Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Slowvehicle]

MY computer's power supply will fail one day. I see no reason to ignore the possibility that my game of Grand Theft Auto on it will continue when the power shuts off.

Oh, wait...

Well played!

 

[dlorde]

... Scientific principles of physics don't seem to apply to their experiences.

However they do apply to objective phenomena we know of; on the other hand, they don't apply in dreams, hallucinations, or other internally generated experiences. Does this not give pause for thought?

... the data I got was that consciousness retains emotion, thought, sight, hearing and can move through things which a body cannot. Sight was far more acute.

This also should give pause for thought. Sight without organs of vision? hearing without auditory organs? And one wonders why, if consciousness can hear and see far more acutely, we have eyes and ears at all; why they don't atrophy - and why do blind and deaf people have such difficulty..? Why spend a fortune on transport & video-conferencing if we can drift around and meet up in disembodied form?

The feeling of liberation from the body was exceptional.

The feeling of terror in nightmares can be exceptional; a vivid experience is not necessarily of something objectively real (as mentioned previously, hyper-reality is a feature of many unreal experiences).

Consciousness may have physical attributes since everything in the physical universe is physical. Not everything is visible, but everything is physical.

There are no physical fields or forces that could support such a phenomenon. As described, it is not consistent with the most basic physics.

.. "The notion of a soul surviving my death is honestly repugnant to me as an atheist."

It is repugnant to many atheists. It tends to create a block in their psyche which prevents them from wanting to explore rabbit holes. Scary stuff...the stuff of madness.
....
Sanity for many atheists is the sure solid ground of measurable, explainable reality. Feeling repugnance and feeling fearful are similar.

This is not true of any atheist I know personally. Most find the idea of souls absurd or amusingly zany. Most would quite like to see how their kids fare after they die.

God concepts have one thing in common. They are all conscious. They are self aware.

Really? Have you read Spinoza?

When thinking upon the possibility of me, the individual consciousness surviving the death of the body, and having experienced on a few occasions what that is like...

You've come back from the dead? or do you mean you think that what you experienced might be like what you think 'surviving death' might be like?

... I was in communication with an aspect of my own consciousness to which I was previously oblivious.

Ah yes; the consciousness of which one is not conscious...

For years I experienced the hypnogogic,

The hypnogogic what?

 

[Hellbound]

I think part of the issue of thinking these events can't be measured yet still have effects is that a lot of people don't seem to understand some of the basic principles. Namely, they would likely answer the following question incorrectly:

What's the difference between a measurement, an observation, and an interaction?

 

[dlorde]

I think part of the issue of thinking these events can't be measured yet still have effects is that a lot of people don't seem to understand some of the basic principles. Namely, they would likely answer the following question incorrectly:

What's the difference between a measurement, an observation, and an interaction?

It may be partly that the words have specific meanings in physics that don't entirely correspond to their common usage.

Some can't get to grips with observation being more than looking.

 

[Navigator]

Really? Have you read Spinoza?

No. Does he think 'god' is not a conscious self aware being?

Ah yes; the consciousness of which one is not conscious...

Yes.

The hypnogogic what?

Experience.

 

[Olowkow]

Generally I simply accept it as data. Short of my being able to get into their memories and experience them for myself, I don't see any alternative. I don't approach it as information which could be true or false but just as information.

Stories of out of body or astral travel would be interesting only if these people had bothered to gather some information that is unambiguously beyond their reach in the real world. What was that serial number and date of manufacture on the ceiling fan when you were floating about up there, for instance? Otherwise, it's all just campfire stories.

How does one know that what people say they experience in lab experiments is the truth, or that they are accurately describing their experience without embellishment?

Clever experimental techniques and huge amounts of data amenable to complex analysis. Error bars are always required in the interpretation of data.

Sure, but as much as we know, we know very little compared with what we are still discovering, and what is still to be discovered.

That doesn't mean we should not expect extraordinary claims to be accepted without appropriate evidence.

There could be many reasons. Scientific principles of physics don't seem to apply to their experiences.

Let's quantify those exceptions then. How far from "scientific principles of physics" need these OBEs stray, before considering them pure nonsense? 10%....35%......80%...? What elements or compounds can travel through walls? Does this entity lose any mass when interacting with a brick wall pass through? Does it take more energy to pass through a lead wall than a paper wall? 30% more? 90% more?

Yes. You would have more idea if you have experienced it for yourself.

As a 14-16 year old, I experienced hypnagogia many times. In my case, I could feel like I was a miniature of myself, roaming around a miniature copy of my bedroom viewing books and details of furniture. I knew it was just my mind playing tricks on me. It was sort of fun, but I grew out of it.

What is human?

Those animals that have similar DNA to me, speak natural languages, and shed tears of joy and pain.

The next night the same entity (this time invisible - so I am assuming) took hold of my wrists and pulled me straight upright and crossed my arms over my chest in the same manner that he had held his arms over his chest the previous night. Then he let me go. I felt myself floating and this was the first time I experiencied OOB.
On both occasions interesting unusual data.

Lots of people have this type of experience. Some are frightened by it until they are told what is happening. Others never get over a belief that they were visited by a bogeyman.

Years later I told my dad about that experience and he was amazed. He replied that the same thing had happened to him and that it had been physically painful and the next day there were red marks around his wrists.

QED. I sometimes wake up with scratches on my calves. The furthest thing from my mind is that an interstellar kitty had visited me. I generally just cut my toenails.

No not drugs. I have always been fearful of drugs because of being out of control...controlled by the drug.
I know people who take drugs for the purpose of alternate experiences, and I don't judge them for experimenting etc. Its just not for me.

Interpreting hypnagogia as reality is not exactly "in control".

Feeling repugnance and feeling fearful are similar.

No, not really. Like rotting fish is similar to Moby Dick?

Should I be concerned then that I told you briefly about my own experiences. We both know the truth is you cannot know that what I say I experienced, I actually experienced. That I could be lying just to get attention etc.
the fact is that subjectivity rules in relation to consciousness individuate.

I believe most people believe their stories or anecdotes, but they just misinterpret the nature of their significance. I have experienced some strange déjà-vu type phenomena, and auditory hallucinations when in certain near sleep states. I'm under no illusions that these were anything other than my brain playing tricks.

And yet consciousness exists and does pretty much all that. Furthermore, I have experienced through ideomoter effect direct and consistent communication with the aspect of consciousness I refereed to in further back in this post.

What, like a Ouija Board? Dowsing?

For years I experienced the hypnogogic, I thought I was the only one. No one spoke about such things or they were consigned to occult etc...then the internet came along and wouldn't you know it! Far more common, and people are talking together about it.

Well, my understanding is that hypnagogia (or hypnogogia) is quite common. At the onset of sleep, we can experience various types of hallucinations. I have heard my name over a P.A. system, car horns, and other odd sounds that seem very real, but which were not.

Sleep paralysis, the Hag Syndrome, is very likely an evolutionary adaptation to keep us from falling out of our nests in trees when we lived in the wild. This is all the stuff of various ages of mystical thinking, and a lot of it eventually winds up as religious experience cum dogma.

 

[dlorde]

No. Does he think 'god' is not a conscious self aware being?

Not really, no. Spinoza's dual-aspect substance god encompasses thought and extension, but is the substance from which everything derives, not itself a conscious self-aware entity.

the consciousness of which one is not conscious...

Yes.

If you're not conscious of it, it's either a consciousness that isn't yours, or your unconscious.

The hypnogogic what?

Experience.

We all have that, every night. The hypnogogic experience is the drowsy state preceding sleep.

 

[dlorde]

Well, my understanding is that hypnagogia (or hypnogogia) is quite common. At the onset of sleep, we can experience various types of hallucinations.

These are hypnogogic hallucinations, i.e. hallucinations as you fall asleep. Hypnogogia is falling asleep. Hypnopompia is waking up. [/pedant]

 

[Navigator]

Not really, no. Spinoza's dual-aspect substance god encompasses thought and extension, but is the substance from which everything derives, not itself a conscious self-aware entity.

Sounds similar to 'The Void.' from where everything else (existence) is believed to have come from.

If you're not conscious of it, it's either a consciousness that isn't yours, or your unconscious.

Interesting. 'Unconscious' usually means just that, so if it is the 'unconscious' then it is called that, not because it is unconscious, but because the individual consciousness is not aware (not conscious) of it.

We all have that, every night. The hypnogogic experience is the drowsy state preceding sleep.

When I first heard the word and checked it out it was described something along the lines of the state between awake and asleep, and often associated with lucid unusual experiences and sleep paralysis.
It is in that context I used the word.

 

[Navigator]

Interpreting hypnagogia as reality is not exactly "in control".

I am more interested in examining the explanations which those like yourself believe, but which, upon deeper inspection, are found to be wanting.

No, not really. Like rotting fish is similar to Moby Dick?

Well in that case, you will find it very difficult to interact with those who think 'the soul' (Consciousness) might continue after the body has died, without associating them with rotting fish etc?

I believe most people believe their stories or anecdotes, but they just misinterpret the nature of their significance.

Beliefs do seem to shape a persons expression supporting either one side or the other.

I have experienced some strange déjà-vu type phenomena, and auditory hallucinations when in certain near sleep states. I'm under no illusions that these were anything other than my brain playing tricks.

That is one of those explanations I find wanting. It assumes the brain is capable of playing tricks. It is not. It is like saying the legs will have a look, or the fingers will have a taste.

If anything is 'playing tricks' (or otherwise) it has to be conscious. Since there is no outside men in black types using some unknown technology to create these experiences, then the source must come from within the individual, but cannot be the brain. The brain will be part of the process but not the source, because it is not conscious.

What, like a Ouija Board? Dowsing?

Yes. Both operate on ideomotor. I used the method similar to Ouija - but this evolved very differently in relation to how Ouija is usually used.
The results were measurable, and could be recorded. Communication was forthcoming.

Well, my understanding is that [hypnagogia (or) hypnogogia is quite common. At the onset of sleep, we can experience various types of hallucinations. I have heard my name over a P.A. system, car horns, and other odd sounds that seem very real, but which were not.

Yes. Most everyone has likely experienced outside sounds and incorporated these into their dreams.

In the case of the Entity 'visitor' I had been asleep and thought I had woken up.

One observation I have about the experience is that up to that point I had not entertained any focused thought on the subject of ET or wondered what they might look like etc.
What I witnessed was beyond my ability to manifest and with the advent of the internet (years later) I searched for other similar stories which involved the particular type of entity I had seen. I have yet to discover other experiences which describe the same being.

Sleep paralysis, the Hag Syndrome, is very likely an evolutionary adaptation to keep us from falling out of our nests in trees when we lived in the wild. This is all the stuff of various ages of mystical thinking, and a lot of it eventually winds up as religious experience cum dogma.

Yes, religious interpretation. Spiritual interpretation, sci fi interpretation, scientific interpretation, personal interpretation etc...

 

[Olowkow]

...

What I witnessed was beyond my ability to manifest and with the advent of the internet (years later) I searched for other similar stories which involved the particular type of entity I had seen. I have yet to discover other experiences which describe the same being.

Yes, religious interpretation. Spiritual interpretation, sci fi interpretation, scientific interpretation, personal interpretation etc...

Why do you believe this was not a figment of your imagination? What is your compelling reason for believing in an "entity" that you can't describe? Seriously, what does it do for you? Does it make you feel special, happy, frightened or confused? Finally, do you think those of us who have similar experiences but dismiss them as our overactive imagination are naive?

I'm not sure I followed your argument against a mind "playing tricks" beyond the obvious semantic games. Our minds are very much subject to phenomena like visual and auditory pareidolia, and psychological optical effects like the rotating mask illusion, or sleight of hand magic which take advantage of our persistent view of a world that should make sense. Not to mention paranoia and psychotic episodes with some very compelling "tricks" of the mind.

What is this communication that you achieved with a Ouija board? Are you among those who think it is an unseen hand that guides the movement or is it your own subconscious?

 

[Navigator]

Why do you believe this was not a figment of your imagination?

My imagination is incapable of conjuring such detail. My consciousness obviously is capable of experiencing it.

What is your compelling reason for believing in an "entity" that you can't describe?

I can describe what the entity looked like and how the entity behaved as I have experienced seeing it.

Seriously, what does it do for you? Does it make you feel special, happy, frightened or confused?

Are you asking how the experience effected me?

Finally, do you think those of us who have similar experiences but dismiss them as our overactive imagination are naive?

I think people believe whatever is convenient for maintaining their particular beliefs. So to believe your imagination is that powerful is the best theory you can identify with.
Regarding that, there is no point in making judgment calls such as 'you are being naive'. You are just identifying with what you are comfortable with.

I'm not sure I followed your argument against a mind "playing tricks" beyond the obvious semantic games. Our minds are very much subject to phenomena like visual and auditory pareidolia, and psychological optical effects like the rotating mask illusion, or sleight of hand magic which take advantage of our persistent view of a world that should make sense. Not to mention paranoia and psychotic episodes with some very compelling "tricks" of the mind.

Do you mean 'the mind' as in 'the brain', or is 'the mind' something else?

What is this communication that you achieved with a Ouija board?

Are you asking for details on what data was communicated?

Are you among those who think it is an unseen hand that guides the movement or is it your own subconscious?

It is the subconscious, which I also understand as being 'the mind', rather than 'the brain'.

But whatever. It is this aspect called 'the subconscious' which can be communicated with, yes.

 

[SusanB-M1]

There's a good article in today's Guardian about the disputed nature of consciousness:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness

I'm looking forward to Tom Stoppard's new play The Hard Problem. If anyone can explore these issues dramatically it's him.

Thank you for putting the link. I have listened all the way through and that made a most interesting start to the day!

 

[Donn]

I think people believe whatever is convenient for maintaining their particular beliefs. .. You are just identifying with what you are comfortable with.

So are you.

Now what?

How do you show us that your particular beliefs are more valid than ours?

Cancelling our mutual beliefs, what have we left? Science.

Science says that consciousness requires and starts in a working brain.
(Kill the brain, end the consciousness. Damage the brain, bend the consciousness.)


You do not have science on your side. That leaves you wrong.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Electrical jolt to the muscle also animate the body. You may want to add "directed" animation of the body to that.



Doctor can chime on that opne , but there are processes which simply make it so that the rest of the body will start dying and decaying. Among other bed sores. I do not remember the list of it, but some stuff simply start shutting down no matter how much mechanical help we have.

Now we may find solutions to those, it is just that the solution might not be worth it.

Please note that the following post contains links to details that may make you nauseous.

There was a recent legal case here in Ireland, where a dead woman's body was (barely) kept animate for weeks, due to her having a foetus and Irelands barbaric anti-abortion constitutional provision. By the time the High Court finally gave permission for the life support to be turned off her brain was beginning to liquify, along with many other serious bodily failure.

Edit: forgot my point. As can be seen from this gruesome case, the body (albeit with great difficulty) can be kept going right now for a non-insignificant time after brain death, if one wants to pump a whole load of medicines and have a lot of time spent on keeping that body alive. And as Aepervius says it is not worth it.

 

[Belz...]

In your experience perhaps that is the case. In my own, yes they have been.

Examples, please.

How is the imagery of personal experience demonstrated?

Brain processes. What's your question ?

That didn't address the question.

Yes it does. The brain doesn't work the way you think it does. It thus follows that it will not have the same behaviours as a theoretical brain that does work the way you think.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

My body is going to die one day. I see no reason to ignore the possibility that my consciousness may survive the experience. That is far different from pondering on the possible existence of unicorns, pink or otherwise.

But we have exactly the same level of evidence for the existence of a soul (or whatever you call it) as we do for invisible pink unicorns, i.e. none. And it is actually worse for your speculation, in that all the evidence we do have points to the non-existence of any personhood outside of the natural electro-chemical processes of the human brain, i.e. we can say that like with the luminiferous aether there is no such thing as a human soul.

Of course that becomes apparent even for those who have little to no biological knowledge when they investigate the origion of the christian-islamic idea of an eternal soul, which comes from a (deliberate or otherwise) misunderstanding of the ancient Greek concept of psuche when the church fathers tried to marry the incoherent Jesus myths with the best thinking of the time Platonic philosophy.

 

[Olowkow]

My imagination is incapable of conjuring such detail. My consciousness obviously is capable of experiencing it.

I can describe what the entity looked like and how the entity behaved as I have experienced seeing it.

Well, you said, "What I witnessed was beyond my ability to manifest..." I took that to mean that you are unable to describe this "entity". To say that your imagination is "incapable of conjuring such detail" is little more than an argument from ignorance. You cannot imagine it, so it can't be true. Still, a part of me is willing to believe you saw something real, but you mistook it for a demon of some sort, because you are willing to readily accept the realm of the paranormal as reality.

When I see something I can't explain, I am merely mystified and eventually decide that I was fooled by an illusion of some sort.

Are you asking how the experience effected me?

Essentially how it affected you at the time, and whether the experience left you with a sense of well being or dread. People have visions that leave them changed forever, sometimes not in a good way.

I think people believe whatever is convenient for maintaining their particular beliefs. So to believe your imagination is that powerful is the best theory you can identify with.
Regarding that, there is no point in making judgment calls such as 'you are being naive'. You are just identifying with what you are comfortable with.

This has nothing to do with my being "comfortable". From what you have said, I can form three hypotheses to explain your experience:

• You saw something real that you found inexplicable.
• You experienced a hallucination that existed only in your mind.
• You invented a story of an entity to gain acceptance among like minded entity believers.

I may be missing something, but I believe these are the only three possibilities. You may well argue as well:

• I am too naive to understand that you witnessed something other worldly.
• I am not comfortable with accepting the supernatural.
• I reject the supernatural because I'm prejudiced or close-minded against anything remotely godly.

You see, without any evidence of any kind, your story is just another anecdote which people just assume is no different than experiences they have had. A resort to an appeal to elaborate violations of natural laws of physics is simply not needed until all other possible explanations have been exhausted. Then there is also the realm of "I simply don't know". We have all seen things that we could not explain. Most of us, I would assume, don't go immediately to the supernatural "It's a sign!", as the default explanation.

Do you mean 'the mind' as in 'the brain', or is 'the mind' something else?

The mind is simply what the brain does, an emergent property. The mind is the process that the organ called the brain drives. When the brain dies, and all the electrochemical processes cease, the mind no longer exists. To claim that somehow the mind persists beyond brain death, one needs at least an idea for an hypothesis to discuss this eventuality. Otherwise, it's just special pleading.

Are you asking for details on what data was communicated?

Yes. What was the nature of this communication using Ouija or pendulums? Was it supernatural? Talking with the dead? Getting insights into future events, or answers to questions such as the nature of dark matter? Locating water sources? What tangible results were obtained from using the ideomotor path into the mind that could not be obtained by other means?

It is the subconscious, which I also understand as being 'the mind', rather than 'the brain'.

But whatever. It is this aspect called 'the subconscious' which can be communicated with, yes.

Some think that there is an unseen hand, from some supernatural force, that guides these things. I would agree that it is merely the subconscious mind that drives the ideomotor effect. I suppose there is a useful distinction in saying "the 'mind' rather than the brain", though I tend to use the terms interchangeably.

 

[Nonpareil]

My imagination is incapable of conjuring such detail.

Yes, it is.

I think people believe whatever is convenient for maintaining their particular beliefs. So to believe your imagination is that powerful is the best theory you can identify with.

No, it's the best theory that is provably true.

Regarding that, there is no point in making judgment calls such as 'you are being naive'. You are just identifying with what you are comfortable with.

No, we are legitimately pointing out that you do not understand what you are talking about.

 

[Navigator]

Well, you said, "What I witnessed was beyond my ability to manifest..." [I took that to mean that you are unable to describe this "entity".

Okay - my bad. Something learned every day.

Beyond my ability to imagine let alone create imagery of.

To say that your imagination is "incapable of conjuring such detail" is little more than an argument from ignorance. You cannot imagine it, so it can't be true.

Honestly, how can it be true that that the only 'me' I am conscious of is capable of imagining with such detail a situation which I then place myself in to experience as being real? All while keeping some part of my awareness in the dark as to what I am up to?

I create the 3D image of the entity, give it abilities which I am incapably of conceiving, place it in an environment I am familiar with, 'see' that environment without opening my eyes and (when I finally do) everything about the actual room (light variations etc) are exactly the same as when they were closed. Nothing has changed in that regard. And I am expected to believe that I am simply ignorant of my true imaginative powers?

Imagination (or mine at least) is fuzzy at best. Imagery is unclear like being in a fine misty fog. Not as defined as the reality of being awake. Even when reading books.

I think that is one reason movies are so popular. Most people don't the ability to conjure up such detail in their own heads which movies provide.

Still, a part of me is willing to believe you saw something real, but you mistook it for a demon of some sort, because you are willing to readily accept the realm of the paranormal as reality.

If that were the case, it would have to be that at the time someone was in my room. Interesting you refer to this entity as 'a demon of some sort' and assume I believed in the paranormal as real.
You are almost correct in regard to the 'demon of some sort' but not so in regard to the paranormal.

When I see something I can't explain, I am merely mystified and eventually decide that I was fooled by an illusion of some sort.

I am interested in how and even more interested in why the experience happened. And not just the overall event but the details of the event. What can be learned from it, etc.

Essentially how it affected you at the time, and whether the experience left you with a sense of well being or dread.

Exactly. Those details. That particular event was proceeded by another which happened quite a few months before. They are connected by the same entity - that was the first time I had encountered this entity, only I did not get a visual on him. I did however hear him laugh.
In the second encounter, (the one were I saw him) I became aware of him because he laughed the same laugh.

The effect was layered - and I was acutely aware of the layered responses as the experience was unfolding.
1: My body wanted to be anywhere but where it was. It literally wanted to scream and climb the walls looking for some way to escape, and would have had it not being in a state of paralysis. It was scared way beyond anything previously experienced.

2: It was quite something to be able to observe my bodies reaction while I was consciously reacting far more calmly. I was pissed off at the intrusion and what I took to being 'played with'. I faced it. There was some bravado in that but mostly it was sincere fearlessness.

People have visions that leave them changed forever, sometimes not in a good way.

Well this one certainly changed me forever. I spent the good part of 20 years or more trying to figure it out. The how and why.

This has nothing to do with my being "comfortable". From what you have said, I can form three hypotheses to explain your experience:

• You saw something real that you found inexplicable.
• You experienced a hallucination that existed only in your mind.
• You invented a story of an entity to gain acceptance among like minded entity believers.

I may be missing something, but I believe these are the only three possibilities. You may well argue as well:

• I am too naive to understand that you witnessed something other worldly.
• I am not comfortable with accepting the supernatural.
• I reject the supernatural because I'm prejudiced or close-minded against anything remotely godly.

I trust you have not forgotten that I was asked to share something of an experience?

I have left out the bulk of details, which are not here nor there, especially since I am happy to go with the 'it was an hallucination that existed only in my mind which I consciously experienced' theory.

You see, without any evidence of any kind, your story is just another anecdote which people just assume is no different than experiences they have had. A resort to an appeal to elaborate violations of natural laws of physics is simply not needed until all other possible explanations have been exhausted. Then there is also the realm of "I simply don't know". We have all seen things that we could not explain. Most of us, I would assume, don't go immediately to the supernatural "It's a sign!", as the default explanation.

Let me just say that I have not mentioned either 'paranormal' or 'supernatural'. I do not believe these things exist. In relation to the possibility that consciousness might survive the body, if that were so it would not be because of none existent things called 'paranormal' or 'supernatural'. If such does happen then it must be part of the natural way of the universe in relation to consciousness.

The mind is simply what the brain does, an emergent property. The mind is the process that the organ called the brain drives.

This is where I cannot agree because it is more reasonable (even that the mind/consciousness etc are emergent from the brain) that it is the brain that is driven, utilized by, the property of, the mind. Indeed it has to be that way logically.

When the brain dies, and all the electrochemical processes cease, the mind no longer exists. To claim that somehow the mind persists beyond brain death, one needs at least an idea for an hypothesis to discuss this eventuality. Otherwise, it's just special pleading.

In order for a claim to be called a claim it has to be a claim. I have not claimed that Conscious DOES survive the body. What I do say is that there are things about both consciousness and the universe which we do not know enough about to make the call either way. We only know about the interaction of consciousness with biological bodies which are alive and able to display obvious conscious behave - behavior associated with consciousness.

Cadavers don't count as evidence that the individual consciousness which once occupied that body is dead. The evidence shows that the consciousness is gone from that body. Dead and gone are two different things.

Yes. What was the nature of this communication using Ouija or pendulums? Was it supernatural?

I am communicating with you through the medium of computer and internet. Is that supernatural?

Talking with the dead?

If something is dead, how can it be communicated with?

You mean talking with consciousnesses which once lived in bodies?

I originally approached it with that in mind, creating my own particular device for the purpose. Communication was forthcoming and I was under the impression that I was speaking with different individual consciousnesses which had once experienced living life on earth in human form, yes.

This impression gradually changed as it became apparent I could also converse with other types of personalities which had not lived as human beings.

Furthermore the impression changed as - through continued interaction - the data flowed.

The general understanding I have due to this is that there is a state to consciousness which does not view itself as separate from its parts. It acknowledges individuate consciousness as aspects of its whole self.

The bridge between me as an individuate consciousness and it as a collective consciousness happens to be that aspect of consciousness which we recognize as 'subconscious' although that term seems to have different meanings to different people depending on their particular understanding of the word.

Whatever that 'bridge' is - it acts as a connection between the two states (the individuate and the collective) and my understanding is that everyone has this aspect as part of their overall 'self' but are largely unaware of its true nature and abilities and/or consign it to being something they decide it must be (presume) and largely ignore/remain ignorant of it.

Having said that, the 'bridge' is a metaphor for the purpose of the individual. A way of introducing the individual in small steps, in exactly the same way as the concept of 'communing with departed individuate consciousnesses is also a bridge.

That is to say that the 'subconscious' is no different from the collective.

Getting insights into future events, or answers to questions such as the nature of dark matter?

I won't say that this is impossible. From my own experience the collective entity is extremely intelligent, wise, loving, patient etc - you really have to experience it to understand though. Such words are quite inadequate. It is not altogether just 'human'.
It is likely though it will be much more interested in bringing the individual up to speed as to exactly what the individual is in relation to it. It is not a genie in a bottle to grant individuals their base desires such as revealing next weeks winning lotto numbers or providing data which will win the individual the admiration and adulation of his/her peers.

Locating water sources? What tangible results were obtained from using the ideomotor path into the mind that could not be obtained by other means?

As I say, it deals with the individual. Thus the tangible is acknowledged by the subjective experience of the individual and the changes forthcoming through that interaction. There is nothing to stop individuals from combining the data they receive from this subjective process and correlating it for a more objective insight.
Brain scans and such are unable to provide interaction communication between the observers and the observed.

Some think that there is an unseen hand, from some supernatural force, that guides these things. I would agree that it is merely the subconscious mind that drives the ideomotor effect.

It kind of has that appearance yes. Things are not always as they appear though are they. I definitely wouldn't use the word 'merely' in association with the subconscious though.



The relevant thing here is that it works. For all intent and purpose the ideomotor effect is a natural thing which is not very well understood or appreciated for what it can provide for the individual.
As to how it can be utilized in a scientific manner, that is not hard to work out.

There is, however, nothing to stop the individual using it in a scientific manner, or as scientifically as an individual can possibly use it.

I suppose there is a useful distinction in saying "the 'mind' rather than the brain", though I tend to use the terms interchangeably.

I have found that using words interchangeably which alone have different meanings, tends to muddy the waters. It is just one of those things about language. In order to understand each other and be on the same page we have to agree to use words a particular way. When we say 'brain' we mean 'the brain' and 'mind', we mean the consciousness.

Your tendency to interchange the words brain and mind are likely sourced in your understanding/belief that the two are the same thing. They are related (what isn't really?) but no more so than an egg shell and a bird, or an acorn and an oak, or a vehicle and a driver.

So, you may have come to the realization that I do see my experiences as being created by the 'subconscious' part of consciousness. I don't particularly like using that term 'subconscious' because it means different things to different individuals. But whatever...

Whatever we call it, it exists and is quite capable of communicating itself to the individual and explaining itself through a physical medium exactly what it is, and its function in relation to the individual.

If I am claiming anything, I am claiming that.



Just so you understand, where I hilited the word 'my' I am referring to what can be regarded as the 'ego personality' which is that dominant aspect of the self - the personal identity of the individual - which is a creation of circumstance in order for we individuals to deal with the particular reality we are experiencing within the larger reality we all presently share. It is that dominant aspect which knows it cannot create such imagery which it experiences.

I (that individual ego personality) understand that it was the 'subconscious' aspect which created the visuals for me to experience.
It wasn't random or without purpose.

It was purposefully designed for a specific task.