Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Donn]

..I have barely shared any details in regard to my investigation and content of my communication through ideomotor.

Well, start sharing...

Useless to you. Which is one reason why I have not bothered to say much about it. It has not been useless to me. The data has been valid.

The data is only valid to you? Sounds like a nice cut of sharpshooter steak with a peppery special-pleading sauce.

Oh - you mean the self proclaimed experts! And I should value their interpretation over and above any..[irony snip]

So, you are not a self-proclaimed expert? Who dubbed you one?

.. and all the the data I receive through the ideomotor processes and regard their opinionated observations as more valid than any direct interaction I have! Just because?

Why, yes. All your data is invalid. The reason is (just) because you fell into the many traps of bias and error. Your process is akin to homeopathy and as fruitful.

 

[turingtest]

...

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Is not all science simply science fiction until proven otherwise?

The problem is that it hasn't just failed to be proven. It flies in the face of everything that we do know.

Well, you know, when you impose an arbitrary and imprecise standard like "proven" to distinguish between "fiction" and "not fiction," you've served your woo well- you've artificially raised your untestable ideas to an equality with science that isn't merited by any evidence for them. The methodology of science results in well-supported but provisional conclusions that are subject to change by new evidence- but it's as much "fiction" as woo because it's not "proven."

 

[Nonpareil]

You quibble.

Of course it is.

No, I don't, and no, it's not.

Going to a discussion forum full of people who have spent an extended period of time surrounded by others who accept these sorts of stories without question, were likely never particularly skeptical or rigorous in their posts in the first place, and who have demonstrable cognitive bias on the subject is not even research of first-hand accounts of OOBs, let alone a reliable way to learn about them directly.

 

[Navigator]

If we define the unconscious as a kind of consciousness are we even speaking a common language?

The 'we' have to be clear as to what they mean by 'the unconscious'.

 

[dlorde]

Thus the EP is that which is not conscious of the processes of the OBC. The processes of the OBC however are conscious processes.
That is to say they are deliberate and purposeful.

You can define and describe your model however you like. It bears no resemblance to what is observed empirically in neurological studies.

No. The processes are conscious regardless of the 'subject' (EP) not being aware of them, or for that matter, believing (as you and so many obviously do) that the processes (going on within) are not conscious processes.

You are, of course, free to continue to maintain that your interpretation of what you experience through introspection is correct, but please don't confuse that with the evidence obtained from scientific research.

So your "type 1" = my "Overseeing Background Consciousness" OBC and your "type 2" = my "Ego Personality Consciousness." EPC

No.

However, if you -the EPC type 2 actually cared not to be lazy and learned to commune with the OBC type 1 you might discover from that interaction that:

1: EPC is not necessarily a model representation of OBC type1 even that it is assumed to be so by the type 2's observing and consigning verisimilitude onto the type 1 processes.

2: The data from such communication is direct. There will still be room for type 2 misunderstanding, assumption etc, but this can be fairly well eliminated through persistence, patience and other things which type 1 will assist type 2 with accomplishing over time.

No; type 1 and type 2 are distinct modes of thought. Type 1 is characterised as fast, intuitive, single task functionality - a Type 1 process processes a set of input data and produces an output; it doesn't persist. What you are describing is quite different. The models are incommensurable.

Subconscious Processes = type 1 conscious processes.

No.

Type 2 would be wiser to stand down as CEO and accept direction.

Type 2 is a mode of thought, not an entity. Kahneman commonly uses the fictitious System 1 or System 2, which utilise those modes of thinking, to help with the visualisation of how these modes of thought seem to interact.

It is not the greatest of models but understandably so, since it is conceived primarily through type 2 assumptive interpretation. Often far too lazy and opinionated to get the facts.

No. Type 2 is a mode of thought, not an entity.

Type 1 (OBC) thinking is bias and stereotypical? Are you sure you are not meaning type 2 (EPC)?
Please explain further.

Yes, I'm sure.

Kahneman identifies 21 characteristics of Type 1 thinking. For example, a system involving Type 1 thinking is instinctive or intuitive, effortless, fast, uses simple heuristics, is biased to belief & confirmation, has narrow scope and focus, ignores absent evidence, uses norms & stereotypes, substitutes simpler questions for difficult ones, has loss aversion bias, overweights low probabilities, generates impressions, feelings, & inclinations, can be primed to mobilize attention on pattern detection, can recognise the unusual, neglects ambiguity, suppresses doubt, infers & invents causes & intentions, and more.

If a group of type 2s are community orientated and peaceful, self sufficient and nurturing they are easily overcome by a group of type 2s who think nothing of killing, raping, pillaging, destroying and becoming CEO.

Type 1s appear to be incapable because they are not understood, appreciated, consulted etc. by either groups of type 2s.

Survival of type 2 depends upon facade.

No, that is a 'not even wrong' absurd fantasy

Type 1 and Type 2 are modes of thought that have been identified and characterised. Subjects are consciously aware (able to report awareness) of Type 2 thought processes, but not Type 1 processes.

These modes of thought are not entities that can form communities.

 

[Navigator]

Weasel words.

You are likely transferring.

The authority is my subjective experience in the experience.

How do you determine that one experience is clearer than another?

By experiencing them as such. That is indeed WHY they are referred to as different things.

I would say that all experiences are equally clear as they happen, but some are remembered with more details afterwards.

You are saying that consciousness experiences clarity but details are missing when consciousness reviews, except sometimes, because recall is notoriously unreliable when the body awakens.

Difficult to say. Can you assume that this is not the same for everyone?

I don't assume either way. My experience is that the more lucid the experience, the more detail is captured and remembered.
(The details of the experience will fade of course as time goes by, which is why many people keep records of their experiences.)
You seem to be saying that the more lucid is really an experience being remembered more clearly, because all experiences are equally lucid.

My experience is that lucid dreams do not dissolve nearly as quickly as more common ones.
As far as common connections between different experiences go, such as my case with the entity, did not occur through subsequent rationalization.

If some out of body experiences are real, and others are not, how do you determine which ones are real?

When did I make this assertion?

I am surprised that you even ask this question. My answer is a clear "no".

Well according to some, every 'thing' in the universe is physical...they claim there is no such thing as 'non physical'.
So my questions regarding your assertion is 'since you clearly do not regard the process of evolution as a "thing", what then is it and does it really exist? If it is something, how is it nothing?)

Give an example of conscious flowers. Moving with the Sun, or catching a fly does not imply consciousness.

Hilite= "According to those who hand out apples saying they are onions."

It is really rather simple.

Moving with the sun, smelling like rotten meat, looking attractive to bees etc are clear signs of intelligence, and intelligence clearly signals (implies) that consciousness is involved.

 

[dlorde]

It is really rather simple.

Moving with the sun, smelling like rotten meat, looking attractive to bees etc are clear signs of intelligence, and intelligence clearly signals (implies) that consciousness is involved.

Ah. This explains a lot.

 

[Donn]

Moving with the sun, smelling like rotten meat, looking attractive to bees etc are clear signs of intelligence, and intelligence clearly signals (implies) that consciousness is involved.

In that case, there is nothing that is not intelligent. Moons, cleverly orbiting, just-so. Grains of sand, cunningly sorting themselves by size and texture. Lumps of stool luring flies to feast! It's all smart.

You cannot fail in your system. That, chiefly, is its failure.

 

[Navigator]

You are, of course, free to continue to maintain that your interpretation of what you experience through introspection is correct, but please don't confuse that with the evidence obtained from scientific research.

Sure. Just trying to get a fix on whatever it is you are attempting to convey.


So the model is not calling type 1 and 2 'different aspects of an entity' but are referring to thought processes which the entity experience?

So called 'introspection' is of no value in determining anything important as it is far more rewarding to poke and prod and muck into the physical and observe what happens and discuss how that fits in with the status quo and agree together and apply for more grants etc.

Because even if what is being observed and assumed about can speak for itself, it is not allowed to do so because some rule says so.

And that is 'the scientific way'.

 

[bruto]

The 'we' have to be clear as to what they mean by 'the unconscious'.

I don't think so. If one of us is clear but cannot explain to the other how the negation of a thing is the thing itself, we are left not speaking a common language, no matter how deep is the incommunicable wisdom. We are left with the same linguistic dead end in which nothing is a kind of something.

 

[Navigator]

In that case, there is nothing that is not intelligent. Moons, cleverly orbiting, just-so. Grains of sand, cunningly sorting themselves by size and texture. Lumps of stool luring flies to feast! It's all smart.

You cannot fail in your system. That, chiefly, is its failure.

Signs of intelligence. Hey it is not 'my system' - the universe is simply what it is and why you or anyone would want that to fail is beyond my present ability to fully understand.

Moons, planets, Consciousness is more evident in some things than in others but is still evident.

I think you slip in regard to stool luring flies though. Try again.

 

[Belz...]

Is not all science simply science fiction until proven otherwise?

No.

Do you really think the Lord of the Rings has a chance of being proven true history ? Or do you think that plate tectonics was fiction before it was proven ?

 

[Belz...]

What evidence do you have for consciousness being inseparable from the human brain?

How about all of human knowledge ? What amazes me is that True Believers like you never actually read the stuff that people try to teach you, so we're always right back to square 1.

Literally all of the functions of consciousness can be altered by altering the brain. Does this completely exclude the alternative ? No, but it allows us to dismiss it until someone can bring forth evidence and arguments in its favour, and something beyond "but I want it to be true..."

 

[Donn]

And that is 'the scientific way'.

Of course, this is no surprise to you - having been posting here a while. Why the pretence? I suppose you were going for sarcasm, but it's misplaced.

So called 'introspection' is of no value in determining anything important as it is far more rewarding to poke and prod and muck into the physical and observe what happens..

Is there no end to this false dilemma?

 

[bruto]

You are likely transferring.

The authority is my subjective experience in the experience.




By experiencing them as such. That is indeed WHY they are referred to as different things.




You are saying that consciousness experiences clarity but details are missing when consciousness reviews, except sometimes, because recall is notoriously unreliable when the body awakens.





I don't assume either way. My experience is that the more lucid the experience, the more detail is captured and remembered.
(The details of the experience will fade of course as time goes by, which is why many people keep records of their experiences.)
You seem to be saying that the more lucid is really an experience being remembered more clearly, because all experiences are equally lucid.

My experience is that lucid dreams do not dissolve nearly as quickly as more common ones.
As far as common connections between different experiences go, such as my case with the entity, did not occur through subsequent rationalization.



When did I make this assertion?



Well according to some, every 'thing' in the universe is physical...they claim there is no such thing as 'non physical'.
So my questions regarding your assertion is 'since you clearly do not regard the process of evolution as a "thing", what then is it and does it really exist? If it is something, how is it nothing?)




Hilite= "According to those who hand out apples saying they are onions."

It is really rather simple.

Moving with the sun, smelling like rotten meat, looking attractive to bees etc are clear signs of intelligence, and intelligence clearly signals (implies) that consciousness is involved.

That is only true if you disregard evolution and coincidentally the reciprocal nature of some things. If a flower is attractive to bees no intelligence is required if the ones that weren't died. It's all that's left. It need not be all that attractive either if it is the best flower for the bees or if the bees are hungry enough. If the bees that visit it prosper more than those that don't the bees that don't change their preference will die too. The geological record is full of huge, extensive extinctions that suggest there may well have been situations similar to our bees and flowers, in which neither party survived. We see only the successes. It's hard to subscribe to the idea of an intelligence behind evolution when the record is so filled with mass extinctions. I think you're committing a slightly less obvious form of the error of seeing a miracle in how neatly a puddle fits the hole it's in.

I think you have a philosophical handicap if you cannot conceive of a process that does not have ontological substance. At the very least, language is proving an obstacle to understanding.

 

[Donn]

Signs of intelligence. Hey it is not 'my system' ..

Yes, Navigator, it is your system. It's your personal little fiefdom of thought, the one you have dowsed and ideomotored out of your subconscious and then posted about.

If the things you have been saying are not your system, then who are you speaking for? Please don't say you're a channel for some other consciousness, have a little pride.

the universe is simply what it is and why you or anyone would want that to fail is beyond my present ability to fully understand.

So you can speak for my desire for the universe to fail? Egads, my evil must be showing. I'll have a word with the butler.

Moons, planets, Consciousness is more evident in some things than in others but is still evident.

What is evident is that you are not here to learn. That requires using your ears in proportion to your mouth.

 

[calebprime]

projecting, not transferring.

 

[Donn]

I think you have a philosophical handicap if you cannot conceive of a process that does not have ontological substance. At the very least, language is proving an obstacle to understanding.

Indeed. If all is intelligent then there is no counterpoint and the word becomes moot. If all is consciousness, then what is not, and why even label it?

Weird byte accumulating drip-fed nonsense that will giga, peta, zetta and yotta until, one day, the entire mass of the solar system groans beneath the sheer load.

 

[Navigator]

I don't think so.

You and a whole army of fellow like-minded thinkers might not think so. That alone does not make it so.

If one of us is clear but cannot explain to the other how the negation of a thing is the thing itself, we are left not speaking a common language, no matter how deep is the incommunicable wisdom. We are left with the same linguistic dead end in which nothing is a kind of something.

Is it the fault of the individual common garden variety human being (follower) that scientists (and lawyers and indeed all leadership positions) choose to invent and communicate in languages which are foreign to the individuals they have ruling positions over?

Is not not logical that when I am told by one person that there is no such thing as non physical and then told by another of their peers that some things are not things, that I am inclined towards the idea that I am being misled?

 

[Navigator]

projecting, not transferring.

True. Good to see that you got the gist of what I was saying.

Projecting. Yes. That is the word.