Subconsciousness and Humanity.

[dlorde]

'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?

Subconscious.

... 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.

Are you saying that evidence that these experiences are not being generated by the brain is that they are said to be indescribable, or only expressible as vague metaphor?

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.

Neutral is good... but what data? anecdotes of indescribable experiences?

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?

No, the claim that "The human brain, with all its experience of the physical universe ... is incapable of creating these ‘illusions’". I'd also include "... some of the things experienced are simply outside the realm of the physical universe", as I don't think that's demonstrable - particularly if, as you say, they are indescribable.

How about that!

It's unsupported speculation.

 

[Navigator]

A different word than what?

Subconscious.

Why?

Are you saying that evidence that these experiences are not being generated by the brain is that they are said to be indescribable, or only expressible as vague metaphor?

Metaphor yes vague, no. Some of the data within the metaphors I have encountered are complex. Tom Campbells’ for example.

Neutral is good... but what data? Anecdotes of indescribable experiences?

Yes.

No, the claim that "The human brain, with all its experience of the physical universe ... is incapable of creating these ‘illusions’". I'd also include "... some of the things experienced are simply outside the realm of the physical universe", as I don't think that's demonstrable - particularly if, as you say, they are indescribable.

Correct. But it is logical. As I said earlier, I can think of no thing produced by human imagination that cannot be connected some how to nature. Can you?

It's unsupported speculation.

Unsupported by what?

 

[JaysonR]

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.

I'm now a bit more confused.
I am pretty well read on NDE and OBEs, as well as my wife had an NDE at 8, and I've had an NDE myself, and couple OBEs through invocation exercises.

I don't want you to think that I'm someone on the outside looking in, as that isn't really quite where I'm coming from.

Back to the point, here's where I'm confused.

Why is an experience that is ineffable to an individual who had the experience incapable of being physically quantifiable?

In adjunct to this, why is something that is perceived verifiable as real just because it is ineffable to the individual?


From what I understand, your outline seems to be:
Premise 1: if someone witnesses something which is ineffable to them, then it is real.
Premise 2: an OBE is real and not an impression because of premise 1.
Premise 3: an OBE is non-physical in experience.
Conclusion: an OBE is therefore a real non-physical experience, and not just an illusion of a non-physical reality.

Am I missing something in your logical outline, or is this the essential idea being conveyed?

 

[Navigator]

Why is an experience that is ineffable to an individual who had the experience incapable of being physically quantifiable?

Are you specifically speaking about what are referred to as OBEs?

In adjunct to this, why is something that is perceived verifiable as real just because it is ineffable to the individual?

Again: Are you specifically speaking about what are referred to as OBEs?
(are we even speaking about the same thing when we are saying OBEs?)
I get the impression maybe not, because you brought in your example of the motor racing anecdote a few posts back, which I think is where the confusion started.

From what I understand, your outline seems to be:
Premise 1: if someone witnesses something which is ineffable to them, then it is real.

In relation to OBEs, I speculate this to be so, yes.

Premise 2: an OBE is real and not an impression because of premise 1.

What do you mean by ‘impression’?

Premise 3: an OBE is non-physical in experience.

From accounts given, sometimes. Sometimes the experience is physical. The Consciousness leaves this physical universe and enters another physical universe.
Sometimes (from accounts given) it seems physical but at some moment in the experience it is realized it is not a physical at all. In this sense it is an impression of being physical and the impression changes through realisation that it is non physical.
(Is this what you meant by ‘impression’?)

Conclusion: an OBE is therefore a real non-physical experience, and not just an illusion of a non-physical reality.

I speculate this is so, yes.

Am I missing something in your logical outline, or is this the essential idea being conveyed?

You appear to be missing something in my logical outline Jas. It can happen, but I am not sure I can be any clearer.

 

[JaysonR]

I think I can get closer to better communication by addressing this point currently.

Are you specifically speaking about what are referred to as OBEs?

This causes me to ask a further question:

Why would OBEs be a special case regarding the nature of perception and reality than any other form of relationship between perception and reality?

 

[Navigator]

Why would OBEs be a special case regarding the nature of perception and reality than any other form of relationship between perception and reality?

I think the subject came up in relation to ‘Life After Death’ (LAD) which has been frequently brought up in this thread.
While it is not specific to the thread OP, it is related in some way, or at least is not a subject which derails the initial topic because it can be linked back.

Similar discussion is happening in this thread related to simulation.

It appears to be ‘a special case’ (although I wouldn’t use that term myself) in the same way as ‘God’ is. OBEs & LAD are interlinked that way. Life’s mysteries to which Consciousnesses are curious about.

 

[JaysonR]

But more specifically, I don't understand why the perception in this case is special.
I can't find anything unique in an OBE from any other type of perception relation to reality cause.

Just because an OBE can occur during NDE doesn't inherently mean that OBEs are therefore unlike other perception versus reality cases.

There's no evidence or reason that I see so far, including in my own experiences, which warrants setting OBEs as not a case of perception versus reality.

 

[Navigator]

But more specifically, I don't understand why the perception in this case is special.
I can't find anything unique in an OBE from any other type of perception relation to reality cause.

Just because an OBE can occur during NDE doesn't inherently mean that OBEs are therefore unlike other perception versus reality cases.

There's no evidence or reason that I see so far, including in my own experiences, which warrants setting OBEs as not a case of perception versus reality.

Well the one thing I see that is interesting is that ‘imagination’ does not explain why – if OBEs are a creation of the brain – that many of the things experienced cannot be expressed using anything related to this physical reality, so where does the brain get its information in order to create these very vivid very real very precise and very interactive ‘illusions’ from, that individual consciousnesses experience and cannot express in words, but only (sometimes) in metaphors?

I mean, as wonderful as the brain is, to believe that it is somehow able to create universes totally unrelated to anything in the one it occupies is a great leap in faith and perhaps even an unnecessary attempt to bestow unrealistic powers/abilities to something undeserved of quite that much adoration.

I might as well ask Jas, is it important to you that people believe the same as you do in relation to OBEs and LAD? If so, exactly why so and how do your reasons tie in with the thread topic?

 

[JaysonR]

I'm not really interested in whether or not people believe any given concept or idea.

That's not really where I'm coming from.

The part that I can't wrap my head around is this premise that if an individual cannot cognitively imagine something which they vividly witness in some given experience, then the event therefore must be real and not a result of some stimulated impression within the brain.

I don't follow this because we can overtly stimulate vivid imageries in subjects that are not real, and the impression of such imagery is quantifiable by physical reactions that we stimulated in the brain.
And in many cases, the experiences that we caused are ineffable to the individual.

So I don't understand the logical form being presented that if something is ineffable to the individual, that their brain must therefore not have been able to create the experience within the brain.

 

[Navigator]

Where does the brain get its information in order to create these very vivid very real very precise and interactive ‘illusions’ from, which have nothing whatever to do with its own physical reality?

One possible explanation is that it doesn’t. It is consciousness which goes elsewhere and returns with the data which the brain cannot interpret.

Sometimes what is experienced does not seem unexplainable or even strange while it is being experienced, only after – when it is integrated with the physical brain in the physical universe is there confusion and problems with explaining the experiences.

From the point of view of those observing the brain patterns etc, something happens but because there is no reason to think that the something happening is happening in a completely different universe and thus not a factor to incorporate into the explanation as to what is happening, it has to be assumed everything is taking place within the brain.

So I don't understand the logical form being presented that if something is ineffable to the individual, that their brain must therefore not have been able to create the experience within the brain.

As wonderful as the brain is, (and it is) to believe that it is somehow able to create universes totally unrelated to anything in the one it occupies is a great leap in faith and perhaps even an unnecessary attempt to bestow unrealistic powers/abilities to something undeserved of quite that much adoration.

I don't follow this because we can overtly stimulate vivid imageries in subjects that are not real, and the impression of such imagery is quantifiable by physical reactions that we stimulated in the brain.
And in many cases, the experiences that we caused are ineffable to the individual.

The assumption is that you CAUSED these things to happen and that it is all happening in the brain.
It could be just as easily explained that you assisted by stimulating those parts of the brain which are used for the purpose of facilitating the Consciousness in moving from this reality to another completely different one.

How would you know?

 

[dlorde]

A different word than what?

Subconscious.

Why?

Because, as I said, ''Subconscious' can be defined as those cognitive functions of the brain we are not consciously aware of, so, by that definition, it does not 'work separately from the brain'.

.. it is logical. As I said earlier, I can think of no thing produced by human imagination that cannot be connected some how to nature.

It doesn't seem logical to to me to jump to the conclusion that if an experience isn't describable it originated from some speculative non-physical realm for which there is no evidence. Most of my dreams are indescribable and there are plausible explanations why this might be the case.

It's unsupported speculation.

Unsupported by what?

Evidence & plausible argument.

 

[JaysonR]

Where does the brain get its information in order to create these very vivid very real very precise and interactive ‘illusions’ from, which have nothing whatever to do with its own physical reality?

Why is it being assumed that the experience has nothing to do with the brain's own physical reality?

The assumption is that you CAUSED these things to happen and that it is all happening in the brain.
It could be just as easily explained that you assisted by stimulating those parts of the brain which are used for the purpose of facilitating the Consciousness in moving from this reality to another completely different one.

How would you know?

Unfortunately, this is a form of argument from ignorance, which isn't a valid logical method of deduction, so it doesn't help me much.

I could posit the same thing by saying that the assumption is that the Earth caused the rain by physically accountable events, but that it could just as easily be explained that the Earth is using physical constituents within its atmosphere to facilitate Arganetons from the non-physical dimension Otax, who are sending ethereal rain souls to our physical dimension.

How would we know the difference?


This form of deduction doesn't lend itself very helpful as we can rationalize anything we want this way.



As it stands, there's no indication of a non-physical interaction taking place, anymore than the indication of Arganetons, but several indications that the experiences are physical.

For instance, again, DMT regularly produces ineffable experiences, and that is a very physical event.

 

[Navigator]

Because, as I said, ''Subconscious' can be defined as those cognitive functions of the brain we are not consciously aware of, so, by that definition, it does not 'work separately from the brain'.

Does Consciousness work separately from Subconsciousness?

When I (consciousness) am communicating with Subconsciousness (or whatever consciousness I am communicating with) through Ouija, are these aspects really separate or do they simply appear that way?
I (consciousness) may get that impression because some data communicated is data I was consciously was unaware of. Often this kind of data has to do with ‘ways of thinking’.
.

We do not know what the Subconsciousness is capable of. We observe things happening to the brain, but we only scratch the surface as far as the scope of our understanding Subconsciousness (or even the brain) goes.

We don’t even understand Conscience very well.

Effectively we can name ‘it’ according to how it functions.

I think it was you who said:

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.

This can be seen to be the brains creation through imagination and subconscious until those experiences are seen to be ‘out of this world’ to such a degree that nothing about them resembles in any way, anything to do with the physical universe the brain is physically operating in.

Then it is reasonable to keep real about those ‘powers of the brain’, or said another way:

As wonderful as the brain is, (and it is) to believe that it is somehow able to create universes totally unrelated to anything in the one it occupies is a great leap in faith and perhaps even an unnecessary attempt to bestow unrealistic powers/abilities to something undeserved of quite that much adoration.

Do you see? You are asking me to believe that the brain can construct situations for consciousness to experience through Subconsciousness and imagination which are beyond its abilities to accomplish because these situations constructed are completely without any reference to the physical universe the brain resides within.

As I have said, I cannot think of anything which imagination has produced which cannot somehow be referenced to something in this physical universe. Can you?

Try it. Try it right now. Try to imagine something which has not reference to anything within the physical universe.

If the brain is able to do this through Subconsciousness and imagination, why can’t you now consciously experience it? Why can’t you now bring the imagery of it into your conscious awareness?

Quote:
.. it is logical. As I said earlier, I can think of no thing produced by human imagination that cannot be connected some how to nature.

It doesn't seem logical to to me to jump to the conclusion that if an experience isn't describable it originated from some speculative non-physical realm for which there is no evidence. Most of my dreams are indescribable and there are plausible explanations why this might be the case.

Most of my dreams are very describable. They might be weird and wonderful, but what I can recall about them upon awakening, are quite describable.
That is because my consciousness is able to reference the experiences with things experienced in the awakened state (physical world).

It isn’t about ‘jumping to conclusions’ because not only does that insinuate that I am doing more than speculating, but I also acknowledge that it could be all in the brain but because of other data I cannot fully say that it IS all happening in the brain.

If I were to believe that it is one or the other I would be jumping to conclusions.

It's unsupported speculation.

Unsupported by what?

Evidence & plausible argument.

My speculation is plausible. The nature of what is being speculated is not able to be supported by direct evidence simple because of its nature.

What does not appear to be ‘logical’ to you has more to do with your preference to stay within the parameters of the physical universe and therefore assume that everything which happens to Consciousness can be explained logically through physical means.

This is understandable and commendable. Unfortunately though, there are simply things that cannot be explained using only what exists within the physical universe.

‘The brain does it’ is plausible to a point but only to the point of physical – like with dreams. The dreams are not beyond physical understanding. Things might happen which defy the normal rules of physics (and may hardly given a second thought while within the experience) but once those things are no longer identifiable with anything experienced in the physical universe, ‘the brain did it’ cannot be used as a plausible argument, for the reason I have already explained.

Can you answer this?

Where is the logic in the physical universe even existing?

And this:

Where is the logic in crop circles even existing?

 

[Navigator]

Why is it being assumed that the experience has nothing to do with the brain's own physical reality?

It is not being assumed so much as observed in the data that in some cases what is being experienced by consciousness...as I have repeatedly said:

This can be seen to be the brains creation through imagination and subconscious until those experiences are seen to be ‘out of this world’ to such a degree that nothing about them resembles in any way, anything to do with the physical universe the brain is physically operating in.

As wonderful as the brain is, (and it is) to believe that it is somehow able to create universes totally unrelated to anything in the one it occupies is a great leap in faith and perhaps even an unnecessary attempt to bestow unrealistic powers/abilities to something undeserved of quite that much adoration.

Unfortunately, this is a form of argument from ignorance, which isn't a valid logical method of deduction, so it doesn't help me much.

I could posit the same thing by saying that the assumption is that the Earth caused the rain by physically accountable events, but that it could just as easily be explained that the Earth is using physical constituents within its atmosphere to facilitate Arganetons from the non-physical dimension Otax, who are sending ethereal rain souls to our physical dimension.

How would we know the difference?

Your particular posit just shows that you are not understanding my own and that you think what I am speculating must conclude 'Arganetons exist in the non physical dimension of Otax' as somehow the only conclusion one can come to.
I haven't gone anywhere near any such conclusion in my speculation, and wouldn't think it necessary to do so.

However it does help me to understand how you are choosing to see me.

You see me as being ‘ignorant’. Or rather your beliefs and personal bias conclude that I must be ignorant. Beliefs have a habit of inducing such deductions regarding those who do not share the same beliefs.

This form of deduction doesn't lend itself very helpful as we can rationalize anything we want this way.

Very helpful to what? You are implying that speculation for the possibility consciousness surviving physical death is unhelpful. Unhelpful to what?

As it stands, there's no indication of a non-physical interaction taking place, anymore than the indication of Arganetons, but several indications that the experiences are physical.

I gave one example of ‘indication’ which you are for some reason choosing to ignore.
I also explained that the physical aspects of the experiences have to do with the observers, not the ones experiencing (although sometimes the experiences are physical but the consciousnesses have to enter a physical form in order to experience the particular physical universe they are within).

Did you manage to watch that vid I linked?

For instance, again, DMT regularly produces ineffable experiences, and that is a very physical event.

How much DMT is naturally in the brain and how much DMT is required to produce these ineffable experiences?

I also speculated that these things within the brain as natural are there to facilitate, and as scientists better understand what areas of the brain to manipulate to induce desired effects does not evidence conclusively that ‘the brain does it’ – it evidences that scientists are able to manipulate the brain so that consciousness experiences through that facilitation.

The brain obviously has something to do with the process, that much is evident, but it cannot be claimed conclusively that the brain is also the creator of the experiences.

I understand that it might appear that way, but things are not always as they appear.

What do you think created this “crop circle”?

 

[JaysonR]

Nav,

I don't think you are ignorant.
Please, I don't want you to start taking my posts in some direction you are familiar with being treated or something of this nature.

I am stubborn to comprehension and don't really let go if I can't understand the logic behind something.
I am not out to set you up as anything; I am simply attempting to understand this logic which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

It is not being assumed so much as observed in the data that in some cases what is being experienced by consciousness...as I have repeatedly said:

This can be seen to be the brains creation through imagination and subconscious until those experiences are seen to be ‘out of this world’ to such a degree that nothing about them resembles in any way, anything to do with the physical universe the brain is physically operating in.

As wonderful as the brain is, (and it is) to believe that it is somehow able to create universes totally unrelated to anything in the one it occupies is a great leap in faith and perhaps even an unnecessary attempt to bestow unrealistic powers/abilities to something undeserved of quite that much adoration.

The assumption that is being made is that the experience is a real experience of something non-physical.
There is no material evidence of that; only anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all.
That is an individual's report of what they experienced; that does not mean that what they experienced truly happened.

Your particular posit just shows that you are not understanding my own and that you think what I am speculating must conclude 'Arganetons exist in the non physical dimension of Otax' as somehow the only conclusion one can come to.
I haven't gone anywhere near any such conclusion in my speculation, and wouldn't think it necessary to do so.

If the logical point is that X is not testable, but X is experiential, and X is non-physical, and Z physical account can be said to just facilitate X, then the two examples are the same comparison.

There's no real way forward if what you are saying is that the non-physical experience is a real experience in the non-physical, because the experience is ineffable, and any account of the experience physically which does not include the reality of the non-physical is just an account of the facilitation to the non-physical reality.

There isn't because we can assert and dismiss anything we want to using this method of logic.
It's a form of logic called argument from ignorance.
That doesn't mean that you are ignorant.
It means that the argument forms from a position of stating that because we don't know, or can't know, that therefore the proposition is true, or of equal probability.

Very helpful to what? You are implying that speculation for the possibility consciousness surviving physical death is unhelpful. Unhelpful to what?

That's not what I meant.
I meant the the above logical argument for a non-physical reality being actually real isn't very helpful because I can use that same form of argument to claim anything I want is real.

I gave one example of ‘indication’ which you are for some reason choosing to ignore.

I didn't ignore it, I don't follow it as any form of indication.
To you, the idea of being incapable of cognitively imagining something, yet experiencing something which one cannot cognitively imagine equates to the experience being of real things.
I do not see this as convincing as this phenomenon happens regularly and anecdotal claims by many subjects who are affected neurologically in a multitude of manners.

I also explained that the physical aspects of the experiences have to do with the observers, not the ones experiencing (although sometimes the experiences are physical but the consciousnesses have to enter a physical form in order to experience the particular physical universe they are within).

This again loops back to the argument from ignorance issue.
Again, I can equally claim that the physical properties which produce rain only facilitate rain souls from a non-physical realm.

It doesn't lead us anywhere that helps validate the claim because we can claim this about anything that we want to without any means to test the validity of that claim.

Did you manage to watch that vid I linked?

I have gotten through about half of it so far; I still need to finish it.

How much DMT is naturally in the brain and how much DMT is required to produce these ineffable experiences?

About 50 mg is enough to cause psychotropic results (but can be as low as 6 to 15mg, depending on the method used for introduction).
I would like to note that I am only stating this for the purposes of answering this question, and not listing this as an advisory for informing people of how much DMT to take to have psychotropic experiences.

We don't know how much is in the brain at this time.
We know it is in there somewhere, and probably created in the pineal gland, because it is verified in human urine and blood samples (in those who have not taking the psychotropic drug externally).

As such, we don't know what dose the brain produces, or where it even produces.
The MAO enzyme eats DMT extremely quickly, so it is currently beyond our capacity to capture the brain in the act of producing DMT at the brain level.
We can only see it after it is being flushed out through the rest of the body.

I also speculated that these things within the brain as natural are there to facilitate, and as scientists better understand what areas of the brain to manipulate to induce desired effects does not evidence conclusively that ‘the brain does it’ – it evidences that scientists are able to manipulate the brain so that consciousness experiences through that facilitation.

Again, as a means of evidence, this only serves as an argument from ignorance; that because we don't know, it is therefore true, or of equal probability.

The brain obviously has something to do with the process, that much is evident, but it cannot be claimed conclusively that the brain is also the creator of the experiences.

Perhaps it may not be capable of absolute conclusion in the sense that we have every nuance accounted for, but aside from an argument from ignorance leaving open possibilities that what people report experiencing actually happened, we have OBEs and NDEs rather well accounted for at this point.

What do you think created this “crop circle”?

People, as so far has been shown again and again.
What hasn't been shown is any reason to think it would actually be an alien craft showing up just to draw in our dirt, and then play hide and seek.

 

[Navigator]

Nav,

I don't think you are ignorant.
Please, I don't want you to start taking my posts in some direction you are familiar with being treated or something of this nature.

I am stubborn to comprehension and don't really let go if I can't understand the logic behind something.
I am not out to set you up as anything; I am simply attempting to understand this logic which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Jas


I am away for a couple of days so have to get sorted for that.
Just letting you know - will reply when I get back.

Cheers

 

[dlorde]

When I (consciousness) am communicating with Subconsciousness (or whatever consciousness I am communicating with) through Ouija, are these aspects really separate or do they simply appear that way?

I'm not sure the question is a useful one. It seems likely that consciousness arises out of the co-ordinated activities of a number of cognitive processes in a number of brain areas. When those processes are working together and conscious awareness is active, those cognitive functions it is not directly aware of are called the subconscious. Does that make them 'really separate'?

This can be seen to be the brains creation through imagination and subconscious until those experiences are seen to be ‘out of this world’ to such a degree that nothing about them resembles in any way, anything to do with the physical universe the brain is physically operating in.

I would question how you can establish that the experiences are "‘out of this world’ to such a degree that nothing about them resembles in any way, anything to do with the physical universe" when all you have is metaphorical descriptions because the experiences themselves were indescribable (as can happen in dreams).

As wonderful as the brain is, (and it is) to believe that it is somehow able to create universes totally unrelated to anything in the one it occupies is a great leap in faith and perhaps even an unnecessary attempt to bestow unrealistic powers/abilities to something undeserved of quite that much adoration.

It's a lesser leap of faith to suppose that it really is communicating with other universes?

You are asking me to believe that the brain can construct situations for consciousness to experience through Subconsciousness and imagination which are beyond its abilities to accomplish because these situations constructed are completely without any reference to the physical universe the brain resides within.

No, I'm asking you to question your assumptions; primarily the one that these indescribable experiences are of things beyond imagination.

As I have said, I cannot think of anything which imagination has produced which cannot somehow be referenced to something in this physical universe. Can you?

Try it. Try it right now. Try to imagine something which has not reference to anything within the physical universe.

Whether I can do it or not is irrelevant; you don't know that anyone has had such an experience, internally or externally generated. All you apparently have are anecdotes of ineffable experiences. The people who had those experiences can't know either.

Temporal lobe seizures can also give rise to ineffable transcendent revelatory experiences.

My speculation is plausible.

Plausible to you. What you have is Russell's Teapot.

.. there are simply things that cannot be explained using only what exists within the physical universe.

Evidence? anecdotes of ineffable experiences are not sufficient.

‘The brain does it’ is plausible to a point but only to the point of physical – like with dreams. The dreams are not beyond physical understanding. Things might happen which defy the normal rules of physics (and may hardly given a second thought while within the experience) but once those things are no longer identifiable with anything experienced in the physical universe, ‘the brain did it’ cannot be used as a plausible argument, for the reason I have already explained.

Can you answer this?

I think I already have. If you mean the tautologous "the brain cannot conceive of things the brain cannot conceive of", I agree. You haven't shown that the experiences described are inconceivable.

Where is the logic in the physical universe even existing?
And this:
Where is the logic in crop circles even existing?

What are you talking about?

 

[Navigator]

The assumption that is being made is that the experience is a real experience of something non-physical.
There is no material evidence of that; only anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all.
That is an individual's report of what they experienced; that does not mean that what they experienced truly happened.

It is speculation rather than assumption. It may be real experience it may not be real experience.

To say it is most definitely real or not real is assumption.

If the logical point is that X is not testable, but X is experiential, and X is non-physical, and Z physical account can be said to just facilitate X, then the two examples are the same comparison.

There's no real way forward if what you are saying is that the non-physical experience is a real experience in the non-physical, because the experience is ineffable, and any account of the experience physically which does not include the reality of the non-physical is just an account of the facilitation to the non-physical reality.

No I am not saying that. I have been clear about what it is I am saying and have said it more than once but again you are skirting around this.
You are implying that the brain can create universes which are completely unrelated to the universe which it resides within. This is illogical, because it has nothing to reference in order to create the illusion.

There isn't because we can assert and dismiss anything we want to using this method of logic.
It's a form of logic called argument from ignorance.
That doesn't mean that you are ignorant.
It means that the argument forms from a position of stating that because we don't know, or can't know, that therefore the proposition is true, or of equal probability.

Again the use of the word ignorant!

Dismissing ‘anything you want’ has nothing to do with the speculation of possible LAD.
If anyone thinks LAD is possible they cannot, for example, dismiss the existence of this physical universe.


As I said re labeling this as ‘ignorant’:

Your beliefs and personal bias conclude that I must be ignorant. Beliefs have a habit of inducing such deductions regarding those who do not share the same beliefs.

That's not what I meant.
I meant the the above logical argument for a non-physical reality being actually real isn't very helpful because I can use that same form of argument to claim anything I want is real.

My speculation is that it could be real. That is different than arguing that it is actually real.

I didn't ignore it, I don't follow it as any form of indication.
To you, the idea of being incapable of cognitively imagining something, yet experiencing something which one cannot cognitively imagine equates to the experience being of real things.
I do not see this as convincing as this phenomenon happens regularly and anecdotal claims by many subjects who are affected neurologically in a multitude of manners.

This is going around in circles.

If you were a jury, the evidence which has been presented has allowed you to retire for deliberation and come back with a verdict.

I as a jury am still awaiting the evidence, not satisfied that the evidence so far presented is enough to make a verdict.

That is the difference between our thinking on the subject.

This again loops back to the argument from ignorance issue.
Again, I can equally claim that the physical properties which produce rain only facilitate rain souls from a non-physical realm.

It doesn't lead us anywhere that helps validate the claim because we can claim this about anything that we want to without any means to test the validity of that claim.

Illogical.

We don't know how much is in the brain at this time.
We know it is in there somewhere, and probably created in the pineal gland, because it is verified in human urine and blood samples (in those who have not taking the psychotropic drug externally).

As such, we don't know what dose the brain produces, or where it even produces.
The MAO enzyme eats DMT extremely quickly, so it is currently beyond our capacity to capture the brain in the act of producing DMT at the brain level.
We can only see it after it is being flushed out through the rest of the body.

So the argument is that since the brain produces DMT, we can conclude that this gives people their experiences, even that it is unknown how much DMT the brain actually produces?

Again, as a means of evidence, this only serves as an argument from ignorance; that because we don't know, it is therefore true, or of equal probability.

Your beliefs and personal bias conclude that I must be ignorant. Beliefs have a habit of inducing such deductions regarding those who do not share the same beliefs.

Perhaps it may not be capable of absolute conclusion in the sense that we have every nuance accounted for, but aside from an argument from ignorance leaving open possibilities that what people report experiencing actually happened, we have OBEs and NDEs rather well accounted for at this point.

Your beliefs and personal bias conclude that I must be ignorant. Beliefs have a habit of inducing such deductions regarding those who do not share the same beliefs.

What do you think created this “crop circle”?

People, as so far has been shown again and again.
What hasn't been shown is any reason to think it would actually be an alien craft showing up just to draw in our dirt, and then play hide and seek.

The reason I asked was to see how you answered.

“People” as an answer is enough. You felt the need to also make comment about ‘Aliens’ as if somehow my question implied that aliens were responsible for the crop formation. The formation was not ‘drawn in the dirt’ either.

This helps me to understand the attitude behind your words might not be as genuine as I first thought.

On the surface 'mild'.

 

[Navigator]

I'm not sure the question is a useful one. It seems likely that consciousness arises out of the co-ordinated activities of a number of cognitive processes in a number of brain areas. When those processes are working together and conscious awareness is active, those cognitive functions it is not directly aware of are called the subconscious. Does that make them 'really separate'?

I would say not. It just makes them appear to be: Why they appear separate is in the data.
The access to the data consciousness has appears to be limited compared to the access this Subconsciousness (or whatever consciousness I am communicating with) through Ouija has.

I would question how you can establish that the experiences are "‘out of this world’ to such a degree that nothing about them resembles in any way, anything to do with the physical universe" when all you have is metaphorical descriptions because the experiences themselves were indescribable (as can happen in dreams).

As I said, while within the experiences consciousness has little to no problem with understanding the experience.
It is only when within the awakened state that the experience becomes indescribable and metaphor is require to even attempt to convey the experience.
As I said, what we refer to as dreams, are describable – they may be odd and even unearthly but they can be described without metaphor.
It might be that the dream itself is a metaphor, but that metaphor is describable upon awakening.

It's a lesser leap of faith to suppose that it really is communicating with other universes?

Is there such a thing as ‘a lesser leap of faith’? It is not about ‘believing it could be true’ it is about allowing for the possibility because it cannot be proven 100% absolutely false.
It only becomes ‘faith’ when one places belief in it actually being true based upon inconclusive evidence.

No, I'm asking you to question your assumptions; primarily the one that these indescribable experiences are of things beyond imagination.

My ‘assumption’ is that it is impossible for the brain to create entirely different universes for consciousness to thus experience. The brain requires something in which to reference from its own universe and must always simulate its own reality.

There is a broad spectrum of possibilities it could create but they all would have to be connected with the universe in which the brain resides.

Whether I can do it or not is irrelevant; you don't know that anyone has had such an experience, internally or externally generated. All you apparently have are anecdotes of ineffable experiences. The people who had those experiences can't know either.

Temporal lobe seizures can also give rise to ineffable transcendent revelatory experiences.

What is ‘internally or externally’ generated?

Plausible to you. What you have is Russell's Teapot.

What I have is not enough evidence to make presumptions which claim absolutes either way, same as you.

Evidence? anecdotes of ineffable experiences are not sufficient.

Not sufficient for what?
Speculation?

Some can speculate and even claim that brain observations and the subsequent interpretations are the only interpretations one can reach and therefore the evidence ‘speaks for itself’ (which it does not – the interpretation speaks for the evidence).
I don’t think the interpretations are necessarily correct, for reasons I have said.
Anecdotes are just data, and useful for that. They cannot be called physical evidence because they are subjective experience, but this does not mean that they cannot be useful as data.

They are ‘not sufficient’ for physical science, but that is neither here nor there.

I think I already have. If you mean the tautologous "the brain cannot conceive of things the brain cannot conceive of", I agree. You haven't shown that the experiences described are inconceivable.

Are you claiming it is possible to “show that the experiences described are inconceivable”? That would be fantastic!

The best anyone has been able to do is attempt to ‘describe the indescribable’ through metaphor.

 

[dlorde]

What is ‘internally or externally’ generated?

In this context, experiences created by the brain (internally) or experiences caused by the perception of some external environment (externally).

Not sufficient for what?
Speculation?

Evidence.

...If you mean the tautologous "the brain cannot conceive of things the brain cannot conceive of", I agree. You haven't shown that the experiences described are inconceivable.

Are you claiming it is possible to “show that the experiences described are inconceivable”? That would be fantastic!