Astral Projection - Any Scientific Proof?

[Optimus_Prime_]

There have been documented cases of people having out of body experiences while they were under anesthetic during operations, and have given detailed descriptions of what they witnessed. So, there is some proof out there , that we are more than the sum of our physical parts.
I actually have an old episode of Kilroy on that subject on tape, lol.

Science doesn't count personal experience as evidence. You may have very vivid dreams under anesthetic, but it hardly is testable, and is hardly evidence. There is no proof, ever, independently verified that humans are anything more than animals, matter, that is controlled by very over-active brains. You can be reasonably certain there is no "soul" nor is there an ability to project it.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Science doesn't count personal experience as evidence. You may have very vivid dreams under anesthetic, but it hardly is testable, and is hardly evidence. There is no proof, ever, independently verified that humans are anything more than animals, matter, that is controlled by very over-active brains. You can be reasonably certain there is no "soul" nor is there an ability to project it.

Ok, science might not take it as proof, but if someone is floating above the operating table, and can identify things that happened, that they could not otherwsie be witness to, like, 'At 10.23 am, the Doctor sneezed into my stomach, and everyone laughed.', then that is proof of a sort.

and you can also be reasonably sure that there are elements to reality that science has not caught up with yet, and does not have the tools yet to verify, so i would not be so sure about anything like that.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Ok, science might not take it as proof, but if someone is floating above the operating table, and can identify things that happened, that they could not otherwsie be witness to, like, 'At 10.23 am, the Doctor sneezed into my stomach, and everyone laughed.', then that is proof of a sort.

I've never heard any story quite this descriptive, but at any rate with anesthetics, they are a drug, and people's experiences with them can vary. What you're describing, a patient remembering aspects of surgury is not unheard of, and honestly doesn't require some massive extra-biological explanation.

It's not really "proof" of anything though because it's just a story which could be explained a variety of ways, or even could be a complete fabrication. Human perception is notoriously unreliable.

and you can also be reasonably sure that there are elements to reality that science has not caught up with yet, and does not have the tools yet to verify, so i would not be so sure about anything like that.

It's has nothing to do with what science has and hasn't proven, it has to do with what counts as evidence and what counts as personal experience.

 

[Paroxysm]

I've had a drug induced out of body experience.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Lack of proof that something exists is not proof against its existence. And to think otherwise is simply ignorant. For example, there was lack of proof that dinosaurs existed until the 1800s. Did that mean dinosaurs didn’t exist until the first iguanodon tooth was discovered and the name dinosaur was coined? Of course not.

People sit here and pat the back of scientists for being open-minded (ha! scientists are human, too. They are just set in their own view points as us "normal" people) and reserving judgment until every possible piece of evidence is found, studied, and tested, and yet you sit here are flat out deny any possibility of the metaphysical, because YOU haven’t seen any reports or evidence yourself. How ironically plebeian of you. I always enjoy it when people kneeling in front of a scientist’s open mind are less open minded than the person with whom they’re arguing.

I myself am entirely open to the idea of out of body experiences, souls, etc, because I have seen and witnessed things on my own account, have heard other’s experiences, and have read up on this topic enough to allow acceptance of the possibility. I’m also open to the possibility of it all being nonexistent as well, as some interpretations of the evidence claims it to be a merely biological phenomenon.

“Science doesn't count personal experience as evidence.”

This is the most backwards statement I’ve read in this thread. Please think about the entirety of your statement, and the ramifications the “truth” of this statement would have on science and technology of the past 500 years, as much of what we have and know today was born from experience before the ability to test and ratify.

Spoiler

Several years ago, my grandfather had complications during surgery. He actually died on the operating table 2 different times. He ended up losing both legs, but he made it out of the surgery and lived for another 2 years. When he was able to talk after surgery, he talked about two OBEs he had - this was before any one told him he had died twice. The second OBE he claimed he that he saw heaven. "It was just his brain firing off random images" you say. Sure. That's a possibility. But the FIRST OBE is impossible to explain outside of accepting some form of spiritual suggestion. He claimed he not only was aware of the complications of the surgery, but "followed" the doctor out of the ER to the waiting room, as he told us what happened and that they were going to need to amputate. My grandfather was able to recount where in the waiting room we where, in what order we were sitting/standing from left to right, as well as our different verbal/emotional/physical reactions to the news; all things he had no way of knowing about unless he actually saw it.

But sure....that type of clarity of a situation he had no way of knowing about was merely hallucination.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I like to think that lucid dreaming is a form of astral projection. Makes sense to me.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Lack of proof that something exists is not proof against its existence.

Never said it was.

People sit here and pat the back of scientists for being open-minded (ha! scientists are human, too. They are just set in their own view points as us "normal" people) and reserving judgment until every possible piece of evidence is found, studied, and tested, and yet you sit here are flat out deny any possibility of the metaphysical, because YOU haven’t seen any reports or evidence yourself. How ironically plebeian of you. I always enjoy it when people kneeling in front of a scientist’s open mind are less open minded than the person with whom they’re arguing.

No I just demand something of substance before I will admit that something exist. As of right now there is no evidence to suggest any of this. Do you seriously consider the existence of Santa Claus? There's no evidence he doesn't exist. Do you think Optimus Prime is alive somewhere, we aren't on Cybertron?

“Science doesn't count personal experience as evidence.”

It doesn't, why is this hard to understand? Human memory is notoriously unreliable, and is painted with various biases. The way science verifies is through testable, repeatable means. Meaning you or I could pick up that same experiment and get the same, or similar, result. Just because you've never read a scientific essay on this subject, or purused the peer reviewed science literature doesn't mean their methodology is sound. You're the brainwashed one buying everything you read, I'm the skeptic.

Spoiler

Several years ago, my grandfather had complications during surgery. He actually died on the operating table 2 different times. He ended up losing both legs, but he made it out of the surgery and lived for another 2 years. When he was able to talk after surgery, he talked about two OBEs he had - this was before any one told him he had died twice. The second OBE he claimed he that he saw heaven. "It was just his brain firing off random images" you say. Sure. That's a possibility. But the FIRST OBE is impossible to explain outside of accepting some form of spiritual suggestion. He claimed he not only was aware of the complications of the surgery, but "followed" the doctor out of the ER to the waiting room, as he told us what happened and that they were going to need to amputate. My grandfather was able to recount where in the waiting room we where, in what order we were sitting/standing from left to right, as well as our different verbal/emotional/physical reactions to the news; all things he had no way of knowing about unless he actually saw it.

But sure....that type of clarity of a situation he had no way of knowing about was merely hallucination.

Could've been. It's much like saying you felt the presence of God, very real to you, not very real to anyone else, that's why it doesn't count as evidence. I didn't say people didn't have experiences under anesthetics, I said there was no evidence of an extra-biological explanation for them. People have very vivid experiences on drugs, and often claim to have vivid memories under anesthesia. You however are taking an exception leap in logic. FYI, what you're describing sounds an awful lot like sleep paralysis, and it's quite well known and documented. It's very common during sleep paralysis to "exit" the body and continue the dream whilst aware of your sleeping body. It's quite possible he heard and even 'followed' the doctor. It's also not uncommon for someone to insert their insights into these 'dreams', such as knowing where you are were or what a waiting room may have looked like. However it's not uncommon for these insights to seem very accurate when they in fact are just hallucinations.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The metaphysical is untestable, yes. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same can be said for String Theory. There is no current way to test String Theory, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. And String Theory is a popular theory among some circles of scientists. How can we say the mataphysical emphatically doesn't exist? We can prove Santa is fake. Just point a satellite at the North Pole. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Gotham Knight]

I like to think that lucid dreaming is a form of astral projection. Makes sense to me.

I always wake up when I realize that I'm dreaming.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Never said it was.

...And yet you go on to say:

As of right now there is no evidence to suggest any of this.

....which suggests that you DO believe that lack of proof is equal to proof against. So which is it?

No I just demand something of substance before I will admit that something exist.

No one is saying that you (or anyone else) should believe something as "fact" without proof. But accepting something as fact is entirely different than being open-minded enough to accept the possibility or lack there of.

Do you seriously consider the existence of Santa Claus? There's no evidence he doesn't exist. Do you think Optimus Prime is alive somewhere, we aren't on Cybertron?

The fact that you even go this far shows how desperate you are to think you're correct.

Human memory is notoriously unreliable, and is painted with various biases. The way science verifies is through testable, repeatable means. Meaning you or I could pick up that same experiment and get the same, or similar, result. Just because you've never read a scientific essay on this subject, or purused the peer reviewed science literature doesn't mean their methodology is sound.

I will not disagree with that in the slightest. Its rule one. But you're completely missing my point; which was merely that there is, and always will be an element of human perception and experience to science. Perfect example of what I mean: Look at Galileo. It was his personal experience at looking up at the stars through a telescope that launched astronomy into the force it is today. There will always be a degree of human contact, emotion and experience within science, considering, you know, science is the pursuit of man's knowledge and understanding of the world. If it weren't for human experiences, we would not have science.

You're the brainwashed one buying everything you read, I'm the skeptic.

I'm brainwashed? How so? Because I accept the possibility of both the existence and non-existence of a soul? Because I said:

I myself am entirely open to the idea of out of body experiences, souls, etc, because I have seen and witnessed things on my own account, have heard other’s experiences, and have read up on this topic enough to allow acceptance of the possibility. I’m also open to the possibility of it all being nonexistent as well, as some interpretations of the evidence claims it to be a merely biological phenomenon.

....That I'm completely open to the truth that can be found in both human experience and scientific study, regardless of what it entails? That I am not bound by my humanistic desire to hold a falsehood as true because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy? That I believe there is some weight to such things enough to warrant honest and sincere study and discussion to figure out the nature of such events, be they biological or "super"natural? Yes, my desire to learn and understand without barricading my own notions behind a steel wall of "skepticism" is evidence of being "brainwashed". I have been brainwashed into having an open and unbiased mind. Thank you for the compliment.

It's very common during sleep paralysis to "exit" the body and continue the dream whilst aware of your sleeping body. It's quite possible he heard and even 'followed' the doctor. It's also not uncommon for someone to insert their insights into these 'dreams', such as knowing where you are were or what a waiting room may have looked like. However it's not uncommon for these insights to seem very accurate when they in fact are just hallucinations.

Quite true, and I understand your thought process, and while my recount doesn't mean much to you, I can assure you that our experience (at least in reference to my grandfather's perfectly accurate retelling of the doctor visiting us in the waiting room) as something other than sleep paralysis, considering he was unconscious, and barely alive in an operating room; and he had not seen us at all prior to being admitted into the hospital that day. However, I certainly do accept that possibility for him being able to recount what occurred in the actual OR.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The metaphysical is untestable, yes. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same can be said for String Theory. There is no current way to test String Theory, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. And String Theory is a popular theory among some circles of scientists. How can we say the mataphysical emphatically doesn't exist? We can prove Santa is fake. Just point a satellite at the North Pole. Not the same thing at all.

Only if you accept Santa lives there, or assume such a man and place are visible from the surface of the Earth. See we can play this game all day; invisible men, pink magical elephants that only people on Acid can see, fairies, alien invaders, if those claims can be accepted without evidence then I can just as easily dismiss them without evidence. Re-read my post, I never claimed a lack of evidence was an evidence of lack, I said that I don't have to admit something exists until there is evidence of it's existence. However if such a place does exist are interactions with it are inconsequential, as it doesn't change the fact that your mind lacks extra-biological components. Your brain is a very wonderful thing, but it's not magic, and it doesn't interact with any magic realm either. Your consciousness isn't a thing, and your intangible "I" is a pretty predictable construct of your augmented primate brain, so you can be reasonable certain that when it no longer takes in information from your five senses it will cease to function and "you" will cease to be. After you understand the basic mechanics of your brain you'll be able to appreciate more how and why it can create these very vivid, yet unreal experiences.

You're right in a way String Theory is not quite a theory yet in the true sense since it is mostly theorized by math, but there is some evidence for it, much more than the thread topic (currently weighing in at zero pieces of evidence).

 

[Spider-Who?]

If many scientists, even Nobel prize winning ones, think there is some truth to this idea, what makes you so stead fast in your belief that the lack of evidence equals the lack of existence, to the point where these scientists, these men of higher thought and of greater intelligence than you and I, are wrong, Since you know so much about this topic and the unknown mechanics of our reality? I know you keep "saying" that isn't the case, but your actual posts say the exact opposite.

Check out the physicist Amut Goswami (i probably butchered his names spelling) and quantum mechanics. Many secular scientists believe that consciousness and spirituality can be answered/proven therein. Amut makes for a great read regardless of ones thoughts on the matter.

Of course, since you're so sure of your idea on this matter, I'm sure you've read every scientific study, every journal entry, and considered every possible reason and circumstance for every supposed OBE to be documented, I'm sure that Amut and others would be just a rehash of one of your lazy sunday afternoons, right?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

If many scientists, even Nobel prize winning ones, think there is some truth to this idea, what makes you so stead fast in your belief that the lack of evidence equals the lack of existence, to the point where these scientists, these men of higher thought and of greater intelligence than you and I, are wrong, Since you know so much about this topic and the unknown mechanics of our reality? I know you keep "saying" that isn't the case, but your actual posts say the exact opposite.

Check out the physicist Amut Goswami (i probably butchered his names spelling) and quantum mechanics. Many secular scientists believe that consciousness and spirituality can be answered/proven therein. Amut makes for a great read regardless of ones thoughts on the matter.

Of course, since you're so sure of your idea on this matter, I'm sure you've read every scientific study, every journal entry, and considered every possible reason and circumstance for every supposed OBE to be documented, I'm sure that Amut and others would be just a rehash of one of your lazy sunday afternoons, right?

You see this is your problem right here, you assume that everyone's perspective on the matter has to be explained away. If science was interested in simply debunking everyone else's beliefs it'd be called a religion more than likely. Re-read my posts *sigh* if you don't understand them. I never said I was personally familiar with every OBE nor did I say scientists were familiar with every OBE, just that there is no evidence consciousness has any, or requires any, extra-biological components to function the way we understand it to function.

Hold on, I know you're comeback already "but scientists don't know everything and blah blah blah, something something, one day fairies could exist". Wrong. Science builds upon a pretty rigid framework. This notion that scientifically tested and proven theories exists until some other over active imagination comes along is false. String theory, which you brought up (?) is a natural continuance and builds upon pre-existing theories we already know to be true (by the by theories ARE true, but that is not to say we know everything there is to know about them). It's highly doubtful that one day your consciousness will turn out to be magical as some people claim.

Yes, there are some days where all the lights seem to turn green just for you. Coincidences do exist, so do freaky ghost stories and claimed abductions, however the objects associated with these (Aliens, Ghosts) or things like astral projections have no evidence supporting their existence - just hearsay, which as I tried to explain, does not count as evidence.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I always wake up when I realize that I'm dreaming.

I used to when I was younger, until I thought that if - within the dream - I told myself "this is reality", even though I knew it was a dream I could stay sleeping.

 

[Marvolo]

Before Einstien people thought time was relative, and that the universe was a constant. I am not gonna say its possible or that it is impossible, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Our brains are very powerful, and we only use a small fraction of it while awake. So to say that something is outright impossible is a little short minded. There is really nothing different in saying something is possible with no evidence to prove it is from saying something isn't possible with no evidence to prove that it is not. It's all relative. Remember science used to be considered magic and heresy, and that is because people did not understand it. Don't be so narrow minded to assume things you now consider to be impossible and "magic" to not one day be considered science and normal. No one knows what advancements with the human brain we will make. We know so little about how the human brain works that we are ignorant to what it can actually do. Scientists don't even know how the mind works or how memories are stored or why we dream or why we even have Deep REM Sleep. Think about it, what is the mind? Do you know? At this point know one knows what it is that gives us a sense of self. Considering that Astro-Projection involves a tranference of mind, and we know next to nothing about the mind no one can accuratley say whats possible involving the mind.

I myself have extremely lucid dreams where I am awake in the dream, and know that I am dreaming. Scientists can't even explain why some people have lucid dreams. If you can be self-aware in a dream then think about what else is possible. When you dream your subconscious is active and your conscious brain is dormant. This is the only time this happens is when you dream. You are literally inside your subconscious when you are having a lucid dream.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's all relative. Remember science used to be considered magic and heresy, and that is because people did not understand it.

None of this is remotely true. When people say things like "Science used to believe the Earth was flat" they're wrong, the method of science did not exist when these assumptions (and that's what they were, no one ever "tested" to see if the Earth was flat, it's just that human perception approximates the horizon as a flat surface...that along should tell you why hearsay is not evidence in science) were made. Science is not just a mere group of facts, it's a way of thinking. As for the Universe as constant versus expanding (vs. constant, because the matter is still not entirely settled), you simply can't compare what we understand about humans to what we can/do understand about the Universe. I hate when people discuss theories of biology and conflate them with theories and observations of astrophysics.

 

[Spider-Who?]

You see this is your problem right here, you assume that everyone's perspective on the matter has to be explained away.

No. For one, how does the part that you quoted even begin to translate into that notion? I really hate having to constantly spell things out for you. As I have said:

science is the pursuit of man's knowledge and understanding of the world

Now, it is true that a byproduct of gaining new knowledge is that person A's belief is strengthened, while person B's is "debunked". But that is not science's intent. (though, since you brought it up, I'm sure there are scientists who go into something with that mindset, as it is only natural to want to prove one's self right and disprove another).

I never said I was personally familiar with every OBE nor did I say scientists were familiar with every OBE, just that there is no evidence

If you admit that you're not personally familiar with every OBE, nor every study and research article (I assume), how can you say there is no evidence? That is a mighty jump of logic. You know little, but everything?

...consciousness has any, or requires any, extra-biological components to function the way we understand it to function.

...I have never said that consciousness nor what we call a "soul" is some magical whisper of invisible clouds that we can never understand. In fact, my whole argument is based on science being able to explain it, which means understanding on some sort of biological level.

Hold on, I know you're comeback already "but scientists don't know everything and blah blah blah, something something, one day fairies could exist". Wrong.

Ha, hold on one second. Let me say one thing....

WRONG.

Please, since you just LOVE to only reading a sentence or two of my posts (if at all) before jumping into hysterics and shouting from your crumbling roof, please read this portion of my post which yours is in response to:

Check out the physicist Amut Goswami (i probably butchered his names spelling) and quantum mechanics. Many secular scientists believe that consciousness and spirituality can be answered/proven therein. Amut makes for a great read regardless of ones thoughts on the matter.

Allow me to break it down for you.

1) There are scientists who, having studied this idea, believe that there is truth to this, and that understanding can come from quantum mechanics.
2) If there is no evidence, as your admittedly less than knowledgeable self attests, what causes these scientists to look at something like quantum mechanics and say "understanding can be found here"? And these are not some washed up scientists. Amit, for one, has been a theoretical physicist for over 30 years, and he wrote the scientific standard Quantum Mechanics, which is used all across the world.

'So, whats your point", you might be asking? Well, my point is, that scientists, far more intelligent than you and I, are saying there is evidence, so for you to stand here and try to not only put words in my mouth, but to also claim that there isn't any evidence, is ludicrous, and to put it simply: you're wasting everyone's time.

Science builds upon a pretty rigid framework. This notion that scientifically tested and proven theories exists until some other over active imagination comes along is false. String theory, which you brought up (?) is a natural continuance and builds upon pre-existing theories we already know to be true (by the by theories ARE true, but that is not to say we know everything there is to know about them). It's highly doubtful that one day your consciousness will turn out to be magical as some people claim.

Yes, there are some days where all the lights seem to turn green just for you. Coincidences do exist, so do freaky ghost stories and claimed abductions, however the objects associated with these (Aliens, Ghosts) or things like astral projections have no evidence supporting their existence - just hearsay, which as I tried to explain, does not count as evidence.

....and as I have said many times, but you just refuse to acknowledge (or maybe just can't comprehend), is that personal experience ("hearsay", as you've chosen to call it), is often what causes scientists to begin pondering things, and subsequently learning more; that without personal experiences as a starting point, we wouldn't have anything to study and learn, and we would still be in the stone age. So, while personal experience - I'm sorry - hearsay, might not be testable evidence, it is still integral to the evolution of understanding.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Lawdy, lawdy! This reminds me of the religion topic. Whatever happened to that thing, anyway? Did the mods get fed up with the drama and shut it down for good?

 

[Gotham Knight]

Lawdy, lawdy! This reminds me of the religion topic.

I was thinking the same thing. These kind of topics always go back and forth.

 

[Spider-Who?]

They're always the same - they always start off as a decent, healthy discussion of the topic at hand until someone on a horse way too high for them comes in and insults or makes a sweeping generalization that does nothing for the good of the convo, which results in everyone going "rabble! rabble!". I'm done with that guy. If anyone has anything to add to the actual point of this thread, I'd love to hear it!

 

[Rowsdower!]

I don't know if it's real or not, but I thought it was a cool that they used it in Insidious. It added a whole other element to the "haunting" genre. It was so refreshing to see a movie in that vein that wasn't just another "a murder was committed in your house and now the ghost wants revenge" type of story.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

1) There are scientists who, having studied this idea, believe that there is truth to this, and that understanding can come from quantum mechanics.
2) If there is no evidence, as your admittedly less than knowledgeable self attests, what causes these scientists to look at something like quantum mechanics and say "understanding can be found here"? And these are not some washed up scientists. Amit, for one, has been a theoretical physicist for over 30 years, and he wrote the scientific standard Quantum Mechanics, which is used all across the world.

Why do you keep mentioning Quantum Mechanics. Your brain doesn't function on a Quantum level, you don't exist on a quantum level. Is this because you read something about Quantum Mechanics one time in reference to the rain you didn't fully understand and kept harping on it. Amit is a very smart man and there are some interesting questions in regards to philosophical free will that can be linked to quantum mechanics, but as interesting as they are they really have no bearing on your consciousness as biology would understand it, and wouldn't really have anything to do with anything we're talking about. I'm well aware of the quantum mechanics/human consciousness studies, they are interesting, but they are philosophical in nature, not scientific. They aren't setting out to prove something true, they are setting out to raise interesting questions about the cross disciplines between phsyics and biology.

....and as I have said many times, but you just refuse to acknowledge (or maybe just can't comprehend), is that personal experience ("hearsay", as you've chosen to call it), is often what causes scientists to begin pondering things, and subsequently learning more; that without personal experiences as a starting point, we wouldn't have anything to study and learn, and we would still be in the stone age. So, while personal experience - I'm sorry - hearsay, might not be testable evidence, it is still integral to the evolution of understanding.

King of "no d'uh" statements right here: if we didn't live in the world we couldn't study it. Yes science accepts two precepts to be true 1) we live in the world and preceive it 2) we can know things about the world. That's pretty standard, however it doesn't change the fact that your personal experience is not evidence and it is not how scientists arrive at what we call 'facts' and 'evidence' and 'theories'. This all goes back to your quoting your grandpas story as if it were something I needed to disprove in order for OBE to not be some magical occurance, and I don't have to do that because his story is not evidence.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Why do you keep mentioning Quantum Mechanics.

I brought up Amit for your sake in hopes that you'll take a look and learn something. I'm not going to spoon feed you, as you barely comprehend what anyone here says to begin with.

Your brain doesn't function on a Quantum level, you don't exist on a quantum level.

That right there shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Are you not made of matter? Bones and chemicals and cells? Does you're brain not have cells? Do those cells not have atoms? Quantum mechanics is concerned with those atoms. How matter and energy react to one another. You're making the mistake of thinking that biology only consists of large scale models; that once we get down to DNA, there is nothing else that exists, which is quite obviously wrong. There are atoms....protons, electrons, neurons and quarks after that, etc; all of which is the building blocks for everything to exist. That is where the study of quantum biology comes in.

I'm well aware of the quantum mechanics/human consciousness studies, they are interesting, but they are philosophical in nature, not scientific.

Of course the search for the proof of a soul is typically a philosophical one. But when you start delving into science to understand it...well...it becomes a scientific study, not just a philosophical one.

They aren't setting out to prove something true, they are setting out to raise interesting questions about the cross disciplines between phsyics and biology.

Why would scientists raise questions with no desire to try and answer them? They would be the worst scientists in the world. They're raising questions with the intent of answering them, to learn more about life and how these at one time separate disciplines actually work together. How can we learn if we just raise our heads to the sky, ask "how does that work?" and go back to playing with our belly button link?

King of "no d'uh" statements right here: if we didn't live in the world we couldn't study it. Yes science accepts two precepts to be true 1) we live in the world and preceive it 2) we can know things about the world. That's pretty standard, however it doesn't change the fact that your personal experience is not evidence and it is not how scientists arrive at what we call 'facts' and 'evidence' and 'theories'. This all goes back to your quoting your grandpas story as if it were something I needed to disprove in order for OBE to not be some magical occurance, and I don't have to do that because his story is not evidence.

Oh. My. God. You have no concept of reading comprehension, do you? You keep going on about the same thing. When have I said that personal experience is evidence? I haven't. In fact, I've said on numerous times that it is not evidence, but it is an integral part to the evolution of a theory, because it is that experience that causes the curiosity, which in turn causes the desire to understand. I'm getting really bored with repeating myself and reading your poor attempts at debating by arguing against things no one is saying. Way to kill yet another thread with useless yammering.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I brought up Amit for your sake in hopes that you'll take a look and learn something. I'm not going to spoon feed you, as you barely comprehend what anyone here says to begin with.

I'm sorry, but it's pretty clear you misunderstand what Quantum Mechanics is, and how it applies in this conversation, because the way you're trying to make it fit is...well...wrong. I'm well aware of the interesting parrallels between Qunatum Mechanics and concepts of free will, but if we're having a conversation about hallucinations and OBEs during anestheisa Quantum Mechanics has only a very incidental relationship to that topic. I guarantee you even Amit would say as much. To be fair it's supremely interesting, but if you aren't familiar with the science being discussed it's not something to be brought in idly.

That right there shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Are you not made of matter? Bones and chemicals and cells? Does you're brain not have cells? Do those cells not have atoms? Quantum mechanics is concerned with those atoms. How matter and energy react to one another. You're making the mistake of thinking that biology only consists of large scale models; that once we get down to DNA, there is nothing else that exists, which is quite obviously wrong.

I never said that nothing else exists, I said "you" don't interact/exist at the Quantum Level. Quit starring so long at that grain of sand, you're missing the beach.

There are atoms....protons, electrons, neurons and quarks after that, etc; all of which is the building blocks for everything to exist. That is where the study of quantum biology comes in.

Yes, everything is made up of smaller and smaller components, and there are several, if not infinite planes of reality, some of which we have very direct, meaningful interactions with, others not so much.

You keep saying that "well how do you know", when really you're missing the entire point. I don't have to admit something exists or something is possible until evidence is presented. Which you haven't done yet. If I'm going to seriously consider the possibility of astral projection without evidence, I might as well consider the possibility of Orks, Transformers, Gods and Goddesses, Golbins, Vampires, Werewolves, Fairies, telekenesis, telepathy, Gnomes, Nymphs, and any number of fanastical things that have yet to produce any evidence. The default position of science is that things that are not demonstrably shown to be true are not true until proven otherwise. Science doesn't try to prove a negative (i.e. go debunk something that is assumed true), it tries to create positives. If I am not aware of actual hard evidence of metaphysics, please, by all means, go find it.

 

[Bill]

Oh. My. God. You have no concept of reading comprehension, do you? You keep going on about the same thing. When have I said that personal experience is evidence? I haven't. In fact, I've said on numerous times that it is not evidence, but it is an integral part to the evolution of a theory, because it is that experience that causes the curiosity, which in turn causes the desire to understand. I'm getting really bored with repeating myself and reading your poor attempts at debating by arguing against things no one is saying. Way to kill yet another thread with useless yammering.

If you're discussing science and your end goal is to produce a testable theory, then you have to rely on far more than personal experience. The experience has to be able to be repeated for experimentation and the results must be able to be tested, repeated and recorded across of wide spectrum of people following your research. Otherwise, you have a hypothesis on the details of how or why for a particular experience, but nothing at all to support a theory.

Scientific theories usually start out with the observation of data; a collection of facts that when seen as a whole may point to some larger process. You form a hypothesis based on the data, and then test the hypothesis through experimentation. Once the data and your conclusion regarding it has been rigorously tested and researched and found to be sound and consistent with the evidence, can it be considered as theory. The data cannot be classified as "personal experience" in a sense that only one individual can observe the data at any given time. It has to be readily observable and able to be studied and tested. Otherwise, it's not science.