OK, let me reply to what you posted after more than half an hour than I posted my last message. I imply that em…
these two quotes of yours are contradictory maybe?
What do you not understand in what I am saying ? 
EDIT: I have a gif for this situation right now… but I keep it for the end
Well I don’t know if you watched Through The Wormhole. in second season first episode called Is There Life After Death(which doesn’t really matter) they were talking a lot about consciousness and what consciousness is, where it comes from and where it goes…
Also there are few scientists in this episode that believe that one can leave there body, that one can exist outside physical body through consciousness. How is that “maybe” possible biologically? Well you can watched here if you didn’t already!
And that’s my point, we don’t know everything, everyday we learn new things about things that we thought we already know…
Ok, so there has been a pair of new pages full of arguments. Yet as I see, RT doesn’t get the simple fact that the existence of litteral OBE’s is not possible. Instead of redirecting you to external pages, which you do not seem to understand anyway, I will show my points here…
You claim that OBE’s happen, because we somehow leave our body. I claim, that OBE’s happen, because we are simply able to hallucinate. To prove my point I have this evidence:
Now I would like to analyse the “soul” concept a little it further. It is rellevant to the topic, because in order to leave your body you need something to leave it with. Some sort of an independent form of consciousness. Ignoring the facts about the brain, let’s assume you leave your body thanks to this independent form of consciousness. Let’s call it a soul.
For a soul to work properly, it must be able to disconnect from the brain, to induce OBE’s. Of course, you are somewhat conscious during the experience of an OBE, thus the soul needs to include your consciousness as well. This means that the consciousness of a human body is not created by brains, but by the soul. This means that the human consciousness in an unmaterial concept and should not be affected by the material brain; yet research shows otherwise. It seems that consciousness is affected by the brain. Some proof of it:
Thus, consciousness is dependent on the brain and can’t be disconnected from it. Therefore, the soul cannot be conscious. That means, that OBE’s do not include any form of consciousness, however, your “research” shows otherwise. It is understandable that I would rather trust confirmed experiments on the brain, rather than your fairytales. And I ask you - how in the world could someone leave his body during an OBE, if the human consciousness stays with the body?
[mod]
Several posts have been removed due to flaming or bickering.
Please treat each other with good faith and respect. The forum is first and foremost a community of lucid dreamers, not a debate site. Whilst it is great to be able to deeply discuss topics with others, not everyone here is interested in duking it out until only one person is left standing in terms of correctness. Such intent will likely only prove who has more patience anyway, not who is correct.
Please also refrain from posting ‘demotivationals’, it’s not respectful of the people you are discussing with to post sardonic images like this.
Thanks.
If anyone has any questions or issues regarding this, please PM me or another Global Moderator.
[/mod]
You can see that in this particular way, but what if you see this as there is a consciousness or soul possible to exist outside the physical body and then body becomes nothing more then a shell that can be broken in many ways and therefore your consciousness is effected because of the connection with the body as long as it is in the body…
Why this could be, well in video I posted above Eben Alexander (neurosurgeon) can’t scientifically explain his experience yet he believes in the experience to me something out of the physical existence(at least that how I see his description of the experience) and there was a dr. Stuart Hameroff which study consciousness and it’s also a anesthesiologist. And patients under anesthesia lose awareness and consciousness and yet the brain is still active so they still don’t know why…
Also almost every NDE or OBE was happening when the patient was brain dead so that’s the best evidence I can come up with to support that something is happening outside the physical body and maybe physical realm.
In your post you took out every evidence that will support your believe that OBE are not possible, I took that support that is possible, so at the end this is again proved to be a nothing more then a discussion about something that is not proved or disproved by science and here our believes and opinions are what really holds the discussion! Cheers!
It is exactly what I don’t agree with, because of the arguments I supplied above.
Why bother discussing his beliefs then? You know, the fact that someone believes something to be true doesn’t make it true. Not even if the whole population (7 billion people) believed in the existence of a soul, would make the soul exist. Existence is not affected by beliefs. That’s why I simply ignore sayings like “I believe this and this, but I can’t supply evidence”.
Anesthesia doesn’t kill the activity of the brain. It simply blocks the person’s senses and puts him into deep sleep, a superficial coma. The brain is still working to some extent and activity should be expected.
NDE’s or OBE’s do not happen when a patient is brain dead, since the brain is dead and can’t create any sensations. NDE’s and OBE’s happen, as I said earlier, during the stimulation of the temporal and parietal lobes in the brain. This stimulation may happen if the patient is dying, is oxygen-deprived or is using certain supplements. If a brain is totally dead, the person is dead as well, therefore there is no talk about any experiences.
Unfortunately, I fail to see how your evidence supports the existence of litteral OBE’s which let you leave your body.
Please…Please… Don’t make me post about the burden of proof again…And about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rather, look at this thread: Is it possible for your dreams to become ‘your reality’ ? I put the same argument as I would put here. You need to understand the concept of burden of proof to see where and how your arguments fail.
Then I guess you know more then a scientists… 
Why would you say that? Because I don’t believe in something a neurosurgeon believes?
No, because you dismiss theories that scientists didn’t dismiss and evidence that scientists prove you dismiss them and in the video it was said that OBE’s happened when there was brain dead, so please take evidence in the equation, it wasn’t that they “only” happened when there was brain dead but that they do too happened when was brain dead…
Like I said, you are taking only evidence that will support your believe…
Ah… finally, more respectful (without gifs etc.
) to assertations by other forum members that don’t agree with you and ( not to self evalidate or devaluate necessarily) seem more capable of grasping. You don’t have to agree at any rate, but you haven’t comprehended yet what is that, that you disagree with.
You haven’t supplied a single argument yet at any level that cannot be answered alternatively, you just think you have done so, you have convinced yourself you have, you don’t just know what you do with that type of thinking at that moment, OK don’t trust my experience, and BTW I do not assert by that, how or why is OBE/NDE happening, I assert that as a phenomenon it undoubtedly exists, whatever their significance it’s true, be it a full scale hallucination or else. If OBE is a full scale hallucination does it lessen the fact that I managed to view remote items, don’t trust me in that, but telling me that this is is not of importance if it happened is just… well.
I have searched all of these aswell, and also what areas of the brain work less at the moment (causing “disassociation”), and what others are stimulated, nobody disagrees with the existence of the above as a reason how OBEs/NDEs are forming. But that does not disprove at any rate that we don’t know how consciousness is produced. You say this and this happens, you never explain how does it negate the fact that we don’t know how consciousness forms.
note: the “debate” term I did not use as in a form of the significance of a “political debate”, you have to foresee that terms take an entirely different level on different languages, and the corresponding word to it in greek takes a smaller significance the same with it’s respective synonym ( “discuss” in greek). So in effect I meant discuss, or assert more vividly POVs if you’d like more correctly, but not that it’s a “battle” as you were given the impression of or someone else made the impression to be so. Go back and see the whole context where the word was placed in, it was another forum member, the one that places large pics, to cover the entire screen, that made the very context of it seem different.
Sorry, I did not see the video. The main reason for that is that I don’t have a sufficiently good internet atm, the other reason is that YouTube videos were never a good source of evidence, since everyone can make them and declare themselves scientists. How do you know they aren’t some kind of the New Age movement philosophers? And no, I take all kind of evidence. However, no evidence, that confirms the existence of souls or litteral OBE’s have been provided, aside from anecdotal stuff, which should not be taken seriously.
I’ve always been respectful. But I can’t stand nonsense fairytales and my respectfulness has its borders.
Sorry, I do not see any flaws in my arguments. Please point out those, since I don’t see any kind of obvious inaccuracies atm.
Yes, as a phenomenon, OBE’s, NDE’s and AP’s exist, and I have never stated they don’t. I just state that they are hallucinations, rather than real out of body experiences.
I would want to believe your OBE abilities, however, I can’t. As a skeptic, I need verifiable evidence, which can be collected during laboratory conditions. If you have somehow guessed what is written on a paper sheet, it is not evidence, unless it is scientifically verified several times to reduce the odds of simple luck. And, as dagto correctly stated, you might have simply had a false impression that you have seen the exact same word on the sheet. Our brain likes to do tricks on us, you know. On no account should you trust your brain alone.
I did not talk about the production of our consciousness. That is another topic. I merely stated that our consciousness is affected by physical modifications to the brain, thus, our consciousness is not an eternal, unchangable unit, which could allow litteral OBE’s.
I don’t know, I’ve never experienced an OBE myself. But it does fasinate me, whether it’s just some kind of very clear dream or really an OBE.
First and foremost, I agree, respectfulness has it’s borders, so mine does aswell. For instance when I explained that I am a theological non-cognitivist, search that term up, you somehow found logical fallacies in the very definition of it, because that’s what my message was, I explained in better detail the terminology in effect. You can disagree all you like but you have to be respectful in order to have self-respect and get respect by others, the fact that you cannot comprehend ( I don’t know if you have the knowledge that you can’t comprehend) certain matters neither makes them false nor correct. I didn’t tell you to trust my evidence, for me it is absolute evidence, I didn’t only read a paper but I had absolute clarity inside an OBE ( name it however you like), where I saw items that had purposely had their positions changed from the regular, and then managed through the second OBE where I sensory deprived myself AND slept facing towards the bookshelf ( which is not the regural position for OBE) to examine correctly what was there ( when awake I didn’t do that on obvious purpose). Thing is I had more than 10 OBEs in that summer, that’s what motivated me to do so. When there is heat an oxygen deprivation almost always an OBE is triggered. To tell me that you don’t trust me as I have said countless times is OK, but to tell me that IF what I did is true on whatever level is not interesting, that’s just whack. And it puzzles me aswell why OBEs are permitted in our world. You don’t have to believe me but I give my account and after that I can progress further, you cannot judge till the very end, no matter how much you will disagree in every single detail.
It is very difficult ( was for me aswell) to comprehend this months ago, actually logic has as I have to say 6 corrolaries, we tend to use mostly 2 ( hypothesis and abstraction) and up to 4 in our lives. It’s not a reduction to say that these 6 corrolaries ( for instance go back 2 sentences, can you comprehend - not agree - but even comprehend what I am saying), are an extension of the first two based on the very same principles of the same two.
You have to see my first message, I was almost sure that literal OBEs are not like that , in order to be more precise at the moment, the 6th corrolary of logic that you should apply is knowing that you don’t know. And what I mean by that is that you might have some data down that you think is the only available or possibly available. You may very well get correct results with the method, you have to question the method on itself to see if it was correct and thus if your results are safe. More to the point you’ve learned about Sets on mathematics and how qualities pertain “solely” to certain sets, but qualities on themselves can be “seperate sets” aswell, through not knowing this ( you have been told conveniently) that qualities can belong only to certain sets, wheareas the combinations are incalculable. That whole perplexed logic on itself is knowledge that can give pragmatical results. You have to understand that our world cannot be examined through abstraction only, but through abstracting the abstraction ( thus not coming from simple thinking to complex, but from complex to simple, which is an asbtraction aswell), our world is BASED on an abstractive level, there are types of types of types of things all around us and that combined with various types of types of types of ways, you cannot examine everything with the very basis of logic, logic itself might been permitted because of these high levels of abstractions our world is formed.
You see a world where it’s concepts, and the very same concept of it being a world, is based ( not examining at the moment if that is the whole or partial truth of our universe) on the sum of each of your basic senses ( hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, smelling etc) added to a combo of more perplexed ones stemming directly or indirectly from the above ( feeling, thinking) AND that added to the sum of it all. Yes you can only move by that now, but the thing is that you don’t know WHAT are each of your senses - principal, or more “sophisticated” - or HOW they form, thus you cannot trust matterialism as the only solution, do we have for instance to exclude the meaning of energy for that??? Because energy is not matter. Do we directly “perceive” energy or is there such a thing? Do we see it, taste it, hear or whatsover? All you tell me is that matter this matter that, physical this, physical that ( but what matter is? isnt it at a first level energy for instance?) you don’t progress in any type of thinking to give ideas or proofs ( abstractive logic, empirical and so on) of OBEs not existing, you haven’t defined yet OBE. My definition is that OBE although not fully understood/defined is worth to be examined and can be examined. You didn’t disprove anything, but you can only be 50% sure.
You have to have knowledge of all the previous to conclude that almost always you can be only 50%, you never know what data will come forward in whatever way, and if it will come at all. Intuition is not metaphysical at all, it is very much our subconscious using the 5th-6th corrolary of logic i explained bringing us results that we cannot comprehend with the of up to the 4th corrolary of logic, I don’t need to name all the corrolaries, but you might possibly have understood at the moment. If you can get this, not necessarily “agree”, but understand, I can go on in detail on other quotes of yours.
How do you know that they are literally hallucinations and not just OBEs per se? What is the proof at any level of this, they might be but what is the proof, since you use this as a way to dismiss totally other roads opened. If they are hallucinations what would the difference be since they empirically serve exactly the same purpose? Does it lessen their importance if they are “just” hallucinations?
Say that a million times.
Simply you didn’t see people using the 6th corrolary of logic. You didn’t look even abstractively at WHAT they have to say, you don’t even expect what they have to say ,you didn’t look at ANY type of thinking provided to you, it is you that has to judge if it is correct or not, it’s like looking on theory of relativity in wikipedia and saying it is wrong for being on the internet.
OK I want absolute proof for all of that, this is the scientific way to go, otherwise you can only be 50% sure.
I’ve provided absolute proof that consciousness is affected by physical changes in our brain. I’ve given a couple of good examples. Maybe you’ve missed that, just look above few of my comments.
Anyway, I’m tired of this topic. Mainly because you are totally sure that you can go out of your body and because your arguments are philosohpical, rather than based on the research of neuroscience.
And your 50% is bullshit. I already stated, that the burden of proof is on you. The probability of the existence of OBE’s is a lot lower than 50%. That is because there is no place for such a thing as a “soul” in the brain. The concept of a soul is simply irrational. It must have been created by evolution, as all other parts of the body. Yet how come chimpanzees do not have souls, while we do (at least it’s stated by theologists). The 50% probability doesn’t work because of this simple example:
It’s nonsense.
Anyways, I’m out. At least until some serious evidence is posted.
Completely false, you either pretend you don’t understand or do not understand at all. Because possibilities are affected by several factors, the answers is and keep that well in your mind: the dinosaur doesn’t matter, god as a superhuman being doesn’t matter, research matters, the dinosaur or god, that you use in the same way as religious people is not negative or positive but unimportant completely. You do the same mistake on getting results out of partial data, you do not know what data can exist, or you know what you don’t know?? STILL if I am wrong you have proven n-o-t-h-i-n-g about consciousness or OBEs or anything. The fact that you cannot comprehend at any rate, however deep I go into, or rather pretend to do so, is that I do NOT dismiss your results, or do not assert that the opposite of what you say is 100% true, I assert very precisely that I simple DON’T KNOW, you are safe and the scientific community still searches. Is it so hard to comprehend that plain thing? Why do you disagree with that and where I have stated otherwise can you pinpoint? You dismiss scientists and so on and pick selectively on fan-made sites, where is YOUR serious evidence . I did not make any definite claim, my opinion is that I simply don’t know, it is you that made a claim, you have to give evidence for it. The arguments are not philosophical, and I miss many pages to link, you are not scientific you are completely dogmatic, you haven’t defined anything precisely, neither anyone can ofc, we just move with current data, but you based your arguments on non-defined things and axioms that you make out of your own wishful thinking. Direct proof:
Charles Sanders Peirce held that the most important division of kinds of deductive reasoning is that between corollarial and theorematic. He argued that, while finally all deduction depends in one way or another on mental experimentation on schemata or diagrams,[1] still in corollarial deduction “it is only necessary to imagine any case in which the premisses are true in order to perceive immediately that the conclusion holds in that case,” whereas theorematic deduction “is deduction in which it is necessary to experiment in the imagination upon the image of the premiss in order from the result of such experiment to make corollarial deductions to the truth of the conclusion.”[2] He held that corollarial deduction matches Aristotle’s conception of direct demonstration, which Aristotle regarded as the only thoroughly satisfactory demonstration, while theorematic deduction (A) is the kind more prized by mathematicians, (B) is peculiar to mathematics,[1] and (C) involves in its course the introduction of a lemma or at least a definition uncontemplated in the thesis (the proposition that is to be proved); in remarkable cases that definition is of an abstraction that “ought to be supported by a proper postulate.”.[3]
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corollary
Ramsey theory, named after the British mathematician and philosopher Frank P. Ramsey, is a branch of mathematics that studies the conditions under which order must appear. Problems in Ramsey theory typically ask a question of the form: “how many elements of some structure must there be to guarantee that a particular property will hold?”
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_theory
I thought the same and was disproven, if it happens to you are the possibilities still the same, a possibility is a possibility, I would respect an " I don’t know". Can you explain why the probability is so low now?
Yes OK, the whole scientific community has yet to define consciousness and you have… what to say. Now tell me I am wrong here. I can give more convincing examples, but examples are examples and are subject to advanced logic. You cancel yourself out in everything. Yes physical changes do affect our experience through consciousness, you have to give proof on a high level of logic combining experimentation, empiricism, matterialism and falsification/abstraction (that as I have linked above is a scientific method) and the other side of the same coin - construction, otherwise anything else is a “philosophical” argument. Still say I believe in this and this because of that, but you never explain how “because of that” you have found undeniable evidence.
Undeniable evidence and define soul. And btw, this examines another aspect of consciousness:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
It has been created so in my opinion and even animals possess different kind of souls, but what matters is not what I believe, but proof as you say, and I want proof at any level on these two propositions.
Why you give value to what theologists have to say? Do you bases yout thoughts/“evidence” on theology somehow? They might be true, I don’t agree completely but partially, but still what matters is to provide proof to others, so I can only assert being 50% sure, now why can you be sure even if you dismiss their methods, you can not dismiss their results in totality, because a non-theologist can say the very same for instance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-bod … es_of_OBEs
read all of that
You’re using black-and-white thinking here. Why must it be either/or?
Why can’t consciousess have both a biological component and an extra-biological one? Why do you assume that the Soul Hypothesis implies a top-down relationship between soul and body? Why wouldn’t one’s physiology be able to affect a soul? Why wouldn’t changes to one’s brain chemistry affect a soul?
If we think in black-and-white terms, saying that consciousness is either material or “immaterial,” then yes, evidence that physical changes in the brain affect one’s consciousness suggest that consciousness is material. Yet, if a soul exists, then it’s definitely made out of something, some material which our instrumentation can’t detect, right? Well, if that’s so, and if it’s bonded to the body, it seems logical that the body would affect it and it would affect the body. Who knows what the exact relationship between the two is. It need not be top-down, soul to body. It could be co-equal, or bracketed by probability instead of determinancy. And, it may vary from person to person. In some people, the “soul influence” may be almost nill. Who knows?
Also, as to how a person can “leave his body” when “human consciousness stays with the body”…Most modern OBE theorists don’t claim that this is what happens. Old school occultists still propagate the Empty Body Theory, but most modern theorists think that, yes, the consciouness stays in the body as always and either (1) another subtle body projects that carries a working copy of consciousness; or, (2) consciousness is copied for the projection, carried in a subtle body which is temporarily generated for the OBE but has no lasting existence.
Robert Bruce, in ASTRAL DYNAMICS, describes his ideas about this at length. He also includes descriptions of OBEs where he has two sets of memories: both the memory of his projection, and the memory of his body in the room while the projection occurred. I haven’t had any experience like that (though I know others beside Bruce have) so I can’t speak to them. I merely bring it up to show that the Empty Body Theory isn’t really endorsed by OBErs.
The most mentally conservative position is that absence of evidence means a thing, or process, doesn’t exist. Basing an argument on absence of evidence is logically fallacious, but generally allowed in scientific circles. If a claim is “extraordinary,” then the burden of proof is transferred to the claimant. I think that’s totally fair.
The only evidence, that I’m aware of, for OBEs is anecdotal. A lot of people set their “truth bar” at the level of if-it’s-empirically-verified-repeatedly-in-a-lab-then-I will-believe-it. I think this is generally good; it’s a very rational way to handle information. Of course, because evidence is anecdotal doesn’t mean that it’s bad or false. “Anecdotal” has a connotation of unreliable or untrue, but all it really means is based on personal observation. We have the systematic scientific investigation of groups in order to root out wrong assumptions, biases, fallacies, etc., but personal observations can be correct. And, of course, persons working on their own can check their own work for biases.
If true OBEs do in fact happen, then why isn’t it obvious? I don’t know. I do know lucid dreams weren’t taken seriously scientifically until about thirty years ago. Up until that time, it wasn’t obvious to most people! Most people needed to be shown it was possible in a lab, despite the fact that you could easily verify their reality for yourself. Once it was verified in a lab, then people said, Hey, Science says it’s possible! And lo, a bunch of books were sold and internet articles were written and forums launched and lucid dreaming became less kooky in the public mind. (It’s still considered rather kooky, though, and seen as an oddity, if not a big waste of time, by most people.)
All I really want to add to the debate is that the Soul Hypothesis shouldn’t be considered in black-and-white terms. Evidence that consciousness is affected by physical changes isn’t evidence against the soul; it’s evidence that consciousness is affected by physical changes. Besides, OBEs can be considered completely indepdently of the soul. What if OBEs are possible and there’s no such thing as a soul? What if the projection of consciousness is a totally material event that we don’t have a good explanation for?
It’s not always right or left, 0 or 1. Often there’s a third option.
The argument between Remember Tomorrow and Paulius seems to me to be over a technicality. Probably the central factor is that one side constrains everything to a more empirical model, and the other pushes back at that model. I don’t see any conclusive answer being reached.
OBE and AP are not proven scientifically, this can be said and I hope agreed by both sides. That doesn’t mean that OBE and AP are impossible, I’m also unconvinced that current models give us reason to believe its impossible. In fact I’d question the validity and the sense of claims that something is impossible because it doesn’t fit with current models especially when current models with regards to how the brain works, are still in such early days when compared to more mature fields like chemistry and physics, which lend themselves to being regulated and tested. (At least superficially, we’ll have to see where quantum mechanics takes us I think…) It’s unscientific to make claims of negativity. If somebody is claiming any form of scientific basis however. We can very categorically say, “No, your claims have no scientific basis.” Which can be said, at the present moment with regards to OBE and AP.
Anecdotal evidence isn’t scientific and with good reason. To start with we are in a natural hallucinogenic state when we dream and sleep. Not to mention the fact we are wired to find patterns. To point at some of the experiments that I’ve seen suggested as a good idea. Getting a friend to write a note and then you go read it in a dream is a bad methodology. Darren brown is one who has shown why. We are very clued into reading each other, we are evolved to do it. What we think is the most random thing we can think of, is not always really random. If the friend is close it’s even less random because you both share experiences through the day and know a great deal more than you realise about that person and their habits. We can’t trust we aren’t just guessing the note correctly. Anecdotal evidence is too prone to misreading to be scientific, no matter how much we might collect.
An experiment is only as good as its ability to control all factors. When it comes to the mind, we really can NOT control the factors very well at all. All six billion people on the planet can still be mistaken or flat out wrong. Especially if we don’t see flaws in the methodology of our tests like the one I stated above. Scientific peer review is excellent at picking up problems like this. All this is coming from somebody who happens to believe in OBE, that doesn’t change the fact I understand it is a long way off from being able to hold its own in the scientific domain. I also understand that something which would apparently seem quite simple to prove, not being proven yet, is good reason for many people not to take it seriously.
Allow me to place the link here for the general interest:
esotericonline.net/docs/library/ … rt%20Bruce%2 0-%20Mastering%20Astral%20Projection.pdf
( Remember, here is a very detailed and vivid description on how to do OBEs, how to maintain them, how to get to the AP state)
note: I didn’t post this as proof rather as material needed, and not only through that, to reach proof. It is also on itself very interesting
To add to that the wiki phrase on LDs:
“Lucid dreaming has been researched scientifically, and its existence is well established.[5][6]”
This is a very good indication, LDs are under the very same criteria OBEs are, yet they are not accepted by all. For me personally I have to say, I didn’t know where to look for OBEs, I didn’t know what OBEs are, only after I experienced them I did so and I postulate all I’ve found here, most are, as anyone can attest for himself, much faithful to reality.