Thread: Consciousness and OBEs/NDEs: Sorry guys, its all in your minds. Literally.

But different views on consciousness do exist even in scientific circles. I can also quote some interesting bits:

Originally Posted by David Calmers, in Scientific American

The Hard Problem
RESEARCHERS use the word “consciousness”
in many different ways. To clarify
the issues, we first have to separate the
problems that are often clustered together
under the name. For this purpose, I find
it useful to distinguish between the “easy
problems” and the “hard problem” of
consciousness. The easy problems are by
no means trivial—they are actually as
challenging as most in psychology and
biology—but it is with the hard problem
that the central mystery lies.
The easy problems of consciousness
include the following: How can a human
subject discriminate sensory stimuli and
react to them appropriately? How does
the brain integrate information from
many different sources and use this information
to control behavior? How is it
that subjects can verbalize their internal
states? Although all these questions are
associated with consciousness, they all
concern the objective mechanisms of the
cognitive system. Consequently, we have
every reason to expect that continued
work in cognitive psychology and neuroscience
will answer them.
The hard problem, in contrast, is the
question of how physical processes in the
brain give rise to subjective experience.
This puzzle involves the inner aspect of
thought and perception: the way things feel
for the subject. When we see, for example,
we experience visual sensations, such
as that of vivid blue. Or think of the ineffable
sound of a distant oboe, the agony
of an intense pain, the sparkle of happiness
or the meditative quality of a moment
lost in thought. All are part of what
I call consciousness. It is these phenomena
that pose the real mystery of the mind.
To illustrate the distinction, consider
a thought experiment devised by the Australian
philosopher Frank Jackson. Suppose
that Mary, a neuroscientist in the
23rd century, is the world’s leading expert
on the brain processes responsible for
color vision. But Mary has lived her
whole life in a black-and-white room and
has never seen any other colors. She
knows everything there is to know about
physical processes in the brain—its biology,
structure and function. This understanding
enables her to grasp all there is
to know about the easy problems: how
the brain discriminates stimuli, integrates
information and produces verbal reports.
From her knowledge of color vision, she
knows how color names correspond with
wavelengths on the light spectrum. But
there is still something crucial about color
vision that Mary does not know: what
it is like to experience a color such as red.
It follows that there are facts about conscious
experience that cannot be deduced
from physical facts about the functioning
of the brain.
Indeed, nobody knows why these
physical processes are accompanied by
conscious experience at all. Why is it that
when our brains process light of a certain
wavelength, we have an experience of
deep purple? Why do we have any experience
at all? Could not an unconscious
automaton have performed the same
tasks just as well? These are questions
that we would like a theory of consciousness
to answer.
….
The trouble is that physical theories
are best suited to explaining why systems
have a certain physical structure and how
they perform various functions. Most
problems in science have this form; to explain
life, for example, we need to describe
how a physical system can reproduce,
adapt and metabolize. But consciousness
is a different sort of problem
entirely, as it goes beyond the scientific explanation
of structure and function.
….
Of course, neuroscience is not irrelevant
to the study of consciousness. For
one, it may be able to reveal the nature of
the neural correlate of consciousness—
the brain processes most directly associated
with conscious experience. It may
even give a detailed correspondence between
specific processes in the brain and
related components of experience. But
until we know why these processes give
rise to conscious experience at all, we will
not have crossed what philosopher Joseph
Levine has called the explanatory gap between
physical processes and consciousness.
Making that leap will demand a
new kind of theory.
In searching for an alternative, a key
observation is that not all entities in science
are explained in terms of more basic
entities. In physics, for example, spacetime,
mass and charge (among other
things) are regarded as fundamental features
of the world, as they are not reducible
to anything simpler. Despite this
irreducibility, detailed and useful theories
relate these entities to one another in
terms of fundamental laws. Together
these features and laws explain a great variety
of complex and subtle phenomena.
…
Toward this end, I propose that conscious
experience be considered a fundamental
feature, irreducible to anything
more basic. The idea may seem strange at
first, but consistency seems to demand it.
In the 19th century it turned out that
electromagnetic phenomena could not be
explained in terms of previously known
principles. As a consequence, scientists
introduced electromagnetic charge as a
new fundamental entity and studied the
associated fundamental laws. Similar
reasoning should be applied to consciousness.
If existing fundamental theories
cannot encompass it, then something
new is required.
Where there is a fundamental property,
there are fundamental laws. In this
case, the laws must relate experience to
elements of physical theory. These laws
will almost certainly not interfere with
those of the physical world; it seems that
the latter form a closed system in their
own right. Rather the laws will serve as a
bridge, specifying how experience depends
on underlying physical processes.
It is this bridge that will cross the explanatory
gap.

And besides of this, you seem to conveniently ignore some of the more interesting cases that suggest that during NDE some people still could experience accurate on their surroundings while having no brain activity. Im not saying that you are totally incorrect, but you make it sound like the final word on it has been said. If this was so, then why would dozens of scientists world-wide start different research projects on NDE and the possibility of consciousness existing seperate of the physical body? Maybe if, after this study they find the exact process behind the NDE-experience (which has so far not been found yet), and they come up with a materialist explanation of consciousness and subjective experience, we can more or less close the debate. Untill then, I'm sorry, it is somewhat premature.

Making such a conclusion as the article does is like shooting yourself in the foot, there is no, let me say again, NO evidence about how consciousness works, how it is related to the brain, how thoughts come to be.

There is much evidence on the contrary, that shows people experiencing NDE's or OOBE's can get information which would simply be impossible by todays standards.

If you look at neuroscientists, you will see that they are split in two groups, the old school and the new school. The old school do not show much interest in the evidence that goes against their materialistic world view, the new school and often those of younger age accept that something can not be explained by traditional means, but that more research and experimentation is needed before any conclusion can be reached.

There is by far no consensus in todays neurology.

Read about the AWARE projekt and it sister projects.

See these 4 parts of the press conference, it is interesting for anyone who cares for the nature of consciousness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGl9BZmoWtU

The article is pretty thin, it does not go deep enough. Too many assumptions and early conclusions.

Im a believer of OBEs pretty much being lucid dreams but consciousness and the workings of the mind are still pretty unkown from a scientific standpoint. The .pdf thats been posted here that he mentioned (the hard problem) has a lot of interesting stuff about this though. It seems like what you posted is a theory on consciosness not something thats been proven.

Originally Posted by kr3wskater

Im a believer of OBEs pretty much being lucid dreams but consciousness and the workings of the mind are still pretty unkown from a scientific standpoint. The .pdf thats been posted here that he mentioned (the hard problem) has a lot of interesting stuff about this though. It seems like what you posted is a theory on consciosness not something thats been proven.

I agree on all of that .

Brilliant article.
Thanks Moonshine

Originally Posted by kr3wskater

Im a believer of OBEs pretty much being lucid dreams but consciousness and the workings of the mind are still pretty unkown from a scientific standpoint. The .pdf thats been posted here that he mentioned (the hard problem) has a lot of interesting stuff about this though. It seems like what you posted is a theory on consciosness not something thats been proven.

Yes and no. Some of it is theory, some of it is fact.
The salient point, that consciousness resides in the brain is most certainly correct. There is sufficient scientific evidence demonstrating the same.
Yeah theres a lot of work to be done, but science is working on it.

The OBE thing is very interesting though. It does demonstrate what most lucid dreamers already know, that the mind is quite capable of generating "out of body" feelings without any actual (astral) movement of the "consciousness".

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

There is much evidence on the contrary, that shows people experiencing NDE's or OOBE's can get information which would simply be impossible my todays standards.

But given all the discussions about OBE's and Astral Travelling, this pesky evidence seems to be very hard to find.

Originally Posted by moonshine

But given all the discussions about OBE's and Astral Travelling, this pesky evidence seems to be very hard to find.

Do you expect this evidence to be shown at some "highly respected" scientific journal?

It is hard to find yes, how often do you find at scientist who can master the OOBE and do scientific experimentation over the course of 40 years?

I have found only one so far, he is a pioneer that is mostly unknown to most people. His work might, like so many other great pioneers and scientists first get the appreciation when the world is ready for it, when we are ready for a paradgime shift. It might take some (many) years before his work is known to the general population.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Do you expect this evidence to be shown at some "highly respected" scientific journal?

I'd settle for anything with an ounce of credibility.

I can't wait until we have this all figured out. I won't be happy until I can take phone calls directly in my brain and split my mind into 7 different consciousnesses by pressing a button in my nose.

I think anyone who 'was' clinically dead and witnessed their own doctors perform surgery on them, are going to have a hard time swallowing the argument that it was all in their head. It explains nothing.

Our scientific arguments against NDE's are all the same. They first and primarily pick and choose which parts of the experience to disprove. When they find that a large number of NDE'rs witness events happening real time in the room, when they were clinically dead, the story is always the same.

That it didn't happen.

How many arguments against NDE's give an alternate explanation why many NDE'rs have witnessed real time events? They don't!! They just glance over it, pretend they didn't read that part of the experience, or just say that the invididuals are lying. Ah.......the lie. No hard evidence that the individual is making it up, but it's easier to swallow isn't it if you are so afraid of religion?

Now there are scientists who do believe that science itself is revealing that consciousness is non-local. And most importantly, and fundamentally, consciousness is energy. Or as some have described a FIELD of energy. This opens the door to talk about NDE's, and OBE's and why people can and have experienced something happening in the room, in real time, outside of their body. In scientific terms.

It's only a matter of time. So really, I'm not worried. The bubble is going to burst for materialists.

If only other scientists would hang up their need to wage war against religion, it would already be fact.

Opening up science to talk about that which we call the supernatural, it doesn't mean we have to go back to religious dogma. The fear is mostly irrational and childish.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Excellent article in the Times. Well worth a read.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...0394-1,00.html

Some interesting bits

Like i said in the other thread, this article is REACHING. Consciousness is unknown to science, even doctors/neruoscientists say this is a very grey area because they have no idea what it is, or how it works with the brain. There is no evidence to suggest it is in your brain. Theorys are ment as guessing, not actual proof so stop suggesting it's already proven because of some theorys.

Originally Posted by juroara

I think anyone who 'was' clinically dead and witnessed their own doctors perform surgery on them, are going to have a hard time swallowing the argument that it was all in their head. It explains nothing.

Dreams can seem so real and they are "just" dreams. Personal expierience in this is moot. You can't prove it without being able to back it up.

Our scientific arguments against NDE's are all the same. They first and primarily pick and choose which parts of the experience to disprove. When they find that a large number of NDE'rs witness events happening real time in the room, when they were clinically dead, the story is always the same.

That it didn't happen.

It all depends on if they were awake in the room and saw the stuff prior to going to sleep. If i am in my room, and look around and have a dream about my dream, it does not automatically mean i was really OBEing in my room. I already knew what to look at when i was awake. Your sub con is pretty amazing at paying attention to detail. This is why it's always ruled as "it did not happen", most of the time the people already seen the room. There is not alot of times where they did not see the room like Pam Reynolds.

How many arguments against NDE's give an alternate explanation why many NDE'rs have witnessed real time events? They don't!! They just glance over it, pretend they didn't read that part of the experience, or just say that the invididuals are lying. Ah.......the lie. No hard evidence that the individual is making it up, but it's easier to swallow isn't it if you are so afraid of religion?

They try and say it was brain related when you can go someplace and describe what it looks like/what is happening without knowing for real events, or they say "they got no idea when it happened...before consciousness, or after where you will hallucinate", but they seem to ignore the fact it happened during clinical death as in after you are clinically dead and have no chance to hallucinate in your condition. But ignore those people, they are just looking for a way to just say something for saying something.

Yeah, I find it funny when OBE-advocates say that they left their body but sometimes when leaving your body there will be details and things that aren't there in real life, as in other people or objects in your room for example, so then you obviously didn't just leave your body, its a dream.

Originally Posted by kr3wskater

Yeah, I find it funny when OBE-advocates say that they left their body but sometimes when leaving your body there will be details and things that aren't there in real life, as in other people or objects in your room for example, so then you obviously didn't just leave your body, its a dream.

These are the types that scientists can create in labs by stimulating part of the brain.

Originally Posted by juroara

Now there are scientists who do believe that science itself is revealing that consciousness is non-local. And most importantly, and fundamentally, consciousness is energy. Or as some have described a FIELD of energy. This opens the door to talk about NDE's, and OBE's and why people can and have experienced something happening in the room, in real time, outside of their body. In scientific terms.

As far as I know there's no research that supports the idea that consciousness is 'energy', and a quick google search wielded nothing either. But playing along: How does this 'energy' interact with the brain? When and how does the 'energy' appear in the human body? If the 'energy' is already everywhere, then what determines when and where a conscious being begins? What differentiates my 'energy' from your 'energy'?

Imo these pseudo-theories based on 'energy' or 'souls' are the worst attempts at making sense out of consciousness. They just add more questions and paradoxes to what's already a mind-bending problem.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

As far as I know there's no research that supports the idea that consciousness is 'energy', and a quick google search wielded nothing either. But playing along: How does this 'energy' interact with the brain? When and how does the 'energy' appear in the human body? If the 'energy' is already everywhere, then what determines when and where a conscious being begins? What differentiates my 'energy' from your 'energy'?

Imo these pseudo-theories based on 'energy' or 'souls' are the worst attempts at making sense out of consciousness. They just add more questions and paradoxes to what's already a mind-bending problem.

The theory is the mind is seperate of the brain, so it does not interact with it. The brain controlls the body, the mind controlls the soul as in it is the soul. It's just a theory like everything else.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

As far as I know there's no research that supports the idea that consciousness is 'energy', and a quick google search wielded nothing either. But playing along: How does this 'energy' interact with the brain? When and how does the 'energy' appear in the human body? If the 'energy' is already everywhere, then what determines when and where a conscious being begins? What differentiates my 'energy' from your 'energy'?

Imo these pseudo-theories based on 'energy' or 'souls' are the worst attempts at making sense out of consciousness. They just add more questions and paradoxes to what's already a mind-bending problem.

oh no!

you're asking questions!

that's dangerous!



but yes, it is mind-bending.

we have brain waves




perhaps the reason why you are having trouble finding research that supports the idea that consciousness is energy, is because it is not new. it is known, and it's been known for many many years now. scientists just tend to use other terms. because calling consciousness energy get's scary. there are some big implications by calling it energy that makes materialists uneasy.

of all the crazy new age claims this one however is text book

because everything is energy

and our thoughts are waves of energy, believed to be produced in the brain

believed by most to exist only in the brain, however, understanding that our thoughts are waves of energy - some people got thinking. can our thoughts be like radio waves? can they travel a distance and be picked up else where?

the answer that I have seen so far, is yes. our thoughts work a lot like radio waves. im going to sleep so you're going to have to wait for me to pull up some references.

our brain has different frequencies.

now a radio needs to be on a specific frequency, to receive that specific wave right? that's how radio stations work right? you turn the dial you hear something else

how different is the brain?

people who meditate experience other wordly things, things they've never experienced in their waking life

well it turns out if you can enter deep meditation and remain consciousness - you're in a frequency you've probably never in your whole life been in. a different frequency means a different wave of energy. the same is true for psychedelic drugs. you're being projecting into a frequency your brain was not in before.

what do we know about waves of energy?

they carry information. we can experience it as sound, we can experience it as emotions. as thoughts. as vision. sensations.

this is why what frequency your brain is in affects your thought process. alpha, beta and so on. but what does this tell us about thoughts? what does this tell us about consciousness?

consider the radio. it receives radio waves. but those radio waves are existing virtually everywhere. they're all around your room whether or not you have the radio on. but the radio only receives what its tuned to. and of course, if its on.

mystics have been telling humanity for thousands of years there is only One consciousness. A Universal Consciousness. AKA as God.

What is an individual then? If we are all apart of this One Consciousness?

Look at the light spectrum. It's a fairly big range. And we can only see a portion of it. Light is ONE thing. But we see that is has many characteristics, and we give those characteristics name......Visible light. Ultraviolet light. Red. Blue. So on.

But it's all light

Imagine if Consciousness was the same as light. It's a spectrum. A huge spectrum. Imagine if you're the blue of the spectrum. You're unique, and still apart of it all. Is it so impossible to imagine that consciousness could be a spectrum? When we have brain waves? Brain waves functioning at different frequencies? Which effect our entire consciousness?

Is it too like sound? Some tones resonate, and others don't. They clash, the music sounds terrible.

Is that why we can resonate with some people? And other times we can't?

Consciousness as energy opens up a lot of doors

For everyone taking the side that the article is incorrect:

Explain why alcohol and psychoactive substances work. If the brain's function is just a product of some outside force, why does a material agent affect it so strongly?

Juroara, I agree with everything in your last post.

Consciousness CANNOT be proven! Because you can't see the cosmic energy, chi, qi, life force, whatever you want to call it.it's an energy that permeates everything and you can't measure it.

Quantum physics? "wave-particle duality"? You can say the mind is the wave state of consciousness, and the brain is the particle state, to keep it simple.

We can't observe the wave part, because we're conscious observers, and conscious observers can only observe particle states. Why? Cause quantum physics says the act of observing something, is creating something for us to see.

"Consciousness itself becomes the agent transforming the electron's "wave nature" into its point-particle nature. Don't you agree that seems a bit akin to magic?"

So you really are going to deny mainstream science now? It's just the truth. You want to keep trying to prove it wrong because you materialists think this is all there is, when in reality, nothing is solid.....we just believe it to be.

You materialists want to put limitations on your thinking, and that's why you are MOSTLY left brain prisoners.


You materialists fail at the Holistic thinking part.




You've been conditioned to think mostly or only logically. You've been taught or you've told yourself that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist, because it's not logical, so you try to find an explanation for it NOT to exist. So you don't want to believe it because you can't explain it, you just can't explain everything, nature doesn't quite work that way. You can't say something doesn't exist because you can't perceive it. You can't see or touch, or smell, or even feel gravity..but you know it exists.

Science and mathematics doesn't explain everything, it only explains what we perceive or observe. If anything exists outside our perceptions, it'd probably just be infinite energy, all quantum possibilities existing as a wave of potential, that we CAN'T observe, because every time we do, that wave energy turns into something we believe or expect to be there. You can call it magic if you want, and it's the most suitable word for it. It's creation, we as human beings are creators or rather co-creators of reality.

Originally Posted by Licity

For everyone taking the side that the article is incorrect:

Explain why alcohol and psychoactive substances work. If the brain's function is just a product of some outside force, why does a material agent affect it so strongly?

Why should they not work?

Alchohol and psycoactive substances are part of this reality, whether a "material agent" affects us or not, is not important.

Our brain is made susceptible to these substances, this is just our reality, that is the rule-set.

Originally Posted by juroara

I think anyone who 'was' clinically dead and witnessed their own doctors perform surgery on them, are going to have a hard time swallowing the argument that it was all in their head. It explains nothing.

Depends on what you class as clinically dead. The article demonstrates a case where doctors considered someone technically brain dead, whilst they were actually fully aware of what was happening around about them.

Originally Posted by juroara

Our scientific arguments against NDE's are all the same. They first and primarily pick and choose which parts of the experience to disprove. When they find that a large number of NDE'rs witness events happening real time in the room, when they were clinically dead, the story is always the same.

The commonality of individuals experience cause doctors to take NDE's very seriously indeed. There has, as I understand it, been a mass of research.
It is precisely this research why has led to the conclusion that its a hallucination due to oxgyen starvation.

----

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

There is no evidence to suggest it is in your brain. Theorys are ment as guessing, not actual proof so stop suggesting it's already proven because of some theorys.

Read the article. The is in fact a mass of credible research that consiousness is based in the brain. And that messing with the brain can effect the consiousness.

Sorry, but just because scientists admit the don't fully understand the issues, doesn't invalidate what they do understand.

----

Originally Posted by kr3wskater

Yeah, I find it funny when OBE-advocates say that they left their body but sometimes when leaving your body there will be details and things that aren't there in real life, as in other people or objects in your room for example, so then you obviously didn't just leave your body, its a dream.

I know! A bit of a give away I would have though.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Why should they not work?

Alchohol and psycoactive substances are part of this reality, whether a "material agent" affects us or not, is not important.

Our brain is made susceptible to these substances, this is just our reality, that is the rule-set.

If there was no link between brain and consciousness, no "material agents" would be able to affect consciousness.

Originally Posted by Arutad

If there was no link between brain and consciousness, no "material agents" would be able to affect consciousness.

You got it wrong, of course there is a LINK between the brain and consciousness!! Why do you think we got a brain??

The brain is the media of consciousness, but regarding to substances it would be more correct to say they affect the MIND instead of consciousness.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

The brain is the media of consciousness, but regarding to substances it would be more correct to say they affect the MIND instead of consciousness.

Why do you think that the brain is the media of consciousness? What's the difference between the words "mind" and "consciousness"?