Merged Near Death Experience Study

[MaartenVergu]

Quite easily, in fact. If they exist, then they can be detected

Suppose that the only way to 'detect it' is having 'another state of mind'.
The other state of awareness is the only portal to this reality.

For example, the presence of beings in an empty room is only 'detectable' when you have sleepparalysis.
To detect is to experience. There is no other portal to this other existing dimension.
How can someone prove that?

 

[Belz...]

Suppose that the only way to 'detect it' is having 'another state of mind'.

That is physically impossible. If something exists and interacts with the real world (e.g. you can experience it with your mind) then it can be detected with things other than minds. Your suggestion assumes your conclusion.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I admit that I have difficulties with the fact that such a beautiful and often life-changing experience is reduced to the explanation: 'it's only a dying brain'. It's been explained by science as something bad instead of something good.
I hope the Aware study will come up with some evidence of the fact that the OBE's are real.

Are you purposely ignoring the fact that "it" is not a "dying" brain, but a stressed brain? We do not know what goes on in a dying brain, as, you know, they get dead without reporting back...

 

[MaartenVergu]

That is physically impossible. If something exists and interacts with the real world (e.g. you can experience it with your mind) then it can be detected with things other than minds.

.

Ok, but suppose that we are talking about two different dimensions not interacting with eachother. Only consciousness can be in one of these two dimensions , but not simultaniously.
How can you prove the existence of the other dimension?

 

[Slowvehicle]

That's true. But there is no reason to think that the search for an answer is over. Consciousness is still an enigma. Scientists are still investigating the brain and its relation with consciousness.

And, when evidence for that realm from which none come back (except for those who didn't go there) is offered, it can be studied, evaluated, and made subject of experiment. Without such evidence, it is fruitless to claim it "isn't fair" that "science" says "it" "doesn't exist".

 

[MaartenVergu]

Are you purposely ignoring the fact that "it" is not a "dying" brain, but a stressed brain? We do not know what goes on in a dying brain, as, you know, they get dead without reporting back...

Someone here was saying that an NDE and an OBE are the symptoms of a dying brain.
But a stressed brain, hmmm. Relaxed state. Peaceful feelings. Hmmm. I would not label this "stressed".

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have another question for you. Suppose that there is indeed a real OBE and a real NDE, how is it provable? What do you need, as a scientist, to discover the fact that consciousness is not caused by a brain? What kind of evidence would prove that?

I would want it explained how, if consciousness is not, in fact, an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem, specific damage to a neurosystem works specific, predictable alterations upon the consciousness emergent form that neurosystem.

If there were an immortal soul, independent of the neurosytem, the only kind thing to do with a consciousness trammeled by trauma would be to set it fre on its net stage of its journey.

 

[MaartenVergu]

And, when evidence for that realm form which none come back (except for those who didn't go there) is offered, it can be studied, evaluated, and made subject of experiment. Without such evidence, it is fruitless to claim it "isn't fair" that "science" says "it" "doesn't exist".

Ok, how can you prove another dimension, when there is no interaction between this other dimension and our reality. Only 'being in another state of awareness' is the only way to detect the existence of this other dimension. How are you going to prove the existence of this parallel universe?
For example: Suppose that sleepparalysis is a state of mind wich allows you to discover a parallel universe of 'beings in the room' while the room was empty when you went to sleep. How can you prove that?

 

[Belz...]

Ok, but suppose that we are talking about two different dimensions not interacting with eachother. Only consciousness can be in one of these two dimensions , but not simultaniously.
How can you prove the existence of the other dimension?

You're not listening. Assuming two universes (please don't use the term "dimension", dimension is a measurement) can interact, the interaction can be detected. There is no way something can affect your mind and be otherwise indetectable. Do you understand this ?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ok, how can you prove another dimension, when there is no interaction between this other dimension and our reality.

Think about the fact that you need to simultaneously claim that "there is no interaction" between a phenomenon and "this reality", while at the same taim claiming that the phenomenon can be "experienced".

Only 'being in another state of awareness' is the only way to detect the existence of this other dimension. How are you going to prove the existence of this parallel universe?

Actually, it is you, claiming that this "other state of awareness" provides access to this "other dimension" who needs to provide proof. Without any evidence at all, there is no reason to believe that this "other dimension" even exists.

For example: Suppose that sleepparalysis is a state of mind wich allows you to discover a parallel universe of 'beings in the room' while the room was empty when you went to sleep. How can you prove that?

You can't, which is my point exactly. You are making an indefensible, unsupportable, unevidenced claim.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Someone here was saying that an NDE and an OBE are the symptoms of a dying brain.
But a stressed brain, hmmm. Relaxed state. Peaceful feelings. Hmmm. I would not label this "stressed".

Nor is that what I said. The lack of oxygen, to a brain, is a "stress". Consider the reports of people who have nearly drowned, or nearly succumbed to exposure; both of which are "stresses".

What rhetorical advantage does equivocation gain you?

What does it gain you to ignore the fact that it was not a "dying" brain if, in fact, it did not die?

 

[bruto]

I admit that I have difficulties with the fact that such a beautiful and often life-changing experience is reduced to the explanation: 'it's only a dying brain'. It's been explained by science as something bad instead of something good.I hope the Aware study will come up with some evidence of the fact that the OBE's are real.

I would contend that this is only your value judgment and only because you presume that a purely physical explanation is de facto "bad." If a dying brain does its dying in a way that is comforting, it is only your point of view that sees this as bad.

 

[Nonpareil]

Ok, how can you prove another dimension, when there is no interaction between this other dimension and our reality. Only 'being in another state of awareness' is the only way to detect the existence of this other dimension. How are you going to prove the existence of this parallel universe?
For example: Suppose that sleepparalysis is a state of mind wich allows you to discover a parallel universe of 'beings in the room' while the room was empty when you went to sleep. How can you prove that?

You can't, and thus it isn't.

See, this is where you run up against the definition of "exists" and hit a brick wall. Your hypothetical other dimensions and sleep-paralysis demons are only an interesting thought experiment; by any meaningful definition of existence, they are not real.

What it comes down to is that, to exist, a thing must have some sort of observable effect on the universe. If there is no observable effect, ever, under any circumstances, then there is no difference between that and nonexistence - and thus, it doesn't exist. Follow me so far?

In case you don't, here's it boiled down a bit: In order to be said to exist, a thing must have some sort of detectable effect on the rest of the universe. As a corollary, if something exists, removing it from existence will have an effect on the rest of the universe - and, as the inverse of that, if something does not exist, removing it from existence will have no effect on the rest of the universe.

So let's look at your two given examples:

• Alternate dimensions, observable through altered states of mind (presumably achieved through drug use).
• Sleep-paralysis entities, observable when experiencing sleep paralysis.

You might, hypothetically, be thinking "Well, these things are theoretically detectable, albeit through unusual means, so ha! They exist! You just don't accept my evidence and are close-minded!" But that's not true.

See, the problem with both your given examples is that they are effectively adding hypothetical entities to situations that we already know have mundane causes. We know that drug use causes hallucinations; your proposed alternate dimensions are indistinguishable from these. We know that sleep paralysis causes what are essentially nightmares; your proposed sleep paralysis entities are indistinguishable from these.

In both cases, your hypothetical entities do not actually change the situation in any way. Removing from the equation changes absolutely nothing; thus, by definition, they are not real, because they have zero effect that can actually be detected by any means. They cannot be distinguished from the mundane phenomena that we know exist and offer explanations from their existence. They violate the corollaries.

So in both of your proposed situations, the answer to your question is: you can't. Because they aren't real.

 

[Donn]

..if something does not exist, removing it from existence will have no effect on the rest of the universe.

..
In both cases, your hypothetical entities do not actually change the situation in any way. Removing from the equation changes absolutely nothing; thus, by definition, they are not real, because they have zero effect that can actually be detected by any means.

Nicely done!

 

[MaartenVergu]

You can't, and thus it isn't.

Non sequitur. It's not because you can't prove it, that it doesn't exist.

they are not real.

It depends on your definition of 'real'. What are your (arbitrary?) criteria for 'real'? When many people have had the same experience of an altered reality, it can be called 'real'.

What it comes down to is that, to exist, a thing must have some sort of observable effect on the universe.

Non sequitur again. A parallel Universe don't have to have soms sort of effect on another parallel Universe.

 

[MaartenVergu]

In order to be said to exist, a thing must have some sort of detectable effect on the rest of the universe.

Why? Who says so?

The content of an NDE-experience has an effect on the people and their lives. It has a detectable effect on their ideas and human behaviour. It has a detectable effect on people who listen to this NDE-stories.

 

[Belz...]

Non sequitur. It's not because you can't prove it, that it doesn't exist.

Not quite, but still: if there is no way to interact with it or detect it, then there is no difference between "it exists" and "it doesn't exist", and thus there is no point in speculating about it, because you can't ever perceive it or use it.

Non sequitur again. A parallel Universe don't have to have soms sort of effect on another parallel Universe.

It does if you are speculating that it's reponsible for some phenomenon in the second universe. Why ? Because that behaviour IS an effect the first has on it.

 

[Belz...]

Why? Who says so?

The content of an NDE-experience has an effect on the people and their lives.

You are confusing two things, here. NDEs are a real thing. They are an experience and we know they have an effect. What doesn't have an effect is your proposed mechanism that causes these NDEs.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Not quite, but still: if there is no way to interact with it or detect it, then there is no difference between "it exists" and "it doesn't exist"

.

Their is an interaction with consciousness.

 

[Donn]

.

Their is an interaction with consciousness.

Yes - an interaction with their own consciousness.