During "Out-of-Body" Experiences, People's Consciousness Don't Leaves Their Bodies

Pro: "No semantics are allowed...What is wrong with the definition of consciousness" My rephrasing of the definition was to reject any argument of yours along the lines of "Since the consciousness is defined as located in the head, I am right by default." If no semantic arguments are used, I have no problem with the definition. To clarify, this debate is about true OBEs, not debunked ones. As Con I am arguing that during TRUE out of body experiences, people's consciousnesses do in fact leave their bodies. Pro's Points: A1-1: Pro states that in many cases, people reporting OBEs are unable to prove that the event occurred. Pro is correct; OBEs are often faked. To quote Pro's own statement, "The results turn out to be ALMOST always inaccurate." In this debate, however, Pro should not win by stating that the results are ALMOST always inaccurate. Just because most people don't experience true OBEs doesn't mean that no one has. A1-2: Pro argues that since experiments are unrepeatable, they are invalid. See sources (2)-(5). A2-1: Pro gives alternatives to OBEs including lucid dreaming, oxygen deprivation, and hallucinations. In his lucid dreaming example, he gives an R-Squared value of 0.2 (1). That value is extremely low and has zero statistical significance, rendering that connection irrelevant. However, Pro's alternatives are irrelevant, since they are all reasonable. Just because there are alternatives to OBEs does't mean that OBEs don't exist. A3-1: Consciousness is intangible. A3-2: Pro: "Nothing mental happens without something physical happens." Explain why this is important. Consciousness cannot exist without the brain, but it can exist outside the brain. This will be explained in my arguments. A3-3: Here Pro misinterprets Occam's Razor(6). He first states that an OBE doesn't require 2 bodies, and then states that since 1 body is less than two, 2 bodies is an unnecessary assumption. Pro, please inform me if you meant something else, but this is my best interpretation of your language. As Con, I will give a few examples of scientific OBEs. I'd like to emphasize that none of Pro's sources come from after 2005, so they may be outdated with regard to more modern OBEs. Pro's Definition of Consciousness: The state of mind that is aware of the experience of the self and the environment. An article from 2007 is titled "First Out-Of-Body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting (3)." In the repeatable scientific experiment, patients recorded psychological, visual, and physiological responses to stimuli during the testing. One test included allowing the subjects to view and feel themselves being touched from a few meters behind their bodies. Another allowed subjects to view their illusionary second self being threatened, causing their brains to trigger a chemical reaction which made their body perspire, even though there was no danger. Only the illusory body was threatened. Pro's previously quoted definition of consciousness implies that the mind must be aware of itself. I ask, if the mind is observing its former body from an outside position, and the mind is experiencing not its former body, but another, then is the mind truly in its original self? No. Therefore in this scientific OBE, the consciousness really was out of its body, according to Pro's definition. This experiment was repeated in a 2008 Swedish study which made participants feel as if they were being cut with a knife even though the blade was slicing a dummy (who's eyes they were seeing through). Video (4), Article (5). One's consciousness is located in what one experiences totally. If someone drives a remote control car by pushing a lever on a controller, their consciousness isn't in that car. However, if someone controls an avatar not with a controller, but with their mind, then their consciousness is located in that avatar. Lift your right hand. You can, because your consciousness is located within your body. Imagine if you thought about lifting your right hand, and instead of you doing so, the right hand of a robot over 1000 miles away lifted its hand. A robot has already been created and controlled, using only the power of the mind, from 1250 miles away (2). The student stated, "I really felt like I was there, moving around. One of the researchers picked the robot up"and I was like, 'Oi, put me down!'" Pro presented alternatives to OBEs. He argued that true OBEs are unproven. He stated that there is no scientific evidence that's valid, that experiments supporting OBEs are unrepeatable. I ignored historical OBEs because they lack enough documentation to convince Pro that John Doe experienced an OBE in 1643 after ingesting magic mushrooms. However, modern evidence proves OBEs true. Pro's arguments may have been relevant before our modern era, but now it is proven that OBEs are not only likely, they have happened from both sides. Humans have experienced from a dummy's perspective, and robots have experienced from a human's perspective.