Subconsciousness and Humanity.

[Navigator]

That more OBEs aren't experienced is a testament to how amazing the brain really is.

One tiny difference and we'd all be having OBEs constantly and failing to navigate regular reality.

Yes - and this is exactly why the thread topic OP says what it does.



Still 'OBEs' do happen, and are clues to a speculated bigger reality as my previous post explained.

 

[Navigator]

Don't underestimate the creative powers of the imagination & subconscious. Consider the paucity of information that comes in through the senses, and the apparently seamless world the brain generates from the timing of those electrical pulses. Consider the extraordinary environments and constructions of dreams.

I see no reason to suppose what you have described is not similarly a product of the imagination - not necessarily a conscious or deliberate act of imagination, but an internally generated construct all the same.

Ah – the ‘Imagination’ and ‘Subconsciousness’ even less understood than the Consciousness perhaps?
Do Imagination and Subconsciousness work separately from the brain?

If not, then they cannot construct imagery experiences outside physical experience or will need a far more comprehensive explanation as to why they can than simply ‘it is the imagination and subconsciousness’ because that ‘explanation’ alone is about as good as ‘◊◊◊◊ happens’ – it’s just not science.

I prefer the more honest “there are a lot of questions there, most of which need a lot more discussion” approach.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't think there's a very large issue.
◊◊◊◊ does happen; that's a brevity of a rather long list of normal neurological hiccups that occur in our brains every day.

I gave much more reason than this.
Imagination does permit us to step outside of normal conditions into the fantastic as well as the pragmatic simulation.

I don't think we need to speculate extreme conditions beyond normal events to explain these matters; we're doing pretty well explaining them as we go by just sticking to the physical and studying just that.

I agree that more discussion is needed, and more study is needed, but we don't need to speculate into regions that are far beyond testing capability.

We can simply stick to what's capable of being tested and account for that.

So far, I'm not seeing anything in the OBE that doesn't make sense according to standard neurology today.

 

[Navigator]

I don't think we need to speculate extreme conditions beyond normal events to explain these matters; we're doing pretty well explaining them as we go by just sticking to the physical and studying just that.

Of course Jas. That is entirely up to the individual how they wish to see things. *This Physicist sees things another way from how you see things.
No problem there. I am sure you want your beliefs about what you see to be respected. Every believer does. Whatever it is they believe.

I understand this. I did not mean to appear off-handed about things.

‘◊◊◊◊ Happens’ said another way is “I don’t know” .

I agree that more discussion is needed, and more study is needed, but we don't need to speculate into regions that are far beyond testing capability.

I am comfortable with going into those speculative realms putting *data together to get a better picture of these which cannot be easily tested.
Others take the more *deterministic approach etc...and that is perfectly fine.

We can simply stick to what's capable of being tested and account for that.

That helps with building the future. As long as it isn’t causing harm, I don’t see any problem.

So far, I'm not seeing anything in the OBE that doesn't make sense according to standard neurology today.

Well it makes enough sense to become a fixed belief in your psyche and OBE is of no relevance to those beliefs.

Neurology is helpful for other purposes - for explaining brains. You can believe that what is been observed can only have one absolute answer anchored in the physical universe, but you can never know for sure.

That is why it is belief.

I would encourage you to take a look and listen to This Physicist

 

[JaysonR]

My overall point was that we have OBEs all but fully accounted for.
Consciousness, not so much.
OBE, on the other hand, pretty well documented.

"◊◊◊◊ happens" didn't mean, "don't know", in the sense of we can't figure out what happens with OBE.
It meant two things:
Firstly, that people aren't walking around daily in a scanner like ankle monitors so we can't see what happened at the moment of OBE in 100% of claimed cases.

However, based on what we have observed, we can reason the same thing happens in those cases as those that have been studied and based on what we know of the brain.

Secondly, it was more a statement that even with a perfectly good brain, errors of data processing happens daily; multiple times a day actually.

 

[Navigator]

My overall point was that we have OBEs all but fully accounted for.

All...But

 

[JaysonR]

If you're referring to afterlife OBE, then that's something entirely different than OBE.
That's the idea of consciousness existing regardless of the body, which isn't really the same thing as an OBE.
An OBE is precluded by the concept that the body still exists and is returned to.
It's an "out of body experience", but not identical with "no longer using my body".

(I haven't the opportunity to watch the two hour lecture at this point, so I'm working off of the summary)

 

[Navigator]

If you're referring to afterlife OBE, then that's something entirely different than OBE.

I have been speaking about this in that light of course. I have mentioned it enough in this and most likely other threads.

“OBE” is OBE. The only difference between the two is that one happens and the person experiencing it can report about it. The speculation is that it might be the way things happen after the death of the body.
If one is induced through scientific prodding – it shows the area of the brain associated with OBE and if someone is wired up and self induces OBE I would suppose that the same area of the brain can be seen to show a reaction.
If someone was wired up who is dying and just before their death the same area of the brain may be seen to show a reaction before the brain dies, and then upon the death of the brain that area (and every other area of the brain) shows no reaction due to the fact that it has died.

This will show what it always shows.

‘Afterlife’ or ‘the consciousness existing on’ isn’t proved or disproved by such observation and cannot be.

What those who are very skilled and experienced with ‘OBE’ as I said, understand it is not really OBE (when you get the time do listen to that vid) but something else entirely.

Every one of them – including Tom Campbell, understand the whole process as evident of consciousness carrying on. They don’t believe it. It is not about belief. It is about experience and not just one or three times – many times. They approach it and experience it within the mind set of scientific investigation. They are scientific about it, even while within the experience.

If it is all just a brain thing, then there is so much interactive experience and totally unknowable unrecognisable realities then the brain is way too amazing. So amazing it may as well be regarded as a worthy object of sincere worship.

Again:

If it were just imagination and Subconsciousness then such experiences just couldn’t happen. Imagination – individual imagination cannot simply create the unrecognisable, unearthly, non existent on this planet - imagery. Imagination relies on imagery which comes from this physical experience and builds on those images.

Like with the pink unicorn. It looks like something familiar that does exist on this planet.
Or bug-like aliens. I cannot think of anything which has been imagined which cannot be connected with some physical thing on this planet.
Even if there are, then it does not necessarily explain then that imagination is what made that so. Imagination had something to do with the process of ‘making it real’ on paper, or in film and artwork. But I still cannot think of anything off the top of my head that is so completely unconnected to physical reality which has come from the imagination.

But anyway, I have things to do right now too. One last thing – it is not always the case that an OBE is precluded by the concept that the body still exists and is returned to. I have read accounts where people forget they even came from a body.

 

[JaysonR]

I can't agree that OBE is OBE even without a body present.
In one case, the body is present, and the biological provocation can be well accounted for.
In the other case, we can't even verify that an OBE is happening because there's no person to empirically talk to and test.
There is simply another person's claim of contacting some other consciousness.
The most we could do in the second case is attempt to test the reporting individual, but so far every person tested seems to be a rather poor selection as they often claim some sort of reason as to why they can't get things going under lab conditions.

We don't have a single recorded case that I'm aware of whereby a subject is studied as they interact with their experience of communicating with the alleged non-body consciousness; which, honestly, I would be rather interested to see those brain readouts.


Regarding imagination:
What exactly about an OBE requires such an extraordinary exemption for imagination?
There's nothing in an OBE that really indicates needing anything more than what the brain already does regularly regarding spatial prediction, and considering that the same region of the brain is incredibly active during OBE, I'm even less understanding of why you think there's a need for the OBE to be so extraordinary as to not be possible for the brain to produce.

Is anyone coming back from OBEs and reporting things that they can't even put into words or describe even the basic concept of?

 

[dlorde]

Do Imagination and Subconsciousness work separately from the brain?

The evidence suggests not. 'Subconscious' could be defined as those cognitive functions of the brain we are not consciously aware of, so if you want to go down the 'external to the brain' route, it would be better to use a different word.

If not, then they cannot construct imagery experiences outside physical experience or will need a far more comprehensive explanation as to why they can than simply ‘it is the imagination and subconsciousness’ because that ‘explanation’ alone is about as good as ‘◊◊◊◊ happens’ – it’s just not science.

The burden of proof applies here. You assert that internal brain functions 'cannot construct imagery experiences outside physical experience'. Presumably you mean experiences people have described; I'm not sure precisely what you mean by 'outside physical experience' - can you explain, or give an example?

However, without a plausible supporting argument or, preferably, evidence, for your assertion, it is likely to be taken as an argument from incredulity. I know of no evidence of any such external influence on cognition besides the known senses, and no plausible model of how such an influence could exist outside the brain and influence its operation as you imply (besides deliberate manipulation via TCS, etc). The burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your claim.

I prefer the more honest “there are a lot of questions there, most of which need a lot more discussion” approach.

It's not a question of honesty, but of following the evidence. I'm not well up on studies of creativity and imagination in the brain, but if there is not yet a reasonable understanding of it, we should simply say we don't yet know.

 

[dlorde]

Is anyone coming back from OBEs and reporting things that they can't even put into words or describe even the basic concept of?

I'm not sure that's a useful question, for two reasons - firstly, anyone can say they've had an experience to weird to describe; there's no way to confirm this. Secondly, I regularly have dream experiences that I'm unable to coherently describe later.

If someone was to produce verifiable information they could not have gained any other way than an OBE, it might be worth taking more literally, but it's very difficult to test this. The Aware study started in 2008 and was touted as a serious attempt to do something similar, aiming to report in 2011 or early 2012. The latest update says "the study is progressing well but [they] have indicated that the results so far suggest more data and larger scale studies may be required. At this time, they anticipate being able to release the preliminary results obtained during the first five years of the study in September or October 2013". I hope they do publish preliminary results soon, but I'm somewhat skeptical. I can't help feeling they'd have already published if they had even a few unequivocal positives. Without published information on the protocols, controls, intended analysis, and criteria for success or failure, it all seems a bit vague. We'll see.

 

[JaysonR]

I understand; I'm just trying to learn why Navigator thinks OBEs are so unique as to be incapable of being produced by the brain's imagination.
I'm not understanding that angle, so I'm just taking guesses, but mostly interested in what exactly is involved in the OBE that is really beyond the capability of imagination.

What confuses me is that Nav states that we can't imagine something that hasn't any observed correlation.
Granting that axiom, it causes me to firstly wonder how an OBE fits this description of producing something that we can't imagine.


On a related note: a study was just published, "Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain"

Here's the results section of the publication.

Results
Cardiac Arrest Stimulates a Well-Organized Series of High-Frequency
EEG Events in Rat Brain.To explore the electrophysiological state of
the brain following cardiac arrest, we monitored EEG signals over
the frontal, parietal, and occipital cortices bilaterally in rats during
wakefulness, anesthesia, and cardiac arrest. Unprocessed EEG
data from a representative rat is shown in Fig. 1. Following the
onset of cardiac arrest (time 0 in all panels of Fig. 1), the EEG
maintained normal amplitudes for 3 s before transitioning to
a period of low-amplitude and high-frequency oscillations for
up to 30 s (Fig. 1B). We divided this early cardiac arrest period
into four sequential and distinct states that were found in nine
of nine animals examined (Fig. 1 B and C): cardiac arrest state
1 (CAS1), which began at the last heartbeat and terminated at
the loss of oxygenated blood pulse (the dashed line in Fig. 1B)
when EEG signals showed marked reduction in amplitude; CAS2,
which terminated with a characteristic short burst of delta waves
(what we term the “delta blip”); CAS3, which ended when EEG
amplitude dropped below 10 μV; and finally, CAS4, which featured EEG signals (below 10 μV) that were indistinguishable
from signals at 1,200 s after cardiac arrest (Fig. 1C). Each state
exhibited stereotyped frequencies that were conserved across
all rats examined. Unlike the anesthetized state (Fig. 1C, Left),
CAS1 exhibited elevated gamma oscillations near 130 Hz in all six
EEG channels. The CAS2 period, in contrast, exhibited theta
oscillations mixed with high-frequency gamma oscillations across
all channels. CAS3 was dominated by EEG signals in the lowgamma frequency range (35–50 Hz) that were highly synchronous
and appeared to be coupled to theta oscillations across all EEG channels. CAS4 was composed of mostly 300-Hz signals that
persisted for as long as recording was continued (up to 18 h). The
mean durations of each of these states were 4 s (±2 s) for CAS1,
6s(±1 s) for CAS2, 1.7 s (±0.7 s) for delta blip, and 20 s (±1 s)
for CAS3. Thus, cardiac arrest induces an organized sequence of
neurophysiologic events that was consistent across all rats studied.
These data also suggest that this sequence includes at least two
clearly defined and distinct state transitions (from CAS1 to CAS2
and from CAS2 to CAS3).

Essentially, what they found is that at the moment of death, the brain surges with a massive amount of current.
Or, to cite the lead author's comments:

A lot of people thought that the brain after clinical death was inactive or hypoactive, with less activity than the waking state, and we show that is definitely not the case.

If anything, it is much more active during the dying process than even the waking state.

As with the electrode over the PTJ and angular gyrus, once again we find a hypersurge of current correlating with the event where such experiences are reported.

To cite the publication:

Cardiac Arrest Stimulates a Marked Surge of Global Coherence of EEG Signals.

All regions are hit with massive increase of charge greater than that of a waking state.
That would absolutely cause abnormal interpretation of perception and sensation.

And this doesn't even count chemical dumps occurring at the same time.


I would be a bit surprised if someone coming back from almost dying, with all of these considerations, didn't have extreme sensational experiences.

Now, this was only done in lab rats, because we can't do first pass tests on humans for this kind of stuff; meaning, we can't purposefully kill humans just to see what happens.
That said, they are going to move to human testing soon as best as they can.

 

[Navigator]

The evidence suggests not. 'Subconscious' could be defined as those cognitive functions of the brain we are not consciously aware of, so if you want to go down the 'external to the brain' route, it would be better to use a different word.

A different word than what?

The burden of proof applies here. You assert that internal brain functions 'cannot construct imagery experiences outside physical experience'.

Well then if that is the case, then since you brought it up as a way of explaining what you think is occurring in relation to constructed imagery, imagination and subconsciousness, show me evidence of something which comes from these which can be identified as not be related in any way to the physical experience.
I already said I couldn’t think of even one thing.

Presumably you mean experiences people have described; I'm not sure precisely what you mean by 'outside physical experience' - can you explain, or give an example?

No – I mean experiences people have had which they cannot describe because there is nothing in physical experience which can be related to these experiences.
The best people can do is to create metaphors which go a little way in attempting to explain the unexplainable.
Tom Campbell does this with his Theory of everything. He uses computers and programs as metaphor.
Even my own experiences have element which can’t be fully explained as ‘invention of the brain’ but I have examined the ‘if my brain is doing this, why, and what is it trying to tell me?’ (its consciousness) in regard to my own experiences.

However, without a plausible supporting argument or, preferably, evidence, for your assertion, it is likely to be taken as an argument from incredulity.

Only by those who have secured belief systems which are locked into dogmatism.
Skeptics will just take the data and continue to remain sceptically neutral.

I know of no evidence of any such external influence on cognition besides the known senses, and no plausible model of how such an influence could exist outside the brain and influence its operation as you imply (besides deliberate manipulation via TCS, etc). The burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your claim.

What claim? The claim that I have had OBE?

It's not a question of honesty, but of following the evidence. I'm not well up on studies of creativity and imagination in the brain, but if there is not yet a reasonable understanding of it, we should simply say we don't yet know.

I haven’t said otherwise. I have said I don’t know. It would be remiss of me to wait for scientists to find out. In the mean time I can do what I can do to gather data, read up on peoples experiences, factor in my own and speculate on possibilities.

The argument for the brain being the thing which creates all of these experiences for the consciousness aspect of it, in relation to the landscapes it is able to create for consciousness to explore and interact with, the unearthly entities which can be interacted with, the completely realistic and even ‘more real’ experiences it is able to induce really only points to the possibility that everything called ‘the physical universe’ (including ‘the brain’ and how consciousness ‘sees’ the brain,) could also be a simulation of this most amazing thing which – if it can do all these things, must also be able to make you think you are experiencing what you call ‘the physical universe.’ and think your are a character, an individual, with memories and beliefs - sitting reading this right now, in a ‘place’ in a ‘time’ as a ‘human’.

How about that!

We just don’t know, and scientists haven’t been able to figure out how to make it so we do know absolutely.

 

[JaysonR]

No – I mean experiences people have had which they cannot describe because there is nothing in physical experience which can be related to these experiences.
The best people can do is to create metaphors which go a little way in attempting to explain the unexplainable.

Even my own experiences have element which can’t be fully explained as ‘invention of the brain’ but I have examined the ‘if my brain is doing this, why, and what is it trying to tell me?’ (its consciousness) in regard to my own experiences.

Why do you assume that something which an individual can't articulate is therefore beyond their imaginative capability?

I don't follow the logic here, so I'm not able to follow very well.
There's lots of experiences that are ineffable in human experience regularly.
We have them so frequently that we have that very word for those kinds of things, and we also have plenty of poetry and art which focus on such experiences.

I'm not sure why it's being decided that if someone can't articulate what they experienced, that they therefore couldn't have imagined the experience, and that therefore the experience must have been beyond the physical capacity.

Someone may be incapable of cognitively imagining quite a bit of things, but that doesn't mean their brain is incapable of producing experiences and sensations which are ineffable for the individual.
Many dreams are ineffable, as well as conditions where someone knows a piece of information but doesn't know how they knew that information.

For instance, there was study done on an Indycar driver who avoided a terrible accident he never saw.
The reason for why he stopped was ineffable to him; he could not account for why he knew that he needed to stop.

However, further simulation testing revealed that his unconscious (or, subconscious) processing picked up on the fact that the audience was reacting to a massive accident, even though he was driving at extreme speeds which would make it practically impossible to cognitively take note of that sensory input.

Had the driver never been studied, he would still have no idea how he knew to stop.
It would just remain ineffable to him; a premonition or divine intervention.

Yet, because a team was present to study the case, and thanks to current scientific capabilities, what was ineffable to the driver, was not ineffable to the scientists.


For the extreme example, DMT almost always produces ineffable experiences and DMT consumption is a chemical alteration of the way the brain processes information; like any drug.
The only real difference with DMT is the extremity of the experiences, and that DMT exists in the brain naturally.


So my quandary is two-fold:
Firstly, we have ineffable experiences pretty often that are entirely physically based.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, why would we assume that if we alter the processing of the brain, that one would be capable of articulating the experience during that time when they are returned to their normal cognitive state?
If I routed math equations through my angular gyrus for five minutes, upon restoration of my normal routing, I would very likely be completely incapable of telling you what that experience was like.
Yet, the experience is very physical.


For example of this, Scott Flansburg is an individual who is very unique in that he processes mathematical equations in his brain using the motor cortex.
As a result, Flansburg can not only beat humans to calculation results, but he can beat humans using computers and calculators to the calculation results.

If you ask him to describe how he becomes aware of the information, he will describe a very vague and essentially ineffable account.

Despite his inability to articulate the experience, we can account for what's going on in his brain as being a physical product of the brain and not coming from some non-physical source.

 

[Navigator]

Why do you assume that something which an individual can't articulate is therefore beyond their imaginative capability?
I don't follow the logic here, so I'm not able to follow very well.

Jas – why are you saying I am assuming anything. I have said that I know of nothing which has been produced through the human imagination which cannot be connected to something within this physical universe.
That is the logic.
I did not infer that the person was unable to articulate because they are intellectually incapable or do not have a fair grasp of language. I said that there are no concepts available in physical experience from which to use to express these types of experiences.

There's lots of experiences that are ineffable in human experience regularly.
We have them so frequently that we have that very word for those kinds of things, and we also have plenty of poetry and art which focus on such experiences.

Ineffable experiences – can you give some examples please?

I'm not sure why it's being decided that if someone can't articulate what they experienced, that they therefore couldn't have imagined the experience, and that therefore the experience must have been beyond the physical capacity.

To go back to my originally bringing this up, it was because of the claim that imagination and Subconsciousness might be the source of such experiences.
Apart from these being perhaps less understood than consciousness, which itself isn’t well understood – experiences which are real to the individual – as real as your own physical experience and in some cases often more real – but have nothing to do with the physical universe in any way, how can ‘imagination’ (ie ‘the brain’) concoct from it (experience only in the physical universe – specifically on planet earth) - vivid 3 (and sometimes more) dimensional productions of realities which have nothing to do with this reality of the physical universe?
The brain has no data apart from what it has available in this physical reality in which to make these particular experiences happen for the consciousness experiencing them.
That is why they are indefinable. That is why ‘the brain does it’ is not a logical assumption or belief system to adopt.

Someone may be incapable of cognitively imagining quite a bit of things, but that doesn't mean their brain is incapable of producing experiences and sensations which are ineffable for the individual.

Name one and we can discuss it.
Give an example.

Many dreams are ineffable,.

I assume you are speaking from experience. I have never had a dream where I am in some ineffable situation – those I remember I can speak of in a linear manner, and while there are things which appear to be strange or even defy physics, they are all identifiable with things in the physical universe.

as well as conditions where someone knows a piece of information but doesn't know how they knew that information

Is the information ineffable?

For instance, there was study done on an Indycar driver who avoided a terrible accident he never saw.
The reason for why he stopped was ineffable to him; he could not account for why he knew that he needed to stop.

However, further simulation testing revealed that his unconscious (or, subconscious) processing picked up on the fact that the audience was reacting to a massive accident, even though he was driving at extreme speeds which would make it practically impossible to cognitively take note of that sensory input.

Had the driver never been studied, he would still have no idea how he knew to stop.
It would just remain ineffable to him; a premonition or divine intervention.

Perhaps that is another subject. The situation he was in was not ineffable.
I remember hearing my dad tell me once how he had a premonition while riding his bike – just a horrible feeling of approaching doom while out in the country. He slowed down and almost stopped altogether and as he slowly came around a bend he encountered something which had he been going at the speed he had been, he would have crashed and the results would not have been pretty.
Indeed, I am sure there are great numbers of stories with similar theme, but I don’t understand the relevance.

Yet, because a team was present to study the case, and thanks to current scientific capabilities, what was ineffable to the driver, was not ineffable to the scientists.

yep – we are definitely not on the same track here. You are speaking about what we know of as physical reality and physical experiences which can be explained with science and don’t have anything (or perhaps much) to do with imagination and Subconsciousness.

You are speaking about explanations to do with the physical. Things which scientists can measure and can be witnessed by more than one subjective point of view.

For the extreme example, DMT almost always produces ineffable experiences and DMT consumption is a chemical alteration of the way the brain processes information; like any drug.
The only real difference with DMT is the extremity of the experiences, and that DMT exists in the brain naturally.

Personally I avoid drugs which cause hallucinations but have heard plenty of stories from those who have.
They even say that what they sometimes experience is ‘beyond words’ but that they also ‘know things’ and are changed by that ‘knowing’.

Often these ‘things’ have to do with this physical universe being a ‘simulation/hologram/illusion etc.

But these observation don’t really explain anything do they Jas. They don’t explain that if it is all ‘in the brain’ and that aspect of the brain called the ‘I’ or consciousness is that which is experiencing the brain induced ‘hallucinations’ that – as has been mentioned a few times – we are no closer to knowing for sure that even this experience called the physical reality is not in itself an ‘hallucination’, or that how consciousness sees the brain, is not just a representation of something which is really indefinable.

We don’t know.

Even if we think we do, we don’t.

So my quandary is two-fold:
Firstly, we have ineffable experiences pretty often that are entirely physically based.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, why would we assume that if we alter the processing of the brain, that one would be capable of articulating the experience during that time when they are returned to their normal cognitive state?

Can you re-explain that as I am not sure exactly what you are saying here.

 

[JaysonR]

OK...I thought I gave some pretty good examples of non-physical seeming ineffable experiences that were explainable.

I suppose I don't understand what your qualification is for ineffable since my examples don't appear meet your criteria.

I attempted to show ineffable experiences that were accountable as physical even though to the subject, they were not accountable at all.
For each of them, the experience could easily be held that it was non-physical interaction with the universe.

So I suppose I'm still a bit confused as to what the requirement is for what you would accept as ineffable.

I thought I was only needing to explain how ineffable experiences that appear to the subject to be non-physical do regularly exist, regardless of their conveyance, and that we can explain quite a few of them.


With the comment:

Firstly, we have ineffable experiences pretty often that are entirely physically based.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, why would we assume that if we alter the processing of the brain, that one would be capable of articulating the experience during that time when they are returned to their normal cognitive state?

What I was conveying was:
1) Why should we take a position that if something is ineffable and seemingly non-physical to the subject, that it is actually not physical, when we have evidence of the contrary?
2) Why should we take a position that if we alter the brain processing from its normal expectations, that the resulting experience would be something the individual would be capable of articulating?

 

[Navigator]

You can take any position of belief you want. But if something is ineffable it cannot be expressed in words – but can be explained in words by scientists?

How is it possible for scientist to explain a subjective experience which the subject cannot even express in words his/her own experience because there is nothing in nature to compare it to?

That is what I am saying. Imagination and Subconsciousness (the brain) cannot dream up stuff without some kind of natural reference.
Scientists do not know what is actually being experienced because the subject cannot say.
They can observe brain activity and associate theory as to what is happening according to their subjective (and somewhat limited) understanding, ascribe ‘whatever’ to that observation but cannot empathically say that what they think is happening is absolutely certainly what is happening.

Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Perhaps if you did some research on what people are saying about these type of experiences, you might better understand the reason for this inability to convey those experiences in any language. Everything to do with the experiences are so different to anything which can be explained using things in nature/the physical universe as examples.

The best they can do is use metaphor and in most cases they emphasis that the metaphor itself is barely suitable for conveying the actual experience, but as an approximate will have to do.

I have said that a few times now so I don’t understand your confusion.

 

[Dancing David]

For something like disembodied consciousness, I can only propose the previously mentioned test environment as a way to move the idea from the false category into the probable category.
Until then, it just remains false, but possibly plausible (at least the physics involved can be imagined).

I agree, there is no evidence for consciousness absent the organic brain.

A possibility that is not plausible and undemonstrated.

 

[Dancing David]

Don't underestimate the creative powers of the imagination & subconscious. Consider the paucity of information that comes in through the senses, and the apparently seamless world the brain generates from the timing of those electrical pulses. Consider the extraordinary environments and constructions of dreams.

I see no reason to suppose what you have described is not similarly a product of the imagination - not necessarily a conscious or deliberate act of imagination, but an internally generated construct all the same.

Well considering that the brain produces the perceptions, Navigator misses the boat... splash

 

[Navigator]

I agree, there is no evidence for consciousness absent the organic brain.

A possibility that is not plausible and undemonstrated.

Which signifies that you can now go ahead and believe.

Well considering that the brain produces the perceptions, Navigator misses the boat... splash

What ‘boat’? What am I 'missing out on' by not sharing these beliefs those on the 'boat' share?