From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: OOBE or just vivid imagination
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:58:17 GMT

This discussion is getting kind of far afield from the out-of-body
discussion, I think, though it may be important as a means of dealing
with the underpinnings of the phenomenon, which is why I'm responding
to this article.  However I don't want to go too far down this par-
ticular road.

In <9211112342.AA04255@animus.Corp.Sun.COM> Corp.Sun.COM!Eric.Arnold writes:

> > Original-Sender: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)

> The crux of this problem rests on whether you posit the existence of
> paranormal events...

Well, "paranormal" is a relative term.  I think what we're trying to
determine is something like what is the nature of ourselves and our
world.  Today's "paranormal" can become tomorrow's scientific prin-
ciples, given a broad enough definition of the scientific enterprise.

I don't see a need to get into "metaphysics" or "parapsychology" in
order to talk about a consciousness which is not purely a function
of brain activity.  Sheldrake's "morphogenetic field" ideas merely
sound like parapsychology relative to the reductionist / materialist
premises of the presently-dominant "scientific" paradigm.  We may
find that some of the things investigated by parapsychology are of
interest, but we need not accept the explanations of these things
given to them by those who are parapsychologically inclined.  I would
like to retain something of the experimental procedure of present-day
science, but to find a way of broadening the models used such that
they were able to accomodate and incorporate non-corporeal aspects of
human being and consciousness - or to at least lay the groundwork for
the kinds of investigations which might make it possible eventually.

> If you don't/won't posit the paranormal, then this particular
> discussion isn't for you...

I'd like to avoid having to deal with all the half-baked theories and
the slipshod thinking and "new-age" nonsense that often permeates
"paranormal" circles, but I am very eager to see science opened up to
new areas of inquiry, so that it can better assist in the enterprise
of understanding all aspects of ourselves.

> ...just because we can measure the EM waves used for TV, and thus know
> it to be a local-remote phenomenon, that doesn't disprove the TV analogy
> because "carrier waves" for metaphysical phenomena are by definition
> technologically unmeasurable...

Well, I don't know it to be a matter of definition that "metaphysical"
phenomena are technologically unmeasurable, it may be more a matter of
the state of the present art just not being developed to the point where
appropriate technology has been developed.  But perhaps there are no
"carrier waves" involved; perhaps what's going on here doesn't rely on
the kind of communication we're used to.

> However, Gary writes:
>   >
>   >   >IMHO, it is a mistake to start speculating on the relation of OBEs to
>   >   >hypothetical psi-phenomena.  This will serve to obscure the study of
>   >   >OBEs in the smoke and confusion of ESP research.
>   > I'll accept this recommendation for the present, unless and until I might
>   > find evidence to suggest looking for correlations.  In fact I agree
>   > strongly.  I just wanted to indicate one possibility, not to say that I
>   > think that I think it's likely or that it represents a good place to begin
>   > looking.
> So, now I don't know why you/Gary would be interested in something like
> the TV analogy, since the physical/metaphysical, mind/brain, etc. etc.,
> problem rests squarely on reproducing paranormal events.  (Remember,
> that today's metaphysics is tomorrow's physics, once it becomes
> understood and reproducable.

Maybe it's just that I don't like some of the connotations of "metaphysical"
and "paranormal" and my feelings about some of the people who hang out in
those kinds of circles and what fuzzy thinking they can sometimes use.  I am
willing to consider "psi" phenomena if the evidence I'm asked to consider is
performed under some kind of rigorous experimental conditions by well-quali-
fied researchers.  I just said I don't want to start looking there - I'd
prefer to be compelled to do so by being sure we cannot find the answers
using conventional assumptions and experimental procedures, despite what I
said above about not being satisfied with existing prevailing paradigms.  I
feel it's good to know what it is about the conventional studies that dis-
close their limitations.

> ...Some smoke and confusion is inevitable, since I'm going to
> guess that the quest for understanding the "carrier waves" for the
> brain-TV is going to run, pretty quickly, into other "connection" ideas
> like telepathy.

Sheldrake's idea of memory being access of something within his "morpho-
genetic field" makes telepathy just a special case of memory, actually.

> The reason that paranormal events have this important role to the TV analogy
> (IMHO, of course) is that it provides the central mind-brain contradiction.
> How can it be that nearly everything about day-to-day experience be tweaked by
> physically manipulating or measuring the brain, and yet the paranormal is
> in direct contradiction (by definition) to this physical causal link?

I'm not clear on what Eric is saying here.

> The only model that seems to me to to encompass this situation is that of "the
> brain as receptacle", which is the TV analogy.  You can twiddle the
> knobs on the TV, mess with the tubes(!), and it all has an effect as if
> the whole phenomenon is local, but in this case we know it isn't.

Right.  Sheldrake spends some time talking about this whole matter.  He
states that the ability to affect the thought processes by fiddling with
the physical equipment is really inconclusive with respect to the question
of whether the mind and memory are completely a function of the brain
and its activity.

> There is nothing I've heard of that proves that OOBE.s are either
> mental or metaphysical, and this TV analogy probably doesn't really
> help prove it one way or the other (unless the experiment itself is fruitful),
> but it might help understand how OOBEs *could be both*.

I hope we can avoid talking about the "metaphysical" basis for OBEs as long
as possible, since we first need a much better definition of what that term
means and we need a way of dissociating it from a lot of the claptrap which
seems to surround it.  Why can't we merely talk about the phenomenon in more
neutral terms, and ask the question of how much of the experience can be
accounted for in purely mental terms - without having to characterize the
alternative as being "metaphysical?"

Eric's article was inadvertantly truncated.  I have asked him to resend the
remainder.

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body