Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Jeff Davis]

What I'm saying is exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. A discussion of the evidence results in the finding that there is sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to believe that UFOs ( as defined above ) are real. However that is different from scientifically valid material evidence ( which is also verifiable ). A comparison of the evidence for OOBEs and NDE's ( as evidence of non-local consciousness ) pales in comparison to evidence for UFOs. But the other reason behind my statement is my firsthand personal experience, not hearsay or anecdote. Whether I can prove that to someone else isn't relevant to the validity of my statement. It's only relevant to its believability by others.

Can this be demonstrated? I can provide a GREAT DEAL of reasearch that I am certain provides just as compelling an amount of circumstantial evidence for non-local consciousness, as does the image based reporting that forwards the notion that UFOs are alien craft does. What is the difference here?

Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experience by Jeffrey Long, MD with Paul Perry

 

[trainedobserver]

There's no verifiable evidence. I've looked all over for it. The only evidence that would count as verifiable that I've found are the cases where messages in operating rooms have been placed up above and out of sight of the patient so that the only way they could see it is to float up out of their bodies and see it. Not a single case has ever been reported where these types of experiment have yielded positive results. The rest have been urban legend, or something that spontaneously happened and seems verifiable but in reality no controls were setup, or hearsay. That's not to say that the experience doesn't happen. It's just that interpreting that experience as non-locality of consciousness seems to be based on insufficient evidence.

I agree. I know people have experienced OBEs. I believe their accounts, I just don't think it is a case of the mind, soul, or whatever exiting the body.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yes, you are very precise and I wasn't questioning you - I was making sure I hadn't made any assumptions. There is ambiguity in almost any statement (and even if there isn't, believe me I will find it). From what I understood Don and Gene did not seem willing to agree, and much of what I have heard lately has also moved away from your definition as I understand it - so I was very interested in your statement and the confidence behind it.

You have had some very interesting first hand experiences and I'm interested in both types of evidence.

A comparison of the evidence for OOBEs and NDE's ( as evidence of non-local consciousness ) pales in comparison to evidence for UFOs.

That's what I want to see. Neither topic is much covered in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals that I know of - and some search engines have "filter bubbles" and I am growing wary of Wikipedia, and UFO research has moved online, at least that seems to me a common lament on various podcasts and blogs - so that's what one has to work with.
I've not been that interested in NDEs but it does seem to have a bearing on the consciousness discussion we've been having on this thread and Skeptiko often makes the claim, quite boldly, that the evidence is there and is very solid and will changed everything, bold claims - that's why I'm beginning to look over on their site as it is the focus of the podcast.

Any sources you can point to are appreciated.

IMO, there is clearly a tendency here to shy away from strong circumstantial evidence that fully supports the notion of consciousness as being both non-local and seperate from cognition. I am absoluteley certain beyond question that there is every bit as much circumstantial evidence to support non-localized consciousness as there is the poposition that UFOs are alien craft. I'll take ANYONE up and that claim. That's just utter BS.

 

[trainedobserver]

trained observer also wrote:

“It [the brain] "experiences" its own operation as awareness.”


Awareness of what? Experience of what? Is there such a thing as contentless consciousness? Husserl recognized, after great analytical labor, that consciousness is always consciousness of something.

Awareness of the self in the environment.
Experience of its own operation as the consciousness organ.
Contentless consciousness? Thought is an unstoppable and endless train. I suspect not.

 

[smcder]

Awareness of the self in the environment.
Experience of its own operation as the consciousness organ.
Contentless consciousness? Thought is an unstoppable and endless train. I suspect not.

If I remember, Neurologist and Zen practitioner James Austin seems to think the train can be stopped, but I'm not going back through all three pounds (coincidence?) and nearly 900 pages to find out!

Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness: James H. Austin: 9780262511094: Amazon.com: Books

It's interesting Husserl comes up - I was thinking about phenomenology and introspection, the results of these kinds of thought experiments (literally!), looking at our own subjective experience, seem to be very heavily influenced by, well subjective factors and culture, training, expectations . . . Buddhists tend to see Buddhist stuff, Western phenomenologists report kind of what you'd expect - I just read a passage on not-self and how, if you could, you most certainly would control your thought formations but of course you can't, so your thoughts are not-self. Then I was listening to the Kyballion and it talks about changing your mental states by a process of will (though it does not tell you how!) and I recall cognitive therapy posits that your thoughts control your emotions and that forms the basis of Rational Emotive therapy . . . a variant of CBT I have practiced with my own diagnosed OCD and which does seem to work as well as medication. My understanding is that the brain re-wires the caudate nucleus to be more efficient . . . well, something like that . . . so I can say that the OCD train, at least can be slowed down:

Brain Lock: Free Yourself from Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior: Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Beverly Beyette: 9780060987114: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Jeff Davis]

More pertinant and up to date reading for the deniers of non-localized consciousness. (which is also referred to as "extended consciousness")

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics? | Bering in Mind, Scientific American Blog Network

 

[smcder]

More pertinant and up to date reading for the deniers of non-localized consciousness. (which is also referred to as "extended consciousness")

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics? | Bering in Mind, Scientific American Blog Network

Interesting article - thank you for sharing!

 

[Randall]

"A comparison of the evidence for OOBEs and NDE's ( as evidence of non-local consciousness ) pales in comparison to evidence for UFOs."​

That's what I want to see. Neither topic is much covered in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals that I know of - and some search engines have "filter bubbles" and I am growing wary of Wikipedia, and UFO research has moved online, at least that seems to me a common lament on various podcasts and blogs - so that's what one has to work with.

I haven't made any claim that mainstream peer reviewed journals should be considered a primary source of evidence. I've only claimed what I stated above regarding a comparison of the evidence ( all inclusive ). The first and foremost factor in the comparison of evidence between NDEs, OOBE's, and UFOs, is that the first two are entirely subjective experiences where no direct objective verification is possible. In contrast, UFOs have repeatedly elicited an external stimulus response ( most often visual ) and/or an instrumented detection ( mostly radar ). This is very strong evidence that UFOs are objectively real material objects, and this evidence has been so strong that military jet interceptors have been sent after them on more than one occasion.

So most succinctly put: The day that a case for OOBEs and NDEs equates even close to one where multiple ground observers see UFOs while they are being tracked on RADAR, followed by a military jet interception that visually confirms the ground RADAR and observers, combined with the jet's onboard RADAR, then we can say we have some substantial evidence. Until then the only possible evidence for OOBEs and NDEs is by way of inference through such projects as the AWARE project you mentioned, none of which have yielded any positive results.

There's more to all this yet of course, like the sheer numbers of reports and types of investigations done with respect to UFOs, but it still doesn't change the final evaluation of the comparison. Rather, it just continues to heap the evidence in favor of UFOs onto one side of the scale, while on the other, the evidence for NDEs and OOBEs ( as evidence for non-local consciousness ) remains flimsy at best. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I haven't made any claim that mainstream peer reviewed journals should be considered a primary source of evidence. I've only claimed what I stated above regarding a comparison of the evidence ( all inclusive ). The first and foremost factor in the comparison of evidence between NDEs, OOBE's, and UFOs, is that the first two are entirely subjective experiences where no direct objective verification is possible. In contrast, UFOs have repeatedly elicited an external stimulus response ( most often visual ) and/or an instrumented detection ( mostly radar ). This is very strong evidence that UFOs are objectively real material objects, and this evidence has been so strong that military jet interceptors have been sent after them on more than one occasion.

So most succinctly put: The day that a case for OOBEs and NDEs equates even close to one where multiple ground observers see UFOs while they are being tracked on RADAR, followed by a military jet interception that visually confirms the ground RADAR and observers, combined with the jet's onboard RADAR, then we can say we have some substantial evidence. Until then the only possible evidence for OOBEs and NDEs is by way of inference through such projects as the AWARE project you mentioned, none of which have yielded any positive results. There's more to all this yet of course, like the sheer numbers of reports and types of investigations done with respect to UFOs, but it still doesn't change the final evaluation of the comparison. I hope that helps to clarify.

It seems we are bent on ignoring the evidence here .

I agree that there is much evidence pointing to UFOs being technology. That does not by any means indicate that they are alien space ships. Just technology that those in charge are not familiar with. What side of the fence you choose is just that. Your choice, nothing more.

To state that UFOs equal alien craft is no more or less ludicrous than to contend that the HUMONGOUS amount of compilled NDE case reports show circumstantial evidence that consciousness is not bound to being local in nature.

 

[Randall]

... I agree that there is much evidence pointing to UFOs being technology. That does not by any means indicate that they are alien space ships.

I never said UFOs are "spacecraft". I said they are alien craft. If they're not alien, then logically they must be known to somebody ( they're not ), and it's obvious from RADAR and visual observations that they are craft ( conveyances of some type ).

To state that UFOs equal alien craft is no more or less ludicrous than to contend that the HUMONGOUS amount of compilled NDE case reports show circumstantial evidence that consciousness is not bound to being local in nature.

It's no more ludicrous to propose UFOs = alien craft, than it is to propose that NDEs = actual experience of non-local consciousness. Both assumptions are fine for the purpose of investigation. It's the resulting nature and quality of evidence that I'm referring to, in which case NDEs fall far short of the mark because they're a purely subjective phenomenon and therefore unverifiable by direct observation. Show me one credible case where someone has observed someone else float out of their body. You can't. Show me one case where someone has correctly identified the message waiting there for them up above in the operating room. Again, you can't. In contrast the Washington DC UFO flap included numerous ground and air observations by civilians and military personnel backed by RADAR from two separate airports, and a jet interceptor vectored to a UFO where the UFO was observed by the pilot and picked up on the aircraft's RADAR, and all this is entirely reasonable to believe because the events were verified by investigators at the time who confirmed the visual and RADAR sightings. There's nothing even close to that in NDE or OOBE research.

 

[Constance]

Awareness of the self in the environment.

Experience of its own operation as the consciousness organ.
Contentless consciousness? Thought is an unstoppable and endless train. I suspect not.

Can you clarify what you mean by "experience of its own operation as the consciousness organ"?

Smcder has just pointed out that according to Buddhists and other skilled meditators, the train of thought does appear to be 'stoppable', or I would say 'almost stoppable'. What seems to happen in meditation is that the busyness of the distracting traffic going on in ordinary waking consciousness can be greatly reduced by mental and physical discipline to clear a way downward to a recognition of the deeper ground of consciousness, to a level at which a sublime peace can be found (and at which certain recognitions of the deeper nature of reality which we ordinarily miss can be contemplated). That kind of experience opens up the possibility of general human insight concerning the complex, layered nature of consciousness, even for people who do not meditate (I am one such), so long as we are willing to accept the testimony of many thousands of meditators as valid reporting of their experience. Consciousness being both an individual and a species-wide phenomenon, I don't know how we can begin to understand its nature without attending both to individual accounts of mental experience and to attempts by psychologists, philosophers, and other specialists to describe conscious and subconscious phenomena in more general terms.

 

[smcder]

I haven't made any claim that mainstream peer reviewed journals should be considered a primary source of evidence. I've only claimed what I stated above regarding a comparison of the evidence ( all inclusive ). The first and foremost factor in the comparison of evidence between NDEs, OOBE's, and UFOs, is that the first two are entirely subjective experiences where no direct objective verification is possible. In contrast, UFOs have repeatedly elicited an external stimulus response ( most often visual ) and/or an instrumented detection ( mostly radar ). This is very strong evidence that UFOs are objectively real material objects, and this evidence has been so strong that military jet interceptors have been sent after them on more than one occasion.

So most succinctly put: The day that a case for OOBEs and NDEs equates even close to one where multiple ground observers see UFOs while they are being tracked on RADAR, followed by a military jet interception that visually confirms the ground RADAR and observers, combined with the jet's onboard RADAR, then we can say we have some substantial evidence. Until then the only possible evidence for OOBEs and NDEs is by way of inference through such projects as the AWARE project you mentioned, none of which have yielded any positive results.

There's more to all this yet of course, like the sheer numbers of reports and types of investigations done with respect to UFOs, but it still doesn't change the final evaluation of the comparison. Rather, it just continues to heap the evidence in favor of UFOs onto one side of the scale, while on the other, the evidence for NDEs and OOBEs ( as evidence for non-local consciousness ) remains flimsy at best. I hope that helps to clarify.

Yes! Very helpful . . . thank you for clarifying!

 

[Constance]

I have to agree with this observation by Jeff Davis:

"It seems we are bent on ignoring the evidence here."

Indeed, there seems to be a general reliance here on 'objective' material evidence in assessing the reality status of various kinds of human experiences, not surprising given the continuing dominance of the materialist paradigm in western culture. We can talk about that.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I never said UFOs are "spacecraft". I said they are alien craft. If they're not alien, then logically they must be known to somebody ( they're not ), and it's obvious from RADAR and visual observations that they are craft ( conveyances of some type ).

It's no more ludicrous to propose UFOs = alien craft, than it is to propose that NDEs = actual experience of non-local consciousness. Both assumptions are fine for the purpose of investigation. It's the resulting nature and quality of evidence that I'm referring to, in which case NDEs fall far short of the mark because they're a purely subjective phenomenon and therefore unverifiable by direct observation. Show me one credible case where someone has observed someone else float out of their body. You can't. Show me one case where someone has correctly identified the message waiting there for them up above in the operating room. Again, you can't. In contrast the Washington DC UFO flap included numerous ground and air observations by civilians and military personnel backed by RADAR from two separate airports, and a jet interceptor vectored to a UFO where the UFO was observed by the pilot and picked up on the aircraft's RADAR, and all this is entirely reasonable to believe because the events were verified by investigators at the time who confirmed the visual and RADAR sightings. There's nothing even close to that in NDE or OOBE research.

Again, what about the many cases where those experiencing such non-local states of consciousness are able to recall and describe events and details that they could not have known otherwise? Medical procedures, equipment malfunctions, someone being excused from the operating room, details from accident scenes, etc? If they are laying out in the street, or in a hospital bed under the knife, how are they able to describe with precision that which they would have no way of knowing if consciousness were limited to the locality of the body itself?

 

[smcder]

I have to agree with this observation by Jeff Davis:

"It seems we are bent on ignoring the evidence here."

Indeed, there seems to be a general reliance here on 'objective' material evidence in assessing the reality status of various kinds of human experiences, not surprising given the continuing dominance of the materialist paradigm in western culture. We can talk about that.

I would like to talk about that! And even start a new thread on the topic - whatever is best.

 

[smcder]

Neither Darwin Nor God? Neither Darwin Nor God? | Public Discourse

We started this thread with a bit of Nagel (at least he showed up early on) and this is kind of interesting to see what he is up to now . . .

Nagel does not find theism to be more credible as an account of the origin and development of life and intelligence. He is interested in possibilities other than Darwin or God, and he champions a view, "naturalistic teleology," which he thinks may provide an account of nature that includes mental faculties as constitutive features.

 

[Randall]

Again, what about the many cases where those experiencing such non-local states of consciousness are able to recall and describe events and details that they could not have known otherwise? Medical procedures, equipment malfunctions, someone being excused from the operating room, details from accident scenes, etc? If they are laying out in the street, or in a hospital bed under the knife, how are they able to describe with precision that which they would have no way of knowing if consciousness were limited to the locality of the body itself?

We've already discussed this. Because someone well after the fact describes seeing something seemingly coinciding with the environment around them when they were unconscious, doesn't mean they floated out of their bodies and actually saw it. I'll admit that it's a natural reaction to jump to that conclusion, but every case I've looked into that makes these claims is based on after the fact stories by someone without any verification of the actual details or relayed by a third party, which makes it hearsay, and has some possible explanation like the possibility that the sum total of the experience while conscious and/or unconscious creates a library of experience in ones mind that the mind can assemble in a dream like manner that closely matches the environment around them.

For example stays and visits in hospitals expose patients to many things consciously and unconsciously prior to the procedures. Combine all those experiences with sensory information obtained while unconscious ( e.g. from hearing ) and the subconscious mind could easily create a seemingly realistic scenario that is later recalled, giving the impression at a later time that they had such an experience. Again. We need at least one example where someone floats up and reads the bloody message on the display, floats back down, come's out of their unconscious state, and relays that message accurately. That or for some OOBE experiencer to do the same thing. As much as we want to believe this phenomenon represents non-locality of consciousness nobody has done that.

 

[Randall]

I have to agree with this observation by Jeff Davis:

"It seems we are bent on ignoring the evidence here."

Indeed, there seems to be a general reliance here on 'objective' material evidence in assessing the reality status of various kinds of human experiences, not surprising given the continuing dominance of the materialist paradigm in western culture. We can talk about that.

Just to be clear, I don't rely so much on objective material evidence as logical analysis of the available evidence, preferably backed by some form of verification that makes it reasonable to believe. Put this together with critical thinking, and we move closer to the truth. Ignore it, and things start to leak. Ignore it too much and you're sunk. One would normally think this approach would be agreeable, yet the band playing on while the ship is sinking has still been known to happen.

 

[Jeff Davis]

We've already discussed this. The faulty presumption is that because they described something seemingly coinciding with the environment around them while unconscious doesn't mean they floated out of their bodies and actually saw it. I'll admit that it's a natural reaction to jump to that conclusion, but every case I've looked into that makes these claims is based on after the fact stories by someone without any verification of the actual details or relayed by a third party, which makes it hearsay, and has some possible explanation like the possibility that the sum total of the experience while conscious and/or unconscious creates a library of experience in ones mind that the mind can assemble in a dream like manner that matches that information.

For example stays and visits in hospitals expose patients to many things consciously and unconsciously prior to the procedures. Combine all those experiences with sensory information obtained while unconscious ( e.g. from hearing ) and the subconscious mind could easily create a seemingly realistic scenario that is later recalled, giving the impression at a later time that they had such an experience. Again. We need at least one example where someone floats up and reads the bloody message on the display, float back down, come's out of their unconscious state, and relays that message accurately. That or some OOBE experiencer to do the same thing. As much as we want to believe this phenomenon represents non-locality of consciousness nobody has done that.

I'm sorry, but this does not wash. Not logical in the least.

If the individuals were not in a waking state when events occurred that they recounted, how could they have known of them afterward if someone else didn't convey as much to them? We are not talking about physical or material trinkets or equipment that was in place anytime prior to their being anesthetized. We are talking behavior or experience. Actions. There is NO WAY that what you are forwarding here could explain as much. We really don't require anything that has not already been documented many times. Please, listen and search out the evidence for yourself. I realize how intelligent you are and respect you deeply. Just look into this as deeply.

Non-local Consciousness and Near-Death Experiences | promienie

edit: Just to add more evidence for non-localized consciousness. Scientific Evidence Supporting Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

 

[Randall]

I'm sorry, but this does not wash. Not logical in the least.
If the individuals were not in a waking state when events occurred that they recounted, how could they have know of them afterward if someone else didn't convey as much to them?

They can know it the same way we can have dreams that correspond to things in reality. Smells and sounds for example are still registered in the brain during sleep. Combine that with all the experience and foreknowledge of the local environment and presto! You have a dream of flying that seems like it's real because it's associated with actual things that are happening at the time.

Just take a moment to think of what happens in these situations. There's often a blow by blow vocal description from multiple people of what's taking place at the scene that may also include radio communications and sounds from machinery and equipment. The mind can take all that stuff in subconsciously and put it together with banked images to create a completely fabricated but seemingly real scene.

We are not talking about physical or material trinkets or equipment that was in place anytime prior to their being anesthetized. We are talking behavior or experience. Actions. There is NO WAY that what you are forwarding here could explain as much. We really don't require anything that has not already been documented many times. Please, listen and search out the evidence for yourself. I realize how intelligent you are and respect you deeply. Just look into this as deeply.

It explains it just fine when you consider the unverfiability of the experience and the margins for error. Again, we need the case where someone makes this claim and correctly relays the message on the random display. Surely you can see that this would be far better evidence than what we've got now?

And yes I've looked at Van Lommel's stuff and it has all the same problems, just better organized.