New Scientist's paper about OBE

[catmeow]

I have to agree with TL regarding the $1million challenge.  It's just a scam. Randi devises the test, monitors it and then judges it.  If you perform 100% success, he has the right to make you repeat the test until you fail, at which point he will declare you a fraud and rubbish you in the press.

A true test should hold 1$million in trust and allow an independent panel (not Randi) devise, monitor and judge the results. Otherwise it is biased in his favour.  Who on Earth would trust a self-proclaimed trickster (Randi) to arbitrate this test?  You'd have to be insane.  No one will ever win the 1$million because Randi will never pay it.  So just forget about Randi.  In scientific terms the challenge is worthless, it's just a good marketting scam.  Anyone who knows anything about science will realise that you need an independent protocol, independent, ideally double-blind invigilators, and the rules can't change if you're unhappy with the results.

I have personal experience of ESP which in my opinion is highly difficult to explain in terms of anything other than ESP.  That's why I take it seriously. Despite what Sharpe said in an earlier rambling generalisation, my education level is good and I'm not in the slightest insecure about my "status".  I don't need to believe in things because it makes me feel important.  I'm inclined to believe in ESP because I had some inexplicable experiences.  The most convincing was hypnotising my mother and telling her to "travel in her mind" to locations which she then described accurately, plus other abilities she had while hypnotised.

I've seen Randi claim that he can reproduce everything that Geller can do (Geller on balance probably IS a fraud), but the Amazing Randi's sleight of hand was so transparent and clumsy the guy was a joke.  Other things he attempted like ESP and cold-readings were so unsuccesful in front of a studio audience they had to be cut from the final broadcast, and repeated until they worked.  So his claim to be "amazing" is wrong too.  At least Geller is a superb technician.  Not only is Randi a fraud with respect to the 1$million challenge he also gives third rate magicians a bad name....

[Sharpe]

I have to agree with TL regarding the $1million challenge.  It's just a scam. Randi devises the test, monitors it and then judges it.  If you perform 100% success, he has the right to make you repeat the test until you fail, at which point he will declare you a fraud and rubbish you in the press.

A true test should hold 1$million in trust and allow an independent panel (not Randi) devise, monitor and judge the results. Otherwise it is biased in his favour.  Who on Earth would trust a self-proclaimed trickster (Randi) to arbitrate this test?  You'd have to be insane.  No one will ever win the 1$million because Randi will never pay it.  So just forget about Randi.  In scientific terms the challenge is worthless, it's just a good marketting scam.  Anyone who knows anything about science will realise that you need an independent protocol, independent, ideally double-blind invigilators, and the rules can't change if you're unhappy with the results.

I have personal experience of ESP which in my opinion is highly difficult to explain in terms of anything other than ESP.  That's why I take it seriously. Despite what Sharpe said in an earlier rambling generalisation, my education level is good and I'm not in the slightest insecure about my "status".  I don't need to believe in things because it makes me feel important.  I'm inclined to believe in ESP because I had some inexplicable experiences.  The most convincing was hypnotising my mother and telling her to "travel in her mind" to locations which she then described accurately, plus other abilities she had while hypnotised.

I've seen Randi claim that he can reproduce everything that Geller can do (Geller on balance probably IS a fraud), but the Amazing Randi's sleight of hand was so transparent and clumsy the guy was a joke.  Other things he attempted like ESP and cold-readings were so unsuccesful in front of a studio audience they had to be cut from the final broadcast, and repeated until they worked.  So his claim to be "amazing" is wrong too.  At least Geller is a superb technician.  Not only is Randi a fraud with respect to the 1$million challenge he also gives third rate magicians a bad name....

I don't think the randi challenge is a fraud, because like I said before, imo your brain needs to fill the gap to make your theory about the paranormal normal, because the brain cannot handle vagueness, it needs clarity, it needs 1 map of reality not multiple, if your theory isn't entirely true and your brain senses your beliefs are starting to lose, it will try to find flaws in all the other theories about reality and they will be eliminated in order to leave 1 in your map.
Which equals = your map of reality.

Now I'm not saying your status is low or anything, I'm not saying you need to feel important (although everyone wants to be loved by others, so I can't see the logic in that lol), maybe you want clarity of your existence, maybe you're searching for the truth.

But as far as I can tell, paranormal phenomena just complicates things.
And they're still theories by humans, with no proof whatsoever.
And isn't it weird that paranormal things only happen to people that believe in it?
Obviously it's all in their heads.

[malganis]

I don't think the randi challenge is a fraud, because like I said before, imo your brain needs to fill the gap to make your theory about the paranormal normal, because the brain cannot handle vagueness, it needs clarity, it needs 1 map of reality not multiple, if your theory isn't entirely true and your brain senses your beliefs are starting to lose, it will try to find flaws in all the other theories about reality and they will be eliminated in order to leave 1 in your map.
Which equals = your map of reality.

Now I'm not saying your status is low or anything, I'm not saying you need to feel important (although everyone wants to be loved by others, so I can't see the logic in that lol), maybe you want clarity of your existence, maybe you're searching for the truth.

But as far as I can tell, paranormal phenomena just complicates things.
And they're still theories by humans, with no proof whatsoever.
And isn't it weird that paranormal things only happen to people that believe in it?
Obviously it's all in their heads.

I agree with you on your mind making a map of reality and disregarding conflicting beliefs. What if you would turn your logic around?
Mind finds evidences for whatever it believes now that being in paranormal or not.

[T.L.]

    Im sorry sharpe your reasoning for believing what you do is just nonsense to me. Does one try to mold the truth to make his/her belief fit into the "scheme of things" sure, that is what anyone does who's trying to make a point as to why they are right. When I started projecting I took a step back and observed what was going on with me a ruled out everything one by one. I didnt believe in projection or obe's a long long time ago,as a matter of fact a friend wanted to discuss some of his experiences and I blindly shrugged anything he had to tell me off like he was crazy. I see now that I was the blind one.
     After careful experimentation, and over 80 obes later I have to say the validations Ive had is overwelming personal proof. It is a subjective topic when comparing notes from ones experience to the next because people experience and interpret things differently. If one sees a very bright energy, another sees god instead. If you have a circle of people maybe about 5 sitting in a circle. One reads a sentence in the first persons ear and so on down the circle till the last person hears it, if you ask the last person to repeat it. It will be way out of context when compared to the original sentence. So many people interpret things differently. When it comes to obe's though and what leads up to them everyone is in agreement usually and most of everyone experiences things like a loud buzzing sound, sometimes roaring, and vibrations, and a loud click. Some of which could not even be considered physical sensations. So either all of the hundreds of thousands of people who report obe's are right or they are all "dreaming the same dream" or having the same delusion which is said to be not possible anyway. As far as the laws of attraction go, I never said it is my belief. I also dont buy self help books lol, I have just seen references to physicists who believe it exists. I have also taken from my experiences in the projection state. Also the experiences of others who talk about fear...etc.. when in the obe state. What they think or fear will happen usually does. Its no different from a person who believes tylonel will cure his/her flu if he/she actually believes it will then it usually does. So yes their arguments are very valid ones.
     You saying that some of these things holds no water because the brain builds your own map of reality, not only seems wrong, its nonsense. Im sorry that you see things otherwise, Im always a firm believer of experimenting and seeing who is right. After all you are a materialist, so experiment yourself and see for yourself. There really is no point in arguing about it, just go see for yourself.

[Sharpe]

First of all, none of what I say is nonsense, it's logic.
And don't accuse me of not having experimented it before.
Though I didn't want to get in the vibrational or whatever state you want to call it.
I felt that and it was like something pressing (pressure) against your ears and your brain and the more it sounded the less you could hear of what actually is happening in the real world.
And then... I opened my eyes in the dark, I was still in my room, staring onto my left, I saw it looking at me.
A 3 feet tall gargoyle.
And then something scary happend, it jumped towards me and i closed my eyes screaming.
It was just like a dream.
No air in your lungs, limpy arms, clumsiness and you can't scream.
Then I woke up filled with adrenaline.
I do not think that that was an OBE, you know why?
Because it was pure hallucination, I have no theory about hallucination without stimulants nor sleep deprivation, but I'll think about it today, and post a theory tommorow.

[T.L.]

Actually I didnt say everything you said is nonsense. I said your logic to me is nonsense. That and just coming up with theories about how the world works or doesnt overnight is comical to me as well. Arguing back and forth about what you think and what my experiences tell me isnt going to help anyone. Really what we are doing here isnt what this forum was meant for. Im not going to sit here though and perpetuate this argument further. Im sorry if anything I said offended you. Regards,
                                                         T.L.

[Sharpe]

It seemed like offending me was your primary objective lol...
And about coming up with theories on how the world works over night, what the hell man?
You don't think about reality or anything?
The thing I do is, I view, look back on what I have actually learned, eliminate any bogus claims, don't trust what I view, but I trust what I've learned that puts all the pieces of the universe together and come up with a perfectly logical explanation.
This works with everything.
Now if you accept the claims given to you instead or assume it is what it looks like, you might think like the ancient egyptians did.
There have been many people in the history that allready invested time in discovering the truth, some of them gave their life to find it.
Why not take what they've learned instead of you making your conclusions by just going in OBE 80 times?

Don't worry about my overnight conclusions, I take what they've learned and try to find a more... logical explanation to OBE.

If OBE truly existed, what would the world be?
Just another world out of 8 spiritual ones?
How are brains connected to eachother to the other worlds?
Why are only humans possible of doing something like this?

We view things with our eyes, we hear with our ears, but it gets more complicated when it goes to the brain.
After you've sensed feelings, hear sounds, seen things, these are put in your hippocampus in your brain correct?
So how come when you go to the astral plane, you still have all your memory?
Never mind that, how come you take your whole brain over to the other side?
Isn't your brain matter?
So you take only your brain to the astral plain, nothing else?
How about eyes? Ears?
You can't exactly see without your eyes and hear without your ears.

And just drop that point lol, why in heaven dear god and our saviour jesus' name, would you need an astral plane to begin with?
Isn't evolution's purpose to evolve/progress in lifeforms, for whatever reason it is?
Why the hell would the universe give any entity the ability to go to the astral plane?

And I can see the point in cats having claws and dogs having sharp teeth...
It's made to survive, so evolution can progress.
How on earth does astral projection help with anything?
If people would astral project every day, they should put him on IV therapy and drug him with marihuana so he can FLYYYY everyday, feeling wonderful.

Sadly, this isn't what evolution is build on.
Evolution wants us to move forward, so any kind of fatigue will give us depression or the idea that you should be doing something better with your life.
So this breaks down that whole "actual-OUT" of-body expirience.
And still, the logicly obvious remains: It's merely a dream. A lucid dream.

[cobalt]

I apologize that i havnt followed all of the conversation, bit i saw some phrases and it seemed wrong to me.
The idea, that if obe happens in our brain means its not real? Why not? If we assume that brain is i (which i believe is only partially).
Then we could call any expierience unreal. Even the real life in front of your eyes. If one had red a basic theory of sight, colors and vision (even such as written for photographers and artists, not some doctors), you would see that the picture you feel you're directly seeing just isn't there in front of your eyes... all the shapes, colors and objects are pure creation of your own mind - interpretation of enormous amounts of raw data being fed into us or created within us...

...Maybe...

Btw i recommend reading something about "Boltzman Brains". i guess one of the best places to start at would be here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

[T.L.]

"We view things with our eyes, we hear with our ears, but it gets more complicated when it goes to the brain.
After you've sensed feelings, hear sounds, seen things, these are put in your hippocampus in your brain correct?
So how come when you go to the astral plane, you still have all your memory?
Never mind that, how come you take your whole brain over to the other side?
Isn't your brain matter?
So you take only your brain to the astral plain, nothing else?
How about eyes? Ears?
You can't exactly see without your eyes and hear without your ears."

   You are too stuck on the physical aspect of everything, that is what Im trying to tell you. You are making too many assumptions. Sure information we gather is categorized in the brain, we are in agreement on that. Whose to say that is the only place memories are stored and accessed. Why is it that in altered states of consciousness memories long forgotten are spontaneously remembered etc.. You are assuming that the brain is absolutely the only place memories are stored. You are assuming that consciousness itself only exists within the human brain, even many leading scientists dont even subscribe to that way of thought. Some admit that they dont know if consciousness itself is literally "in the brain". Without our consciousness we would not even be able to see, hear, taste,feel,smell. Our hands, eyes, nose, mouth, are just interfaces in which physically we experience the senses as we know it, but in order to experience those senses of the physical body we need our consciousness.
    So if we need our consciousness to do all these things in the physical, it is very safe to say that if obe's are a possibility if you can bring yourself to admit the possibility, and you seperate the consciousness from the constraints of the physical. Consciousness alone can recreate these sensations. As long as you arent suspended in the physical and are only existing within the mental.
   There is sort of an example I can relate here, is it your opinion that your ears are the only way to hear period? Can you give me an example in which one could hear without the ears? The reason I ask is because the way you talk you are only viewing from one perspective only. There are tons of possibilities and to only believe in one ultimate existence would be a fools choice, especially when no one can claim to know all about existence. The nonphysical does not follow physical principles as we know them to be. The brain is a tool in which our consciousness can interact with the physical, so yes without the brain we would not exist and wouldnt be capable of a physical existence. That does not mean however the brain created the consciousness. Im not attacking you personally either like you said I was. I was just stating my opinions on the way you look at things. Never the less sorry if you thought I was. Regards,
                T.L.

[Sharpe]

Ok I like how we're communicating now, and I'd like to point out a few little details.
I don't neccesarily believe in consciousness, how weird it may sound.
I believe the brain is made up of binary code, meaning: everything is perfectly programmed and there is no free will whatsoever.
It is true we know very little of our brains, but we know enough how the info travels from where to where, just thinking, it's a lot of info if you look at the brain and its functions, if it's so much info and you bind all that info together you MIGHT create "consciousness".
But ofcourse this is just a hypothesis.

Also I'd like to add: Whose to say that is the only place memories are stored and accessed. Why is it that in altered states of consciousness memories long forgotten are spontaneously remembered etc..

Freud said that when you dream you take a peek in your subconscious, your subconscious is the place where your personality, deep beliefs and sexual desires are.
So it wouldn't suprise me that you were conscious in your subconscious when you OBE, which is something extraordinairy to say the least, so it isn't going to another plane, but it's something.

[Sharpe]

I apologize that i havnt followed all of the conversation, bit i saw some phrases and it seemed wrong to me.
The idea, that if obe happens in our brain means its not real? Why not? If we assume that brain is i (which i believe is only partially).
Then we could call any expierience unreal. Even the real life in front of your eyes. If one had red a basic theory of sight, colors and vision (even such as written for photographers and artists, not some doctors), you would see that the picture you feel you're directly seeing just isn't there in front of your eyes... all the shapes, colors and objects are pure creation of your own mind - interpretation of enormous amounts of raw data being fed into us or created within us...

...Maybe...

Btw i recommend reading something about "Boltzman Brains". i guess one of the best places to start at would be here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Sorry for skipping you  .
Uhm, I don't know, it's way too queer in my opinion.
Why would you accept that model with no logic nor proof, instead of centuries of study in science?

[T.L.]

     Are you of the belief that our thoughts actually exist in this plane? For instance lets just use the lucid dream state as the example here, while you are in this lucid dream walking around remarking at how real this is (even though you know it to be just a conscious dream) you purposely touch things to see if you can feel them, you conclude you can. You smell, taste, hear and after all that you conclude yes you can do all those things. Yet you are not using the physical body to do any of this. You are really there in the lucid dream, you are experiencing everything, so it is a reality. Also this whole dream itself, who can say it is in the physical dimension. it certainly isnt or else dream objects would be physical objects. No one can also say it wasnt reality, because for the short duration you were there you it was real or else you wouldnt be experiencing it. How can one experience something and say it didnt exist? What is the nature existance? That is what we are talking about.
  Dont get me wrong Im not saying obe's are dreams I am saying that dreams themselves are still a reality no matter how you look at it. To say you have no free will at all is just a sketchy comment.  I want to type this to you so therefore I am, I am coming up with all my remarks of my own accord. I dont have something forcing me to do this. I can remain here or lay down to sleep, I am of the belief that I can do either one I choose. I do not have anything forcing me one way or the other. Everything down to the very last detail is not pre-arranged for me. If it was and I was of the belief I would of shot myself a long time ago because that would mean nothing really matters, no choice you could ever make would be your own so what why would living help at all? However my experiences tell me otherwise and I have been free up to now to do and experience anything I choose to. As for consciousness existing, I am thinking at this very moment, I can interpret anything how I like. So as far as being able to formulate my own thoughts, and make decisions tells me yes I am conscious and have a consciousness, if I leave out all my experiences to date and just go by being able to freely think and communicate. Regards,
                            T.L.

[Sharpe]

Free-will...
Free-will, is making choices.
But, if the choice is allready made, not by you but by a chemical, it wouldn't be your choice right?
Or if the choice is made in a programmed sequence of binary code, it still wouldn't be yours.
As a matter of fact, who are "you", you are just matter put together (materialisticly).

A neurotransmitter like adrenaline is released, what can you say about this?
Would it change your thoughts on stuff?
Yes it would, there are only 2 options for a neurotransmitter, it either releases or it doesn't.
1 or 0.
Now I am not gonna get complicated with this because it's pretty late and I wanna sleep.
Use this model for every neurotransmitter, for every instinct for everythingthing you have ever learned.
You should have binary code...

How do thoughts come you say?
How can you say you have consciousness, how can you say every thought you make is yours.
You can't because we are programmed to take behaviour from our culture or from a role-model you have selected, usually your father.
Now add all the things you have ever learned and form them in 1 personality.
That's you, and this all, is in your subconscious.

Just because you can say you are conscious doesn't mean you aren't programmed to do so.
By (don't take this seriously): wanting to prove me right that you are conscious you stand up and say that you are conscious, now you do this because for example you do not want to "lose" the discussion, this puts you in the position of wanting to become the alpha male in our "group".
So you want to be on top of me and you want me to be lower than you so you can mate, this system is build for progress in evolution. (I know this all sounds veeeery crazy)
So you prove, that you're better then me by proving me wrong.
OR, your model of reality wan't to eliminate mine (I think I mentioned this before), and your brain wants clarity so it chooses to say it's conscious so you are right! And this comes back to you want to be right because you want to be better than me.

It all sounds crazy at first but even I do it without being "conscious" over it.
But that's what the brain wants anyway.

So I hope you understood what I meant with "we do not have consciousness nor free-will".

"I think therefor I am, equals = I do not think therefor I am not"
No consciousness, no thinking = No "you"

[T.L.]

"A neurotransmitter like adrenaline is released, what can you say about this?
Would it change your thoughts on stuff?
Yes it would, there are only 2 options for a neurotransmitter, it either releases or it doesn't"

   I completely understand what you are trying to say and where you are coming from. You can drop it down to the smallest possible scale on the physical level and mentality but who is to say that the physical action/reaction is the cause of a thought, and not vice versa. Its like trying to argue what came first the chicken or the egg? The brain is the physical tool in which our consciousness can interact with the physical, so all you are saying now still can be explained by what Im saying. There was a study done a while back about thoughts and physical reactions etc.. Theres a certain physical response we get to certain imagery, feelings etc.. People would be shown an image an the correlating physical reaction would be gauged. They noticed in the study that the physical reactions were being seen before the images were shown by  fractions of a second. This shows that the brain is reacting to the images before we even really see the images physically, so this points to what Im saying that the physical reactions/actions are caused by the consciousness not the other way around. I know we are going back and forth here, and truth be told no matter how many times we keep at this we are still going to be in disagreement. Sure it would be nice to have physical proof to show you and prove to you that there is a little more to existence than you think. But its not necessary.
   The whole reason I am involved with this website and forum is to help those who are willing to try and experiment succeed in doing so. I want to help others who are cursious as I used to be about matters of projection, to have success in projection. To give direction and tips to those trying but not succeeding. I used to be whole heartedly against projection because I thought that the world we live in physically was all there is and ever will be, but I was wrong. Im not saying Im always right, but I know that this is not all there is to existence. When I had my own personal experiences at first I was still not convinced of course I dove deeper and deeper and come out with answers. The more scientific research I read up on the nature of consciousness, thoughts..etc.. the more those studies seemed to point to the obviousness of everything I was realizing. I wish I was wrong sometimes existing is boring, Ill give anyone that much, it would be nice once I get very old and tired of life. I would be happy if once Im done here Im done for good anywhere, it would be great to know I would be wiped out of existence. What better vacation? I want you to be right, but me wanting you to be right does not however make you right. There are some things we agree on but throwing the whole physical existence down to the simplest terms right or wrong when it comes to it on a physical level, does not make it the only existence and does not give validity to the claim that the non physical does not exist. I need rest as well. It was nice conversing with all of you today. Regards,
                                                                                     T.L.

[Sharpe]

"You can drop it down to the smallest possible scale on the physical level and mentality but who is to say that the physical action/reaction is the cause of a thought, and not vice versa."

I love this one, I was in school all day thinking about 1 thing, something close to this one.

"We know where the information goes, we know how the information can form a memory, we know the subconscious is the memory itself, but the choises you make, the decisions you make, it's hard to exactly say how all this is linked with the consciousness."

I felt like I was learning analytic geometry all over again.
It's like, you know the methods for why things are going on, and why the info goes where.
But the connection...
When I get that part I know everything will be crystal clear.

I can answer yours though:
"You can drop it down to the smallest possible scale on the physical level and mentality but who is to say that the physical action/reaction is the cause of a thought, and not vice versa."

Because, the physical reaction is released by the sense of danger, for instance: serotonin.
This one is released when you must feel happy for example.
And the happiness is decided by allready programmed material.
You get in your subconscious what makes people happy: Status/Love/Money/Big house - These mostly come to 1, Being loved by others / Having a high status.
But just to be simple, your subconscious knows this, what SHOULD make you happy.
Lets say you have all = 1111, lets say you don't have all = 0000, lets say its divided = 1010.
And lets say your neurotransmitters look like 0000.
So if you have something like 1010, the quantity of the neurotransmitter released will be: 0011.
And if you are happier then you can be you get: 1111 for serotonin.
Meaning: you're doing the right thing according to evolution.

[malganis]

Because, the physical reaction is released by the sense of danger, for instance: serotonin.
This one is released when you must feel happy for example.
And the happiness is decided by allready programmed material.
You get in your subconscious what makes people happy: Status/Love/Money/Big house - These mostly come to 1, Being loved by others / Having a high status.
But just to be simple, your subconscious knows this, what SHOULD make you happy.
Lets say you have all = 1111, lets say you don't have all = 0000, lets say its divided = 1010.
And lets say your neurotransmitters look like 0000.
So if you have something like 1010, the quantity of the neurotransmitter released will be: 0011.
And if you are happier then you can be you get: 1111 for serotonin.
Meaning: you're doing the right thing according to evolution.

Nice theory but when you look around it's not true. Happiness is not determined by outer circumstances but by inner. Happiness equals how much you're accepting your reality right now. You feel the most joy when you get something what you really desired and that joy is the result of your ego not blocking the flow of joy as it accepts the reality. But it doesn't last long b/c there is something else you want what you dont have yet. So if you only wanted that what you already have you would feel happy.

[Sharpe]

What you said isn't completely right, seeing we buy stuff we don't need because we want love.
Not because we "desire" them, desire comes for the need of love.
And like I said status IS love.
When you buy things you mostly buy them to show-off at other people to let them know your status is still high. So they give you love, as in you're higher then them so you deserve more then them.
You deserve a hot girlfriend (hot according to the society), they don't.
So you're the alpha male.
And we all know this is subconsciously the truth.

gosh darn, my last post sucked, I just came back from school and it was a bit too sucky model to take as example sorry for that.

You could take as example: how high is your status amongst your equals: 00001 = lowest, 11111 is highest for example.
And the same trick with the serotonin, this probably makes more sense.
But maybe if you make it precise, the serotonin is 01111 with people that are the alpha males in most groups.
But if you are a king or you rule the world or whatever, you are the ultra alpha male (I made that up xD), so this would give you the highest possible serotonin release = 11111.
Because if we know there's someone better than us, we can't accept all serotonin, however if we know we're the king of kings, we give ourselves permission to receive the whole thing (serotonin).

It's easy to say to not look at the outside, but seeing our brains work like that and we can't change the hardware, we're doomed to be superficial.

[T.L.]

Earlier I said that perhaps our physical actions are just reactions to our mind rather than our mind and thoughts are the reaction of the physical. I wanted to back this up with the study I mentioned...

http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/have-scientists-really-proved-that-man-can-see-into-the-future.html     and

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf (the actual study report)

this study shows that volunteers in this experiment have physical reactions to images before they actually physically see them. which means the volunteers can see the future albeit subconsciously and a small amount of time before. This shows that physical actions/reactions are the result of the conscious/subconscious mind.

[catmeow]

Hi Sharpe

And most people, espescially intelligent people know that eliminative materialism is reality, because it doesn't defy logic and it makes absolute sense being crystal clear in every field.

Well this is just a wild speculation.  Eliminative materialism is not widely accepted, as you suggest.  It seems however that all of your reasoning is based on materialism (universe=physical) and monism (mind=brain) of one form or another.  Hence all the talk of neurons and brains etc etc...

Please follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

You should consider dualism and idealism.  Dualism asserts that the mind and brain are separate and idealism asserts that our minds create our own reality, ie there is no physical reality, ideas which you do not appear to have considered.

The assumptions of monism and materialism, on which you base all of your conclusions are not safe at all.  They have been fiercely contested for thousands of years, and still, we don't know what the truth is.  Another unsafe assumption of yours is Darwinism, a theory which is not completely accepted.

So if your assumptions are unsafe, which they are, then so too are your conclusions.

I would ask you to stop using brains and neurons as a starting position for all of your arguments.  Many of us simply don't buy into these ideas so we will not agree with your conclusions.  Don't assume that the brain oozes thought like the liver oozes bile.  This has absolutely not been demonstrated, and therefore it's really hard to buy into your conclusions.  Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but you can not assume that we all start from the same position of materialism that you do.

Don't forget that the biggest paranormal event of all time is creation itself. Creation is one of the most absurd and unlikely events imagineable, and yet it is something which we all take for granted.  Compared to "creation", ESP is small potatos.

[catmeow]

T.L. I've seen these studies before and they are very interesting.  I'll dig out some other scientific studies of ESP which are being taken very seriously when I get time and post them later...

[T.L.]

     Sure, I appreciate that. There are other studies that were done, even another study that almost mirrors the one I posted the exception is that they used pain instead of images of emotional or neutral aspects. The results were the same as well, there are reflexes/reactions they see occurring right before the actual event takes place. So there is a host of studies I could use to back up what I have to say. The thing is that I dont only see science as the only way to prove or experience these things.
     Though a good amount of scientific studies does back up some of the ideas I put forth though, such as physical actions/reactions are a result of the mind/consciousness rather than the other way around which a lot of people believe. That we (our consciousness) continue to thrive after physical elimination of the physical body. Even science says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the only that changes is its form. So in a way someone who is scientifically minded might find theirselves in a paradox in that yes our thoughts, and the consciousness we use to derive our decisions/thoughts is a form of energy, yet they believe our consciousness ceases to exist once we physically die.
    I hope I dont need to point it out, if I do then - If energy can not be created nor destroyed, how can it be that your consciousness and thoughts cease to exist once the physical body dies as they too are a form of energy? I dont need others here to elaborate on an answer to the question as its meant to be rhetorical. I already know the answer, and Ive found from my experiences I am right. I dont want others to be swayed one way or another just by what I say though. Believe what you want to believe, but you owe it to yourselves to search, research, experiment, and experience before you arrive at what you feel is a solid answer. Regards,
                                                                  T.L.

[Stillwater]

Well, I hate to reuse posts, but this is one I used in another thread (Experiment to prove past lives in metaphysics section of this forum) that I think perfectly addresses the issue being raised here again, namely why materialism hasn't proven the brain can account for every aspect of of consciousness (the major bone being the inability for materialism to account for qualities such as "awareness", which a mere collection of atoms cannot explain), and thus shows how science has far from disproven Idealism and dualism. I wish there was a link to send someone to whenever this Mind-body arguement arose in the forums (as it seems to every week), as so much has already been said on the subject in history, but I guess material like this from Chalmers is the next best thing. I seem to adopt this as my "pet issue" whenever a new group of posters arrives, lol.

Now pay attention to the fact that Chalmers does not say that the answer is outside of science, as it clearly isn't, since science takes as its goal an understanding of the entire universe, whatever non-physical elements it may or may not contain; furthermore, he does not make the mistake of saying that science has already solved the problem through materialism, as so many dangerously assume.


_________________________________

I can probably not explain the issue as well as the professionals, so here is an excerpt from Chalmers (link provided again) to better elucidate the issue, with the parts I think are most important underlined:

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

1 Introduction
Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. I critique some recent work that uses reductive methods to address consciousness, and argue that such methods inevitably fail to come to grips with the hardest part of the problem. Once this failure is recognized, the door to further progress is opened. In the second half of the paper, I argue that if we move to a new kind of nonreductive explanation, a naturalistic account of consciousness can be given. I put forward my own candidate for such an account: a nonreductive theory based on principles of structural coherence and organizational invariance and a double-aspect view of information.

2 The easy problems and the hard problem
There is not just one problem of consciousness. "Consciousness" is an ambiguous term, referring to many different phenomena. Each of these phenomena needs to be explained, but some are easier to explain than others. At the start, it is useful to divide the associated problems of consciousness into "hard" and "easy" problems. The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods.

The easy problems of consciousness include those of explaining the following phenomena:


the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
the integration of information by a cognitive system;
the reportability of mental states;
the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
the focus of attention;
the deliberate control of behavior;
the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

All of these phenomena are associated with the notion of consciousness. For example, one sometimes says that a mental state is conscious when it is verbally reportable, or when it is internally accessible. Sometimes a system is said to be conscious of some information when it has the ability to react on the basis of that information, or, more strongly, when it attends to that information, or when it can integrate that information and exploit it in the sophisticated control of behavior. We sometimes say that an action is conscious precisely when it is deliberate. Often, we say that an organism is conscious as another way of saying that it is awake.

There is no real issue about whether these phenomena can be explained scientifically. All of them are straightforwardly vulnerable to explanation in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. To explain access and reportability, for example, we need only specify the mechanism by which information about internal states is retrieved and made available for verbal report. To explain the integration of information, we need only exhibit mechanisms by which information is brought together and exploited by later processes. For an account of sleep and wakefulness, an appropriate neurophysiological account of the processes responsible for organisms' contrasting behavior in those states will suffice. In each case, an appropriate cognitive or neurophysiological model can clearly do the explanatory work.

If these phenomena were all there was to consciousness, then consciousness would not be much of a problem. Although we do not yet have anything close to a complete explanation of these phenomena, we have a clear idea of how we might go about explaining them. This is why I call these problems the easy problems. Of course, "easy" is a relative term. Getting the details right will probably take a century or two of difficult empirical work. Still, there is every reason to believe that the methods of cognitive science and neuroscience will succeed.

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience". Another useful way to avoid confusion (used by e.g. Newell 1990, Chalmers 1996) is to reserve the term "consciousness" for the phenomena of experience, using the less loaded term "awareness" for the more straightforward phenomena described earlier. If such a convention were widely adopted, communication would be much easier; as things stand, those who talk about "consciousness" are frequently talking past each other.

The ambiguity of the term "consciousness" is often exploited by both philosophers and scientists writing on the subject. It is common to see a paper on consciousness begin with an invocation of the mystery of consciousness, noting the strange intangibility and ineffability of subjectivity, and worrying that so far we have no theory of the phenomenon. Here, the topic is clearly the hard problem - the problem of experience. In the second half of the paper, the tone becomes more optimistic, and the author's own theory of consciousness is outlined. Upon examination, this theory turns out to be a theory of one of the more straightforward phenomena - of reportability, of introspective access, or whatever. At the close, the author declares that consciousness has turned out to be tractable after all, but the reader is left feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch. The hard problem remains untouched.
3 Functional explanation

Why are the easy problems easy, and why is the hard problem hard? The easy problems are easy precisely because they concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions. To explain a cognitive function, we need only specify a mechanism that can perform the function. The methods of cognitive science are well-suited for this sort of explanation, and so are well-suited to the easy problems of consciousness. By contrast, the hard problem is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained. (Here "function" is not used in the narrow teleological sense of something that a system is designed to do, but in the broader sense of any causal role in the production of behavior that a system might perform.)

To explain reportability, for instance, is just to explain how a system could perform the function of producing reports on internal states. To explain internal access, we need to explain how a system could be appropriately affected by its internal states and use information about those states in directing later processes. To explain integration and control, we need to explain how a system's central processes can bring information contents together and use them in the facilitation of various behaviors. These are all problems about the explanation of functions.

How do we explain the performance of a function? By specifying a mechanism that performs the function. Here, neurophysiological and cognitive modeling are perfect for the task. If we want a detailed low-level explanation, we can specify the neural mechanism that is responsible for the function. If we want a more abstract explanation, we can specify a mechanism in computational terms. Either way, a full and satisfying explanation will result. Once we have specified the neural or computational mechanism that performs the function of verbal report, for example, the bulk of our work in explaining reportability is over.

In a way, the point is trivial. It is a conceptual fact about these phenomena that their explanation only involves the explanation of various functions, as the phenomena are functionally definable. All it means for reportability to be instantiated in a system is that the system has the capacity for verbal reports of internal information. All it means for a system to be awake is for it to be appropriately receptive to information from the environment and for it to be able to use this information in directing behavior in an appropriate way. To see that this sort of thing is a conceptual fact, note that someone who says "you have explained the performance of the verbal report function, but you have not explained reportability" is making a trivial conceptual mistake about reportability. All it could possibly take to explain reportability is an explanation of how the relevant function is performed; the same goes for the other phenomena in question.

Throughout the higher-level sciences, reductive explanation works in just this way. To explain the gene, for instance, we needed to specify the mechanism that stores and transmits hereditary information from one generation to the next. It turns out that DNA performs this function; once we explain how the function is performed, we have explained the gene. To explain life, we ultimately need to explain how a system can reproduce, adapt to its environment, metabolize, and so on. All of these are questions about the performance of functions, and so are well-suited to reductive explanation. The same holds for most problems in cognitive science. To explain learning, we need to explain the way in which a system's behavioral capacities are modified in light of environmental information, and the way in which new information can be brought to bear in adapting a system's actions to its environment. If we show how a neural or computational mechanism does the job, we have explained learning. We can say the same for other cognitive phenomena, such as perception, memory, and language. Sometimes the relevant functions need to be characterized quite subtly, but it is clear that insofar as cognitive science explains these phenomena at all, it does so by explaining the performance of functions.

When it comes to conscious experience, this sort of explanation fails. What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience - perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report - there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open.

There is no analogous further question in the explanation of genes, or of life, or of learning. If someone says "I can see that you have explained how DNA stores and transmits hereditary information from one generation to the next, but you have not explained how it is a gene", then they are making a conceptual mistake. All it means to be a gene is to be an entity that performs the relevant storage and transmission function. But if someone says "I can see that you have explained how information is discriminated, integrated, and reported, but you have not explained how it is experienced", they are not making a conceptual mistake. This is a nontrivial further question.

This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (a term due to Levine 1983) between the functions and experience, and we need an explanatory bridge to cross it. A mere account of the functions stays on one side of the gap, so the materials for the bridge must be found elsewhere.

This is not to say that experience has no function. Perhaps it will turn out to play an important cognitive role. But for any role it might play, there will be more to the explanation of experience than a simple explanation of the function. Perhaps it will even turn out that in the course of explaining a function, we will be led to the key insight that allows an explanation of experience. If this happens, though, the discovery will be an extra explanatory reward. There is no cognitive function such that we can say in advance that explanation of that function will automatically explain experience.

To explain experience, we need a new approach. The usual explanatory methods of cognitive science and neuroscience do not suffice. These methods have been developed precisely to explain the performance of cognitive functions, and they do a good job of it. But as these methods stand, they are only equipped to explain the performance of functions. When it comes to the hard problem, the standard approach has nothing to say.

4 Some case-studies

In the last few years, a number of works have addressed the problems of consciousness within the framework of cognitive science and neuroscience. This might suggest that the analysis above is faulty, but in fact a close examination of the relevant work only lends the analysis further support. When we investigate just which aspects of consciousness these studies are aimed at, and which aspects they end up explaining, we find that the ultimate target of explanation is always one of the easy problems.

___________________________________

Okay, so Chalmers covers so many ideas, but most importantly, he explains why describing how the functions of the brain are performed does not explain the "Hard Problem" of awareness that accompanies some of these functions.

I really hope you can see why this is such an issue, and how unassailible it has proven, even to modern neuroscience.

Feel free to read the entire link, and any information you can find, as I think it is useful to a person interested in pschology and neurobiology, and what has and hasn't been achieved by the sciences to this date.


Quote

From our point of view the robot has no consciousness, but what if human beings don't have consciousness either? Can you actually say a human being other then yourself has it?
Why do you think you have it? "I think therefor I am?"

Yes, that is a problem philosophy also recognizes, and I agree it may be impossible to prove.

An interesting thing, though, is that Chalmers' "Hard Problem" of consciousness still exists even if there is only one aware entity in the universe (for every person, that one they call "me"), as the problem of awareness still exists then.

But I do think "I think, therefore I am" is ample proof to a self-aware organism of its own existence- this principle, which as you probably know, was proposed by Rene Descartes as his Cogito, or the one thing he could easily prove without any other information but his mind, has never to my recollection been disproven.


Quote

If I make my choises based on how I feel about the choise.
The feeling makes the choise, not me.
Because there is no "me".

Maybe there is a thing like consciousness but it is so queer that it can't make it's own decisions.
It is merely an observer?

If this was right, why the need for the observer?

Well, I do agree that if Materialism is true then we don't have free-will, and so basically can't really make choices, but even if awareness only existed as an observer believing it was making choices, as you say (and I would agree with, within materialism), it would still be a (queer, yes) type of awareness, and this still subject to Chalmers' "Hard Problem". 

I hate to go on and on about this Chalmer's guy, and how he had problems and stuff, but I think he really highlights the essence of what a person examining the issue philosophically should be take note of.


Quote

If this was right, why the need for the observer?
And that is where I think it logically eliminates that.
Which only leaves matter.
A biological organism that is build for progress.

Well, it comes down not to propriety, but reality, I guess. No one can say why there is awareness, or if it should be there, but that does not change the fact it is, even if it is not needed for the function of an organism.

Another merely accademic issue, lol, but still important: most biologists, especially Materialists, do not believe evolution is progress based, but rather generates a timeline of organisms which were statistically likely in a given situation to produce offspring. In the famous moth case, a moth whose species was mostly light colored, to blend into birch trees, later evolved to have mostly darker individuals, as industrialization darkened trees, later, with better pollution standards, they went back to the lighter kind! So you can see there is no real progress per se, but rather adaptation to environment. But I am splitting hairs, and you probably understood this, despite the wording.

[catmeow]

Hi T.L.

Here is another article about Prof willy Bierman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=452833&in_page_id=1965

And here is an article about different research, which involves a random number generator which appears to "sense" major world events before they happen (such as 911):

http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=126649#121

Stillwater - am at work right now so can't read your article but will do soon!

[catmeow]

Hi Stillwater

OK I read it.

The paper is one of the clearest explanations I have seen about the difference between the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness.  The "easy" problems are to do with function, and the "hard" problem is about experience.  Neuroscience may one day explain all conscious functions, and the biology by which they happen.

But the "hard" problem, is to explain why all of this functional processing is encumbered by our own awareness of it, our emotions and our "experience".  Awareness and experience are not necessary and yet they are present.  This is the "hard" problem.

Eliminative materialism (Sharpe's position) effectively solves the "hard" problem by denying its existence:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

If we take the approach of denying a problem exists, then obviously things become much simpler.  But unfortunately, this doesn't actually solve the problem.  It simply ignores it.  That darn problem, as inconvenient and stubborn as it is, still remains there.

[catmeow]

Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).

The above is taken from research performed by Dr Pim van Lommel.  It is significant that the conclusions of this research, were misrepresented in Scientific American by Michael Shermer, who in fact mysteriously reported the exact opposite conclusions to the ones reported by Dr Lommel. 

Michael Shermer, an editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine (http://www.csicop.org/si/), is the scientific world equivalent of the Amazing Randi. Clearly not as impartial as he should be.

Dr Lommel published his rebuttal of Shermer's misrepresentation here:

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

I thought this was interesting since this thread started with a New Scientist article on research into OBEs which similarly perhaps, misrepresents the research.