Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Navigator]

What leads have not been investigated?

The obvious lead regarding the ideomotor effect.

What evidence has turned up?

Not much since it has not been properly investigated.

So if consciousness is a living thing, what do you call its consciousness? Consciousness ^2?

Perhaps call it what it calls itself?

"What might that be?" You might ask.

I would reply, 'ask it'.



From personal experience it is not overly concerned with labels. It is what it is. That is the important thing.
I have been, for the purpose of entering discussion about it, referring to it (somewhat erroneously I have to admit) as the 'subconscious.' More for the sake of reference than anything else.

This mainly because, what little study has been done regarding ideomotor effect tends to suggest that it works because of some 'subconscious' element. The individual using such device is unconsciously making the movements. and thus producing the communication at that level of unawareness.

My own study and involvement with this have shown me (the ego personality) that this is not the case at all.

 

[Navigator]

This statement appears to use the terms, "self awareness" and "ability to make decisions" in novel ways, contrary to their actual meanings.

Perhaps you would explain, or support your assertion.

If you really think this, you don't understand what is literally the first thing you must understand about evolution- it's not a normative process that involves making decisions (much less "self awareness"). Evolution's outcomes are no more "decisions" of the process than a hurricane is a decision of the climate/weather process that produced it.

Okay - I was being philosophical. We don't really know for sure one way or the other. For all we know the physical universe is one conscious entity. What we see as galaxies may be the 'brain functions' - for all we really know.

That aside, what we do know is that consciousness can make decisions and be creative etc. The universe can be seen to behave in a similar way. Whether it is the actual case or not is not easily determined.

I can accept that as form it is going through the motions oblivious to anything, but consciousness tends to recognize similar things to itself, and there is recognizable intelligence-like processes involved in the evolution of the universe.

We do not know if trees are self aware, or bacteria. Trees move too slowly to really give any indication, but they are living things. Bacteria can be observed to make decision like movements which involve survival techniques. They may be self aware to that degree.

I tend to regard anything obviously self aware as having some kind of consciousness, albeit not as refined as or as measurable as human consciousness.

I also tend to understand consciousness as being fundamentally the same, but acting differently depending on the form it is occupied within.

But primarily I was being philosophical. My bad for not making that clear.

 

[John Jones]

Navigator,

It has been pointed-out to you many times before that you demonstrate no understanding of the discipline of science, yet you attempt to lecture your interlocutors on the subject.

Would you care to address that idea, Navigator?

 

[dlorde]

... the brain outside of our normal conscious awareness is capable of creating complex experience, and is capable of understanding, is intelligent and capable of creating extraordinary feats of creativity...

OK.

...I have acknowledged this regarding this aspect of consciousness which we acknowledge as 'us' (the 'me' I' 'ego personality' etc) However, without consciousness, nothing can be experienced because consciousness is that which DOES the experiencing.

Here we're likely to run into semantic problems with 'experience'. We can learn from experience without being consciously aware of those experiences. Consciousness allows us to reflect on our experiences, but only has access to a limited subset of them.

There is that aspect which is conscious which we are not fully aware of. We may acknowledge and assign certain things to it, but we don't know it. It knows us. It is intelligent and fully able to converse, given the opportunity it will converse. Given the opportunity it will tell the individual exactly what it is.

That aspect which you describe, normally called the subconscious or unconscious (admittedly terms that seem inadequate for what they reference), really is us - it supplies our personality, behaviour, affect, etc. It's an interacting collection of systems.

The evidence suggests to me that consciousness is a means for those systems to coordinate and share information over an extended time, to model scenarios for forward planning with a simplified, integrated, self-model, which also provides a social interface, and a reflective self-monitoring facility. In other words, consciousness is a model 'front end' for those systems, a summary avatar representing 'self' - entirely based and dependent on those background systems which constitute the real 'us', but imbued with a powerful (and necessary) sense of agency, and appropriately distorted to suit the context.

Sometimes things from it 'leak' into our own awareness in the form of insight, intuition etc, and dreams have been known to be one way such things happen.

Consciousness is entirely based on the processing of these background systems - it receives all its information from them, mostly unrecognised, but occasionally subliminally acknowledging their apparently unsourced emergence into awareness (it just 'popped' into my mind'; 'without thinking, I ...'; 'Suddenly, I found myself [doing xxx]...', 'before I knew it, I'd ...').

It's the stubby tip of the very large and much neglected iceberg that is the real self

 

[Slowvehicle]

Okay - I was being philosophical. We don't really know for sure one way or the other. For all we know the physical universe is one conscious entity. What we see as galaxies may be the 'brain functions' - for all we really know.

This is disingenuous to the point of frank dishonesty. There is no evidence, there is no reason to believe that the universe is a "conscious entity"; unless, of course you are indulging in using the words to mean (for you) other than what they actually do mean.

There is no reason to believe that the universe consists of an endless round of Bambañuelas del Bím, Bám Búm; which "for all we know", is even more likely to be true.

That aside, what we do know is that consciousness can make decisions and be creative etc. The universe can be seen to behave in a similar way. Whether it is the actual case or not is not easily determined.

...you appear to be "being philosophical" again. No evidence exists to even hint that the universe "makes decisions"...

I can accept that as form it is going through the motions oblivious to anything, but consciousness tends to recognize similar things to itself, and there is recognizable intelligence-like processes involved in the evolution of the universe.

Ah. Simple assertions, independent of the slightest skosh-skoshi of anything that could be mistaken for evidence.

We do not know if trees are self aware, or bacteria. Trees move too slowly to really give any indication, but they are living things. Bacteria can be observed to make decision like movements which involve survival techniques. They may be self aware to that degree.

I tend to regard anything obviously self aware as having some kind of consciousness, albeit not as refined as or as measurable as human consciousness.

I also tend to understand consciousness as being fundamentally the same, but acting differently depending on the form it is occupied within.

But primarily I was being philosophical. My bad for not making that clear.

At least you are aware there is no foundation for your assertions. That's something.

 

[dlorde]

Okay - I was being philosophical. We don't really know for sure one way or the other. For all we know the physical universe is one conscious entity. What we see as galaxies may be the 'brain functions' - for all we really know....
But primarily I was being philosophical. My bad for not making that clear.

Philosophy is supposed to be about making coherent arguments, not vague speculations.

 

[Navigator]

Here we're likely to run into semantic problems with 'experience'. We can learn from experience without being consciously aware of those experiences. Consciousness allows us to reflect on our experiences, but only has access to a limited subset of them.

Here nor there really. I say that those experiences which we are not consciously aware of but learn from anyway have much to do with that other aspect of our consciousness which we are also not so aware of. We can have more access to such, utilizing ideomotor.

That aspect which you describe, normally called the subconscious or unconscious (admittedly terms that seem inadequate for what they reference), really is us - it supplies our personality, behaviour, affect, etc. It's an interacting collection of systems.

As I have also said, it is an aspect of our individuate consciousness. However, I do not agree that it supplies our personality, behavior etc...(and I am specifically speaking about 'our' as in the ego personality [EP].)

If you learned to communicate with it through ideomotor you (EP) will discover that this is where it can then influence and supply. Ordinarily EP is shaped and formed by mostly external influence, and is unaware and unconcerned with this other aspect.

The evidence suggests to me that consciousness is a means for those systems to coordinate and share information over an extended time, to model scenarios for forward planning with a simplified, integrated, self-model, which also provides a social interface, and a reflective self-monitoring facility. In other words, consciousness is a model 'front end' for those systems, a summary avatar representing 'self' - entirely based and dependent on those background systems which constitute the real 'us', but imbued with a powerful (and necessary) sense of agency, and appropriately distorted to suit the context.

Can you state that in a more 'down to earth' everyday language for us simpletons?

What I am groking here is that you believe that the influence of the overseeing background consciousness (OBC) dictates to a large degree how we EPs act out?

From my own communications this is not exactly so. More to the point the EP is largely left to its own devices, beliefs opinions and actions with the subtle interface of the OBC influencing as and where it is able to.

Consciousness is entirely based on the processing of these background systems - it receives all its information from them, mostly unrecognised, but occasionally subliminally acknowledging their apparently unsourced emergence into awareness (it just 'popped' into my mind'; 'without thinking, I ...'; 'Suddenly, I found myself [doing xxx]...', 'before I knew it, I'd ...').

And yet it doesn't actually have to be that way at all. The connection and communion can be far greater than merely mysterious. Besides which you seem to be speaking of these attributes as non conscious in themselves - just sets of random events which come through into and shape the EP.

Hard to say really how you are understanding these processes. It appears you may be saying that the processes are not conscious until they express through the EP.

It's the stubby tip of the very large and much neglected iceberg that is the real self

Let me ask then. I don't disagree that 'the real self' is very much as you so poetically describe here. But I am unsure as to whether you understand it as being conscious in its own right. A self aware thing.

 

[Navigator]

At least you are aware there is no foundation for your assertions. That's something.

In relation to the question 'does consciousness survive the death of the body?' if it did indeed do so, as a matter of natural occurrence, it would need to be somehow supported by the physical universe, so I don't rule out the possibility that the universe is also a natural vessel for such a thing.

We needn't go over the obvious 'there is no physical evidence we know of which verifies that.' If there was, then this kind of discussion would not exist.

Some would like to see the stars move to spell out their names in the heavens, or some other such cry out for evidence. I would venture to say that it is unlikely such stuff would convince them anyhow. It could be just an hallucination.

I am fine not believing and still managing to contemplate the unbelievable.

 

[Navigator]

Philosophy is supposed to be about making coherent arguments, not vague speculations.

Logical and consistent.

 

[Jodie]

So it also exists inside our physical bodies then. You said it doesn't.



Strictly speaking there is no up or down. There is in and out.
So you believe this physical reality is a simulation of sorts?



No doubt I missed it, but in what way do NDEs not match your personal belief?





Nor do I, but that is because I wasn't around then to witness it. However, words attributed as being spoken by him are in the bible. Here are some verses.

^{John 11:23-26 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 14:1-2 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. John 10:27-29 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Mark 9:1 And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."}
Certainly it wasn't detailed stuff on what to expect once your body dies.




No. Just googled it and have a summary. It seems to be the man figured the knowledge gained by human beings through their five senses amounted to opinion. I will have a read of it.



Well that would depend on the capabilities of the machinery. There is some pretty awesome machinery, but I wonder how awesome it would have to be before Plato's metaphor no longer applied?

Mind you it's just my theory, but just as in Star Trek, the characters are in the holo deck playing a part but it doesn't negate their real existence. We are two places at once, sort of like in Avatar. I think this existence is a form of reality and that reality exists in layers with our consciousness running through all of those layers. In this 3D world we experience an individual existence but in other "layers" we are a conglomerate. The typical NDE experience has a person experiencing an individual form of consciousness, that's why it doesn't match my theory.

I am familiar with the majority of world religions and the one that comes close to what I believe is Buddhism, although it's not exactly the same. At any rate, none of the world religions tell you exactly what to expect in an afterlife unless you count the Egyptian's story of the River Styx. No NDE's that I ever read about talk about crossing a river.

If we ever reach a point where human existence is augmented with organic AI, we might actually be able to pull the adaptations on autopsy and review the memories of what the person thought he saw while dying. It might also be possible to trace what areas of the brain the visions come from and explain why it looks like a real visual experience as opposed to a dream like state or hallucination.

 

[John Jones]

Logical and consistent.

What is logical and consistent in your psychobabble? I would really like to know.

 

[John Jones]

Mind you it's just my theory, but just as in Star Trek, the characters are in the holo deck playing a part but it doesn't negate their real existence. We are two places at once, sort of like Avatar.

An equally unreal! Life is neither a star trek movie nor a holodeck in an episode of Star Trek.

 

[Jodie]

And, to continue talking to myself, just because we do not know everything about consciousness, does not mean we know nothing about it; it also does not mean your personal beliefs about it are worth anything at all. (Or Jodie's beliefs.)

Opinions do not count in the face of evidence.
Beliefs without evidence do not count as valid opposition.

This is where I take issue, if you don't have all of the facts or have limited evidence whatever conclusion you draw from that falls into the realm of belief or opinion, no different than my beliefs.

 

[Slowvehicle]

In relation to the question 'does consciousness survive the death of the body?' if it did indeed do so, as a matter of natural occurrence, it would need to be somehow supported by the physical universe, so I don't rule out the possibility that the universe is also a natural vessel for such a thing.

We needn't go over the obvious 'there is no physical evidence we know of which verifies that.' If there was, then this kind of discussion would not exist.

Some would like to see the stars move to spell out their names in the heavens, or some other such cry out for evidence. I would venture to say that it is unlikely such stuff would convince them anyhow. It could be just an hallucination.

I am fine not believing and still managing to contemplate the unbelievable.

I see.

You are, in fact, using "philosophy" to mean "omphalistic onanism".

 

[Jodie]

An equally unreal! Life is neither a star trek movie nor a holodeck in an episode of Star Trek.

It was the best analogy I could come up with to explain my beliefs, you are welcome to your opinion, but it is an opinion only until we have a better way of investigating what happens to our consciousness after we die.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is where I take issue, if you don't have all of the facts or have limited evidence whatever conclusion you draw from that falls into the realm of belief or opinion, no different than my beliefs.

Certainly!

...as long as one is willing, and able, to ignore the need for "congruence, fruitfulness, and luminosity"...

 

[Loss Leader]

This is where I take issue, if you don't have all of the facts or have limited evidence whatever conclusion you draw from that falls into the realm of belief or opinion, no different than my beliefs.

And this is where you'd be wrong. The null position is to refuse to put one's faith in something until there is sufficient evidence.

The question isn't whether we have all the facts, just whether we have enough to believe something.

So, facts in support of NDE's are that some people have reported them. Are those enough to form a conclusion. Maybe. Until we weigh them against facts like: No proper study has shown that anyone can travel out of body; a biological explanation for NDE's can be provided; many people in near death situations do not report NDE's; the content of NDE's closely match the patient's social/religious preconceptions; our knowledge of matter/energy does not explain how any thought could occur after death ...

In balance, the evidence for NDE's is not compelling. At this time, we should refuse to believe them. But we can still test for them. If more evidence arises, we can and should reevaluate.

 

[Jodie]

If you accept that the theory is correct within its limits (or at least within the bounds of everyday human scales and interactions), all such explanations are invalid and/or incoherent.

Consciousness is a process executed by networks of brain cells. To be maintained, it requires a functionally equivalent substrate to store the information and execute the process, some source of energy, and very likely some sensory input. If you want to speculate about consciousness outside individual bodies, you need to find some support system for it.

Of course, you can decide not to accept QFT as a good enough description of how the world behaves, but that leaves you with the problem of how it could be so successful in its predictions and applications in technology if it's wrong. Maybe everything is magic or supernatural, and we're deliberately being fooled by something that makes the world behave exactly as we'd expect if QFT was correct...

What about the element of non locality? Your thinking of consciousness as being limited by the brain. What I'm suggesting is that the brain is simply the tool to experience this reality used by a consciousness that resides elsewhere. It might very well be a form of energy but we have no way of testing for that. It is speculation but isn't that where science starts?

 

[Jodie]

And this is where you'd be wrong. The null position is to refuse to put one's faith in something until there is sufficient evidence.

The question isn't whether we have all the facts, just whether we have enough to believe something.

So, facts in support of NDE's are that some people have reported them. Are those enough to form a conclusion. Maybe. Until we weigh them against facts like: No proper study has shown that anyone can travel out of body; a biological explanation for NDE's can be provided; many people in near death situations do not report NDE's; the content of NDE's closely match the patient's social/religious preconceptions; our knowledge of matter/energy does not explain how any thought could occur after death ...

In balance, the evidence for NDE's is not compelling. At this time, we should refuse to believe them. But we can still test for them. If more evidence arises, we can and should reevaluate.

They don't match religious preconceptions. I agree with everything else you've said, and because there is so little known, I don't think you can blame the experience strictly on a hypoxia.

 

[Jodie]

Certainly!

...as long as one is willing, and able, to ignore the need for "congruence, fruitfulness, and luminosity"...

Can you explain what you mean by that?