From: Corp.Sun.COM!Eric.Arnold (eric )
Subject: Re: OOBE or just vivid imagination
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:27:08 GMT

Original-Sender: Corp.Sun.COM!Eric.Arnold (eric )

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

Sure it can (today's magic is tomorrow's science -- Asimov?), but not
until the enterprise meets the central tenents of science (reproducability,
etc.).  Meantime, I think that everything else is unfortunately
"paranormal", including good work ... and "claptrap".

 > 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

Well, we need a term which provides the same function then.  At the
most basic level we have physics, which is our scientific realm, and we
have meta-physics, which is everything else (and similarly for
normal/para-normal, etc.).  The problem seems to be with connotations of
all existing terms which try to encompass "everything else which isn't
proven via physics".  Care to make a stab at naming "that which
isn't hard, measurable science, but may be relevant on the preponderance
of anecdotal evidence"?

You stated that you were opposed to the majority of "new
age"/soft-headed theories.  I too would like to restrain discussion to
things that follow some logical progression from normal science.  To
open the discussion to everything that imagination can produce would be
too much.  However, the basic concept of OOBE that humans(++?) *may*
actually have a non-physical component, which is independent of the
body, is definitely not normal science.  If we refuse to discuss this
possibility I suppose we should start "alt.hallucination" (if it
doesn't already exist).  (Actually, I think discussing both
possibilities would be useful.)

 >
 > > 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.

Somewhere in the question of "whether the mind and memory are completely a
function of the brain and its activity" you have to deal with something
we cannot replicate/measure/etc. <- not science.

 >
 > > 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?"

Again, we've got to have some language for the "alternative", otherwise
we can't adequately talk about it.

Secondly, of course we want to think about how much can be explained
by purely mental activity.  We must rule this out before any possible
conclusions of "extra-mental" (is term that any better? nah..) can
be made.  But I see no reason to shun discussion of experiments like
you've described by Sheldrake (I haven't gotten ahold of it yet).

Finally, I don't see any reason to shy away from the really important
issue:  one possible outcome of study into OOBEs and related stuff is
the expansion of our model of the laws of physics and reality.  I think
that talking about it in "neutral terms" stunts our ability to discuss
larger implications.  We run the risk of throwing the baby out with
the bath water by restricting such a basic concept.

For example, I wanted to talk about when in the TV analogy, if
you don't posit the existence of the "extra-mental", you aren't really
giving the TV analogy a fair chance in the context it was meant.  It
also leads you to errors in logic like discounting the analogy because
we can measure the EM waves used to broadcast TV signals.  However,
because I shouldn't talk about the need for the distinction between
physical/[meta|extra]-physical, then I don't have a way to make my point
(again, that distinction is _central_ to larger implications of OOBE
research).

-Eric