More Sloppy Reasoning about Survival.

To me that’s like keeping materialism at the top of the philosophical pyramid, and non-material thinking somewhere ‘beneath’. Facts equating to materialism and people’s ‘knowing things’ like your example here equating to things like idealism. 

And in my view it's not only materialism. The current interest in data-processing and information has gained some adherents. But it too has nothing to say when it comes to such things as the experiencing of pain and trauma. It is a kind of reluctance to just look the thing square in the face and grab hold of it.

And in my view it's not only materialism. The current interest in data-processing and information has gained some adherents. But it too has nothing to say when it comes to such things as the experiencing of pain and trauma. It is a kind of reluctance to just look the thing square in the face and grab hold of it.

I agree. 

My real point above was that ‘hard data’, or ‘the facts’ (more solid)about many things are valued very highly, while the more esoteric (more fluid) things are not. 

It’s quite difficult to communicate a sense of something.

Well he doesn't mention NDEs specifically in this case, only regular OBEs, which is why I kinda agree with him. Them on their own aren't an indication of anything, especially anything permanent. In context with other stuff then yeah maybe.

Perhaps. Though it seems to me that perhaps an NDE is in some ways simply a specific type of OBE. I don’t know if there is evidence of communication during OBEs with people who’ve died but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Perhaps. Though it seems to me that perhaps an NDE is in some ways simply a specific type of OBE. I don’t know if there is evidence of communication during OBEs with people who’ve died but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Yeah, IMO it would just be odd if all of humanity had verifiable OBEs and the default was that Survival wasn't connected to that.

I get what Braude is saying, that it's possible the OBE self dissolves soon after death...but why would we think that?

edit: His comparison of the "Subtle Body" of the OBE and a fart seems to compare to things that are incredibly distinct.

I'm not talking of survival here. But I just wondered, have you any first-hand experience of an OBE or anything of a related kind? For me, the feeling of leaving the body was very definite. As was, on at least one occasion, a feeling of being somewhere out in the vastness of the universe.

I agree that the feeling of leaving the body is very definite. In my only OBE the feeling of returning to the body was even more definite. I have had approximately 250 lucid dreams, and this experience was clearly something else. I have also managed to induce vibrational state twice, and to me it is clear that it has something to do with "energy". Based on my experience I find the skeptical explanations (muscle twitches and jerks etc.) for vibrational state ridiculous.

[Ninshub]

I get what Braude is saying, that it's possible the OBE self dissolves soon after death...but why would we think that?

That's my question too. If the OBE (in an NDE) occurs in a situation where we can conclude that the experience is no longer brain-based, that kind of would point to it being self-sustaining, so we should assume it would continue rather than stop. (And that's even without adding any of the NDE content itself about an afterlife, etc. etc.)

Yeah, IMO it would just be odd if all of humanity had verifiable OBEs and the default was that Survival wasn't connected to that.

I get what Braude is saying, that it's possible the OBE self dissolves soon after death...but why would we think that?

edit: His comparison of the "Subtle Body" of the OBE and a fart seems to compare to things that are incredibly distinct.

Shouldn’t that be “distinked”? 

That's my question too. If the OBE (in an NDE) occurs in a situation where we can conclude that the experience is no longer brain-based, that kind of would point to it being self-sustaining, so we should assume it would continue rather than stop. (And that's even without adding any of the NDE content itself about an afterlife, etc. etc.)

Yeah, I guess if we never saw apparitions of the dead but only OBEs one could conjecture it's a power of the body rather than a soul...but even this as you say goes against trying to fit the OBE into the picture of the body as seat & producer of consciousness.

I think the OBE is an important part of the Survival evidence, due to how it weaves in with other evidence. But Braude seems dismissive of this, even while believing the corroborated story of an OBE eating & drinking.

Shouldn’t that be “distinked”? 

I think this is an important point that I think those who see scientific papers as the only ‘useful’ method of getting ‘closer to truth’ should consider in more depth. I don’t have an answer, but it’s clear to me that ‘scientific papers may be far from perfect but it’s the best method we have’ just isn’t good enough. We are totally ignoring a really rich vein.

 

I put up a ‘video post’ about philosopher and psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist recently. Manjit posted on this thread recently, which ended up with me watching a interview with McGilchrist I hadn’t seen before. 

I realise that he isn’t talking about ‘anecdotes’ but nevertheless, I think he’s touching on something important that’s away from the ‘left hemisphere’ - more esoteric. The right hemisphere seems to me to be more about openness, imagination, out there thinking etc.

Here it is… 

“Very quickly, it's like, which, which…we talked about the portals or the, the, the, the entry points on reality. What about the powers so we will follow the longer term powers towards some truth about reality? Well I think everyone would agree that science is going to be one of them a very important one. And another is likely to be reason, I think most people would accept that, not everybody but most people will probably accept that intuition is another important way in which we arrive at certain understandings of truth. And I would argue the imagination too, is very important. I think actually that we misunderstand what is meant by imagination what is meant by science, what is meant by reason, but that’s another story. But when you look at them as they are most valuable again, each of them is required, they're not necessarily in conflict. And the best part of them is provided by the right hemisphere, not the left and this is true of science, and it's true of reason. I spent a lot of time rehearsing (researching?)how it was that scientists and mathematicians made their great discoveries and great leaps forward. And as has been recognised by a number of important 20th century scientists, they never or very rarely made their great advances by following the scientific method, by testing to exhaustion all sorts of possibilities. Instead, they saw something that…they saw a gestalt, a new form that answered something and it often came in a flash. It doesn't mean that they didn't have to do a lot of hard work before that flash would come, but he didn't come from the left hemispheres procedural plodding, it came from the right hemisphere and there is absolutely incontrovertible evidence that those aha moments of intuitive insight come from the right Superior Temporal sulcus[size=1].”[/size]

My posts might appear to be pro one side or the other, and I can see why people think that, and no doubt such thoughts are indeed valid with a few of my posts, but I think that it is worth considering that this might be exaggeration, an illusion brought about by our biases. 

For example my post above might be seen as tending to paint me as anti certain things and pro others, and to a certain extent this will be true. 

But I think saying something that appears to be against science, like Iain might be said to have done in the bolded part of his thinking in the post above (#19) is in fact, not against science, but only goes to express a more nuanced view of things, that might help us (mankind). I highly doubt McGilchrist is anti-science, but he does seem to think that it’s being overvalued, and this is causing us problems. This is why I am for staying open minded. 

I’m sure many that read my posts think that I must be anti-science, as I am highly critical of some scientists and my personality is less refined than some others, so the impression I may give is of a certain flavour - a flavour not to everyone’s taste. Fair enough. The truth is, I do love - truly love a lot of what Science has brought us. For example I found only this morning - technology that coverts audible speech to the written word. This type of thing is invaluable to deaf people as well as saving me loads of time and effort transcribing things like I used to do.

My electric car brings a smile to my face and joy into my heart when I think of it and when I drive it, my IPad, Alexa to switch lights on and off, there are so many things Science has brought us that I am thankful for. High on my personal list is the computer technology combined with virtual reality which has given me a taste of types of flying which I thought had passed me by, as well as bringing to life memories of my days flying airliners. I am not ashamed to say that this science has brought me to tears of gratefulness more than once. I truly love it. 

However, this deeply felt emotion I feel is even more interesting than the technology that science and scientists that made it possible. I am personally more interested in the big questions than in the glamour of even VR technology. 

So when Iain McGilchrist talks about the ‘right Superior Temporal sulcus’, I very much doubt he is saying that it’s value is higher than it’s left brain equivalent, only that it has been neglected at the expense of its more ‘materialist’ brother for far too long. And just as I may seem to favour certain ideas and people over others, I am somehow very aware that all these ideas, just as all these people, both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as my own bias may box them, are necessary and important and should be valued. Sacred is probably a better way to describe them. 

I hope some of this makes sense to some of you.