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

First I will rebut his arguments, then I will continue to defend my case. RebuttalMy opponents first argument can be summarized as follows: A1: “If the mind is observing his own body from a remote location and experiencing his body from that place, then surely the mind must be outside the body. ” CA1: No. As argument 2-3 shows, it is possible that because the brain wrongly integrates the information and comes to conclude that the body is standing at two different locations, this may lead to the illusion to see oneself. This is even more plausible in an artificially situation where the brain is fooled to quite literally see itself through virtual reality. My opponent did not refute my argument, but simply stated this is irrelevant for his case. I submit the opposite is the case. My argument of hallucination still stands. Even Ehrsson himself calls it an illusion: “I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body. ” [1] Furthermore, The ‘rubber hand illusion’ (RHI) shows that by conflict between visual and somatic stimulation the sense of unity of consciousness and body can be broken. During this experiment, an artificial hand is stimulated in the same way as their own hand. The subject only sees the artificial hand. After a while one experiences the sensation that the artificial hand belongs to one's own body [2]. My opponent second argument can be summarized as follows: A2: “If someone controls an avatar not with a controller, but with their mind, then surely their consciousness is located in that avatar. ” CA2: No. As your source clearly states: “The fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) reads his thoughts, a computer translates those thoughts into commands, and then those commands are sent across the internet to the robot. ” I conclude that the conscious did not leave the body, but controlled the robot from inside his body. Furthering own arguments A1-1: Anecdotal evidence Here my opponent draws a distinction between a ‘true’ OBE and a ‘debunked’ OBE. This distinction is non-existent and evidence to make clear this distinction has not been offered. Further, the fact that the results are not always inaccurate is statistically expected. A1-2: Not scientific My opponent states that my argument is invalid, but has offered no evidence to support the claim that veridical observations from remote locations during the OBE have been reproduced. A2-1: Lucid dreams theory My opponent states that: “the found correlation of 0.20 is extremely low and has zero statistical significance, rendering that connection irrelevant. ” This is factually incorrect. The paper I provided shows clearly that the P-value is less than 0.05 which means that this finding has indeed significance [3]. A2-2: The lack of oxygen theory My opponent drops this point completely. He states that: “just because there are alternatives to OBEs, it doesn’t mean that OBEs don’t exist. ” My opponent conducts a logical fallacy, known as the argument from ignorance. He implies that his proposition is true, because it has not yet been proven false. I want to remind you that the point I made was that my opponent has to show that his explanations are more plausible then mine. He did not. A2-3: Hallucination theory As I have argued above, this explanation has significantly relevance to the subject at hand. The cause of all the characteristic aspects of the OBE can be traced down to disrupted brain processes, mainly in the region of the brain called the temporo-parietal junction. My opponent has to show that his explanation is plausible than mine. A3-1: Biological development My opponent does not make a substantiated response, but makes an unsupported assertion, thus drops this point. A3-2: Physical dependence of consciousness My opponent needs to explain how the consciousness interacts with the brain when they are separated, instead of just assuming it. Further, see rebuttal. A3-3: Parsimony My opponent posits that consciousness is a non-physical substance. As I have shown, this is an unnecessary assumption and therefore less preferred as explanation. Conclusion My opponent fails to offer convincing evidence to support his side of the burden of proof. He has yet to fulfill his main burden, which is to show that it is more plausible that the consciousness indeed leaves the body during the OBE, than it does not. Affirmed [Sources can be found in the comment section]