First, let's see some proof that these "other realities" exist.
I'm sorry, I cannot do that. There is no such proof so far as I am aware. At least not scientific proof which I feel you have in mind.
Granted, the articles I've mentioned don't prove that OBEs don't exist as a spiritual phenomenon. However, as it now stands we have one bit of hard data in the "OBE is an illusion caused by stimulation of one particular area of the brain" camp.
And this statement is quite remarkable.
First of all to describe a single isolated incident of someone being able to precipitate a OBE in someone else by stimulating a particular area of the brain --
which no one else has ever been able to replicate despite strenuous attempts -- as being
hard evidence that
all such experiences are "illusion", is completely and outrageously ludicrous
. I just find it quite remarkable that the skeptic will seize upon the most
flimsiest evidence imaginable, and describe it as "hard evidence" should it support his hypothesis, but automatically regard any counter evidence as being hopelessly subjective and anecdotal. That is to say from the psychological perspective I find this quite remarkable. What is it about human beings that they will ignore any evidence running counter to their beliefs ,and play up any evidence apparently supporting their position, no matter how flimsy?
If you were completely and totally honest you would admit this. Believers are like this certainly. But I'm sorry, so are skeptics.
I'm very much aware of this and am aware that I also am subject to the same irrational prejudices.
But at least I am aware that I am human and am subject to such prejudices. I at least
attempt to give an impartial objective analysis, even though I might well fall far short of the ideal.
But you guys? I don't think so. From a psychological perspective this is what I find quite remarkable.
For a kick off how do you know the subject wasn't simply lying? Or arguably she's had a bit of a weird experience, the idea that it was an OBE was suggested to her, and she's basically latched onto that idea, noted it caused interest and excitement in the researchers, and has basically stuck to her story. Perhaps, and perhaps not.
For what it's worth I probably feel she genuinely did have some sort of very shallow OBE. But nevertheless it is completely absurd to describe this single isolated incidence as "hard evidence".
How much hard data do you have in the "OBE is the soul coming loose from the body and roaming around" camp?
Just a series of isolated anecdotal reports. Quite a lot of such reports, but no hard proof.
But now do you see what you're doing? You started off by insinuating that this single isolated report constitutes hard evidence that all such experiences are illusions. And you're saying this conclusion is valid unless I can actually
prove that you're wrong.
{shakes head sadly}
Look, I'm in complete agreement that the fact that everything we ever experience appears to have certain correlated physical events happening in the brain and that this gives support for the hypothesis that the brain generates consciousness.
But note that some very intelligent person from say the 18th Century, who was whisked forward to the 21st Century, would think exactly the same about television sets. The picture displayed on the set is affected by appropriate stimulation of the internal components, therefore this gives evidence that the not only the picture, but also the storyline of the programme entirely has its origin in these internal components. Now this is very true that it does indeed give such evidence.
But, to say the least, there are extreme difficulties in such an interpretation. I'll just content myself with saying that the situation regarding the origin of consciousness is vastly worse than such a simplistic hypothesis. And, what is more, we have a great deal of evidence suggesting this is not the case.
