Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Navigator]

Could you give a couple examples of such translation?

No. I could, but prefer not to. It is not here nor there what the content of the communication is. The focus is that it works.

Are the meanings of these symbols always the same or are they dependent on context?

Essentially the meanings remain the same. Sometime the meanings change. this has more to do with my understanding changing.

 

[barehl]

Define "love", and we can necessarily study it scientifically.

Love is inclusive in terms of self identification. In other words, we see things that we love as being with us or part of us.

Love is on the whole, positive in terms of experience. In other words, we feel good about things we love more often than we feel bad.

Love is voluntarily associative. On our own, we will choose to be with or near or to experience things we love.

Love is protective. We would try within our ability to preserve and keep from harm things that we love.

Love is constructive. We would try within our ability to nurture, maintain, and improve things that we love.

 

[Daylightstar]

Love…. Period.
...

Love can be:

• Love between people

• Love for animals

• Love for doing a particular activity

• Love for potato chips

• Love for certain works of art

Which one?

 

[Pixel42]

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.

How is it verifiable?

Just in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely interested in your experiences as I've been fascinated by the ideomotor effect ever since I first encountered it. Just because I'm not (yet?) convinced by your interpretation of your experiences, that doesn't mean I'm not keen to learn more about them.

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

There's a difference between never being aware of the meaning of the symbols and not having them memorised. My impression was that you meant the latter, in which case it's not the equivalent of a blindfold test. Everything you've ever seen or heard is available to your subconscious, even if you can't consciously recall it.

 

[Jodie]

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):

I listened to the last 34 minutes, what we are talking about is not the present reality. You can't explain OBE/NDE using protons and electrons, etc.... other than how it might apply to brain physiology.

As for seeing the future, it does happen on ocassion to me, not so much now that I'm older, and it's always the most mundane or irrelevant seeming stuff. One example that was not so mundane was my dream in 1992 of riding on a train. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, actually talked to this boy, and woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school. Needless to say I could kick myself for not doing it.

Did I connect with JK Rowling and see what she had in her imagination or did a muse put the idea in several people's head hoping someone would latch on, I don't know, but it did happen.

 

[Daylightstar]

Could you give a couple examples of such translation?

No. I could, but prefer not to. It is not here nor there what the content of the communication is. The focus is that it works. ...

I wasn't asking for what you call the 'content' of this 'communication', I was asking you examples of the translation.
Please provide some translation examples of what you call your 'data'.

...
Essentially the meanings remain the same. Sometime the meanings change. this has more to do with my understanding changing.

This is not very reassuring with regard to your claimed 'data' validity:

... The data has been valid.
...
more valid than any direct interaction I have! Just because?
...

... The focus is that it works. ...

There appears to be no evidence of that whatsoever.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
As for seeing the future, it does happen on ocassion to me, not so much now that I'm older, and it's always the most mundane or irrelevant seeming stuff. One example that was not so mundane was my dream in 1992 of riding on a train. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, actually talked to this boy, and woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school. Needless to say I could kick myself for not doing it.

Did I connect with JK Rowling and see what she had in her imagination or did a muse put the idea in several people's head hoping someone would latch on, I don't know, but it did happen.

Malleable memories and confirmation bias.

 

[Nonpareil]

Love can be:

• Love between people

• Love for animals

• Love for doing a particular activity

• Love for potato chips

• Love for certain works of art

Which one?

He won't answer, and it doesn't really matter if he does. The vagueness of the definition is his only defense, as it is with ESP; so long as he fails to define what it is he's asking, he can continue claiming that no one has answered. And, of course, he follows this up by pretending that the question isn't incoherent at all, and obviously everyone else is simply wrong.

He will refuse to accept any explanation for how we are able to know that it exists, run about screaming "where's the evidence?" despite it being very simply explained to him at multiple points in other threads, and generally just ignore any arguments that refute his nonsense.

Literally everything he has posted in this thread - bar the speculation from Derakshani, which is worthless - has been gone over countless times before.

Feelings exist, we can prove feelings exist through simple observation, we know that they are the result of various chemical states in the brain, and so on. All of this has been pointed out, but he keeps bringing up "you can't prove love" as if it's anything new or as if it carries any weight at all.

Scientists like Christof Koch are currently in the process of studying how consciousness arises from computation, and the sources are readily available to anyone who wants to look for them. He has been linked to them before, along with a dozen different things about varying parts of neuroscience (such as how we know that emotions are chemical states in the brain) - but he keeps on saying "we don't know anything about it".

And so on. Belz is entirely correct when he states that annnnoid either cannot follow or does not actually care about any sort of argument presented. All he does is dig up the same nonsense over and over again and hope that people fall for it because various other posters have stopped caring enough to dig up the same links in response again and again.

 

[Daylightstar]

He won't answer, and it doesn't really matter if he does. The vagueness of the definition is his only defense, ...

I am thinking he is a she
If she's not answering in a meaningful way, I'll slap that on her another time. Although none of that may indeed make no difference whatsoever.

 

[Donn]

As for seeing the future, it does happen .. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, .. woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school.

Do you remember that dream you had about the pony who wanted to be a robot ballet-dancer?

No? Gee. I suppose that book-film has yet to be made. After that, you'd remember it.

 

[Donn]

I listened to the last 34 minutes, what we are talking about is not the present reality.

Well, yes, is is exactly what we are talking about now.

You can't explain OBE/NDE using protons and electrons, etc.

Precisely. The only thing that explains them is a special particle called a Pleadee. The spin on a pleadee must be intense, generated by a spamkowitz-trollheim field of 22.7 gee-gee-plops proportional to 00W^-1. Once spin has been accomplished, the pleadee particles gain the ability to flow from special ports along the brain called Excuses. The more excuses, the more special pleadees can flow and the more O of B the E becomes.

Remember, spin over woo to excuse special pleadees can explain anything.

You're welcome.

 

[Nonpareil]

I am thinking he is a she

Hm? Why? Have I missed something?

 

[Daylightstar]

Hm? Why? Have I missed something?

The posts simply strike me as such, I'm not aware of you having missed anything

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, yes, is is exactly what we are talking about now.




Precisely. The only thing that explains them is a special particle called a Pleadee. The spin on a pleadee must be intense, generated by a spamkowitz-trollheim field of 22.7 gee-gee-plops proportional to 00W^-1. Once spin has been accomplished, the pleadee particles gain the ability to flow from special ports along the brain called Excuses. The more excuses, the more special pleadees can flow and the more O of B the E becomes.

Remember, spin over woo to excuse special pleadees can explain anything.

You're welcome.

Pleadees are woo!-sons, right?

You should be hearing from Stockholm any day now...

 

[dlorde]

I listened to the last 34 minutes, what we are talking about is not the present reality.

If what you are talking about isn't part of reality, then I'm not really interested. Fiction and fantasy are entertaining, but I want to hear claims about reality.

You can't explain OBE/NDE using protons and electrons, etc.... other than how it might apply to brain physiology.

That's precisely the point. Brains are made of cells made of chemicals made of protons, neutrons & electrons. Anything that has an effect on a brain must interact with them in some way. When someone reports an experience of something external, it must come from something that's influenced their body or brain - or they wouldn't be able to report it. Internally generated experiences (imagination, hallucination, dreams, etc.) that are not of real external events are not directly dependent on external interaction.

As for seeing the future, it does happen on ocassion to me, not so much now that I'm older, and it's always the most mundane or irrelevant seeming stuff. One example that was not so mundane was my dream in 1992 of riding on a train. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, actually talked to this boy, and woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school. Needless to say I could kick myself for not doing it.

I think it's much more likely that your recollection of this dream and your subsequent thoughts about have been modified by repeated matching with the Harry Potter story over time, until it seems you pretty much dreamt about Harry Potter. Every time an experience is recalled, new associations are made, and earlier ones fade. This kind of thing has been shown to be very common, particularly with widely publicised media reporting, and especially where images are used. A classic example is how people's recall of their personal experiences at the time of 9/11 changed over time to match news video and reports. See Remarkable False Memories, How Accurate are Memories of 9/11, and in general, How Memories are Distorted & Invented, How Recalling Memories Alters Them, and False Autobiographical Memories.

Did I connect with JK Rowling and see what she had in her imagination or did a muse put the idea in several people's head hoping someone would latch on

No.

 

[Donn]

Pleadees are woo!-sons, right?

I should have seen it! I congratulate you sir; I have been wrong these many seconds.

The wooson is spontaneously generated when self-confidence and hubris collude. The Large Howrong Colluder generates pleadees from trillions of excuses per IP (Internet Post, a unit of time in trollheim space) which are attracted to a single wooson. Some woosons are heavier than others. (The Chopra is the largest known at this time.)

You know, or something. I'm close, I feel it.

So it be ideodowsed, so it be so!

You should be hearing from Stockholm any day now...

I want a chocolate medallion in gold foil.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I should have seen it! I congratulate you sir; I have been wrong these many seconds.

The wooson is spontaneously generated when self-confidence and hubris collude. The Large Howrong Colluder generates pleadees from trillions of excuses per IP (Internet Post, a unit of time in trollheim space) which are attracted to a single wooson. Some woosons are heavier than others. (The Chopra is the largest known at this time.)

You know, or something. I'm close, I feel it.

So it be ideodowsed, so it be so!




I want a chocolate medallion in gold foil.

 

[Navigator]

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.

I like the devil in the details. My preference is to focus on the details - I don't even need to force myself to do this. I am far too curious.
Part of that has to do with not wanting to be in a presumptive position to the point where I (ego self) might purposefully block out some parts which for one reason or another I might find too difficult to handle.
Of course, I would perhaps never be able to know for sure that I haven't done exactly that anyway. But I do know what I am left with - what I haven't blocked out, and I also know that I haven't elaborated or otherwise enhanced on the memories I do retain about those experiences. They remain the same in the telling now as they did in the moments immediately after.

But of course, while I have shared the details with some individuals since that time, I have not and do not intend (at this time at least) to share those details here.

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

I did not ask because I think you might need to remember more. I just wondered if you thought it possible that not only can memories be distorted after the fact of the experience, but also whether they can be hidden from the conscious recall of the ego self.

Probably.

I would say most likely.

We all have lucid experiences that occur while we're not dreaming - it's called being awake.

You or someone else made the point that while having a lucid dream you are aware of the fact that you are in your dream (dreaming) and even able to affect things whilst in that state - things which would not be possible to affect if the experience were physical reality.
Physical reality is called 'being awake'. Lucid dreaming is something else.

I am sure you can agree with that.

What were the circumstances - were you asleep? were you in bed?

In the normal definition of 'being asleep' I would have to say 'no', and nor was it strictly a lucid dream I was experiencing.

I think when you/I/we (the Ego self) is 'asleep' we are barely consciously aware of much, if anything at all.
That is why there are different definitions regarding experience involved with the general understanding of 'sleeping'.

I think I have already noted in this thread the circumstances regarding the experiences I had with the entity.
From memory, when I had each experience I was under the impression I was fully awake, reclined in bed, and the only reason I was aware that my body at least must have been asleep was that when the experiences ended I was aware of opening my eyes. It is a little hard to explain the feeling of being aware, seeing everything in your room, and then suddenly knowing you have opened your eyes and nothing about the room or the lighting has changed from when you were aware of it when the eyes were closed. You are not aware of your eyes having been closed until you become aware of the sensation of opening them.

You might have experienced this yourself?

 

[John Jones]

So answer the question then Nonpareil:

Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Yes
…or no.

If you are going to answer yes we will expect evidence to support the claim. What laws are violated? How?

[...].

The burden of proof is yours.

 

[Belz...]

You have a thing with ellipses, don't you ?

Love…. Period.

Love isn't one thing. It's the combination of a very complex series of processes.

…so this is referring to someone else?

Nope. You're stuck between two misunderstandings, here. I suggest you re-read my post more carefully.

…EVIDENCE.

Do you promise to actually have a look at it and try to understand it this time, or are you going to ignore and hand-wave it again ? I ask because I don't like spending energy on tasks that are both useless and unentertaining.

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.

Again, they are things as in they are processes. Perhaps you'd care quoting us and we can see if you misunderstood something again.

Have you now changed your mind????

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

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)?

Before asking this question you should attempt to establish that there's a difference.

See, here the problem is that you assume that your sensations are more than the sum of their physical parts, hence why you are so incredulous when others suggest that they are not.

Oh no…more insults and ridicule.

I suppose you can see it that way, but that was an assessment of your behaviour. I have never seen you make a substantive post.

BTW Belz….I noticed you didn’t provide an answer to the ‘number 1’ thingy.

The what now ?

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)?

I don't even understand what the **** it is you're asking. Calm down and write more intelligibly, please.