Testing this with trained OBEers should be quite easy.
As one who has experienced these veridical, so-called OBEs, the initial inquiry that came to mind when it first happened—and while I was still, by default, assuming physicalism to be viable—was how can the conventional model explain it. After delving into any such explanations on offer, I came to realize that there were no good explanations. And when asking why there were none, all too often the pat response from physicalists was that there can be no explanation, nor even a need for one, because such events are deemed impossible, unless they can be proven to be possible, by reproducing them under lab conditions using the conventional model—which given the random nature of such events, one can't make happen on demand. Thus to this day I can only file them away under 'inexplicable.' The appeal of idealism, whether or not of a theistic kind, is that it at least doesn't simply dismiss the possibility of such events being actual, as opposed to utter fantasy or outright fabrication. As for it needing to be verified by science, well perhaps I'll wait until science can verify the existence of mind-independent 'matter' and spacetime 'out there', before placing much faith therein.JJFinch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:09 pm If it is a necessary feature of idealism, perhaps. Granted, I'm not an idealist so I wouldn't expect it to be necessary
As in, I don't think it has to be a lawlike phenomenon necessarily. I would be wondering how such events would accord with a theistic worldview, of course
"random nature of such events, one can't make happen on demand"Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:31 amAs one who has experienced these veridical, so-called OBEs, the initial inquiry that came to mind when it first happened—and while I was still, by default, assuming physicalism to be viable—was how can the conventional model explain it. After delving into any such explanations on offer, I came to realize that there were no good explanations. And when asking why there were none, all too often the pat response from physicalists was that there can be no explanation, nor even a need for one, because such events are deemed impossible, unless they can be proven to be possible, by reproducing them under lab conditions using the conventional model—which given the random nature of such events, one can't make happen on demand. Thus to this day I can only file them away under 'inexplicable.' The appeal of idealism, whether or not of a theistic kind, is that it at least doesn't simply dismiss the possibility of such events being actual, as opposed to utter fantasy or outright fabrication. As for it needing to be verified by science, well perhaps I'll wait until science can verify the existence of mind-independent 'matter' and spacetime 'out there', before placing much faith therein.JJFinch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:09 pm If it is a necessary feature of idealism, perhaps. Granted, I'm not an idealist so I wouldn't expect it to be necessary
As in, I don't think it has to be a lawlike phenomenon necessarily. I would be wondering how such events would accord with a theistic worldview, of course
Yeah, one such example, Tom Campbell claims to have done OBE experiments at the Monroe Institute, albeit decades ago, in which he and another guy (whose name escapes now) co-experienced actual consensus events nonlocally, beyond corporeal sensory involvement, apparently verified to the satisfaction of those involved, including Monroe himself. Whether or not he considers it possible to currently reproduce those experiments/results, or would make any attempt, in a way that could satisfy what you consider rigorous criteria, I've no idea. In any case, given that currently science has no good explanation for what 'reality' actually is, or what the 'in-body-experience' actually is, and is often starting from dubious assumptions about what it is—i.e. that a mind is actually in a body, then must leave it, to traverse some actual distance—simply has no good grasp of how to verify such events, unless it is starting from a yet to be determined correct premise. For what it's worth, my sense is that an 'individuated' mind, for lack of a better descriptor, being essentially nonlocal, doesn't actually travel anywhere. So, as you say, what we think is occurring is not what is actually occurring, and we need to correct this faulty mindset to begin with, before much progress will be made in experimentally comprehending it.
Somebody claims that something happened sometime somewhere that proves...Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:12 pmYeah, for example, Tom Campbell claims to have done OBE experiments at the Monroe Institute, albeit decades ago, in which he and another guy (whose name escapes now) co-experienced actual consensus events nonlocally, beyond corporeal sensory involvement, apparently verified to the satisfaction of those involved, including Monroe himself. Whether or not he considers it possible to currently reproduce those experiments/results, or would make any attempt, in a way that could satisfy rigorous criteria, I've no idea. In any case, given that currently science has no good explanation for what 'reality' actually is, or what the 'in-body-experience' actually is, and is often starting from dubious assumptions about what it is—i.e. that a mind is actually in a body, then must leave it, to traverse some actual distance—simply has no good grasp of how to verify such events, unless it is starting from a correct premise. For what it's worth, my sense is that an 'individuated' mind, for lack of a better descriptor, being essentially nonlocal, doesn't actually travel anywhere. So, as you say, what we think is occurring is not what is actually occurring, and we need to correct this faulty mindset to begin with, before much progress will be made in experimentally comprehending it.
Well yes, unless one was actually present at those MI experiments, and participated in them, then no amount of just reading about them, or listening to TC talk about them, e.g. here, is likely to be convincing enough on its own, and doubts about him just making shit up can always be raised. While I have little interest in such experiments, nor need them to validate my own experiences, I can understand how it is of interest to many.
I'm not so much overly thinking about it, but just going by an intuitive feeling that most thinking about it is likely quite wrong. But sure, I'll take a look at what you are thinking about, if you share a link.As for the nonlocal mind, I actually have been thinking there may be a glimmer of truth in the idea, although probably not in the same way you are thinking about it. I hope to have post on my own blog sometime soon and I may put up a link in this forum.
I could see them as being visions, granted by some 'higher being' (avoiding theological baggage) with agency of a kind. So it wouldn't have to be a lawlike occurrence to be considered possible, for me.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:31 am As one who has experienced these veridical, so-called OBEs, the initial inquiry that came to mind when it first happened—and while I was still, by default, assuming physicalism to be viable—was how can the conventional model explain it. After delving into any such explanations on offer, I came to realize that there were no good explanations. And when asking why there were none, all too often the pat response from physicalists was that there can be no explanation, nor even a need for one, because such events are deemed impossible, unless they can be proven to be possible, by reproducing them under lab conditions using the conventional model—which given the random nature of such events, one can't make happen on demand. Thus to this day I can only file them away under 'inexplicable.' The appeal of idealism, whether or not of a theistic kind, is that it at least doesn't simply dismiss the possibility of such events being actual, as opposed to utter fantasy or outright fabrication. As for it needing to be verified by science, well perhaps I'll wait until science can verify the existence of mind-independent 'matter' and spacetime 'out there', before placing much faith therein.
I'm fairly neutral on the NDE topic, but "Anesthesia awareness" Is a pretty deficient explanation for the Pam Reynolds case. There is no shortage of criticism of Woerlee's claims by researchers.Jim Cross wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:59 pm
If you look at Wikipedia on Pam Reynolds, there is alternate explanation that doesn't require a veridical OBE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case