Brain scans during an out of body experience

[shawn001]

TDOP, as you know from the past I post only facts here....:yes:



I will say both. The key point is what do you consider 'scientifically verified'. There is no person or organization that can speak for all of science. Some scientists don't accept evolution either. The examples I listed were studied by scientists.



I have this good habit of holding on to what I think is true.



It's been done. And in our past lengthy battles I provided quotes and incredible odds against chance so many times. If the goal is to prove it to people that are unreasonably prejudiced against the ideas, well that may not happen in our lifetimes.


From leading parapsychologist Dean Radin:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established.”

What if Dean Radin is right?


"The result of this enormous data that Radin cites is that there is statistical evidence (for what it's worth) that indicates (however tentatively) that some very weak psi effects are present (so weak that not a single individual who participates in a successful study has any inkling of possessing psychic power). Nevertheless, Radin thinks it is appropriate to speculate about the enormous implications of psi for biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, religion, medicine, technology, warfare, police work, business, and politics. Never mind that nobody has any idea as to how psi might work. That is a minor detail to someone who can write with a straight face (apparently) that:

lots of independent, simple glimpses of the future may one day innocently crash the future. It's not clear what it means to "crash the future," but it doesn't sound good. (297)"

...

"He even claims that “the fundamental issues [of consciousness] remain as mysterious today as they did five thousand years ago.”

What if Dean Radin's Right? - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


All of the above is old news and around 10 years ago and yet still no evidence from Radin or anyone.

Magical thinking

magical thinking - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[shawn001]

To think that consciousness is simply processes occurring in the brain is about as irrational as it gets.

First where else is "conciousness" occurring if not in the brain.

Second it has already been shown by modern neuroscience and other fields.
NOVA

"The Electric Brain

How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders."


"WHY BRAINS ARE IMPORTANT
NOVA: Let's start by talking about why one needs a nervous system—or a brain—in the first place.

Rodolfo Llinás: That's a very intriguing issue. The nervous system is about 550 million years old, and it first came about when cells decided to make animals. Basically there are two types of animals: animals, and animals that have no brains; they are called plants. They don't need a nervous system because they don't move actively, they don't pull up their roots and run in a forest fire! Anything that moves actively requires a nervous system; otherwise it would come to a quick death.
Why would it die if it didn't have a nervous system?

Because if you move, the variety of environments that you find is very large. So if you happen to be a plant you have to worry only about the very small space you grow into. You don't have to do anything other than maybe move up and down. And you're following the sun anyhow, so there is no planned movement, and therefore there is no necessity to predict what is going to happen if, which is what the nervous system seems to be about. It seems to be about moving in a more or less intelligent way. The more elaborate the system, the more intelligent the movement.
So you need a nervous system in order to be able to predict the future?

Yes, and in order to predict you have to have, at the very least, a simple image inside that tells you something about the purpose of the outside world. That is common to all nervous systems of all forms that we know of. Each animal has a different universe—the universe it sees, the universe it feels, the universe it tastes. Earth probably looks very different not only for all of us as individual humans, but also for different animals.
"We assume we have free will, but we don't"
How does consciousness come into this view of the brain? Is consciousness a mysterious phenomenon, in your opinion?

I don't think so. I think consciousness is the sum of perceptions, which you must put together as a single event. I seriously believe that consciousness does not belong only to humans; it belongs to probably all forms of life that have a nervous system. The issue is the level of consciousness. Maybe in the very primitive animals, in which cells did not have a single systemic property—in which each cell was a little island, if you wish—there may not have been consciousness, just primitive sensation, or irritability, and primitive movement. But as soon as cells talked to one another there would be a consensus. This is basically what consciousness is about—putting all this relevant stuff there is outside one's head inside, making an image with it, and deciding what to do. In order to make a decision you have to have a consensus.
But it all just boils down to cells talking to one another?

Some people believe we are something beyond neurons, but of course we are not. We are just the sum total of the activity of neurons. We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/electric-brain.html

 

[shawn001]

FYI and this is even older.

Consciousness and Complexity

The most basic consensus amongst those who study consciousness is that it is a result of the complexity of our brains:

Book Cover“The complexity of our nervous system which makes our consciousness possible... [...] it is less obvious whether consciousness was itself adaptive or simply a side-effect or byproduct of a complex nervous system.”
"Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour" by Richard Gross (1996)9
EEG scans have told us much - including the point during gestation where consciousness first looks like it could have arisen:

“But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.”
Prof. Christof Koch (2009)
But as researchers looked deeper, they found a system so complex that it defied centralisation. E. O. Wilson summarizes brilliantly:

Book Cover“Consciousness consists of the parallel processing of vast numbers of such coding networks. Many are linked by the synchronized firing of the nerve cells at forty cycles per second, allowing the simultaneous internal mapping of multiple sensory impressions. [...] Who or what within the brain monitors all this activity? No one. [...] There is not even a Cartesian theater, to use Daniel Dennett's dismissive phrase, no single locus of the brain where the scenarios are played out in coherent form. Instead, there are interlacing patterns of neural activity within and among particular sites throughout the forebrain, from cerebral cortex to other specialized centers of cognition such as the thalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus. There is no single stream of consciousness in which all information is brought together by an executive ego. There are instead multiple streams of activity, some of which contribute momentarily to conscious thought and then phase out. Consciousness is the massive coupled aggregates of such participating circuits.”
"Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge" by E. O. Wilson (1998)10
E. O. Wilson also repeats the little expression of the biologist S. J. Singer to sum it all up11:

I link, therefore I am


Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

 

[shawn001]

Some other new information

How the Brain Creates Out-of-Body Experiences

How the Brain Creates Out-of-Body Experiences | LiveScience

 

[1137]

The article of the OP, as I said in an earlier post, is a poor article. It sounds like they were just studying someone claiming to visualize being out of the body. I don't see where any paranormal claim was even being made.

Now as to other phenomena such as reincarnational memories, veridical near-death experiences, ghosts, veridical out-of-body experiences, spirit communications, miracles, etc. I strongly believe no satisfactory physicalist explanation has been given; only denial of the evidence as a last ditch stand.



I see data that doesn't fit the physicalist view so I consider other views. And you call that the opposite of rational?

How about you stop "seeing" data and start linking us sources?

 

[shawn001]

You have to wonder.


Ghosts


"Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear. There is one insuperable obstacle to a belief in ghosts. A ghost never comes back naked: he appears either in a winding-sheet or 'in his habit as he lived.' To believe in him, then, is to believe that not only have the dead the power to make themselves visible after there is nothing left of them, but that the same power inheres in textile fabrics. Supposing the products of the loom to have this ability, what object would they have in exercising it? And why does not the apparition of a suit of clothes sometimes walk abroad without a ghost in it? These be riddles of significance.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)

Ghosts' Appearances, Clothes and Mental States

Ghosts, Physical Properties and Ghostly Clothes: A Skeptical Investigation

 

[atanu]

- it's outlandish that General Relativity is true, and it's outlandish that tens of trillions of virtually undetectable neutrinos from the sun are flying through your body every second without you being aware of it, but those things are evidenced to be true.

Although there may not be much value in repeating an oft repeated vedanta saying, I will do it again though (and pardon me for this. . The saying is "Who will know the knower?" and "Who will see the Seer?" I do have some meditative experience and host of scripture as support to have developed the shraddhA (trust) that the consciousness can be known only by being it. One cannot ever grasp it as a third party. And at least the Vedanta considers that moksha. Rest all are phenomenal views.

 

[shawn001]

Are brains are very active when we are sleeping. Dreams are not us physically leaving our bodies or are OBEs. We understand the electromagnetic spectrum pretty well.

Sleep on It: How Snoozing Makes You Smarter
During slumber, our brain engages in data analysis, from strengthening memories to solving problems

Sleep on It: How Snoozing Makes You Smarter - Scientific American

Human Brain Still Awake, Even During Deep Sleep

Human Brain Still Awake, Even During Deep Sleep -- ScienceDaily

 

[shawn001]

On another note there is tons of research using FMRI and Pet and other methods that show how some of these states and how to acheive them are very beneficial to human health.

But something like this will get a lot more attention. Not saying it shouldn't be study either it should, but there is a lot of excellent evidence of the benefits of say meditation and its natural effects on the brain, like reducing stress and being calm. Or Clinical Hypnotherapy as well. How our thoughts or physical states can help our bodies.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You have to wonder.


Ghosts


"Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear. There is one insuperable obstacle to a belief in ghosts. A ghost never comes back naked: he appears either in a winding-sheet or 'in his habit as he lived.' To believe in him, then, is to believe that not only have the dead the power to make themselves visible after there is nothing left of them, but that the same power inheres in textile fabrics. Supposing the products of the loom to have this ability, what object would they have in exercising it? And why does not the apparition of a suit of clothes sometimes walk abroad without a ghost in it? These be riddles of significance.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)

Ghosts' Appearances, Clothes and Mental States

Ghosts, Physical Properties and Ghostly Clothes: A Skeptical Investigation

All that exists is matter and energy in different forms. If ghosts were to actually exist and somehow retain the clothing they were previously wearing, it would only be due to a manifestation of some sort of residual energy or matter. It's kinda like how even though a stream can dry up completely, there will still be the gully and the stream bed indicating that a stream was once flowing there.


---

 

[HonestJoe]

The article of the OP, as I said in an earlier post, is a poor article. It sounds like they were just studying someone claiming to visualize being out of the body. I don't see where any paranormal claim was even being made.

Why does there need to be any paranormal claim? This is about studying the phenomena, not leaping to conclusions regarding the fundamental cause. This research is only a tiny part of a bigger picture but I think it is relevant in that it's studying experiences which are very similar to those described by some OBE/NDE patients.

Now as to other phenomena such as reincarnational memories, veridical near-death experiences, ghosts, veridical out-of-body experiences, spirit communications, miracles, etc. I strongly believe no satisfactory physicalist explanation has been given; only denial of the evidence as a last ditch stand.

No satisfactory explanation have been given full-stop. Throwing in made-up words like "physicalist" is just dishonest distraction, trying to pretend that there is something fundamentally different between one type of explanation and another.

Regardless of what actually explains how these events and incidents occur (and it's unlikely to be one thing), it would require evidence to support it and that evidence can be established via standard scientific method (though we as human beings may not be capable of doing so, now or ever).

The idea that because there has not yet been any "physical" or "natural" explanation that we should turn to the concept of "spiritual" or "supernatural" is ridiculous. You're basically saying "We don't know" but still restricting the scope of a possible answer.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I absolutely believe that ghosts or "spirits" exist as some type of residual matter or energy patterns or forms. I absolutely do not believe in the supernatural...gods, angels, magical unicorns, etc... Anything that exists, exists because it is natural for it to exist, not "supernatural". Science simply does not have all the answers and there are without a doubt going to be natural unknowns to science. I believe that ghosts are one of those natural unknowns.

 

[George-ananda]

What if Dean Radin is right?


"The result of this enormous data that Radin cites is that there is statistical evidence (for what it's worth) that indicates (however tentatively) that some very weak psi effects are present (so weak that not a single individual who participates in a successful study has any inkling of possessing psychic power). Nevertheless, Radin thinks it is appropriate to speculate about the enormous implications of psi for biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, religion, medicine, technology, warfare, police work, business, and politics. Never mind that nobody has any idea as to how psi might work. That is a minor detail to someone who can write with a straight face (apparently) that:

lots of independent, simple glimpses of the future may one day innocently crash the future. It's not clear what it means to "crash the future," but it doesn't sound good. (297)"

...

"He even claims that “the fundamental issues [of consciousness] remain as mysterious today as they did five thousand years ago.”

What if Dean Radin's Right? - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


All of the above is old news and around 10 years ago and yet still no evidence from Radin or anyone.

Magical thinking

magical thinking - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

I only posted that quote from Radin because people, like the person I was replying too, always say; if it's real, why can't they prove it.

For me personally I don't see psi having any great practical use but it is important philosophically. It says the universe is constructed so that these things can occur. What I think is more interesting than statistical psi evidence is the world of anecdotal phenomena; ghosts, reinarnational memories, veridical near-death experiences, spirit communications, etc.

My view of the universe comes from Vedic (Hindu) philosophy/science which provides a basis for understanding the whole gamut of so-called paranormal things that western science, in general, says doesn't exist.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

To think that consciousness is simply processes occurring in the brain is about as irrational as it gets.

Well, we have consciousness which is self-evident, we have brains which science tells us emits both electromagnetic and chemical signals during almost every bodily function, including thought broken down into emotions, analytical, deception, etc.

Now it would seem to me that going beyond what we have evidence of and stating a priori without any evidenct that 'there is something else' would be irrational.

 

[George-ananda]

I have used that anaology as well but if you break your reciever you break the input. However we are talking about a complex machine. The brain is a machine that should be doing more than just translating signals from some spirit realm. With what we know of the brain its like having a super computer and reducing it to a radio reciever.

Here's how I understand things. In our normal waking consciousness, we are using an astral/mental brain to think with. The astral/mental body interpenetrates the physical body and can be thought of as like a negative image of the physical body (which in reality is like 99+ percent vacuum). Thought originates in the astral/mental body and is carried forward to grosser levels by sympathetic vibrations.

So the sophistication of the astral/mental and physical brains determines the sophistication of thought the person or animal is capable of.

Consciousness does not get created in any of the bodies; physical or above the physical. Consciousness is One, eternal and unchanging but appears limited when shining through the limiting bodies.

 

[George-ananda]

How about you stop "seeing" data and start linking us sources?

I've tried that approach. Links are useless against prejudice.

 

[George-ananda]

You have to wonder.


Ghosts


"Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear. There is one insuperable obstacle to a belief in ghosts. A ghost never comes back naked: he appears either in a winding-sheet or 'in his habit as he lived.' To believe in him, then, is to believe that not only have the dead the power to make themselves visible after there is nothing left of them, but that the same power inheres in textile fabrics. Supposing the products of the loom to have this ability, what object would they have in exercising it? And why does not the apparition of a suit of clothes sometimes walk abroad without a ghost in it? These be riddles of significance.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)

Ghosts' Appearances, Clothes and Mental States

Ghosts, Physical Properties and Ghostly Clothes: A Skeptical Investigation

Ghosts are entities on planes above the physical that respond to thought. They can change and create their appearance with thought. On the physical plane psychokinetic abilities are difficult. On more subtle planes things are more created by thought. Matter is a product of consciousness.

 

[George-ananda]

Regardless of what actually explains how these events and incidents occur (and it's unlikely to be one thing), it would require evidence to support it and that evidence can be established via standard scientific method (though we as human beings may not be capable of doing so, now or ever).

The problem is anecdotal evidence doesn't play well with the scientific method. I don't believe science at this time can do much with the list of anecdotal phenomena I listed earlier. However, I, in forming my personal beliefs about the universe intelligently consider all things. And I personally believe Vedic (Hindu) teachings provide the most intelligent understanding of the universe I have heard and these teachings do not contradict anything found by western science.

The idea that because there has not yet been any "physical" or "natural" explanation that we should turn to the concept of "spiritual" or "supernatural" is ridiculous. You're basically saying "We don't know" but still restricting the scope of a possible answer.

You are speaking here from a western science perspective and are correct from that perspective. I also accept though that in so-called 'higher states of consciousness' advanced masters can access realms currently not testable by science. And paranormal phenomena indicates there is more to the universe than 21st century science knows.

Admittedly, Hindu thought can not be known with the same rigorous certainty of western science. But then western science is limited in what it can know. And, imo, many types of phenomena show there is a lot more knowing to be done.

 

[HonestJoe]

The problem is anecdotal evidence doesn't play well with the scientific method. I don't believe science at this time can do much with the list of anecdotal phenomena I listed earlier.

Of course it can. There are claimed for events that occurred and those events can be investigated. Many have been, some with proven or most likely mundane explanations, some as yet unexplained.

However, I, in forming my personal beliefs about the universe intelligently consider all things.

Yes, you've formed personal beliefs based on faith and hope. You avoid contradicting science by not defining your beliefs in any kind of real detail.

You are speaking here from a western science perspective and are correct from that perspective.

I'm speaking from a perspective of fact. Geography and politics have nothing to do with it. Please don't try to belittle me based on where (you believe) I happen to live.

I also accept though that in so-called 'higher states of consciousness' advanced masters can access realms currently not testable by science. And paranormal phenomena indicates there is more to the universe than 21st century science knows.

Nothing is not testable by science in principle. We as human beings have some temporary and permanent limitations in our ability to apply science but science itself is just a concept. Your attitude is like saying there are mountains that are too tall to be measured with height.

You've certainly presented no valid reason why any of the concepts you've presented couldn't be investigate via scientific means. The only real restriction is the unwillingness to describe them in anything more than unspecific and inconsistent terms, almost as if there is an attempt to deliberately avoid that scientific investigation. There is, after all, more power in being believed to be right than being proven right, let alone proven wrong.

 

[1137]

I've tried that approach. Links are useless against prejudice.

You have no sources? Didn't think so. Don't puff yourself up if you can't fight back .