Philosophical Speculations

JJFinch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:11 pm The argument perhaps would be what constitutes 'evidence'

Testing this with trained OBEers should be quite easy.

Set up hardware/software to generate a random 6 digit number not known to the subject or the investigator. Display it on a monitor in a different room from the subject. Have the subject enter an OBE state, go to the room or location of the monitor, and report the number that is displayed. The trained OBEers ought to be able to get at least one out of ten or better correct.

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

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

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.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:31 am

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

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.

"random nature of such events, one can't make happen on demand"

But there are people who can make OBEs happen on demand. Or so they claim. There are also plenty of "psychics" who will do readings on demand.

If they do these things on demand, then why can't they be tested in a rigorous fashion?

Are all of these fakes?

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:01 pm
But there are people who can make OBEs happen on demand. Or so they claim. There are also plenty of "psychics" who will do readings on demand.

If they do these things on demand, then why can't they be tested in a rigorous fashion?

Are all of these fakes?

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.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:12 pm

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:01 pm
But there are people who can make OBEs happen on demand. Or so they claim. There are also plenty of "psychics" who will do readings on demand.

If they do these things on demand, then why can't they be tested in a rigorous fashion?

Are all of these fakes?

Yeah, 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.

Somebody claims that something happened sometime somewhere that proves...

Yeah, yeah. Isn't it always like that?

Monroe's own attempts at discovering verifiable nonlocal information were failures, I think. Most of his journeys seemed to only gather trivial, not distinctive information or were to locations that don't even map to physical reality. Many OBEers even attribute differences between the astral world and the physical world to account for why their OBE obtained information doesn't match physical reality.

I was quite interested in Monroe at one time and had some of his hemi-sync tapes (yes, these were tapes so this was a while ago) that were designed to induce OBEs. The effects were definitely odd and unusual but I guess I didn't have the aptitude for OBEs.

Since OBEs can be produced by stimulating brain circuits, we have a good idea they are mix-up in the brain's perception of his own body image and sensory input.

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.

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:58 pm

Somebody claims that something happened sometime somewhere that proves...

Yeah, yeah. Isn't it always like that?

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.

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'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.

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 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.

There are pure philosophical counters to physicalism, so I tend to be more cautious around disputes based on empiricism (especially as empiricism itself has many issues)

In any case, I would like to read more on the topic. I already completed the Long & Perry book, but perhaps Moreland & Habermas, and Rawlette may shed more light?

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

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.

Overall, I think you are somewhat biased, Jim.
the 2013 paper about the rats, unlike what headlines about it say, don't confirm that they were awake before the brain activity ceased.
Also:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... B879D6BB66

"We also did not observe any well-defined EEG states following the early cardiac arrest period as previously reported in rats. In fact, EEG activity declined dramatically well before the last heartbeat for two patients, and we noted ECG artefact in EEG channels for two patients within 1 minute before ECG cessation"