Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Navigator]

File attachment.

File did not attach to last post.

 

[Nonpareil]

Are you folks really that incapable of supporting your own claims????

Is there, or is there not, some variety of science that has the capacity to directly adjudicate / quantify the phenomenon we experience as ‘love’.

My claim is very simple: no.

And you are wrong.

Define "love", and we can necessarily study it scientifically. That you do not have a sufficiently rigorous definition is not a blow against science, as you pretend it to be. As it is, we still determine that love exists through observation, though the definitions and conclusions are necessarily vague. We can observe someone's behavior and ascertain that they are in love within certain bounds of confidence that suffice in day-to-day activity.

But we've already established that you don't recognize differences in degrees of formality within the scientific process. You also see the vagueness of the word "love" as proof that it is impossible to ever know anything about it objectively, which is complete nonsense.

And it's the same thing with your claims of ESP. No definition. No claim. By necessity, no refutation - but you then turn around and argue that, because we cannot refute an undefined claim, then it must be taken as true.

Which is, again, complete nonsense.

…but the mechanism is not defined. Not anywhere, anyhow, by anyone.

Many people have attempted to define it.

These definitions either run up against the laws of physics (the vast majority of cases) or are the equivalent of running your finger over your lips and making "blr-blr-blr" noises.

That you do not attempt to define it does not change this.

And it is in no way a reason to believe that it exists.

…interesting isn’t it. This ‘weak’ quote has got everybody running for the bunkers.

You are deluded.

 

[Navigator]

OK, your board has more devices on it but it's still a Ouija board.

In relation to this process, the more symbols one has the better the communication will be.

Why is the unconscious more knowledgeable than the conscious.

I find the description 'unconsicous' to be at odds with intelligent conscious communication.

Something which can communicated intelligently is not unconscious.

If you can agree with that then we can perhaps find a place where this can be discussed, examined and likely answers provided.

 

[Navigator]

Some schizophrenics say the same thing about the voices in their head. Are they communing with their 'true self'? What about the ones whose voices are cruel and abusive?

I have not experienced such have you?

I would have to posit that the cruelty would likely be associated with the ego self.

No wait! I do recall as a young child distinctly hearing a nasty male voice in my ear which said 'I hate you'. However that might have been a memory of a real event sometime before it superimposed itself into that particular moment.
I don't know.
My experience re ideomotor and communication is not about hearing voices. No nasty expression has ever been transmitted to me through that process.

Why are you always so vague and evasive? Just explain what you mean. Unless, as I strongly suspect, you don't have the faintest idea what you mean.

 

[Navigator]

Last post before sleep. I have all along been trying to communicate humility to you in your use of the definite things you say.

So, you need not say "false", you can still speak of your experiences, but do two things:
1. When others correct your terms, try to start using the more standard terms. Maverick nouns are painful.
2. When you want to say "What I say is true," say instead, "What I say is true as far as I can see it."

That's it. Too trd for else.

Good. What I say is true as far as I have experienced it.

Sleep well.

 

[Pixel42]

I have not experienced such have you?

No, but like you I once heard a voice when I was a child. It just said my name.

My experience re ideomotor and communication is not about hearing voices. No nasty expression has ever been transmitted to me through that process.

The mechanism for communication may be different but the essense of the phenomenon - separating an aspect of your own mind and then seeming to communicate with it - is the same.

Incidentally what you described does not constitute a blindfold test; for that you would need to be unaware of where any of the symbols were as you selected them whether you had consciously memorized them or not.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
How the symbols translate into intelligent communication is in their collective meanings. Some individual symbols may mean just one word (translated into English) others mean whole paragraphs (also translated into English.)
...
Once the end of the session was reached I could then begin the process of translating the symbol strings into English and from that, determine the content of the communication.
...

Could you give a couple examples of such translation?
Are the meanings of these symbols always the same or are they dependent on context?

 

[Slowvehicle]

annnoid:

You have ignored (or evaded) two questions,to which I would truly appreciate an answer:

1. Where did your friend the graduate student originally publish or post the entire message from which you took the quote that includes the phrase:

I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs...

I had hopes of hearing from you, that I might read the entirety of the statement, in context.

2. What kind of theoretical physics is your friend the graduate student studying?

Ta ever so...

 

[annnnoid]

That's one of the stupidest things you've posted in a while. So what you are saying is that if you ask a question, and I give an answer, you take it as a claim, don't check it or verify it, and assume that it's false. Way to stay ignorant.

So I am stupid and ignorant…all in one sentence.

It isn't claimed. It's demonstrated. Science _HAS_ explained a LOT of the physical activity of the brain that generates consciousness. It just hasn't explained it ALL. _YOU_ want to hide in that gap and make it magic. It's your problem, not mine.

The standard skeptic tactic: claim to have produced evidence on some mythical thread somewhere in the last hundred years.

Here’s one of my pieces of evidence…for those who complain I don’t produce any. From the book Human Brain Function. Written by eight practicing neuroscientists:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers...

Over to you Belz. What evidence to you have to back up your crap?

….here…why don’t we make it really simple for you.

So far nobody has come up with an answer, but you're sounding real optimistic with your ‘Science _HAS_ explained a LOT of the physical activity of the brain that generates consciousness.’

Does, or does not, science have the explanatory capacity to conclusively and explicitly describe the neural activity that generates the cognitive condition known as the number...

....1.

There, couldn't get much more simple than that. I didn't hit you with complex manifolds, algebraic varieties, sheaves, vector bundles, Kahler manifolds, vanishing theorems, the Kodaira embedding theorem, the Riemann-Roch theorem, or even deformation theory.

Just...the number...1.

….surely….surely…since SCIENCE has explained so much…it must have achieved the ability to map the generation of such a simple cognitive condition.

…surely!

Knock yourself out Belz. If you can’t even manage that…I’m sure not gonna believe science can do all that other crap that you keep screaming about.

That is a lie. Myself and others have done so but you ignore the answers because they don't fit with what you already believe.

Wow…so now I’m not only stupid and ignorant, but I’m also a liar. Dontcha think you oughta calm down a bit there Belz.

…amazing really. How often I get this ‘but we’ve already presented the evidence’ crap. But no evidence ever appears…ever.

Love is chemical. Get over it.

…but Belz. Have you forgotten so soon???? In a previous thread you and Pixy explicitly agreed that feelings were things in and of themselves.

…so how can it be measured? So far no one has provided an answer. Surely your genius must be up to such a simple task.

Why do you keep dragging out this strawman to pummel?

Claims are made. Evidence is never produced. Perhaps you can provide some?

And you are wrong.

Define "love", and we can necessarily study it scientifically. That you do not have a sufficiently rigorous definition is not a blow against science, as you pretend it to be. As it is, we still determine that love exists through observation, though the definitions and conclusions are necessarily vague. We can observe someone's behavior and ascertain that they are in love within certain bounds of confidence that suffice in day-to-day activity.

Love is that which I experience when I experience love. The exact same as it is for everyone else who experiences it.

Precisely what other definition is there for a thing other than the thing itself?

Love….is….love.

Explain how it can be scientifically measured – with actual evidence (FOR ONCE!) – or admit your claims are, as usual, a steaming load of pig droppings.

But we've already established that you don't recognize differences in degrees of formality within the scientific process. You also see the vagueness of the word "love" as proof that it is impossible to ever know anything about it objectively, which is complete nonsense.

…yet another ‘how can I make it look like I know what I’m talking about when I actually have no idea what I’m talking about’.

Here’s a suggestion Nonpareil:

PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE!

And it's the same thing with your claims of ESP. No definition. No claim. By necessity, no refutation - but you then turn around and argue that, because we cannot refute an undefined claim, then it must be taken as true.

Which is, again, complete nonsense.

Illiterate garbage.

Many people have attempted to define it.

These definitions either run up against the laws of physics (the vast majority of cases) or are the equivalent of running your finger over your lips and making "blr-blr-blr" noises.

I wonder how many times you can avoid a simple question.

There are folks who insist that OBE’s violate the laws of physics. They don’t give a damn whether or not anybody has defined OBE’s beyond what the letters stand for: ‘out of body experience’. They don’t give a damn whether anyone has presented any kind of mechanism. That is all the definition they need to conclude that OBE’s violate the laws of physics. Sean Carroll would be one of those.

Sean Carroll doesn’t care whether they’re defined by three letters or three hundred million letters. He doesn’t care what mechanism anyone comes up with…or doesn’t. Sean Carroll says they violate the laws of physics. Full stop.

Do you agree with Sean Carroll?

Yes…or….no?

annnoid:

You have ignored (or evaded) two questions,to which I would truly appreciate an answer:

1. Where did your friend the graduate student originally publish or post the entire message from which you took the quote that includes the phrase:

I had hopes of hearing from you, that I might read the entirety of the statement, in context.

2. What kind of theoretical physics is your friend the graduate student studying?

Ta ever so...

Published in the inbox of my email.

Currently studying stochastic quantization theories and semiclassical gravity.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Published in the inbox of my email.

Is that it, then, in its entirety?

Currently studying stochastic quantization theories and semiclassical gravity.

Ta ever so.

 

[Donn]

File did not attach to last post.

Whatever else is going on, you are a gifted illustrator. Have you ever designed icons sets? I get the feeling you'd be very good at it; logo design and general design too.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Love is that which I experience when I experience love. The exact same as it is for everyone else who experiences it.
...

Are you referring to love for another person (your husband for instance)?

 

[Belz...]

So I am stupid and ignorant…all in one sentence.

Nope.

The standard skeptic tactic: claim to have produced evidence on some mythical thread somewhere in the last hundred years.

The standard denier tactic: ignore answers and claim that no one has provided them.

The very fact that you say no one has answered shows that you are not debating honestly.

Wow…so now I’m not only stupid and ignorant, but I’m also a liar.

If it bothers you so much, stop doing it.

…but Belz. Have you forgotten so soon???? In a previous thread you and Pixy explicitly agreed that feelings were things in and of themselves.

Chemical reactions aren't "things" ?

It seems to me that your principal problem is that you can't follow the arguments. I suppose that's why you ignore them and pretend they don't exist: you can't even tell what they mean.

 

[turingtest]

On the contrary. It may compel the one asking to think specifically about what it is exactly they are wanting and whether they are being realistic or simply using the catch phrase as a way of not having to think about that.




If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no evidence that the process is intelligent and accept that it is just a random thing which happens because of processes which are not evidently intelligent.

In other words it is a favored point of view which you have adopted as true.

So my question, "what kind of evidence would you accept", is valid enough. What would YOU accept as evidence of intelligence (and therefore consciousness) being involved in the process?

If you can give me an indication, , I will be able to ascertain how realistic you are being in your request.




That is contradictory. If you are asking for evidence, you would of course be ignorant of there being any (thus you are asking.) Otherwise you know there is evidence but are not saying so, which is dishonest and slippery.


So in order for me to offer any form of evidence I have to know what kind of evidence you would accept, otherwise whatever I give as evidence can be rejected by you as not being legitimate ie, not fitting nicely into your particular subjective world view.

I have mentioned a couple of examples where I can identify intelligence involved with the process and thus I see as evidence of intelligence and you have rejected those, saying that such things can happen without intelligence. Your ( and anyone's) rejection of that does not mean that I am incorrect or should refrain from seeing intelligence in the process of biological evolution.

Huh. All those words, and still no evidence offered, just more insistence that someone else tell you what the evidence should be; imagine that. Pixel42 has said everything I would have said, the main point being her "parsimony" post- but then, that's a point that woos can never really seem to grasp. I would add only that one good example of your "theory" that evolution is directed by an intelligence or consciousness would be something like a crocoduck- something that the long, slow, undirected crawl of evolution, as understood, would never result in.

But, as I've said before, instead of all this wordy palavering over what evidence would be acceptable, why not just man up and say what you have? From what I've seen so far, all you have or have offered is inference; prove me wrong. Or don't- it's your investment, not mine.

 

[dlorde]

Do you believe there is any need to remember anything else about them or is this sufficient enough to know you had an experience?

They were dreams. I feel no more need to remember anything else about them than I do what I was wearing the next day. Sufficiency isn't relevant; I simply have memories of a few particularly striking lucid dreams.

Why do you ask? what makes you feel I might 'need' to remember more?

Therefore in as much as you remember salient points and associated emotions, what is remembered is only a small portion of what was actually experienced.

Probably.

my experiences were not the same as lucid dreams. The experiences were lucid, but I was not in a dream.

We all have lucid experiences that occur while we're not dreaming - it's called being awake. What were the circumstances - were you asleep? were you in bed?

 

[annnnoid]

Are you referring to love for another person (your husband for instance)?

Love…. Period.

Nope.

That's one of the stupidest things you've posted in a while. So what you are saying is that if you ask a question, and I give an answer, you take it as a claim, don't check it or verify it, and assume that it's false. Way to stay ignorant.

…so this is referring to someone else?

The standard denier tactic: ignore answers and claim that no one has provided them.

The very fact that you say no one has answered shows that you are not debating honestly.

…but I didn’t say that now did I Belz. Here…I’ll use your words to describe it:

That's one of the stupidest ….ignorant.

lie (s)

.. I’m afraid you’ve made the, I’m sure, unintentional mistake of posting here.

If you look back at what I’ve said…over and over and over and over and over and over…I said that certain individuals (typically you and Nonpareil) post answers with no…

…EVIDENCE.

Be sure an let me know when you want to produce some evidence…instead of excuses, complaints, bare assertions, hand-waving, special pleading…y’know…general garbage.

Chemical reactions aren't "things" ?

Oh no! I’m sure hoping we’re not going to have to open this can of worms again. On a previous thread both you and Nonpareil and Pixy and others agreed that feelings exist as things in and of themselves.

Have you now changed your mind????

When you experience the phenomenon known as ‘love’ (assuming you do of course), do you experience ‘love’…or do you experience exphalodimetaimpoduotriquantadypllloxxiphetamdooploploplopploplop (or whatever it is)?

It seems to me that your principal problem is that you can't follow the arguments. I suppose that's why you ignore them and pretend they don't exist: you can't even tell what they mean.

Oh no…more insults and ridicule.

I suppose it would, as usual, be too much to ask that you provide some EVIDENCE to support these claims.

…which arguments can’t I follow? Which arguments do I ignore? Which arguments do I not comprehend?

Unless you can provide evidence the invisible moderator in the sky is going to have assume you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

BTW Belz….I noticed you didn’t provide an answer to the ‘number 1’ thingy. What’s up with that? Has science not yet arrived at an explanation for something as immeasurably, incomprehensibly, indisputably, indescribably, simple, straightforward, elementary, and basic…

…as

…..the

…….number

………1…!

(BTW…’yes’ does not qualify as an answer)

Come on now...did you or did you not say the following:

Science _HAS_ explained a LOT of the physical activity of the brain that generates consciousness.

(...that's called an academic question...quite obviously you said it)

Since, as you insist, science is so far along in it's understanding of how the brain generates consciousness....it must have arrived at an explanation for something as utterly rudimentary as the 'number 1' eons ago.

So lay it on us Sherlock. What's the answer (WITH EVIDENCE)?

 

[dlorde]

…interesting isn’t it. This ‘weak’ quote has got everybody running for the bunkers. Why don’t you scroll back a few pages and take a moment to count the number of ad homimen’s that have been thrown his way.

I'm not interested in other poster's ad-homs. If they trouble you, talk to them, not me.

Not too mention…not a single participant has made a single challenge to a single point he made.

If the argument is so ‘weak’…why doesn’t someone here challenge it instead of taking the truly impressive approach of endlessly complaining / implying that the author is not qualified to make the argument.

There's not really much to challenge. He makes a couple of barely coherent speculations about hard to detect effects ("E&M vacuum energy ... correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever. ...If (say) the medium for OBEs ... was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy") and says he, "can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities...".

In my opinion, quantum field theory does, by excluding these influences from relevant interactions at human scales. OBEs and similar human experiences, if not imaginary, must involve some consistent and coherent interaction with the brain. Dark matter is too weakly interacting; dark energy is effectively a uniform effect at human scales, much like gravity; 'vacuum energy field mode correlations or whatever' sounds like sciency word salad to me, but assuming he's talking about quantum fluctuations, not only are they random, but way too short range to be relevant - as Ken Wilson showed in the early 1980s.

For a more complete explanation of the reasons behind my view, see Sean Carroll's video below (if you don't want to watch the whole thing, the specifically relevant part starts at 34 minutes):

 

[Donn]

Love…. Period.

That clear it up for anyone?


Didn't think so.

 

[Donn]

In my opinion, quantum field theory does, by excluding these influences from relevant interactions at human scales. OBEs and similar human experiences, if not imaginary, must involve some consistent and coherent interaction with the brain. Dark matter is too weakly interacting; dark energy is effectively a uniform effect at human scales, much like gravity; 'vacuum energy field mode correlations or whatever' sounds like sciency word salad to me, but assuming he's talking about quantum fluctuations, not only are they random, but way too short range to be relevant - as Ken Wilson showed in the early 1980s.

I am not a science boffin, but that's my basic standpoint too.

I can't go as far as nixing any possible channel for a signal/interaction because I just don't have the expertise. I accept that a) there's no evidence for such interaction, b) should something interesting happen in the field, I'll hear about it and I can begin to enquire.

Until then, brain does mind.

 

[Navigator]

The mechanism for communication may be different but the essense of the phenomenon - separating an aspect of your own mind and then seeming to communicate with it - is the same.

Suit yourself.

Apparently the separation is not something which is purposefully done by the individual, who is unconscious of the separation process.
The separation is real enough. Ego self is indeed separated from the knowledge of real self.
There is no 'seeming to communicate' involved. It is actual communication which is verifiable.

Incidentally what you described does not constitute a blindfold test; for that you would need to be unaware of where any of the symbols were as you selected them whether you had consciously memorized them or not.

Here nor there really. Obviously if you are unaware of the meaning of the symbols, this acts as a blinder.