"'We do not fully understand the neurological mechanism that causes OBEs,' conceded the study's lead researcher, neurologist Dr. Olaf Blanke at the University Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne in Switzerland.

"The paper describes one patient's visions while she was being evaluated for epilepsy and does not wrestle with issues of the soul. And researchers noted that the brain-mapping results may not entirely explain the phenomenon.

these researchers say that:
"Neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson of the University of Virginia said the experiment does not necessarily prove that all out-of-body experiences are illusions.

"'We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions,'' Greyson said.

but it seems as though many here do espouse the idea that it is all Illusions. why is that?
Steve by your posts it seems you disagree with the scientists that you quote!
the researchers dont say that:
all OBEs are therefore illusions,'' why do you?
are your conclusions more better than the researchers?
i am just copy and pasting your citations and i cant seem to grasp why you seem to think your conclusions are better than the experts that you like to quote?

That's why scientists construct testable theories, based on assembled bodies of empirical facts, to examine and explain certain natural realities in the world as they search for more evidence to confirm their theories. In so doing, scientists measure the reliability of their theories against the baseline of observable and recognized organic facts. (This is where peer review comes in).

Now, if there's a knowledge gap confronting scientists in that process (and there, of course, often is), further research and honing of their theories will bring more data to the fore--leading to the confirmation of their theories or to the falsification and abandonment of postulates that do not align with the realities of the physical world.

In the meantime, facing those holes in knowledge, that's where you come in--with your "god of the gaps" fix.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 03:40PM by steve benson.

i have no "god gap" fix! your assumptions about me are as usual wrong!
i reiterate:

the researchers dont say that:
all OBEs are therefore illusions,'' why do you?
the researchers you cite say that they dont fully understand what is going on in this regard why do you think you know more than the researchers do?
AGAIN i say that i have no dog in this "fight"...but you say with a surety that the researchers dont seem to have:
"that the basic physical reality of both are beyond question"
thats very Morg sounding to me.... like the "thinking has been done so dont question it/me.... even the researchers dont have this attitude! why do you?

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:28PM by steve benson.

but my opinion about why you went there was not...still is not!

but that wasnt about me now was it? :) thanks for playing!! :)
oh and why dont you address my issues? you seem to want to divert the issue!~ why is that?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:26PM by bignevermo.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:34PM by steve benson.

but are you always right? and when not will you ever admit it?

The basic reality of NDEs and OBEs is beyond question, according to the vast majority of scientists. Maybe you missed this (pay attention to the comments of that professor of cogntive neuroscience):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0


Admit it, on framing the mainstream scientific view of OBEs, you're simply wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:30PM by steve benson.

please show where i have stated or posted about obe/nde being "supernatural" ... where is your evidence of this sir?
what i have been saying and what seems apparant to me is: you consider yourself as being an expert on this subject above and beyond what the researchers are. you make statement that they wont make as they say:
"'We do not fully understand the neurological mechanism that causes OBEs,' conceded the study's lead researcher, neurologist Dr. Olaf Blanke at the University Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne in Switzerland.

"The paper describes one patient's visions while she was being evaluated for epilepsy and does not wrestle with issues of the soul. And researchers noted that the brain-mapping results may not entirely explain the phenomenon.

these researchers say that:
"Neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson of the University of Virginia said the experiment does not necessarily prove that all out-of-body experiences are illusions.

"'We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions,'' Greyson said.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:43PM by bignevermo.

If you have evidence otherwise, quit relying on me to dig up data for you and start doing your own research.

Oh, that's right; you've already admitted you don't have the data.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:54PM by steve benson.

you wont address my issues so you resort to speaking ill of your own resources..hmmmmm. strange!! i guess you dont like the fact i am pointing out that even the "experts" dont say it is all illusions!! funny that!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 05:00PM by bignevermo.

and your sources say that:

"Neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson of the University of Virginia said the experiment does not necessarily prove that all out-of-body experiences are illusions.

"'We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions,'' Greyson said.
"'We do not fully understand the neurological mechanism that causes OBEs,' conceded the study's lead researcher, neurologist Dr. Olaf Blanke at the University Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne in Switzerland.

"The paper describes one patient's visions while she was being evaluated for epilepsy and does not wrestle with issues of the soul. And researchers noted that the brain-mapping results may not entirely explain the phenomenon.

are you having trouble reading these statements Steve? hmmmmm why are you ignoring your own evidence sir?

and on another note.... have you ever said "i dont know" cause it sure dont seem like it!!
just sayin!

. . . referenced in this thread, again, for your viewing enjoyment, that you apparently missed when it went up earlier.

You know, maybe you ought to start expanding your database by developing more of your own sources.

You're apparently are having a hard time keeping up with all of mine.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:38PM by steve benson.

You know, maybe you ought to start expanding your database by developing more of your own sources.

You're apparently are having a hard time keeping up with all of mine.

uhhh maybe YOU have not been reading..... but I HAVE BEEN QUOTING YOUr SOURCES!! thats all i have done.... WTH??
do i have to copy and paste YOUR SOURCES AGAIN??? you seem to be more concerned with proving me "wrong" somehow and not READING YOUR OWN CITATIONS!!!

Most neuroscientists are of the position that OBEs are generated in the brain through recognizable, observable, testable and organic means. The idea that the illusions which recipients experience with regard to OBEs somehow represent hard evidence of out-of-body realities is, in fact, incorrect: OBEs are brain-produced and therefore not indicative of supposed other-worldly reality.

You apparently think that by screaming at me in capital letters with multiple exclamation points makes you the winner.

Whatever.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 05:01PM by steve benson.

this aint about winning i didnt think.... i am capitalizing because you dont seem to get the get what i am saying sir... its also how i write! i actually am kinda loud IRL too!! :) yup Loud and obnoxious thats me!! :) dont ya love me??? !!

Since there is not a complete understanding, one can't make assumptions. However the partial understanding we have supports the premise that OBEs and NDEs are created in the mind. There isn't any credible evidence I've seen that indicates otherwise so I am not inclined to believe otherwise. If credible evidence is obtained, I'll certainly look at it carefully and re-evaluate my conclusions. I have nothing against the idea of NDEs and OBEs being the function of disembodied intelligence. I don't find the idea plausible but it would certainly be fun if I found out I was wrong about it.

Reed Smith said something to which Jesus Smith similarly responded:

Reed Smith:

"If there is one thing modern physics has taught us it is hat we really have a very small handle andperspective on ultimate reality."

Jesus Smith:

"Here's the rub on that: Reality is what we can observe. Thinking up pink unicorns does not make them real. As such, our handle on reality is entrenched in our observations/measurements, not our fantasies. I will admit, sometimes fantasies about what may be real have led some to attempt measurements that lead them to find parallels or analogues to the thought experiments and that it does alter our perspective. But those are rare, relative to the discovery of observations. That is, observations almost always lead the way, rather than philosophy (thinking about reality rather than observing it)."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:10PM by steve benson.

bignevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> these researchers say that:
> "Neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson of the University
> of Virginia said the experiment does not
> necessarily prove that all out-of-body experiences
> are illusions.
>
> "'We cannot assume from the fact that electrical
> stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like
> illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions,''
> Greyson said.
>
> but it seems as though many here do espouse the
> idea that it is all Illusions. why is that?
> Steve by your posts it seems you disagree with
> the scientists that you quote!


Good catch, bignevermo. This example of lay people stretching Science to fit their preconceived notions illustrates the difference between Science proper and the popularizations of it that are let loose into the culture.

Generally speaking, actually practicing scientists are usually very circumspect about the conclusions they draw about their work and their field, whereas the popularizers (and lay groupies like Steve) usually are quite the opposite.

In some quarters, apparently, "woo-woo" is just another way of saying Q.E.D.

And once more you are trying to change the subject from the lack of evidence for "metaphysical" claims. Your diversions into discussions of "lay groupies" and "woo-woo" must mean that you are unwilling or unable to debate the issues but wish to trivialize something you obviously do not understand.

Tell me, Human: what does metaphysics say about the planet Mars?

RAG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And once more you are trying to change the subject
> from the lack of evidence for "metaphysical"
> claims.


You're being very silly, RAG. I have never made a claim that there is "evidence", of the empirical kind that you'd accept, for the "metaphysical". In fact, by definition, it's impossible.

Do you commonly go on-line and ask people for the impossible? Weird.

As I've always expected, you don't know what you are talking about.

"Reply

"For you information, materialism has been scientifically proven to be false. Moreover, scientists engage in metaphysics all the time. It has nothing whatever to do with faith.

"You really need to read up."

Posted by: Reed Smith ( )
Date: November 15, 2011 08:32PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 04:48PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Reply
>
> "For you information, materialism has been
> scientifically proven to be false. Moreover,
> scientists engage in metaphysics all the time. It
> has nothing whatever to do with faith.
>
> "You really need to read up."
>
> Posted by: Reed Smith ( )
> Date: November 15, 2011 08:32PM


Ahhh, Steve: do I really need to add "quote in context?"

Are you saying Reed's way of using "metaphysics" and you're lampoon of the term are the same?

Geezus, indeed.

You gave Reed a sweeping endorsement, something Jesus Smith was not willing to provide.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 05:09PM by steve benson.

Evasion


You have no evidence, only empty wordplay. You are the one who is defending the impossible and trying to deny it.

Give us something that can be tested. You can't.

which is impossible.

Your stonewalling and evasions and petty ad hominems also do not advance your position.

Again, tell me what "metaphysics" has in the way of evidence. Or dodge again.

RAG said:

Re: You are trying to defend an argument that undermines science by reference to metaphysics and devoid of facts...


RAG, stop making stuff up. Quote me defending arguments that "undermines science by reference to metaphysics and devoid of facts..."

At most all I ever say and post links to are the limitations of Science.

Show me data obtained through metaphysics.

<crickets>

You have no evidence, only empty wordplay. You are the one who is defending the impossible and trying to deny it.

Give us something that can be tested. You can't.

On the lighter side, I hope that OBE's are real and that they find a way of doing it on a repeated basis, it will be the only way that I will ever get to Disney world.

:)

Right, wrong or indifferent, it is always fun watching you guys argue intelligently.

THEY DONT EVEN HAVE "ITS A SMALL WORLD ANYMORE!! i was just there....but without kids...i went there alone.... they prolly had an eye on me as i wasnt with kids or anyone else!! hell I woulda thought i was strange....:)

I don't get the argument here... The scientist in question states that he cannot assume that all NDE's are illusions. He does not state (at least in the quotes above) that we CAN assume that they are real either.

Any good scientist will not state anything with 100% certainty about anything unless it has been tested into scientific "law"... There are very few such laws by the way (thermodynamics,is one that most people know off the top of their head for example).

So, just because one scientist states that this one test doesn't prove that all experiences are in the same model, it means that they MUST be real? That is not a valid statement. It just means that more testing, experimentation and examination is required to understand them more fully.

that there is a phenomenon that NDEs describe. I don't think there is a debate about whether they occur...rather, the debate is what they mean. Are they evidence of consciousness existing separate from the body?

If you are going to consider this sort of phenomena, we could also add out of the body experiences and also experiences under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs. Robert A. Wilson and Terrence McKenna speculated that drugs could be used for interdimensional travel. How do we treat claims like this without insisting on evidence? Do we take them seriously, or remain agnostic on their relevance? I advocate agnosticism.