Re: [External] [SBoC-F] Absence of yogis
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
It is unclear if ADS (active dynamic self-as-subject) and/or PIS (passive invariant self-as-subject) survive death. It is possible to design scientific experiments. For example, the proposed online real-time-OBE-experiment (Vimal et al., 2021c)[i] can test the null hypothesis (all OBEs are hallucinations (Seth, 2017)[ii], (Metzinger, 2005) & (Blanke & Metzinger, 2009) and colleagues[iii]). If the experiment can reject the null hypothesis (by reporting 100% correct responses), consciousness (ADS and/or PIS) might survive death as suggested by (Van Lommel, 2021), (Beischel, 2021), (Rivas et al., 2016). This experiment is almost cost-free and can be done at OBErs’ choice of place, time, convenience, and conditions, but such “real” (100% disconnection from the gross physical brain-body) OBErs (out-of-body experiencers) are hard to find. However, the hypnosis method (Tressoldi, 2015) might be more feasible.
If you attain nirvikalpa Samadhi (highest state of Samadhi) then you can be such OBEr and you will be able to perform this experiment on yourself.
If (Young et al., 2019) is correct, then such OBErs should be able to perform the proposed online real-time OBE experiment elaborated in (Vimal et al., 2021c), which is designed to test the science-based null hypothesis (all OBEs are hallucinations). My understanding is that Sam Parnia’s lab is structured to investigate AWAreness during REsuscitation (AWARE II). However, so far, NDErs are unable to “see”/report the objects hidden from their <gross physical body (GPB) including their physical eyes>.[iv]
[i] A proposed experiment for investigating the underlying mechanism for “real” (100% disconnection) OBE on real-time basis and for testing the null hypothesis: the self-as-subject does not survive death <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349158654>
Per (Tressoldi and Pederzoli, 2022) in <Out-of-Body Experience induced by hypnotic suggestion: phenomenology and perceptual characteristics>, “The Out-of-Body Experience (OBE) is a multi-faceted experience whose core characteristic is a first personal perspective in which the “self”, “himself” or “centre of consciousness” is experienced as spatially separated from the body (Metzinger, 2005; Terhune, 2009; Carruthers, 2013). […] The first-person reports of all five participants suggested the existence of a disembodied personal selfhood (DPS) characterized by the experience of being a distinct, holistic entity with self-control and learning capabilities implying the concept of ability to experience and participate in events, without a body or location in space–time. This entity is able to perceive simply by an act of will without the physical limitations of eyesight, is able to move about in the environment instantly, and exists in a sort of three-dimensional world with no perception of time.”
The out-of-body-experience (OBE) is well accepted in neuroscience as an evolved phenomenon that has survival value under some conditions involving risk to life. In current neuroscience, it is a mindbrain-based phenomenon and is considered one of the various types of hallucinations.
Null hypothesis: A scientific hypothesis should be testable/falsifiable. Therefore, a testable/falsifiable null hypothesis related to OBE is proposed: The self-as-subject operates through OBEr’s gross-physical brain-body (GPB) in real-time during OBE. How do we rule out the possibility that the “self” is operating through GPB on a real-time basis during OBE? If we can rule it out then it will give us clues for testing another very important null hypothesis based on materialistic neuroscience: the self-as-subject does not survive death.
Proposed design of a cost-free experiment: The experimenter can keep objects (such as random numbers written on a paper or objects or equivalent) behind the OBEr so that the eyes of her/his GBP cannot see, and then ask the OBEr to report the real-time activities behind the GPB. If the OBEr can report/see the object (from-up-the-ceiling perspective) correctly then we rule out that possibility and the null hypothesis can be rejected. Otherwise, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.
In other words, the OBErs with true OBE (OBE with 100% disconnection from her/his GPB) should able to report correctly the objects and/or random numbers (RNs) written on a paper and kept behind the GPB in real-time-online basis. Usually, all OBErs feel that they are 100% disconnected, but are they really? The proposed experiment will scientifically test it. Since OBE is spontaneous and last for few minutes (such as less than 2 min), it is always good idea to keep RN-paper behind her/his GPB (ask a friend to tape the paper on the back so that that paper is invisible to GPB’s eyes).
To sum up, a “true” OBEr (100% disconnection from the OBEr’s GPB) should satisfy all the following criteria, control experiments, and limitations (call then “items”; items 5-11 are advised by Dominique Surel):
(1) The OBEr should able to read the random numbers behind the GPB in real-time-online basis.
(2) The OBEr should honestly self-report that they have an OBE.
(3) Perform control experiment during no-OBE state (by asking the OBEr to read different RNs which are kept behind her/his GPB). If the OBEr doesn’t report correctly then for the purpose of experiment on that day the OBEr have no other psychic abilities such as clairvoyance, RV, CRV, telepathy, etc. This does not mean that the OBEr will not have this ability in future through proper training.
(4) These experiments must be done in the presence of skeptic scientists from start to finish making sure they are not done in a sloppy way. Hopefully, these criteria scientifically demonstrate that it was a true OBE experiment because the person correctly read the numbers.
(5) Hear and report a conversation.
(6) Read anything such as headlines of a newspaper, title of book?
(7) Read: numbers, letters
(8) See objects a/ behind people, b/ behind furniture, c/ behind a wall, and also behind the GPB of the OBEr.
(9) Move: a/ anywhere in the room b/ outside the room by going through a wall c/vertically (up/down).
(10) Speak and be heard?
(11) Control experiment: The experimental-process will include reading the random numbers (RNs), attention, encoding in memory (such as short-term memory (STM), ong-term memory (LTM), etc.) and recall, and reporting. One could argue that OBErs might able to read correctly, but problems in attention, memory, and other factors may lead to misleading reports. Since this can happen to self-as-subject in both SLB (subtle light body) and GPB (gross physical body) states, normal control subjects are needed. In other words, we will also perform control experiment in which normal subjects (equal to the number of OBErs) perform the same task, same stimuli, and with the same durations as that for OBErs except control subjects will be able to see hidden stimuli through their physical eyes-mindbrain system. We will compare OBErs results with that of controls. Stimuli could be of many types including RNs, erotic pictures and other large objects (that will be remembered for a long time).
(12) Blindfold criteria: The ideal environment for this type of experiment would be to blindfold the OBEer and take him into a room that he is not familiar. Once he has the OBE, whatever he describes will not be from memory since he has never been in the room before. Also, keeping the blindfold will demonstrate whether or not he is looking through his GPB's eyeballs.
(13) Memory problem: (Klein’s suggestion).To avoid problems in recalling, we can focus on making predictions of 5 integers from 0 to 9; in other words, 1 digit random number can be easily remembered. So there is a probability of one chance in 105 of getting them correct. There are two possible ways it might be done is by using clairvoyance if it is a pseudo random number generator (RNG) (look into the RNG before it makes its deterministic choice). Or if it is a quantum RNG generator then one could use psychokinesis to influence the RNG to do its thing. In other words, the big problem of course is to be able to use clairvoyance for pseudo RNG or psychokinesis for quantum RNG. But neither of those are available according to present science (our thick skulls don't allow either clairvoyance or psychokinesis). So guessing those random numbers doesn't seem possible (without cheating).
(14) Other limitations (Sehgal’s critique) are (a) genuine intention to read the number, (b) presence of adequate focused attention to read the number, (c) presence of genuine intention to memorize the number, (d) fulfilment of requisite conditions for the building of memory and (e) correct recall from the memory. To address these 5 limitations, OBErs and normal control subjects will be instructed to have strong intention, focused attention, memorize the stimuli by repeating them and recall them to report. How they might try but that effort may not be enough. To address this issue, we will compare OBErs results with normal control subjects (who see the hidden stimuli directly). The null hypothesis will be rejected in OBErs results are significantly better than that of the normal control subjects.
On <The participant might say he's having one, although he might not be, but if he is a powerful remote viewer or other psychic skill (without realizing it) through natural skills, he might be able to check all of your criteria, but it will not prove he had an OBE and it would be a mistake to conclude he did it through OBE when we can't even prove he had an OBE in the first place. (Surel)> I agree. However, we will be testing her/him thru other criteria so if s/he is not OBEr then we will soon find it. The reason for keeping it as one of the criteria is, in the first person subjective (1pp) research, subject’s 1pp report is also counted.
On <How will the participant manifest his/her OBE? (Surel)>. If the activities of TPJ (temporal parietal junction) and AG (angular gyrus) are disturbed by some means, system ejects the subtle ethereal body (SEB) from person’s GPB (gross physical body). This happens spontaneously, samādhi state, drugs (ketamine: (Dietrich, 2020) and (Bower, 2011)), accidents, cardiac arrest, near death terminal cases, and perhaps applying rTMS (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) (Jay et al., 2014). NDE is also a type of OBE.
As per (Jay et al., 2014), “Patients with medication-resistant DSM-IV DPD (N = 17) and controls (N = 20) were randomized to receive one session of right-sided rTMS to VLPFC or temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). […] The TPJ region was chosen due to its relevance in out of body experiences (OBEs), researched previously using TMS (Blanke et al., 2002, 2005)”
As per (Blanke and Metzinger, 2009) in <Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood>, “We highlight the latest research on body perception and self-consciousness, but argue that despite these achievements, central aspects have remained unexplored, namely, global aspects of bodily self-consciousness. Researchers investigated central representations of body parts and actions involving these, but neglected the global and unitary character of self-consciousness, the ‘I’ of experience and behaviour. We ask, what are the minimally sufficient conditions for the appearance of a phenomenal self, that is, the fundamental conscious experience of being someone? What are necessary conditions for self-consciousness in any type of system? We offer conceptual clarifications, discuss recent empirical evidence from neurology and cognitive science and argue that these findings offer a new entry point for the systematic study of global and more fundamental aspects of self-consciousness.”
Justifications: Neuroscientists could argue that OBErs were getting information (related to up from neck, i.e., their face head, ears, nose, cheeks, and eyes located on their GPB) from their cortical homunculus <Cortical homunculus>, which were stored in their long-term memory (LTM) when they saw themselves in front of a mirror or from their photos. However, whatever was going during OBErs’ OBE behind their gross physical brain-body (GPB) in real-time-online cannot be stored in their long-term memory. Therefore, if OBErs can report online-real-time activities (such as seeing objects and reading random numbers written on a paper, etcetera) behind their GPBs from the out-of-brain-body (GPB) perspective during their OBEs then OBE may not be mindbrain-based. This is a testable and falsifiable cost-free experiment to test the null hypothesis that the OBE is mindbrain-based. In other words, a scientifically easily testable and falsifiable hypothesis is: the subjective experiences (SEs) from the location out of OBEr’s gross physical body (GPB) fail to provide online-real-time activities hidden from OBEr’s gross physical body (GPB). If it is rejected then one could argue that the self-as-subject is 100% disconnected from OBEr’s GPB. In that case, how could we explain the vivid memory of OBE/NDE of the OBEr?
There is a significant difference between (a) “true” (100% disconnect) OBE and (b) similar appearing psi such as clairvoyance, RV, CRV, and telepathy. In the former (a) the self-as-subject appears to be located outside of GPB (gross physical brain-body) and in the latter (b) the self-as-subject is located in the GPB.
Justification for using reading random numbers: It is assumed that a “true” (100% disconnection) OBEr does not operate thru her/his GPB. So s/he is like us in normal mundane reading the RNs written in o a paper kept in front of us with 20-20 vision; i.e., it is DIRECT reading with 100% accuracy. We will enlarge the random numbers to match for the 20-20 (or better) vision. We need to exclude who have other psychic abilities on that day when we perform the experiments. In other words, we need exclude the data of such psychic subjects from the data analysis related to “true” OBErs. The RNs are very useful and important for excluding CRVers, RVers, clairvoyants, and telepathists. Yes, we can use symbols, letter, objects, etc. for other psychic abilities such as CRV, RV, Clairvoyance, and telepathy. But for a "true" OBE, reading the random numbers might be the best because it is direct reading like we do on laptop or paper in our mundane life.
Control experiments: It is assumed that clairvoyance, remote viewing, CRV, and telepathy are not involved. It is directly reading the numbers. It is a local viewing. We could design control experiments for clairvoyance, RV, CRV, and/or telepathy without OBE: if at normal-wakeful state without OBE, the subjects are able to read the random numbers written on paper and placed behind their GPB, then their data will be excluded from the data analysis of OBEs.
As per (Annus, 2020), “An out-of-body experience [OBE] is defined by the presence of three phenomenological characteristics: disembodiment (location of the self outside one’s body), the impression of seeing the world from a distant and elevated visuo-spatial perspective, and the impression of seeing one’s own body from this elevated perspective [(Brugger et al, 1997)]”.
As per Wikipedia, “Clairvoyance … is the claimed ability to gain information about an object, person, location, or physical event through extrasensory perception.[2][3]”
In OBE, the self-as-subject is apparently located outside of GPB (gross physical brain-body), whereas in clairvoyance the self-as-subject is located within GPB. The subjects do not report OBE in clairvoyance-state. As elaborated, a control experiment can be performed in non-OBE state to test if the subject has clairvoyance. A true OBE is defined as OBE with 100% disconnection from her/his GPB, and OBErs with true OBE should able to report the objects and/or random numbers (RNs) written on a paper and kept behind the GPB in real-time-online basis.
The issue of ‘subtle light brain-body’ / ‘subtle brain-body’ (SLB/SBB) / ‘astral body’ will be addressed later if OBErs are successful in reading the numbers through other control experiments. This issue was raised by Vinod Sehgal on19Nov2020 (personal communication): “Where is the scientific evidence for the existence of any SLB/ SBB, which has a self and which shall read random number, thru direct mapping or otherwise? Without this evidence, the existence of a self as surviving death can't be deduced scientifically even if hidden random number is read correctly.” As per neuroscience, OBErs will not able to read them and SLB/SBB does not exist, so we will address this issue after the experiment and its conclusion.
If OBErs report correctly the object(s)/RNs(random numbers), then it is a great achievement because this paranormal phenomenon will enter into mainstream science for further research. This will be a great news because it will change physics and neuroscience. This is the main goal of the experiment. To rule out if it is due to clairvoyance/remote-viewing/telepathy (CRVT), as elaborated above, we will perform control experiments at non-OBE states with the object(s)/RNs placed in another room or remote distances, if they respond correctly then results might be due to their CRVT ability.
If the OBErs cannot read such RNs (hidden from their GPB’s eyes), then the OBErs are not 100% disconnected from their respective GPBs, which implies that they are not “true” OBErs. This means that either “true” OBErs do not exist or we keep on searching for them. In the latter case, the neuroscience’s claim (self-as-subject does not survive death) will hold until we find such “true” OBErs. On the other hand, if true OBErs exist then the self-as-subject survives death.
If a goal is how to bring any of the paranormal phenomena into mainstream science (MSS), the existence of “real” OBE (100% disconnection from the OBEr’s GPB) is in one of them.
It is unclear if the OBErs were 100% disconnected from their gross-physical-brain-body (GPB). To test them, our proposed experiment will be useful. Perhaps, there is no disconnection in OBE; it is all endogenously generated subjective experiences, which are true in the world of imagination similar to dreams as elaborated in (Levitan, LaBerge, et al., 1999) on <“Out -of-body experiences,” dreams, and REM sleep>.
Discussion
Nunn-Vimal (26dec21): survival value of OBEs
[cN] Stan. I’d be more interested in learning why Ram thinks OBEs could have ‘survival value’. I know ‘Just So’ stories have become surprisingly popular in evolutionary psychology but even Rudyard Kipling might have thought one about OBEs is a step too far! Maybe Ram thinks ‘OBEs’ are a concomitant of ‘playing dead’ which does have survival value in a few circumstances but simply losing consciousness would be a much simpler option then.
[rv] Chris. Yes, both losing consciousness and OBE could have ‘survival value. It might depend on an individual. Some are more sensitive to OBE so they might prefer it; others might lose consciousness. If you are hypothesizing that the OBE might be going on online in real-time, then the proposed real-time OBE experiment can test this hypothesis. If OBEs are hallucinations, then OBEs might be based on memory instead of online activities.
[cn] Ram. There’s plenty of evidence out there already that OBEs sometimes represent veridical perceptions along with all the other unproveable stuff. Reports of OBEs of course are dependent on neural memories, but how that can be the case is a separate issue from the ‘how’ of the origin of veridical OBE perception.
[rv] Chris. Those “veridical perceptions” are not scientific because they did not use scientific methods used in subjective research (such as psychophysics); therefore they are not in mainstream science. However, the proposed real-time OBE experiment can test this hypothesis. I agree that the reports of OBEs are dependent on the neural memories and are consistent with memory-based OBEs as hallucinations. This hypothesis can also be tested thru our proposed experiment, which is cost-free and can be easily performed at OBErs’ choice of place, time, convenience, and conditions.
References
Blanke O., Ortigue S., Landis T., Seeck M. Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature. 2002;419:269–270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Blanke, O, Landis, T, Spinelli, L, Seeck, M. “Out of body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin.” Brain 2004; 127 (2): 243-258.
Blanke O., Mohr C., Michel C.M., Pascual-Leone A., Brugger P., Seeck M. Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at the temporoparietal junction. J Neurosci. 2005;25:550–557. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; see also (Levitan, LaBerge, et al., 1999), (Blanke et al., 2002), and (Blanke et al., 2005)
Blanke, O., & Arzy, S. (2005). The out-of-body experience: disturbed self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. The Neuroscientist, 11(1), 16-24. (Blanke & Arzy, 2005)
Blanke, O., & Castillo, V. (2007). Clinical neuroimaging in epileptic patients with autoscopic hallucinations and out-of-body experiences. Epileptologie, 24, 90 – 96.
Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7 – 13.
Blanke, O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(8), 556-571.
[ii] Per (Anil Seth, 18Jul2017) in <Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality>, “we're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it ‘reality.’ […] anesthesia turns people into objects, ad then, we hope, back again into people. […] How does consciousness happen? […] Consciousness and intelligence are very different things. […] You don’t have to be smart to suffer […] our conscious experiences of the world around us and of ourselves within it, are kinds of controlled hallucinations that happen with, through and because of our living bodies. […] think of consciousness in two different ways. There are experiences of the world around us, full of sights, sounds and smells, there’s multisensory, panoramic, 3D, fully immersive inner movie. And then there’s conscious self. […] important idea of the brain as a prediction engine. Imagine being brain. You’re locked inside a bony skull, trying to figure what’s out there in the world. There’s no lights inside the skull. There is no sound either. All you’ve got to go on is streams of electrical impulses which are only indirectly related to things in the world, whatever they may be. So perception – figuring out what’s there – has to be a process of informed guesswork on which the brain combines these sensory signals with its prior expectations or beliefs about the way the world is to form its best guess of what caused those signals. The brain doesn’t hear sound or see light. What we perceive is its best guess of what’s out there in the world. [two illusion examples…] The remarkable thing is the sensory information coming into the brain hasn’t changed at all. All that’s changed is your brain’s best guess of the causes of the sensory information. And that changes what youconsciously hear. All this puts the brain basis of perception in a bit of a different light. Instead of perception dependenig largely on signals coming into the brain from the outside world, it depends as much, if not more, on perceptual predictions flowing in the opposite direction. We don’t just passively perceive the world, we actively generate it. The world we experience comes as much, if not more, from the inside out as from the outside in. […Your experience of being yourself] If hallucination is a kind of uncontrolled perception, then perception right here and right now is also a kind of hallucination, but a controlled hallucination in which the brain’s predictions are being reined in by sensory information from the world. In fact, we’re hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality. […] Now I’m going to tell you that your experience of being a self, the specific experience of being you, is also a controlled hallucination generated by the brain. [..] how could I be deceived about what it means to be me? […] There is in fact many different ways we experience being a self. There’s the experience of having a body and of being a body.There are experiences of perceiving the world from a first person point of view. There are experiences of intending to do things and of being the cause of things that happen in the world. And there are experiences of being a continuous and distinctive person over time built from a rich set of memories and social interactions. Many experiments show, and psychiatrists and neurologists know very well, that these different ways in which we experience being a self can all come apart. [5 facets of self: bodily self, perspectival self, volitional self, narrative self, social self] What this means is the basic background experience of being a unified self is a rather fragile construction of the brain. Another experience which just like all others, requires explanation.
So let’s return to the bodily self. How does the brain generate the experience of being a body and of having a body? Well, just the same principles apply. The brain makes its best guess about what is and what is not part of its body. [rubber hand illusion …] This means that even experiences of what our body is a kind of best guessing – a kind of controlled hallucination by the brain.”
There are 58 facets of self as elaborated in (Vimal et al., 2021), which can be dissociated.
[iii] Blanke O., Ortigue S., Landis T., Seeck M. Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature. 2002;419:269–270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Blanke, O, Landis, T, Spinelli, L, Seeck, M. “Out of body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin.” Brain 2004; 127 (2): 243-258.
Blanke O., Mohr C., Michel C.M., Pascual-Leone A., Brugger P., Seeck M. Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at the temporoparietal junction. J Neurosci. 2005;25:550–557. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; see also (Levitan, LaBerge, et al., 1999), (Blanke et al., 2002), and (Blanke et al., 2005)
Blanke, O., & Arzy, S. (2005). The out-of-body experience: disturbed self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. The Neuroscientist, 11(1), 16-24. (Blanke & Arzy, 2005)
Blanke, O., & Castillo, V. (2007). Clinical neuroimaging in epileptic patients with autoscopic hallucinations and out-of-body experiences. Epileptologie, 24, 90 – 96.
Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7 – 13. <https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/154827/files/2009_Blanke_TICS_full-body%20illusions%20and%20minimal%20phenomenal%20selfhood.pdf>. (Blanke & Metzinger, 2009)
Blanke, O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(8), 556-571.
[iv] ConsciousMatter is acceptable to IDAM. Please note that I have deleted “-” of Conscious-Matter, indicating they are inseparable; “-” indicates they are separable implying dualism as in Sankhya. We need clear-cut scientific evidence using scientific experiment as elaborated in the proposed online real-time-OBE-experiment (Vimal et al., 2021), which can test the null hypothesis (all OBEs are hallucinations), but such “real” OBErs are not known; so it is not feasible.
Can we design feasible scientific experiments? NDEs/REDs (recalled experiences of death) as elaborated in (Parnia et al., 2023), “The mechanism of consciousness and its relationship with brain resuscitation and function remain undiscovered. “Bottom‐up” or “top-down” mechanisms are proposed for the emergence of consciousness.33 The former considers consciousness as an epiphenomenon from brain activities34; the latter, as a separate undiscovered entity not produced by understood brain mechanisms, which can independently modulate brain activity.33,35 However, the paradoxical finding of lucidity and heightened reality when brain function is severely disordered, or has ceased raises the need to consider alternatives to the epiphenomenon theory.33,35, 37”
[rv] Does this mean that the “top-down” mechanism, which seems to postulate eternal individual consciousness (self-as-subject) and eternal cosmic consciousness without a brain or brain-like information processor, is possible? I guess van Lommel and colleagues advocate this possibility (Van Lommel, 2021).
On <Where they (the memories of NDEs) originate and how they get recorded in brains> is still unclear. My working hypothesis is that if NDEs/OBEs are mindbrain-based subjective experiences then they endogenously originate within the mindbrain as in hallucinations and are encoded during bursts of brain activities that are reported before by many researchers such as (Chawla et al., 2009), (Borjigin et al., 2013a) on <Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain>, (Greyson et al., 2013), and (Borjigin et al., 2013b). It is possible that the surge of such activities just before near-death or death might be involved in both NDEs/OBEs and their memories. These “neuronal avalanches” (Toker et al., 2022) or bursts of electric activity might explain (Parnia et al., 2023)
|
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Nov 13, 2023, at 12:52 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Hi Ram,
Have you discussed cost free OBE expt. with Alan. This will not you to know anyone else in Melbourne.
Best
kashyap
From: sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 10:10 AM
To: Alan Oliver <samapa...@outlook.com>
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [External] [SBoC-F] Absence of yogis
This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
Thanks, Alan.
Please note that all OBEs are hallucinations because there are no such people or objects in our real physical world during the OBE-state, and there is no scientific evidence of other non-physical worlds such as the subtle/astral world. If such worlds exist then OBErs should be able to perform the proposed online real-time-OBE-experiment elaborated in (Vimal et al., 2021c)
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research) and President
Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Sunday, 12 November, 2023 at 10:59:02 pm GMT-5, Alan Oliver <samapa...@outlook.com> wrote:
Reading the Blanke narrative, I find the passage, 'The experient sees himself as part of the extrapersonal world. Yet, during the OBE the experient appears to 'see' himself and the world from a location other than his physical body (parasomatic visuo-spatial perspective), whereas the experient during AS (autoscopy), which is characterized by the experience of seeing one's body in extrapersonal space. Both experiences are classified as autoscopic phenomena (AP). (Devinsky et al., 1989.'
That description is similar to my simple Samapatti explanation of OBE.
In Part 2 of my book, I mention Emma Gray, a woman with Breast Cancer, who had believed her mother had never loved her. I asked he to tell me when was the first time she saw her mother. After a brief moment she began to cry, and I asked why was she crying, and she explained that she had just seen the love for her on her mother's face as the midwife passed the newborn Emma to her mother at her own (Emma's) birth.
Alan
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 November 2023 2:03 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Alan Oliver <samapa...@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Absence of yogis
Hi Kashyap,
Per (Blanke, et al., 2004, attached) in <Out-of-body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin>, “During an out-of-body experience (OBE), the experient seems to be awake and to see his body and the world from a location outside the physical body. "
Since we don't know anybody near Alan's residence, he needs to try himself to contact any nearest neurologist or neuroscientist to offer himself for being a subject in EEG. They can publish the result as a case study for neural correlates of his samapatti/samadhi state subjective experiences. If needed we can check the result as well.
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research) and President
Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Sunday, 12 November, 2023 at 09:25:22 pm GMT-5, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
From: Alan Oliver
<samapa...@outlook.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 9:16 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [External] Absence of yogis
Hi Kashyap,
My opinion is that OBE is so-called because the person having that experience has a NDE which, temporarily, would empty the mind and shut down the individual self, leaving the universal observer to observe the others' nearby perspectives which, when the NDE has passed, gives the individual self the experience of seeing her/him self as the others saw him/her self.
In other words, OBE is not about being out of body so much as other bodies seeing me in a moment of NDE.
And, being human, I can be wrong.
Alan
From: Vasavada, Kashyap
V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Sent: Monday, 13 November 2023 12:34 PM
To: Alan Oliver <samapa...@outlook.com>
Cc: Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>;
sboc-...@googlegroups.com <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [External] Absence of yogis
Hi Alan,
Thanks. So, you are in Melbourne, that is nice. But we wanted to do experiments in India because possibility of availability of using EEG/MEG ,fMRI instruments cheaply. I am already retired. So this is not a proposal from my university. We were going to write a proposal to some Indian agency. BTW, are you interested in Ram’s OBE project. That is cost free and can be done at your convenience.
Best
Kashyap
From: Alan Oliver
<samapa...@outlook.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 7:19 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: [External] Absence of yogis
This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
Hi Kashyap,
If your universities have connections with Aussie Universities, preferably in Melbourne, Victoria, I am available.
Just have one of them send me an email to arrange a time and place.
Alan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/1281599159.1700480.1699888199268%40mail.yahoo.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/LV3PR08MB9367417C9D0BC2FB066F86CEC7B3A%40LV3PR08MB9367.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.