I had my first OOBE last night. It was weird but fun.

Noticed I said the brain becomes aware! (I was still pushing this brain thing!)

So - I think Dreamfortehwinz had a good point in trying for all parties to agree on a definition of what we consider ‘real’… but I think we couldn’t agree that - its another debate for another thread perhaps. Therefore I don’t think it would be a good idea to keep referring to things as being more ‘real than real’.

Yes… I do know what you are saying though from my own LDs… (all 3 of em’ he he) I can only compare them with my own ND’s. There is a higher degree of vividness in a lucid dream (in my experience!).

Yet, brain imaging would suggest otherwise.
psychjournal.com/interviews/ … berg_1.htm
This is a pretty balanced article on the subject.

Also, forgive my laziness/ignorance… but would someone explaine Occam’s Razor?

Look, EGO, I too have experienced something so profound that it caused me to believe in life after death and some sort of god. I also believe that consciousness exists beyond the physical body, even while the body is still alive.

My arguments with you stem from the reality that you pick and choose whatever evidence supports(or that you believe supports) your beliefs and neglect any evidence that could undermine them.

Damn right I’m frustrated. It’s hard to argue with someone who bases their argument on the conclusion that their hypothesis is correct before even seeing any evidence.

You should believe that I can ask those very same questions in the very same paragraph and have them be rhetorical.

This implies that you believe that a requirement of a rhetorical question is that there isn’t an answer. I hope you don’t really think this.

I wasn’t dodging and weaving. Those links explain far better than I can exactly why your arguments are illogical. My concision is a result of my already admitted frustration.

Why don’t you try to explain why you aren’t committing these logical fallacies that I’m accusing you of? YOU are dodging and weaving.

No, you don’t. I will address your stubborn misrepresentation of logic when I respond to another one of your posts.

In short, the simplest answer is most likely the right answer.

Well, if we went by the definition I provided, dreams would be considered real. Events and characters in a dream would not be real.

The definition I supplied was merely to make a point: an operational definition must be agreed upon in order to dispute what is real. I could have chosen any of the definitions provided by dictionary.com or I could have made up my own.

No, that’s not common ground. That’s you projecting your beliefs.

Ok, that’s fine if you want to believe that. I, however, believe otherwise.

[personal belief]My field of study trains me and everyone else pursuing it to be the greatest skeptics we can be. When I am able to use past knowledge of the realities of others to manipulate my laboratory experiments I am highly inclined to believe that we are experiencing the same reality. This reality may end up looking subjectively different, but objectively, it is the same.[/personal belief]

Not at all. When have I denied any conclusions Science finds? Since when did I claim to have objective evidence about anything? Not sure what you’re talking about. My beliefs are in constant flux and change. I accept all rather than deny anything.

I’m not frustrated one bit, because I’m not trying to prove anything at all. Exactly what evidence do I need to see that will negate or have more impact than direct experience?

I see no reason to get frustrated if you are secure in your perspective. Why do you need links to explain something that you seem to understand so fully?

Because everything is a logical fallacy. You seek to find objectivity in subjectivity.

How can I be stubborn when I don’t know anything?

That was a bad joke. You asked for it :wink:

First of all, what evidence do you speak of? Second of all, say you somehow do manage to scrounge up some credible evidence, it doesn’t imply anything other than that the brain is not soley responsible for controlling consciousness.

…I have to say this…it is absolutely blowing my mind that you continue to deny science even a shred of credibility, cite something like occam’s razor, and at the same time commit these same logical fallacies.

EDIT: Nevermind…addressing your post now.

Why? How is the experience of an event and character in the dream any less real when the Dream itself when the dream is comprised of said values? I suppose you miss the point; if you experience something, it’s real.

How can you dispute something that has no evidence weighing on either side? In my opinion, you are the Universe. Real is as subjective as perspective. And since every human being on the planet has THEIR perspective and can prove nothing outside of their own mind, reality ultimately is all in ‘how you see it.’

I suppose you mean lack of beliefs? How can I project something I do not possess? I have my opinions, but I declare openly that they are mere opinions and have every chance to be completely wrong. If I was projective my beliefs, I would say I KNOW I am bred in ignorance, but I don’t even know that either. The point I try and stress is your world exists in your head. You were born and raised a certain way, experienced a multitude of events and people I will never experience and developed a belief system out of information that could be completely wrong as well. Nobody knows anything for sure, we can just convince ourselves otherwise with strong beliefs.

That’s the beauty of the world; you’re allowed and encouraged to. There are my opinions on what I think existance is like and is completely my opinion and views alone. My entire world is made up of images, words and emotions that only I have recieved. Everything I know is merely known by it’s relation to another thing. I know what a Car in relation to a Road, I know a Road in relation to Asphalt, I know Asphalt in relation to Tar, etc… I know nothing in my life that exists independent and completley objectively because such a thing is a fallacy is seperatedness. Every word I hear is broken down and linked to another idea which is links across a million others. My world is literally a reflection of MYSELF. As is yours. You are like a walking Mirror, projecting yourself onto the world and the world projecting itself onto you. And we all strut around with our mirrors strapped to our chests, all arguing over each other’s reflection because they are not the same…not realizing that they will NEVER be the same. And that is the key. To realize that we’re all just reflecting each other, all connected and only existing in relation to each other. We are all ‘in the same boat’ when it comes to know we truly know. We can only know what we reflect and nothing else.

I have a similiar belief (if you search Philosophers Stone for The Objective Subject thread I made you can see), and I came to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter. If experience is all we know then the subjective experience is truly all that counts, not the objectivity. This is what creates the beautiful divirsity in our World. We all live on the same thing but we all see something unique per-person. I think the only true objectivity is Love (not just an emotion to me). Love holds to no standards, it’s entirely unconditional and it’s always there. It’s the epitome of Objecitivity because it is 1. It’s as if that is the fundamental basis for my reality and everything I experience after that is just my ‘ego’ creating a story where there wasn’t one. And that’s the idea of subjectivity, we all tell our own stories. Like a book translated to many different languages might read differently but always retains the same lesson and story.

When you said:

Denial of all of the conclusions of neuroscience fit neatly into once sentence. I can find many more, if you’d like.

Are you serious?

I don’t know. The site above seemed, in all it’s credible splendor, seemed to be acceptable evidence for you to affirm your beliefs…

Well, I’ll answer you again by quoting myself.

I don’t even know how to respond to that one.

Show me where I do this.

You’re really trying to ride this out as long as you can, aren’t you?

I don’t believe that post had any mention of evidence. Not sure what you’re referring to. I cannot dig up objective evidence for this because it’s all subjective information (NDE’s for example). I just believe what these people have experienced from my own personal experience.

I do not recall saying I do not support Science. I AM a Scientist, and I support every single piece of ‘evidence’ that Science uncovers. I just see that Evidence differently than you might. Everything you study about the Brain that shows you it produces consciousness I see as a result of Concsiousness. You must understand, I think that YOU are in MY world. All I know is me and I will never know anything outside of ‘me.’ I feel that this construct is here because of me. Either way, everything I do in Life is fed through my senses, translated into electrical signals, through the nervous system to the Brain and then translated and decoded and observed by my Mind. Meaning, nothing I know can exist independent from me because just my experience of it makes it a part of me. In other words, I am the center of the Universe (I hope you understand this irony).

The first two comments of your EDIT: second to last post make me want to cry.

…Ego, you are a dullard of the highest caliber. I can no longer bother arguing with you. Feel free to accept my ad hominem reply as defeat, if it so pleases you.

I will continue to read this thread. I will participate if I feel the urge to, but I will no longer address you.

G’night, mate.

  1. That link was someone else’s experience. It’s not evidence to anyone except the person who experienced it.

  2. It coincides perfectly with ideas that I myself have had and affirms my personal beliefs. This will not be the same for everyone.

You care too much, mate. I still say, I’m compeltely wrong. The fact that you think someone else is a ‘dullard’ simply because they do not believe what you believe or understand fully your perspective is pompous and a sign of insecurity. You cannot portray your entire belief system to me through the series of a few posts on a UBB because there’s a level of emperical knowledge that I’ll NEVER recieve and vice versa for me. You think you make perfect sense and as do I because we both have this jury-rigged, ducktaped version of reality in our heads. We think that what we know must be correct because it makes so much sense to us! And when people don’t see it as clearly as we do? Well, they are obviously dullards!

At least I concede and have the entire time that I accept and embrace the idea that I cannot convey my ideas fully enough where everyone can understand them and thus, I am as ignorant as the next guy. You are hell-bent on logic when logic doesn’t fit the very fabric of existance. While its fitting in some aspects of life, there comes a point where it falls apart and personal experience always takes presidence over it. And that eliminates all possibility of objectivity. To quote Waking Life…

“And when you realize that you are a character in another person’s dream, that is self-awareness.”

Ego: the guy takes his definition of reality from an online dictionary, I wouldnt worry about it…

And my God, dream, how many times do I have to say correlation does not equal identical nature or even causation?

Neuroscience researches the brain, it is able to make no conclusions about consciousness because consciousness is not the brain. Indeed, science relies on consciousness in the first place to observe anything, INCLUDING the brain itself!

Science has just become bad philosophy. Dream, believe me logic is not on your side… Anyway I’m out, the book I posted on ‘Philosophers Cloud’ says everything I want to say on this subject.

I guess el sortilego is the only one that understands my attempt to establish an operational definition of reality? I could just have well have chosen Ego’s definition, as I noted, but he didn’t provide one.

You’re right, it doesn’t.

If I used the word conclusion, I apologize. I do remember saying something along the lines of “all evidence points to the brain as having responsibility for consciousness.”

Here’s a nice little read: https://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

“We shall not describe here the various opinions of philosophers, except to say that while philosophers have, in the past, raised interesting questions and pointed to possible conceptual confusions, they have had a very poor record, historically, at arriving at valid scientific answers. For this reason, neuroscientists should listen to the questions philosophers raise but should not be intimidated by their discussions. In recent years the amount of discussion about consciousness has reached absurd proportions compared to the amount of relevant experimentation.”

Searching through journals that are available to me, I’ve actually been able to find quite a bit on the topic of consciousness and the brain. Here’s some of it:

"In mammals, consciousness seems to be specifically associated with the thalamus and cortex (Baars, Banks, & Newman, 2003). Regions such as the hippocampal system and cerebellum can be damaged without a loss of consciousness per se. Indeed, in cases like Rasmussen encephalitis, an entire hemisphere can be surgically removed without a loss of consciousness (although a form of blindsight can occur after surgery for this condition; see Tomaiuolo, Ptito, Marzi, Paus, & Ptito, 1997). Damage to the brainstem, including the thalamus, can abolish the state of consciousness; but a very local lesion in sensory cortex may delete only specific conscious features such as color vision, visual motion, conscious experiences of visual objects and faces, and the like. Such cortical damage does not disrupt the state of consciousness, but changes its contents.

To a first approximation, the lower brainstem is involved in maintaining the state of consciousness, while the cortex (interacting with thalamus) sustains conscious contents. No other brain regions have been shown to possess these properties."

“Together, these first three properties indicate that consciousness involves widespread, relatively fast, low-amplitude interactions in the thalamocortical core of the brain, driven by current tasks and conditions. Unconscious states are markedly different and much less responsive to sensory input or endogenous activity. These properties are directly testable and constitute necessary criteria for consciousness in humans.”

“Consciousness presents an extraordinary range of contents—perception in the different senses, imagery, emotional feelings, concepts, inner speech, and action-related ideas. This broad range suggests that consciousness involves many interacting, yet functionally differentiated, brain regions. Visual cortex has now been shown to be involved in conscious visual events (e.g., Sheinberg & Logothetis, 1997). Recent studies show prefrontal activity for “fringe conscious” events such as mental effort and the tip-of-the-tongue state (Maril, Wagner, & Schacter, 2001). An integrative concept of consciousness must therefore involve many brain regions as well as the interactions among them, along with the ability to recruit regions such as hippocampus (for conscious episodic storage and recall) and cerebellum (for conscious feedback control of fine motor skills).”

"A conscious perception is a complex phenomenon which evolves through several sequential steps; therefore it is conceivably associated with widespread patterns of brain activity. Block (1997) argues for a conceptual distinction between ‘phenomenal’ and ‘access’ consciousness. While phenomenal consciousness refers to the subjective aspect of experience, access consciousness refers to the direct control of experience through reasoning, reporting, or action.Visual awareness is the most studied type of conscious perception in normal and abnormal humans as well as animals. Some neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies of visual awareness (Logothetis, 1998 and Tong et al., 1998) have concentrated on the role of the ventral stream and have not typically considered the potential role of fronto-parietal activations. However, more recent studies suggest that joint activation of category-specific regions in the ventral stream and activity in parietal and prefrontal areas might be crucial for visual awareness (Rees et al., 2002). Our selected fMRI and PET studies of conscious perception, summarized in Table 4, confirm this view. "

Just a few bits and pieces from some abstracts…

Good, then during an NDE where the Brain is not functioning, people should report next to nothing and should not be able to have any type of Consciousness during these times. But that’s not what happenes. Remove or deactivate the Brain and the person becomes more alive than they ever felt (according to countless testimonials). Science cannot explain this and struggles withtheir Materialistic perspective to do so, and 99% of the time, falls short. Science cannot explain it because it exists outside the Realm of testable Science and enters Philosophy/Metaphysics.

You seem to misunderstand. Even what you just posted STILL supports the idea of Consciousness residing outside the Brain. You seem to preach open-mindedness yet you post nothing but ‘evidence’ to support the Brain being the be-all and end-all of Consciousness. Until you can explain how I saw my own body OUTSIDE of my Body using just the Materalistic perspective, I have no reason to think the Brain is anything more than a lump of mass designed to faciliate a Physical experience, nothing more.

Dream: just try to think a bit more about what we mean by “consciousness”, as in the thing that we use to find out anything whatsoever about the brain in the first place… really think about this: ALL information about the brain comes to us via consciousness…

Think again about physical events and mental events, and correlation not meaning causation. As in seratonin and happiness are correlated… but not the same thing, and no conclusions can be drawn about which causes the other.

Ok, and one more: recently scientists, nice folks that they are, hooked a cat’s brain up to some advanced technology and managed to get very rough visuals of what the cat was seeing on a computer monitor.

My point is that the visuals on the monitor are not what the cat is seeing. To prove this, just turn the cat around to look at the monitor. WE cannot see what the cat is ACTUALLY seeing, because you have to actually BE the cat to do that. These are the sorts of thoughts you have to entertain if you would like to think philosophically.

On the subject of your anti-philosophy quote, well… actually a lot of philosophy dissapeared up its own backside and I think this is what allowed ‘religion’ and ‘science’ to run amok with their naieve little concepts. TRUE philosophy will always transcend any such ideas because it is about getting beyond all limitations. Hell, no use talking about that kind of thing here with a “scientist” though is it? :tongue:

Ego: oh no, you don’t seem to understand: materialists want it both ways. They will say our daily perception is the result of brain activity, and yet the fully vivid, lucid and stable NDE’s are produced by a brain with either no activity or minimal, chaotic activity. You can’t argue with dogmatists. Asking a materialist to consider the idea that the body is not the be-all and end-all of our existence is like asking a fundamentalist Christian to entertain the idea that Jesus wasnt the bosses son.

Are you a vegetarian, Lebowsk1?

Until you can prove that the experiences of NDEs take place after brain death my position remains the same.

And I am not a materialist - I strongly believe that the world would be a better place and everyone would be happier if all of this technology had never been produced in the manner that it has been.

If I could press a button that made everything go back to a pre-state world I would.

So far, that’s exactly what every single NDE confirms. Science says “Oh, well, it might be functioning on a level that we cannot detect.” Can we not detect it, or maybe it’s just not there? Yes, these people were declared clinically dead, which means no heartbeat, no EKG, no Brain Acitivity in any way, shape or form. So what exactly else needs to be done to confirm these people were ‘dead’ for a certain amount of time? Wouldn’t even Occam’s Razor support that to say these people we’re not using the Brain at all rather than trying to find out how these experience all this with reduced/no functionality, the simpler theory?

I must agree. Technology has been used for the most vile, evil and useless goals rather than making leaps and strides in advancing the Human Race. And on the other side, we have Religion causing almost every major War since Mankind’s start. We need to meet in the middle and I know we will eventually.