This is a must read for those of us interested in "near death" and out of body experiences. May lead to treatment for death phobia or OCD with death related ruminations:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169343

Very Cool Study!

HH =)

Yes. Very interesting!

Here is a quote from the "Discussion" section:

"Our results are consistent with such empirical findings as there are, that people who have had spontaneous OBEs, not necessarily in the context of a NDE, are also likely to have reduced death anxiety. . . . In an OBE this ethereal body is perceived as being spatially located outside of the physical body. If this ethereal body is conflated with the idea of ‘soul’ then this provides folk-phenomenological evidence that indeed the self can exist outside of the physical body, that this constitutes the soul—and that therefore, we would add, there is the possibility of survival beyond physical death, since in this view conscious existence may not depend on the physical body. The virtual reality experience provides an experiential but implicit learning of this possibility for consciousness to exist outside of the body, but without the implication that participants would explicitly believe this. . . . In our OBE condition visual and visuotactile integration were located out of the (previously owned) virtual body. In the DBE [Drifting Body Experience] condition there is still substantial sensory data that appears to be centered on the virtual body. In this case consciousness in the sense of the multisensory information that indicates self-location is split between two different positions. This experience therefore does not provide clear evidence of the possibility for perceptual consciousness to exist outside the body."

"In our experiment participants did not know prior to their experience that the study was in any way related to death anxiety. Our results open up the possibility that the virtual OBE experience provides an implicit learning that consciousness in the sense of the centre of perception can be separate from the physical body, and that therefore death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of consciousness. . . "
____________________________________________

COMMENT: In other words, although it is well-established that traditional OBEs (e.g. NDEs) provide *explicit* phenomenological evidence (basically evidence from subjective experience) of the soul and survival of death; virtual OBEs provide *implicit* evidence in the form of learning (as exhibited by the post-experience absence of a fear of death) that "death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of consciousness."

In short, the study supports the view that a contrived virtual experience has a similar effect in reducing the fear of death as a spontaneous OBE; Those experiencing the virtual OBE obtain an implicit idea of a soul that might survive death which explains the reduction of their fear of death.

Thank you for sharing this. One might expect that such contrived experiences would suggest to the subject that OBEs are "all in the brain," rather than having the opposite effect of suggesting the possibility of the reality of the soul and survival of death.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...although it is
> well-established that traditional OBEs (e.g. NDEs)
> provide *explicit* phenomenological evidence
> (basically evidence from subjective experience) of
> the soul and survival of death...

"well-established" by and to whom?

Traditional OBEs provide no such evidence. They provide evidence of something that is experienced -- they provide no evidence of any kind that what is experienced (in the brain) occurs "outside" a body, or that there's a "soul," or that there's survival of death.

Unless, of course, you're fond of using fallacy to declare "evidence."

Frankly, the fact that a simulated, contrived scenario that stimulates a brain results in similar experiences and feelings as "traditional" OBEs provides a good argument that traditional OBEs occur entirely within a brain, not "outside" of anything.

You don’t know anyone who’s had an OBE? My ex had an NDE. My best friend has had several OBEs. Both are quite sane. Okay, the ex is a little crazy but not in that way. The “no credible evidence” mantra may work for you, but for people who experience these things directly it rings a bit hollow.

I have never had one, but have an open mind. Some of the things reported are pretty hard to explain if true. Things like knowing what people were doing and saying in another room.

My ex had drowned on a rafting trip. Her NDE seemed to go on for hours even though she was only out for a few minutes. There was the whole thing with the beautiful realm, iridescent plants, people dressed in white, and being told it wasn’t her time. She got to look down at the guy reviving her. She also repeated the words of another river guide back to him: “forget it, she’s a goner”. He turned white as a ghost.

It seems a little arrogant to dismiss someone's experience because it doesnt match your preconceived notions. It isnt scientific either. There are lots of things we dont understand. We shouldnt be gullible, but then we shouldnt automatically assume that we know everything. We dont.

We all have culturally induced blinders on whether we like it or not. Jesus was seriously arrogant, what with going on about the blindness situation as if it were a vice and thumbing his nose at authorities. I don’t think anyone here can beat Jesus in that department.

That highlights the question of what to do when you actually do have the answers but nobody believes you. Then speaking up is arrogant. So, God bless the guy who pisses people off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2018 01:00AM by babyloncansuckit.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems a little arrogant to dismiss someone's
> experience because it doesnt match your
> preconceived notions. It isnt scientific either.

Nothing was "dismissed."
And what's "scientific" is to not claim things are "evidence" for things they're not evidence of.

The evidence is that a person had an experience. The source of that experience (all in-brain, all "out of brain," some combination, etc.) is unknown. It's not implicit or explicit in the fact of having an experience.

Having an experience is not evidence, in any way, of a soul, an afterlife, or anything of the sort.

> There are lots of things we dont understand. We
> shouldnt be gullible, but then we shouldnt
> automatically assume that we know everything. We
> dont.

My point was exactly that we don't know/understand. So we shouldn't make unfounded assumptions -- such as a "soul" or "afterlife" existing, since these aren't in evidence from the experience. No assumption of knowing was made -- in fact, it was the article authors and Henry who made assumptions of knowledge not supported by the experiences noted.

An experience isnt he best evidence as therenare various interpretations, but it cant be summarily dismissed either.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An experience isnt he best evidence as therenare
> various interpretations, but it cant be summarily
> dismissed either.

I didn't summarily dismiss it.
I didn't dismiss it at all.
I simply pointed out the *fact* that an experience is evidence of an experience. Nothing else.

What I like about NDEs is that at the end, you're alive.

And life is for the living!

Any complaints so far?

I am only quoting the article:

"If this ethereal body is conflated with the idea of ‘soul’ then this provides folk-phenomenological evidence that indeed the self can exist outside of the physical body."

All this is saying is that people who have near death experiences and who associate the outside "ethereal" body they experience with a soul have *subjective* evidence of survival of death. Such associations are a well-established fact of NDE experiences. So, if you do not like associating subjective experience with "evidence" take it up with the authors.

Everything a human being experiences is evidence of that experience. That is just a trivial fact. But your continued insistence that subjective evidence is some kind of fallacy is just nonsense.

Sorry, man, but my subjective evidence is too personal for me to discuss unless I can make some money from it, gain some measure of personal attention or be seen to support something with no scientific foundation. Cuz I have principles!

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything a human being experiences is evidence
> of that experience.

Which is exactly what I said. What it's NOT is evidence of other stuff. You (and the article authors) are the ones who made unsupportable claims otherwise.

> But your continued insistence that subjective
> evidence is some kind of fallacy is just nonsense.

I made no such insistence.
I simply pointed out that the experience is evidence of the experience. As you just agreed with.
It's NOT evidence of the other stuff you claimed.
That's what was nonsense.

Hie stated:

"Traditional OBEs provide no such evidence. They provide evidence of something that is experienced -- they provide no evidence of any kind that what is experienced (in the brain) occurs "outside" a body, or that there's a "soul," or that there's survival of death." (Claim H)

COMMENT: Suppose someone were to question the evidential status of the result of a scientific experiment, by saying,

"Such experiment provides evidence of what you experienced as part of an experiment, however, this experiment provides no evidence of any kind that what you experienced (in the brain) reflects any reality outside the brain, or that there is a reality out there that exists separate from your experience." (Claim R)

How does someone like Hie attack Claim R while preserving his Claim H? After all, both reflect conclusions drawn from personal experience, and both rely upon the necessity of brain function. In support of such a distinction, Hie might appeal to the scientific principles of verification and/or replication. But in doing so he would only be compounding the personal experiences of other scientists, not removing science from personal experience, or from the brain. Moreover, the NDE claimant might call attention to the thousands of others who have had NDEs and have inferred a soul.

Making an inference that "there is a soul" from a NDE experience is to claim a reality that is connected to that experience in the same way that a scientist discovering a natural law claims that there is a reality connected to her experience. The fact that the scientist's experience is drawn from a sophisticated experimental context does not change the fact that it is still her experience, and ultimately the subjectivity of consciousness is at play. Moreover, both inferences reflect an outside reality the details of which are ultimately and inherently elusive.

So, the idea that a NDE experience is "just evidence of what is experienced, and provides no evidence of any kind that what is experienced occurs outside the body," provides no relevant distinction whatsoever between a scientific inference of a natural law, and a NDE inference to a soul.

One other tempting distinction is that the NDE inference of a soul is not itself subject to the experimental resources of science; i.e. it is not "physical" (in the broad sense of modern science), or measurable, and therefore invalid as "evidence." But that criticism assumes a "materialist" bias; i.e. that the only reality out there is scientific reality. Such an insistence is problematic in two obvious ways. First, it requires a denial of consciousness, the very vehicle that allows science to proceed. Second, it begs the question, because the NDE inference is precisely about a reality that transcends science. It is like saying, "The NDE inference of a soul is wrong on its face because it postulates an existence that is not verifiable by science." But, that is precisely what is at issue.

The upshot of all of this is a realization that the only claim science can legitimately make about reality is within the scope of its own limited resources; in two words, mathematics and measurement. And all such claims assume both (1) the reality of consciousness, and (2) that there is some objective ultimate reality out there that can be measured. Note, however, that both of these assumptions are metaphysical assumptions that themselves stand outside of science. Regarding (1) consciousness is not part of physics and is not measurable. Regarding (2) modern science, particular Quantum Mechanic's, calls into question just what objective reality amounts to.

The above reflects the inherent limitations of science, and suggests the appropriateness of humility in the face of the vagaries of human experience, including NDEs.

> The above reflects the inherent limitations
> of science, and suggests the appropriateness
> of humility in the face of the vagaries of
> human experience, including NDEs.


I reject the humility asked for by Elder Bemis. I could not respect a scientist who said that he had the appropriate humility to do research in things he didn't understand. As for the vagaries of "the Human Experience", I refuse to pay the price of entry.

Love that reply.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Suppose someone were to question the
> evidential status of the result of a scientific
> experiment, by saying,
>
> "Such experiment provides evidence of what you
> experienced as part of an experiment, however,
> this experiment provides no evidence of any kind
> that what you experienced (in the brain) reflects
> any reality outside the brain, or that there is a
> reality out there that exists separate from your
> experience." (Claim R)

Other people can replicate the experiment, and get the same results. That's what repeatable/verifiable means.

Nobody else can replicate somebody's subjective "experience."

Surely you can see the difference.

> The above reflects the inherent limitations of
> science, and suggests the appropriateness of
> humility in the face of the vagaries of human
> experience, including NDEs.

No, actually it reflects the inherent limitations of subjective, unverifiable, unrepeatable "experiences."

And as I've pointed out, I would strongly suggest that it is those like you who are making claims of knowledge not supported by subjective, unrepeatable, unverifiable experiences that show a lack of humility. I'm simply pointing out that we don't know the source of such experiences, and shouldn't claim to know. You're doing the opposite.

"Other people can replicate the experiment, and get the same results. That's what repeatable/verifiable means."

COMMENT: Can they do it without their own conscious experience? NO! Subjective conscious experience is at the root of scientific replication, as it is with all human inferences.
______________________________________

"Nobody else can replicate somebody's subjective "experience.""

COMMENT: Exactly! Including the subjective experiences of scientists doing experiments. Each person performing the replication relies upon their own conscious experience to confirm or disconfirm the results. Successful replication only means that they agree as to content of such experiences and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. Similarly, NDE experiencers generally agree about the content of their conscious experiences, and the inferences to be drawn from them.

Science is special not because it transcends human consciousness or experience, but because it provides humans with a rational vehicle to access and understand that part of reality that is within its domain. NDEs and other such "paranormal" experiences are outside the domain of science (for the most part) and encompass a domain that is not accessible by rational analysis and experiment, but only by the content of isolated human experiences. That is why science is to be preferred when attempting to assess reality. But it should never claim to be an exclusive window to reality.

You keep claiming there are things outside of science's "domain."
I couldn't disagree more.

It's the best method we humans have for determining fact. Anything factual is within it's "domain."

You're simply declaring these things outside the "domain" of science because they're unverifiable, outrageous, untestable claims. That's an excuse to believe in wacky things, not a reasonable approach to finding fact.

You keep claiming there are things outside of science's "domain." I couldn't disagree more.

COMMENT: The domain of science encompasses matters that are scientifically testable, which generally encompasses only "physical" reality, as broadly defined by modern science to include particles and fields with various identifiable or hypothetical properties. This domain, of course, can increase over time as methods become more refined. But, there is an inherent limit to the domain of science as constrained by the limitations imposed by evolution on human cognition. Humans, and their cognitive capacities, arose in evolutionary time based upon reproductive and survival considerations, not based upon a teleological goal to achieve scientific understanding of ultimate reality. As such, your claim that everything is within the domain of science is unsupportable. All you can say, perhaps, is that everything is *potentially* within the domain of science. But note: That claim itself is a metaphysical claim, and as such is a "fact" that is not within the domain of science. In short, your statement there is nothing outside of science is empirically and logically false, which I have just shown by very clear, rational argument!

______________________________________

It's the best method we humans have for determining fact. Anything factual is within it's "domain."

COMMENT: The first statement here is true. The second statement, however, clearly does not follow from the first. The fact that science is the best method humans have for determining fact does not imply that all facts are within the domain of science. After all, there may be questions of fact (in fact there are many) that are not susceptible, for various reasons, to scientific methods. One such example is whether God exists. In that case there clearly is a fact of the matter, one way or another, but regardless of science's stature as "the best method to determine facts" it cannot help us with this determination.
_______________________________________

You're simply declaring these things outside the "domain" of science because they're unverifiable, outrageous, untestable claims. That's an excuse to believe in wacky things, not a reasonable approach to finding fact.

COMMENT: On the contrary, I have always said that science should be a strong component when considering or adopting beliefs within one's worldview. Moreover, beliefs that are strictly inconsistent with scientific facts should be rejected. However, you are suggesting an unrealistic and demonstrably false status of science as encompassing "all facts." I suspect this is a psychologically induced falsehood born out of your distain for religious claims that are outside of scientific purview, and your desire to summarily dismiss those aspects of human experience, religious or otherwise, that cannot be explained scientifically.

I think you have read too much into the study here Henri. What can be concluded is that a physical/sensory experience, and physical/medical effects. Anything beyond that is "conflating" new variables into the study for which there is no justification.

I read nothing that supports a "spirit" or "ethereal CONSCIOUSNESS" in the study. The variables under control were all mechanical, and physical. No evidence for non-physical variables.

HH =)

"I think you have read too much into the study here Henri. What can be concluded is that a physical/sensory experience, and physical/medical effects. Anything beyond that is "conflating" new variables into the study for which there is no justification."

COMMENT: The study claims that virtual (contrived) OBE's produce a (statistically) *implicit* (essentially unconscious) learned psychological effect lessening the fear of death. That is basically all it says. So, we can ask, why? After all, one would assume the opposite *explicit* inference; i.e. that a person would immediately equate such contrived experiences to the brain, and use that to dismiss "spontaneous" OBEs, like NDEs as also solely brain-based, thus making the fear of death more acute, not less. Apparently, there is something profound about the virtual experience that enhances the credibility of the spontaneous OBE experiences, rather than lessening them. (Assuming the study is valid)
_____________________________________________

I read nothing that supports a "spirit" or "ethereal CONSCIOUSNESS" in the study. The variables under control were all mechanical, and physical. No evidence for non-physical variables.

COMMENT: Agree, that was not what the study was about, and I never said it was.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read nothing that supports a "spirit" or
> "ethereal CONSCIOUSNESS" in the study. The
> variables under control were all mechanical, and
> physical. No evidence for non-physical variables.
>
> COMMENT: Agree, that was not what the study was
> about, and I never said it was.

You never said it was?

"virtual OBEs provide *implicit* evidence in the form of learning (as exhibited by the post-experience absence of a fear of death) that "death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of consciousness.""

Seems you did.

"virtual OBEs provide *implicit* evidence in the form of learning (as exhibited by the post-experience absence of a fear of death) that "death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of consciousness.""

COMMENT: This statement by the authors only states that those having a virtual OBE *unconsciously* (implicitly) learn not to fear death. (Statistically speaking) They then conclude that this lack of fear of death might be related to the logical implication that those people have learned that maybe death is not the end of consciousness. This says nothing, by the authors or me, that suggests any kind of commitment to the reality of life after death, or even that the study suggests the reality of life after death. It is solely about the psychology of the participants in the study; i.e. what they "learned" by the OBE experience.

“May lead to treatment for death phobia or OCD with death related ruminations”

It will never come close to 5g of dried mushrooms. Peter Thiel is helping with that.

Wait.

Death Phobia is a thing? I'm way afraid of being dead, not because of what will happen after I'm dead but because of all the things I won't get to do because I'm dead.

Do I have a death phobia?

Regarding this study.

I'd really like to know what the control group was.

One of my few points of pride: On my mission, I was in the out-of-control group.

EGGGSACTLY,

because what's the point of being alive if you are going to just act dead/like a Mormon.