Can you have out of body experiences?

kingius · Mar 11, 2014

I'd like to say something further, if I may. With all the computing power at an individual's finger tips we really should be examining data on our own and becoming less reliant on someone else telling us what the truth is. That's a digression but is in line with my thinking on these things. For example, statistical anaylis of the evidence for NDEs and out of body experiences could be within reach which could lead to some radically different conclusions than mainstream science currently has.

As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.

Kramodlog · Mar 11, 2014

kingius said:
As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.

I do not really dought it, but if it is a natural phenomenon it should have been with us for a long time. It is not like it started happening just when "science was invented". As for explainations, well people made with what they understood at the time, don't you agree?

Umbran · Mar 11, 2014

kingius said:
Here is how the establishment pulls the wool over our eyes on these matters...

Oh, goodness, the Establishment! A conspiracy! Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but the scientific community is not unified in any real sense. There is no cabal pulling the wool over yoru eyes. There's merely a bunch of people who have all learned pretty much the same thing - to find out how the universe actually works, we need to be very picky.

1. The evidence for the contrary is declared as being anecdotal, ie. non-evidence

Scientists in each field have fairly clearly stated notions of what qualifies as anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence. All you have to do is perform your research in a manner rigorous enough to be non-anecdotal. Most of the rest of your objections fall apart at this point - do your research in a thorough manner, and you won't have the problem.

You fail to do your research in a thorough manner, but claim to have The Truth? Yes, I'll criticize your approach, and your conclusions.

Umbran · Mar 11, 2014

kingius said:
Utter rubbish. The idea of souls leaving the body predates materialist thinking by many millenia.

"Old" does not mean "correct".

Those ancient folks, lacking the understanding of scientific discipline, saw *everything* as a gap, and filled it in with, "magic!" We've just been reducing the gaps over time.

You have your time line back to front. People are not 'filling in gaps in science'... science is attempting to replace what people already think.

Yes. Science is attempting to replace what people already think. Because what people already think is often *wrong*. Science is trying to give the human race an ever-more accurate understanding of how the universe works.

So, you know, some folks used to think the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the stars were on crystal spheres around us - science brought us the more accurate heliocentric solar system and galaxies. Others used to think that diseases were caused by evil spirits - science replaced that with germ theory.

I find it pleasantly ironic that the very process of science that you seem to think is wrong brought you the computer that you're using to claim that the process of science is wrong.

To quote Randall:

With which I'm not really trying to call people names, but just using a popular author's comedy to drive the point home: We have gotten a whole lot out of science - pretty much all technological advancement since the Renaissance. Modern life in pretty much every developed country in the world is owed to science. It does, in fact, work. It may not be perfect, but it gets the job done. You have a long row to hoe to convince me we should disregard it.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Mar 11, 2014

kingius said:
While that may be true in your particular case - and a good deal others - it cannot be true in all of them because it just does not fit the facts for all reported cases. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with reductionism to brain activity (a cornerstone of the materialist philosophy) being used as an attempt to explain this type of phenomena. So we are left with two choices; either the explanation is wrong or the people who experience it (for example whilst being clinically dead and then later revived, either through a defibrillator or waking up in a morgue or some other strange circumstance) are wrong despite this being well documented and not being constrained to any particular point in human history.

I side with the theory being wrong, but others may not.

So you telling me there are cases where the brain was working like it always does, yet the person was having an out of body experience?
What data did you have to know that the person experienced an out of body experience? Did the brain activity seem "normal" (whatever that means) the entire time during, before and after the experience? Are you certain that our scans on brain activity are actually precise enough to detect all activity?
People revived by a defibrillator for example are not necessary (not even usually) brain dead, and neither they, nor people that are clinically dead or in the morgue are usually sitting in a computer tomograph.

If there is some kind of "soul" that left the body, what kind of observations should we expect, what kind of predictions do you have, how can we test them?

I mean, I strongly suspect the real reason we have out-of-body experiences is that we accidentally catch a glimpse of the narrator that is telling the story we are all in is merely messing up the text while narrating, and suddenly says something like "He looked so peaceful in the coma", Mustrum thought, as he was talking with the Doctor about Mustrum's state. "Well, Umbran, I am sorry, but a recovery is not guaranteed. Mustrum was hit pretty hard when he was thrown out of the car."

Olgar Shiverstone · Mar 11, 2014

Curious, because I know nothing about it: has anyone done any controlled experimentation on this topic? You know, put someone to sleep, rolled them into a room where something is placed (or not) where they can't see it if they inadvertently wake up, then roll them out some time later, wake them up, and ask them to describe what they saw?

This seems like a very simple concept to test under blind, controlled laboratory conditions.

Zombie_Babies · Mar 11, 2014

kingius said:
Utter rubbish. The idea of souls leaving the body predates materialist thinking by many millenia. You have your time line back to front. People are not 'filling in gaps in science'... science is attempting to replace what people already think.

So you're saying that the sun rises cuz Apollo pulls it across the sky, that we get sick because of an imbalance of body humours and that lighting is actually Zeus making his presence known to us? Maybe that the Earth is actually flat? I mean, all that predates materialist thinking, too, does it not?

The common understanding is that science is, in fact, filling in the gaps. People hadn't a clue what caused fire initially so they assigned some higher power to it. Over time, the actual event was better understood. That's ... it's how all this works.

kingius said:
Here is how the establishment pulls the wool over our eyes on these matters...

1. The evidence for the contrary is declared as being anecdotal, ie. non-evidence.

Umm ... in the case of out of body experiences the evidence is purely anecdotal. 'He said it happened to him' isn't evidence at all. I'm sorry, it's just not.

kingius said:
I'd like to say something further, if I may. With all the computing power at an individual's finger tips we really should be examining data on our own and becoming less reliant on someone else telling us what the truth is. That's a digression but is in line with my thinking on these things. For example, statistical anaylis of the evidence for NDEs and out of body experiences could be within reach which could lead to some radically different conclusions than mainstream science currently has.

As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.

There's a lot of merit to what you suggest. However, there's also a fairly large problem: Most people are not taught to analyze, well, anything - let alone scientific data. There's a reason there are large portions of entire fields devoted strictly to research and why a lot of that research happens at educational institutions. Quite simply, analysis isn't an innate talent. We need to be taught how to do it and how to do it right. I'm not suggesting that anyone who isn't trained shouldn't explore this, of course, but if we were to see more of this we'd see a hell of a lot more crackpot theories and junk science come out of it. And that doesn't help anyone or anything.

Morrus · Mar 11, 2014

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Curious, because I know nothing about it: has anyone done any controlled experimentation on this topic? You know, put someone to sleep, rolled them into a room where something is placed (or not) where they can't see it if they inadvertently wake up, then roll them out some time later, wake them up, and ask them to describe what they saw?

This seems like a very simple concept to test under blind, controlled laboratory conditions.

Lots of times. There are big million dollar prizes for people who demonstrate paranormal abilities in supervised controlled conditions. So far exactly zero people have managed to claim them, and not for want of trying.

kingius · Mar 11, 2014

Quite simply, analysis isn't an innate talent.

In other words: Don't look for yourself, trust us, because only we know the truth... except if you do look you find the theories can be wrong. But don't whatever you do trust your own findings, trust the original sources, trust the evidence, trust your own senses. It's a familiar story. Once it was the church saying this. Now it is science.

What society needs is people to engage their critical thinking and not be selective about it. That means critically engaging with science and not accepting it as being blind dogma. I'm sorry if you don't like that because it means the truth of things you would like covered up comes out but that's how it has to be if we are to continue to progress as a society, as a race, into the future.