illusory. And let's face it, these explanations would be given no matter what people experienced, because it is reasoning from a conclusion.

Note that I am not saying that the "brain does it" idea is completely wrong because i think it may be right, i only disagree that it is more logical or plausible when looked at from an neutral perspective.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Brain activity is supposed to stop in about 10 seconds after cardiac arrest...

I don't know if this is entirely accurate (or how much brain activity needs to occur to record an experience into memory). The reason why I say this is because my father-in-law, was in ICU for several days after he suffered a massive brain aneurism until the decision was made to pull the plug. I was there when that happened and the EEG still registered electrical activity for quite a long time (at least 5 mins or so) after he was pronounced dead. It was sporratic, and would flatline for 30 seconds or so, the blip once or twice, then flatline again. Gradually the increments between blips increased until no more. (but, as far as I know, he was pronounced dead upon the initial flatline)

...and many people do describe the events from their injury till their resuscitation in chronological order without interruption of consciousness. And these descriptions have every idication of matching objective reality.

How many medical shows have they seen? How many times had they been in a hospital? How long after regaining consciousness did they tell their story? At what point did they lose consciousness? Can the brain record new memories while unconscious, yet not brain dead? All those are valid questions that arise when one retells their experience.

It merely says that the experiences can be triggered by different events.

Yes...

The fact that brainactivity is present in one event (dream, lsd, epilepsy) does also not prove that it is that brainactivity which produces the experience, especially when it turns out that these same experiences may occur at the moment the brain no longer functions (nde) - which is what makes the nde so interesting to me compared to the events where it can all be blamed on the brain.

May occur? Is that the core question? It is for me as well, yet I tend to think it's unlikely, if not impossible, that it can occur.

It almost seems as if the brain is an eliminative organ, instead of a productive one.

It seems to me that consciousness is a repressive function of the brain.

Whether a distressing NDE is perpetual doesn't seem to be the case, because many people who report a bad NDE also report that they were 'saved' from it after awhile. From whatever I've read about it, it seems to all work quite perfectly well.

Let's hope you're right.

And let's face it, these explanations would be given no matter what people experienced, because it is reasoning from a conclusion.

It's not reasoning from a conclusion. (well, maybe for some). It's just tackling it from an different viewpoint. Even though the majority of research is done from this perspective. If the research suggested more that people are actually experiencing the universal consciousness do you think that that information would be repressed? No. It would be an injustice to be that close-minded and not even attempt to counter that evidence. It's just when is it sufficiently proved to you individually?

Note that I am not saying that the "brain does it" idea is completely wrong because i think it may be right, i only disagree that it is more logical or plausible when looked at from an neutral perspective.

No one is completely neutral. We lean one way or another. I merely try to keep my standard of proof attainable. I've seen a few people who are trying to argue for quantum consciousness. Hopefully they will at least get a fair shake. (it's just waaaay out of my league)

 

[PIT2]

How many medical shows have they seen? How many times had they been in a hospital? How long after regaining consciousness did they tell their story? At what point did they lose consciousness? Can the brain record new memories while unconscious, yet not brain dead? All those are valid questions that arise when one retells their experience.

Valid questions yes, but keep in mind that if we are to ask these same questions, then we can dismiss almost everything anyone has ever experienced. The possibility of an experience being false, is no good reason to assume that the experience is actually false. There has to be grounded reason.

Consider this example of a completely paralysed woman that was raped by man X and was stabbed in the neck but survived. Man X's semen was found inside her vagina, his footprints found in the blood, and a neighbour witnessed him leaving her house. The woman passed lie-detector tests testifying that man X was the perpetrator.

Now i can easily explain this in such a way that the man will be innocent:

• the woman cut herself in her neck
• she broke into the mans house and took semen from wherever he dropped it off (or they had sex a day before voluntarily and she kept it )
• the footprints were planted by the sleepwalking neighbour who dreamt about being forced to buy oversized shoes and use them to plant fake evidence.
• the witness neighbour is delusional and that's why he hallucinated man X being the perpetrator
• the woman is a perfect liar and this is why she managed to pass the lie detector

There, I've invented a story of how man X can be innocent. And when we look at known cases, we find that there have indeed been women who have cut themselves. We find that there have been female burglars. We find that there have been women that keep male semen. We find that people can do weird things while sleepwalking. We find that delusional people sometimes see things that arent there. We find that lie detector tests have gone wrong.

The only problem however... is that the woman is completely paralysed. And now we must take a leap of faith and assume that she temporarily regained control of her body over a 1 day period, drove to his house, broke in, stole semen, implanted it in her vagina, drove back home, and stabbed herself. Why must we assume this? Because the man must be innocent, as the theory "innocent until proven guilty" states.

But is he really innocent? Do the signs point in that direction? Does the theory justify the assumption?
(the story is completely fictional btw)

May occur? Is that the core question? It is for me as well, yet I tend to think it's unlikely, if not impossible, that it can occur.

Well it certainly looks like it can occur. Why do u think it is unlikely or impossible?

If the research suggested more that people are actually experiencing the universal consciousness do you think that that information would be repressed? No. It would be an injustice to be that close-minded and not even attempt to counter that evidence. It's just when is it sufficiently proved to you individually?

Many NDE'ers do experience a universal consciousness, but it doesn't matter what they experience, the "brain-produces-consciousness" club will always claim that it is all a product of the brain, no matter what the experience is. They start with the conclusion, and then say everything that doesn't match it is an illusion.

No one is completely neutral. We lean one way or another. I merely try to keep my standard of proof attainable.

I agree and i do the same thing. However when I apply the standard of proof on the "brain-produces-consciousness" theory which is used to dismiss or explain NDE's, the theory evaporates and all that is left is a philosophical view with its own set of problems.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Valid questions yes, but keep in mind that if we are to ask these same questions, then we can dismiss almost everything anyone has ever experienced. The possibility of an experience being false, is no good reason to assume that the experience is actually false. There has to be grounded reason.

There is plenty of grounded reason to believe it is false, in the case of an NDE. The reason why we don't dismiss everything anyone else experienced is there is corroborating physical/tangible/circumstantial evidence which confirms it as valid. Not so in NDE. Memory alone, with no corroborating evidence to support it, is just not adequate. Take your analogy from a different perspective. Say there is no evidence other than the woman claiming she was raped by man X. She saw him. She has no doubt in her mind who was responsible. Would it hold up in court? No! Why? Because memory alone is prone to "false memories".
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.19/FalseMemories.html
You need other evidence.

The only problem however... is that the woman is completely paralysed. And now we must take a leap of faith and assume that she temporarily regained control of her body over a 1 day period, drove to his house, broke in, stole semen, implanted it in her vagina, drove back home, and stabbed herself. Why must we assume this? Because the man must be innocent, as the theory "innocent until proven guilty" states.

But is he really innocent? Do the signs point in that direction? Does the theory justify the assumption?
(the story is completely fictional btw)

People that argue from the position that the "brain does not produce conciousness" are the ones making the leap of faith here. (if that's the point you were trying to make with your analogy)

Well it certainly looks like that it can occur. Why do u think it is unlikely or impossible?

I think it is a basic understanding that without brain activity, there is no memory. (just saying the brain is a key ingredient). My line of thinking, as in using my father-in-law as an example, is the brain still fires sporratically even after one is pronounced dead. Now take the article I posted on false memories:

Memory isn't a videotape," he says. "Rather, it's a reconstruction using bits of sound, sights, words, and even tastes stored in different parts of the brain. Gaps in such reproductions, filled by imagination, cause error and distortions in eyewitness recollections and other aspects of everyday memory.

Say each blip of an EEG represents a bit of information stored in the brain. Now, even though you are clinically dead, if you are suddenly resuscitated, you fill in the gaps when you recall your experience. That's why I think there are certain seemingly verifiable aspects to OBE's and NDE's because your unconscious brain still works to store some bits and pieces. That is also works to explain why someone having an OBE might recall bits and pieces of sense data and give a pretty compelling description. (although not usually completely accurate).

Many NDE'ers do experience a universal consciousness, but it doesn't matter what they experience, the "brain-produces-consciousness" club will always claim that it is all a product of the brain, no matter what the experience is. They start with the conclusion, and then say everything that doesn't match it is an illusion.

And many Lucid dreamers, meditators, experience a universal consciousness as well. So do people who are given electrical impulses to the brain. So do people who listen to binaural beats. So do people that take drugs. So do people that get hypnotized. It is all in the brain. If not, where do you suggest it is? I don't think that is where people differ at all. It really boils down to; Does consciousness produce the brain? (btw I'm not trying to say it doesn't)

 

[PIT2]

Memory alone, with no corroborating evidence to support it, is just not adequate. Take your analogy from a different perspective. Say there is no evidence other than the woman claiming she was raped by man X. She saw him. She has no doubt in her mind who was responsible. Would it hold up in court? No! Why? Because memory alone is prone to "false memories".

Absolutely true. But again here, just because it doesn't hold up in court is no reason to assume the memory was false.

People that argue from the position that the "brain does not produce conciousness" are the ones making the leap of faith here. (if that's the point you were trying to make with your analogy)

Both positions are a leap of faith, because we simply don't know how consciousness works. It is only when realising that neither position is fact, that we can start looking at the data in an objective manner. I often find this not to be the case. People who have never even heard of NDE's start off with the rocksolid conviction that "brain = consciousness", and they stick with this because they believe it is fact. And after all, facts are facts and cannot be contradicted. (im not talking about u btw, u seem enormously openminded compared to that)

I think it is a basic understanding that without brain activity, there is no memory. (just saying the brain is a key ingredient). My line of thinking, as in using my father-in-law as an example, is the brain still fires sporratically even after one is pronounced dead. Now take the article I posted on false memories:

I want to ask u: what reason is there to assume that the NDE memories must be false? If they seem to match reality (as the verified OBEs do), then why assume they are false?

Say each blip of an EEG represents a bit of information stored in the brain. Now, even though you are clinically dead, if you are suddenly resuscitated, you fill in the gaps when you recall your experience. That's why I think there are certain seemingly verifiable aspects to OBE's and NDE's because your unconscious brain still works to store some bits and pieces. That is also works to explain why someone having an OBE might recall bits and pieces of sense data and give a pretty compelling description. (although not usually completely accurate).

I once (as a joke) tried to explain NDEs in exactly the same way, just by inventing a reason to support the brain-hypothesis, and i actually came up with the same explanation: that during braindeath, the brain still records information and afterwards reconstructs it as if it actually knew what happened in the past while it was dead. I didnt realize someone else had beat me to it.

However, besides the fact that this is speculation, it just becomes a little weird when people whose eyes have been taped shut can remember specific conversations that occurred during brainsurgery, and could see and hear this surgery from the perspective of over the doctors shoulder, or other people can see tennisshoes up on the roof of the hospital when floating about. Again, it is easy to dismiss this as "just anecdotal"(even though the observations were apparently verified), but i am a person that takes all data seriously, and not just the data that supports my preferred conclusion.

And many Lucid dreamers, meditators, experience a universal consciousness as well. So do people who are given electrical impulses to the brain. So do people who listen to binaural beats. So do people that take drugs. So do people that get hypnotized. It is all in the brain. If not, where do you suggest it is?

If people experience a universal consciousness, then why would there not in fact be a universal consciousness?

 

[RVBuckeye]

If people experience a universal consciousness, then why would there not in fact be a universal consciousness?

I wanted to put this first. Excellent point!

Absolutely true. But again here, just because it doesn't hold up in court is no reason to assume the memory was false.

Who's assuming it's false? You assume it's either true or false, then search for information to validate it one way or another. The problem with broad generalizations about NDE's as a general topic is that most (if not all) could be rationaly explained given our current knowledge about the physical laws of the universe and how the brain operates. That's why I use the "more likely than not" phrase often.

Both positions are a leap of faith, because we simply don't know how consciousness works. It is only when realising that neither position is fact, that we can start looking at the data in an objective manner. I often find this not to be the case. People who have never even heard of NDE's start off with the rocksolid conviction that "brain = consciousness", and they stick with this because they believe it is fact. And after all, facts are facts and cannot be contradicted. (im not talking about u btw, u seem enormously openminded compared to that)

True, I mis-spoke. There just doesn't appear to be the wealth of corroborating evidence to suggest they are true. I'm not saying that they all are not. I'm not even saying that there is no corroborating evidence either. There has to be a certain degree of trust involved when analyzing the accumulated data. For example, I tend to trust a study of NDE's that takes place in a controlled environment, such as a published medical study, than some NDE'er that gets interviewed by the local paper. (not a personal jab at you btw, just trying to make a point). The scientific model has been a good system to study a phenomenon. So, in all the years of actual research, even the 13 year study you've linked, why no mention of anyone reporting a verifiable OBE? (except for Mrs. Z, yet it was never reproduced).

I want to ask u: what reason is there to assume that the NDE memories must be false? If they seem to match reality (as the verified OBEs do), then why assume they are false?

Like I said, we're speaking about NDE's in general. It really depends on what you consider "verified". They have verifiable aspects, sure. Just because they could have a possible explanation other than actually traveling outside you physical body does not mean it's up to me to prove that you did actually leave your physical body. From what we know now, it doesn't happen.

However, besides the fact that this is speculation, it just becomes a little weird when people whose eyes have been taped shut can remember specific conversations that occurred during brainsurgery, and could see and hear this surgery from the perspective of over the doctors shoulder,

That's not that weird, if you take the idea of your memory "filling in the gaps".

or other people can see tennisshoes up on the roof of the hospital when floating about.

Find where you read that for me.

Again, it is easy to dismiss this as "just anecdotal"(even though the observations were apparently verified), but i am a person that takes all data seriously, and not just the data that supports my preferred conclusion.

Me too.

 

[PIT2]

Who's assuming it's false? You assume it's either true or false, then search for information to validate it one way or another.

I meant the false memory idea. It sounds like an excuse to me. "oh, that bit doesn't fit our theory, so let's just call it false memory to make it go away". I don't think this is proper reasoning. NDE memories should only be considered false memories if they have generally been shown to be false.

The problem with broad generalizations about NDE's as a general topic is that most (if not all) could be rationaly explained given our current knowledge about the physical laws of the universe and how the brain operates. That's why I use the "more likely than not" phrase often.

But there is nothing in the laws of physics that gives us any clue about consciousness, and what u call 'rational' is in fact nothing more than 'what we currently think is normal'. The difference between the 'rational' and the other (irrational?) explanation is actually not even that big. The rational one claims that brain produces consciousness, the other one claims that the brain only produces content of consciousness. This 'subtle' difference is rarely touched in any of the research into NDE's, let alone other topics.

True, I mis-spoke. There just doesn't appear to be the wealth of corroborating evidence to suggest they are true. I'm not saying that they all are not. I'm not even saying that there is no corroborating evidence either. There has to be a certain degree of trust involved when analyzing the accumulated data. For example, I tend to trust a study of NDE's that takes place in a controlled environment, such as a published medical study, than some NDE'er that gets interviewed by the local paper. (not a personal jab at you btw, just trying to make a point). The scientific model has been a good system to study a phenomenon. So, in all the years of actual research, even the 13 year study you've linked, why no mention of anyone reporting a verifiable OBE? (except for Mrs. Z, yet it was never reproduced).

That 13yr study mentions such a case:

Sabom (22) mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.
http://www.merkawah.nl/literatuur/lommel-lancet.html

Im sure uve already heard of her (Pam Reynolds) since her case is quite famous and controversial. But i agree, no conclusive evidence.

That's not that weird, if you take the idea of your memory "filling in the gaps".

It isn't really a matter of gaps or bits and pieces. The experiences are vivid, chronological and continuous. These things are, according to current theories of how the brain works, simply not what one would expect in people with dying brains. What is expected is complete chaos, panic, confusion and a malfunctioning memory with large gaps in it, or no memory at all.

Find where you read that for me.

Here it is:

Significantly, Sharp starts her book not with her own NDE, but with that of Maria and her now-famous tennis shoe on the ledge. Maria was a migrant worker admitted to Harborview Medical Center’s cardiac care unit (CCU), where Sharp was working as a social worker. While her body was undergoing a cardiac arrest, Maria floated out of the hospital and saw, on a third-story window ledge on the side of the hospital farthest from the CCU, "a man’s dark blue tennis shoe, well-worn, scuffed on the left side where the little toe would go. The shoelace was caught under the heel" (p. 11). Despite Sharp’s having had an NDE herself, her professional training led her to doubt Maria’s story until she finally located the shoe by going from room to room, pressing her face against the windows--although the scuffed toe could only be seen from a perspective outside and above the window. Sharp first published this account in my 1984 NDE anthology (Clark, 1984), and it has been repeated several times, most recently by Susan Blackmore (1995); but the detailed account here is the definitive "Maria’s tennis shoe" story.
http://www.seattleiands.org/HTM/br1.htm

 

[RVBuckeye]

I meant the false memory idea. It sounds like an excuse to me. "oh, that bit doesn't fit our theory, so let's just call it false memory to make it go away". I don't think this is proper reasoning. NDE memories should only be considered false memories if they have generally been shown to be false.

Just because you don't think it's proper reasoning, or you think it's an excuse isn't going to make the scientific community stand up and take heed. The only position you are taking is one that can't be falsified. Simply nit-picking because you disagree isn't a sound argument either. Again, I'm at least the only one here presenting the alternative view-point (for the sake of discussion mind you). In the 13 yr study they leave good reason to continue reasearch in certain aspects of the NDE's. They say medical factors alone is not adequate means to do it. It could be something psycophysiological. I posted 2 examples of the possible correlation with dreams and NDE/OBE's. So if you believe that people are actually leaving their body, at least present what theory you believe could possibly explain it. If it's some theory of quantum consciousness then that's a start. There's just several of them out there.

But there is nothing in the laws of physics that gives us any clue about consciousness, and what u call 'rational' is in fact nothing more than 'what we currently think is normal'. The difference between the 'rational' and the other (irrational?) explanation is actually not even that big. The rational one claims that brain produces consciousness, the other one claims that the brain only produces content of consciousness. This 'subtle' difference is rarely touched in any of the research into NDE's, let alone other topics.

I agree. The reason I believe it's rarely touched on because quantum consciousness hasn't been adequately presented. (or it has, but the scientific community is too stubborn to take notice).

That 13yr study mentions such a case:

Come on, Pit2. That wasn't a part of the study. It was mentioned in the discussion section as an area for further research. The 13 yr study was on Dutch cardiac patients, not American brain patients. Sabom wasn't even part of the study.

Im sure uve already heard of her (Pam Reynolds) since her case is quite famous and controversial. But i agree, no conclusive evidence.

And I suppose someone who agrees to have brain surgery wouldn't take the time to find out beforehand all they can about the procedure before going under the knife? Would you?

It isn't really a matter of gaps or bits and pieces. The experiences are vivid, chronological and continuous. These things are, according to current theories of how the brain works, simply not what one would expect in people with dying brains. What is expected is complete chaos, panic, confusion and a malfunctioning memory with large gaps in it, or no memory at all.

Which, I agree with, is one of the most compelling reasons research should continue.

Here it is:

That's easy. She took a baloon ride a week before with a pair of binoculars and saw the shoe on the roof of the hospital.
Seriously, that story alone isn't going to make me jump up and say case closed. I never heard of an author embellishing a story before. Even in the article you presented, she, as a scientist, is not certain of the reality of NDE's. (and she had one herself)

 

[Paul Martin]

You two are having a very interesting discussion. Thank you for that. But I'm afraid you have inadvertently limited the space of possibilities that you are considering.

But there is nothing in the laws of physics that gives us any clue about consciousness, and what u call 'rational' is in fact nothing more than 'what we currently think is normal'. The difference between the 'rational' and the other (irrational?) explanation is actually not even that big. [Emphasis added]

Your language here suggests that there are only these two possibilities. There may be others that you are not considering.

The rational one claims that brain produces consciousness, the other one claims that the brain only produces content of consciousness. This 'subtle' difference is rarely touched in any of the research into NDE's, let alone other topics.

Yes, there isn't much difference between these two. But there is another possibility which would give a different picture with potentially greater explanatory power. That is that consciousness occurs completely outside the brain and the brain merely serves as a communication device between that consciousness and the nervous system of the body.

Think about explaining the music that comes out of a CD player. To paraphrase you, "the rational explanation claims that the CD player produces the music, the other one claims that the CD player only produces the content of the music." In reality, as we know, the music was produced by a musician quite apart from the CD player. The CD player produces the music as sound, but in fact is only reproducing the music itself.

But I think consciousness is actually closer to the function of a radio than a CD player. To paraphrase you again, "the rational explanation claims that the radio produces the music, the other one claims that the radio only produces the content of the music." In reality, we know that while we may talk that way, both explanations are superficial, incomplete, and technically wrong. Let's say the music you hear on a radio is coming from a live performance. In this case, the radio produces the sound of the music in the locality of the radio, but the content of the music, as well as its production, originate in the performance of the musician, possibly many miles away. The radio merely serves as part of the communication system.

My personal opinion is that no substantial progress will be made in understanding consciousness until this possibility is fully considered and investigated. I'll keep watching, though.

Paul

 

[PIT2]

Just because you don't think it's proper reasoning, or you think it's an excuse isn't going to make the scientific community stand up and take heed.

The scientific community should demonstrate that NDE memories are generally false. Otherwise one might as well claim that one came into existence 5 seconds ago with memories of a false past.

The burden of proof applies to both sides.

This is something i read elsewhere:

Nevertheless, there has been one notable attempt to determine whether the OBEs reported in connection with NDEs are solely the product of subjectiveimagery or whether they sometimes include objective, out-of-body perceptions.Michael Sabom, a cardiologist, compared the accuracy of the descriptions by near-death experiencers of their resuscitations with the descriptions of cardiac patients who did not report an NDE but who were asked to imaginewhat a resuscitation looked like. He concluded that the near-death experiencers seemed to be describing actual observations rather than imagined events (Sabom, 1982).

Nevertheless, throughout the literature of both NDEs and OBEs, firsthand accounts of experiences of this sort keep recurring. (We will describe some of these below.) Hart (1954) identified 288 published cases in which a person claimed to have perceived events at some distant location at a time when he or she seemed to be out of the physical body. (Ninety-nine of these met Hart’ s criteria for evidentiality, in that the events seen were later verified and had also been reported to someone by the experient before that verification took place.)

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/12.3_cook_greyson_stevenson.pdf

And another bit:

Could these accurate autoscopic reports of CPR be “false memory”33 accounts based on the “best guess” efforts of previously hospitalized patients? To check for this, 25 seasoned coronary care unit patients, with backgrounds similar to the NDE group but who had not encountered an NDE, were asked to describe CPR from the standpoint of an onlooker in the corner of a hospital room.34 Confidence in these descriptions appeared to be low. Two of the patients described nothing. Without undue prompting, 20 of the remaining 23 patients made major errors in describing salient objects and events: “mouth to mouth breathing” for artificial respiration; “wooden throat paddles, like an ice cream stick, only bigger” for an oral airway; “a blow to the back to get the heart beating again”; “opening up the chest to place the hands around the heart and massage it”; “electric shock would be given through those wires which are fastened onto the chest and hooked up to the cardiac monitor”; “the electric shock would be given through a needle stuck in the heart through the chest”; the defibrillator paddles “would be hooked up to an air tank and pressurized” or “they would have a suction cup on the bottom of them.” It would seem, therefore, that the accuracy of NDE testimonies more closely resembles true eyewitness reports than accounts that would be expected from patients who had not directly witnessed the event.
http://mysite.verizon.net/thetruth77/sodp1.html

I posted 2 examples of the possible correlation with dreams and NDE/OBE's. So if you believe that people are actually leaving their body, at least present what theory you believe could possibly explain it. If it's some theory of quantum consciousness then that's a start. There's just several of them out there.

Yes, quantum consciousness for example. Or perhaps the Electromagnetic Field theory allows consciousness to exit the brain also, or the virtual photon carrier theory of consciousness, etc. So there, i mentioned them

This thing was written by the author of the 13yr study and also mentions the QM consciousness idea in combination with NDE's:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/college/sig/spirit/publications/NL_19/PimvanLommel_About.pdf

Come on, Pit2. That wasn't a part of the study. It was mentioned in the discussion section as an area for further research. The 13 yr study was on Dutch cardiac patients, not American brain patients. Sabom wasn't even part of the study.

I said it was mentioned in the study. The link i mentioned above (the cook/greyson/stevenson paper) also has some accounts.

"I looked down at my body. I thought I was dead. I went out into the corridor and saw my husband. I wondered where my daughter was and the next instant I was standing beside her in a gift shop. She was looking at some Get Well cards. I could 'hear' her read the verse. She decided it would be disrespectful and bought another. Then I was back in my body. When my daughter came with the card, I repeated the verse she had read.[/size]

Nothing conclusive, but mighty fun to read

Seriously, that story alone isn't going to make me jump up and say case closed. I never heard of an author embellishing a story before. Even in the article you presented, she, as a scientist, is not certain of the reality of NDE's. (and she had one herself)

Of course it won't make u jump up and say case closed. But neither should it make u jump up and say "look! we have another (apparently) verified observation, this suggests it was a false memory!".

Hey look, a red car, it must be blue!