Scientists recreate Out-of-Body Experience

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Didn’t you wonder why these doctors would want to set up a virtual reality camera and mirrors study of out of body experiences, what would be their motive. But the main thing is that real out of body experiences happen when the subject is unconscious or clinically dead. How can you not see the flim-flam in saying “Experts have found a way to trigger an out-of-body experience in volunteers.” It’s not snake-oil, it’s not snake-oil, it’s not snake oil. There I say it for you. Now who is hypocritical. I am through, with your post knowing it is useless.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yoiu have no idea what their motive would be, yet you condemn them in your ignorance.

My thought was that they might have been trying to discover the various ways in which the brain works so that when people suffer degenerative diseases or psychotic episodes or suffer physical trauma, they would have enough information to begin working toward ways to heal the person so afflicted. You, on the other hand, immediately leaped to the conclusion that they were trying to “fool people” in regards to something to which they did not even refer in their studies.

You keep posting that other people have to be open-minded about the stuff you post, yet here you are condemning people without even considering any other option than that they are trying to attack your little beliefs.

I have posted nothing hypocriticval, here. I simply pointed out that you are ready to condemn people without evidence and that you behave in pretty much the way that you condemn other people for behaving.

Also, I note that you ignored a specific point I made: not all OBEs are related to NDE. Why are you so cruel as to want to prevent scientists from attempting to help people who experience OBEs that are not part of an NDE? Do you really believe you have some sort of monopoly on what every other person in the world experiences? Is no one allowed to experience an OBE unless they clear it with you to have an NDE first?

You can be done with me, but if you continue to post such nonsense–particularly if is inflammatory–I will quite probably respond.

22

Being open-minded does not mean fervently believing in something most people don’t. It means honestly accepting that alternate ideas may exist.

On the bright side, he hasn’t pimped his site again yet. :wink:

Anyway, I’ve actually heard of something similar before; the effect is not a new one, at least. Researchers set up a rubber hand, and it and the participant’s hand are touched in the same places (in the pp’s eyesight). Eventually, the participant may feel as though they’re being touched when only the rubber hand is (again, when the can see it). The idea being you’re sort of tricking the brain into thinking your hand and the fake hand are connected in some way.

23

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It sounds like quite a complicated VR setup to replicate what otherwise occurs au naturel, but the upshot is that the OBE’s sensation of being disconnected from the physical body can be reproduced.

Now, I’ve always thought OBEs were a brain glitch, so no surprises here to me. But does this in any way act as support for an argument against supernatural OBEs? I think so (since, if there’s a neurological explanation, a supenatural one becomes superfluous), but I’m sure some disagree. Thought?
[/QUOTE]
It is support but in no way conclusive.

Just as it makes no difference how many times you show that dowsing for water is ineffective it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that somewhere someone can find water by dowsing.

24

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
It is support but in no way conclusive.

Just as it makes no difference how many times you show that dowsing for water is ineffective it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that somewhere someone can find water by dowsing.
[/QUOTE]

When I came on this board I was hoping to find some common ground between science and religion so they could co-exist in a somewhat peaceful manner. But I have failed to find that ground.

Just ran into this article, which at least in part, seems to say finding new ways is necessary.

But after reading this thread I wonder if trying is really worth it. Right now it is mostly the fundamentalists that are engaged in the “battle” with science. I wonder what will happen when main-stream Christianity gets pulled into the fray. With any luck I won’t be around to see what happens.

25

[QUOTE=lekatt]
When I came on this board I was hoping to find some common ground between science and religion so they could co-exist in a somewhat peaceful manner. But I have failed to find that ground.

Just ran into this article, which at least in part, seems to say finding new ways is necessary.

But after reading this thread I wonder if trying is really worth it. Right now it is mostly the fundamentalists that are engaged in the “battle” with science. I wonder what will happen when main-stream Christianity gets pulled into the fray. With any luck I won’t be around to see what happens.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe that science and religion are compatible.

Science takes as its domain all of human experience from interaction with the outside world to the inner workings of the body including the nervous system and brain functions.

It is a work in progress and may always be so but I don’t believe there is left any room for supernatural events or entities. The whole history of the relationship has been a steady advance of scientific investigation into areas that were once thought to be stricktly the domain of God.

26

[guy who did research on virtual reality]This study is kind of interesting, but is hardly groundbreaking. The general concept they were investigating is known as the “sense of presence”–the feeling of “being there” in a virtual environment. It’s kinda cool that somebody finally did research that measured galvanic skin responses to stimuli…but the study definitely falls into the category of “gathering data to confirm hypotheses” rather than breaking new theoretical ground. The basic ideas of looking at yourself through VR head-mounted displays and using flinch responses as a measure of presence are both a good fifteen or twenty years old. The repeated use of the term “out of body experience” is an indicator that either (a) the researchers were horrendously out of touch with prior work in the field, or (b) the researchers tried to get a simplistic rhetorical hook so the press would pick up on the story.[/gwdrovr]

27

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I don’t believe that science and religion are compatible.

Science takes as its domain all of human experience from interaction with the outside world to the inner workings of the body including the nervous system and brain functions.

It is a work in progress and may always be so but I don’t believe there is left any room for supernatural events or entities. The whole history of the relationship has been a steady advance of scientific investigation into areas that were once thought to be stricktly the domain of God.
[/QUOTE]

I am confused, what do you intend to do with those that will never believe in science as you do. The constitution of our United States says people can practice the religion of their choice. You seem to be saying there will be no room for religion. What about the thousands of people who have spiritual experiences, are they all lying? What about the research that shows consciousness lives on after the death of the body? I can’t make any sense out of your position, shouldn’t we be tolerant of each other?

28

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I am confused, what do you intend to do with those that will never believe in science as you do. The constitution of our United States says people can practice the religion of their choice. You seem to be saying there will be no room for religion. What about the thousands of people who have spiritual experiences, are they all lying? What about the research that shows consciousness lives on after the death of the body? I can’t make any sense out of your position, shouldn’t we be tolerant of each other?
[/QUOTE]

Lekatt

Not answering for David Simmons but have my own attitude on your questions. Like a lot of other people have told you, science doesn’t require “belief,” just a willingness to learn and maybe even work through the experiment if it is something particularly important to a person. Religion is the one that requires belief.

As far as who can practice religion, why anyone can. As you point out, it’s in the Constitution. That’s not to say that those people will be highly regarded by others. Like a (IIRC) Pennsylvania politician recently complained when they were forbidden to teach Creationism; “We’re under attack by the intelligent and educated.”

As far as your question; “What about the thousands of people who have spiritual experiences, are they all lying? What about the research that shows consciousness lives on after the death of the body?” Well, the answer is that this is all bullshit thrown up by a dying or confused mind and always has been.

Testy

29

No experiment can really technically disprove a supernatural explanation for an observed event, but replication CAN make supernatural explanations unnecessary, and therefore dismissable for all practical purposes.

30

[QUOTE=lekatt]
When I came on this board I was hoping to find some common ground between science and religion so they could co-exist in a somewhat peaceful manner. But I have failed to find that ground.
[/quote]
There is none. Religion is hostile to everything, including itself, and science, being based on facts and reason undercuts religion simply by existing, based on faith and irrationality as it is.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Right now it is mostly the fundamentalists that are engaged in the “battle” with science. I wonder what will happen when main-stream Christianity gets pulled into the fray. With any luck I won’t be around to see what happens.
[/QUOTE]
It happened long ago. The Christians lost. They can’t win, without crippling the society they live in, which means they lose anyway.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
What about the thousands of people who have spiritual experiences, are they all lying?
[/quote]
Lying, deluded, or insane.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
What about the research that shows consciousness lives on after the death of the body?
[/quote]
There is none.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I can’t make any sense out of your position, shouldn’t we be tolerant of each other?
[/QUOTE]
“Tolerate” is not the same as “respect”. The religious viewpoint is a stupid one, and deserves no respect.

31

[QUOTE=lekatt]
We now have evidence in the form of research that shows consciousness will live after the death of the body.
[/quote]

Sorry if I’m being ignorant here (which I doubt, but I’ll remain open), but my bullshit meter is dinging. Got a cite for that? I mean, a real cite, not “experiencers”, whose experiences are about as reliable as Elvis or leprechaun sightings.

32

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Did someone say science is not a religion?
[/QUOTE]

Definitely. The irony of a guy writing on a message board, to people scattered across the world, an amazing feat of science and engineering combined, about serious shortcomings in the scientific method, is an irony too great for my brain to understand.

But please, do us all a favour. Next time you’re seriously ill, dispense with your faith in science, and refrain from visiting a hospital. One less crackpot to worry about.

33

Hey, hey, people, I was quite specific to mention only OBEs in my OP, could we leave the existence of anything post-death out of it if at all possible?

34

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No experiment can really technically disprove a supernatural explanation for an observed event, but replication CAN make supernatural explanations unnecessary, and therefore dismissable for all practical purposes.
[/QUOTE]

That’s what I meant - nicely put.

35

[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
But please, do us all a favour. Next time you’re seriously ill, dispense with your faith in science, and refrain from visiting a hospital. One less crackpot to worry about.
[/QUOTE]
Do us a favor and do not wish death on another poster, even in half jest.

[ /Moderating ]

36

Sorry, it came off harsher than I intended it, rereading.

37

[QUOTE=Voyager]
True, but the point is that the OBEs experienced “naturally” come from the same internal state.

And while this doesn’t prove that OBEs happen this way, it removes the necessity of a supernatural explanation. One more gap gone, in a sense.
[/QUOTE]
There was never a necessity for a supernatural explanation of any physical thing, including emotions, feelings, and sensations. I’m surprised you’d have thought otherwise.

38

When I read the OP, I thought, “Interesting story – but it’s like poking Lekatt with a stick. He’ll be here in a moment, giving us all our RDA of bullshit. Maybe we should just avoid topics like this.” Then I felt ashamed of myself. This is new information on an interesting, we should discuss it, and we shouldn’t shy away because of a single poster’s persistent, willful ignorance. It’s hard slogging, but if we can ever get through to Lekatt, this board will have achieved something remarkable.

39

Back in 1952 I had what I thought was a NDE, I went into a light etc. But the doctor told me later I was not near death and it was just the effect of the anaesthesia.

Monavis

40

[QUOTE=Testy]
Lekatt

Not answering for David Simmons but have my own attitude on your questions. Like a lot of other people have told you, science doesn’t require “belief,” just a willingness to learn and maybe even work through the experiment if it is something particularly important to a person. Religion is the one that requires belief.

As far as who can practice religion, why anyone can. As you point out, it’s in the Constitution. That’s not to say that those people will be highly regarded by others. Like a (IIRC) Pennsylvania politician recently complained when they were forbidden to teach Creationism; “We’re under attack by the intelligent and educated.”

As far as your question; “What about the thousands of people who have spiritual experiences, are they all lying? What about the research that shows consciousness lives on after the death of the body?” Well, the answer is that this is all bullshit thrown up by a dying or confused mind and always has been.

Testy
[/QUOTE]

Always acknowledged I was out-numbered on this board, but not in the U.S.

Around ninty percent of this country believe in God, and that they will live after death. They have you out-numbered about 9 to 1. I am afraid they will not see how superior you are in intellect and knowledge, and how your group deserves to be honored for all the progress in the world. When it becomes apparent to main-stream religion that your intentions are to put them out of business, I would say you had no more then 10 years left. Long enough for them to vote their people into congress, senate, and the White House. Long enough for them to pass laws that change “science” as we now know it. That is my predictions. You know what predictions are worth, so nevermind.

From a history perspective science as we know it is about 400 years old. Religion on the other hand is thousands of years old, and has survived many attempts to pur it out of business. I think they will survive again this time.

I am sorry you can not see the benefits in religion, they are there.

I am sorry you won’t listen to reason and stop attacking religion.

Time will tell, truth will win as it always does.