I will wait for you to read and respond in your phase
terms, how that could be just happening inside the brain. If you want me to copy paste that here, I can do that, there are many shreds of evidence provided in the below link, I request you to go through it thoroughly before denying it. If you want to deny those, give a brief explanation backing up each one of them by citing a quote here.
Awaiting your response in return.http://www.iacworld.org/evidence-for-ou ... henomenon/
Praveen Astral (forumforastral.com)
You have not presented any scientific sources. I have impugned your knavish heros a thousands times over the years it just gets tedious. I haven't got time to go through each and everyone of you but I will post here some scientific facts and reason which expose all of them as frauds---from crackpot parapsychologists whose conclusions are unfounded and certainly not corroborated to cases of media sensationalism and tabloid junk like that of Miss Z.
As I have stressed before that, as far as I'm aware, they are both distinctions we make for experiences that arise with the manifestation of hybrid brain activity which conflates dreaming with wakefulness. This hybrid cerebral condition has been aptly labelled by Michael Raduga's school of out-of-body travel as 'the phase' or the 'phase state'. In both OBEs and lucid dreams, waking consciousness is experienced. In the former, the subject is focused on the fact that it feels like one is somewhere other than where the sleeping body is (and may even believe this is really happening). In the latter, the subject recognises the experience to be nothing more than a dream. Both can give you the sensation of being out of body if you remember that your body is really lying in bed. In fact, even ordinary dreams can give you the sensation of being out-of-body. The 'OBE' acronym almost loses meaning ... :mrgreen:
Elsewhere I said:
'Regions of the brain such as the thalamus are thought to sometimes provoke distortions in proprioception during the phase state--hence the perceived separations from the sleeping body into usually inaccurate (yet familiar) replicas of real world, i.e. mental bedroom representations based on memory and sprinkled with distortions and additions from the subconscious mind.
So, yeah, once you apparently leave your body, you can do whatever you like. (It is best to have an action plan ready, though, in order to avoid hesitation which could cause a premature awakening.) Make no mistake about it: the dream world can closely emulate--and even outdo--the real world in quality. So if you recognise the phase state surroundings to be an illusion, you are lucid dreaming. You can always, of course, be sceptic of the sceptic and, if in doubt, try to read the pages of a book during an OBE to see if they remain fixed and if they match that of the real world.
Consciousness, in my opinion, is a phenomenon which is somehow generated by a physical gestalt. (The details of its emergence are still unknown.) If I were to define it, though, I'd say it is merely what it is like to be something--and perception cannot exist without it. What perceives? Not a soul--as endorsers of the orphic and supernatural would have you believe. The physical system somehow perceives and we are yet to suss out how the human brain works.'
I've also experienced a few uncanny occurrences of my own which could only be said to suggest--but never solely imply--out-of-body travel, precognition, and visual telepathy (whereby I appeared to see things that were ostensibly existent in the minds of others. But I had to beware of confirmation bias both on my part and my friends'. We must also consider that we are pattern-seeking animals who will assign great significance to apparent hits and completely ignore the misses that outnumber them. Considering how many dreams we've had so far, and how many dreams 7 billion people experience as the world turns, it can be said that weird would be if the odd or coincidental ones never occurred. Imagine if everyone played the lottery and nobody ever won!
I'd like to see someone winning the James Randi prize by proving, in an experiment, that OBEs can be the reality of an individual awareness acquiring an objective perspective instead of the experience being completely subjective and thus dreamed by the mind. 8-)
I have researched this in depth years ago. NDEs don't prove anything for a number of reasons besides being anecdotal, sensationalised by the media or otherwise. First and foremost, near-death experiences are not death experiences--they are brought on by physical trauma and victims live to tell the tale. Secondly, 'no measurable brain activity' does not mean 'no brain activity'. As Michael Persinger once pointed out, there are cerebral reverberations that can only be detected in laboratories as hospitals don't have--and don't require--the appropriate equipment to dig that deep.
Finally, even if an individual was comatosed with minimal and insufficient brain activity to warrant a vividly conscious experience, how can we be sure that the reported experience happened during the cerebrally inert period and not as the patient was coming to and therefore precisely at the time when the brain was simultaneously reactivating?
I'm familiar with some of the names you have mentioned and they have been criticised and shamed by the scientific community. It's very simple: if you are doing bad science, or pseudo-science, you will get caught once your work is peer-reviewed. Nobody in the scientific community is trying to suppress a possible afterlife scenario. Science doesn't work like this. Everybody competes for recognition or a Nobel Prize and we all want to know the answers. But some people seem to want fantasies passed off as truisms no matter how scant the evidence.
Scientists have investigated many claims. They have given many beliefs in gods, spirits, and the paranormal the benefit of the doubt. And guess what: they found absolutely nothing... Did you know that Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was one of the first to test the efficacy of praying? He even used believers and Church devotees in a double-blind experiment. Praying was found to be ineffective. And yet, people still believe ...
The rumoured link between autism and vaccines comes from a study by Andrew Wakefield which was published in the Lancet. His study was found to be a hoax and his licence was revoked. Exposed by the scientific community. And still some people still think vaccines are bad in this sense and dangerously deprived their children of them ... Pseudo-scientists and sophists are getting more sophisticated these days but only enough to dupe the layman. Long gone are the precarious days of Duncan McDougal, whose 23 grams were found to have a mundane explanation ... not the weight of the human soul as he claimed.
And what if the self is nothing but a user illusion? I think you will find this topic quite interesting: (Read all of it, it's quite rich!) http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/ ... 11&t=16533
Just one question: Shouldn't a parapsychologist's conclusions stand up to scrutiny and be immune to the materialist's interpretation? It seems like the parapsychologist still doesn't have enough to make other mundane possibilities go away. Why isn't the parapsychologist making a good case for why the materialist's interpretation isn't tenable? Here is a sceptical review with Susan Blackmore on OBEs which illustrates why we still haven't got enough to say that they are real in the sense that they tell us something accurate about the objective world because it is this one that is viewed during such state: http://www.near-death.com/science/skept ... ption.html
It is estimated that only 20% of people who have endured traumatic experiences reported NDEs. Does this mean that there is no afterlife for the majority? Or is it more likely that the 20% stumbled upon an unusual brain state conducive to a hallucinatory experience which can easily be interpreted by some as a glimpse of an afterlife?
Your hypothesis has a few problems. The first is the fact that no frequency has been detected which identifies with consciousness inside or outside the brain. (And yet the CERN folks have detected the Higgs boson which bestows mass to other particles.) Secondly, if consciousness is something that the brain tunes into, why is it that we become unconscious? Doesn't this imply that we are not consciousness but merely the physical body which cannot be aware of itself without it? So, even this would not support any afterlife or even OBEs as real exits from the body. And then we have split-brain patients who are experimented on. Both hemispheres are shown different things and told to draw what 'they' have seen. If the right side sees eggs and draws them but they ask the left side why eggs were drawn, the patient will come up with an irrelevant confabulation, such as, 'I had them for breakfast!' when it may not even be true. This is one of the many examples of how brains try to make sense of any situation and any 'explanation' will do.
Finally, nobody has definitively demonstrated that NDEs happen when the patient's brain has no measurable brain activity. Awareness of time can be distorted as the person is slowly coming to and the brain is thus regaining its tremendous default activity. It has been suggested that such subjects experience bursts of REM as they are regaining consciousness and then whatever dreams they happen to have are mistakenly interpreted to be the 'other side' or to have happened while they were completely out.
Note that you are presupposing how consciousness comes about in the brain and even equating it with bioelectrical power when this isn't necessarily true. First, you need to take into account that the presence of consciousness seems to depend on a highly integrated information system. (This is why peopke with Alzheimer's have so many problems once their cerebral connections deteriorate: loss of memory; mood swings; identity loss; personality change; spaced out etc.)
Secondly, low voltage but high-frequency waves beget more awareness than high voltage but low-frequency ones. Hence beta and delta waves. Consciousness here has nothing to do with electrical power but what seems to be relevant is a balanced dose of vibrations within a complex physical organ such as the brain. What you stated above is a fallacy.
By the way, judging from your posts, you would call a pair of little girs claiming to have seen fairies and providing photographs as strong evidence that such beings exist and more readily dismiss the most probable explanation: children with a vivid imagination who decided to get creative by drawing fairies and making photographic montages. It's an example of how your reasoning would probably work--or fail to work--if this case were being discussed. I'm not necessarily saying that you said you believe in fairies! You understand this, yeah? Or do I have to reiterate it in nursery gobbledegook?
we do know that memory and consciousness depend upon a working brain for their manifestation. And it is quite telling that a complex physical system such as the brain should have such dictatorial power over mental phenomena. I think the most likely scenario is that death means death once the brain turns to mush.
I know people who have had NDEs who feel that the experience does not come close to that of LSD. Indeed, such psychedelics can dramatically change a person, too. But even if NDEs were somewhat distinct from most hallucinations ... so what? It doesn't mean anything. It could be that they are just a different type of hallucination involving a different range of emotions. Just because a type of experience feels different doesn't make it more echt than the rest.
I would also add that sceptics, some of them scientists, have been sceptical of scientific novelties, too--not just conjuring tricks and paranormal claims. But the difference is that the scientific discoveries and practical applications proved their validity through verificationism whilst allegations of the paranormal remain insubstantial.
To provide some examples, William Thomson, first Lord Kelvin, once claimed that the Earth was too young for evolution to have occurred. Wrong! He also said that radio had no future, heavier than air flying machines are impossible, and that X-rays would prove to be a hoax. Now our generation ridicules him because he couldn't have been more wrong. Still, he was sceptic of scientific theories but the theories survived and were authenticated with evidence. When Thomas Edison announced that he was working on electric light, the sceptical team sent by the British Parliamentary commission said that the idea of the light bulb was unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men. Again, proved wrong.
So why aren't sceptics proved wrong about the paranormal when such fantastic claims are older than the scientific method? Why is it conveniently dubbed the occult?