The universe is conscious?

[Stranger]

There are many other ideas in science such as strings, multiple dimensions, time travel etc. which are also just conjecture.  Sure...there is lot of maths on pieces of paper but maths is not everything.  But these ideas are considered as 'science' and discussed in seminars and articles are written about them. 

That will be because they are scientific conjectures, that is, they take what is known about science and try to go beyond it is some way or other. The things you mentioned aren't really in one category of scientific conjecture, either.

But when it comes to the idea of a soul or after-life (for example), which are so fundamental,  it all becomes very funny and a 'you can't be serious' view is taken. This is what I am questioning.

What is actually more funny than the ideas of a soul and afterlife is some people's blind certainty that they are true regardless of the lack of evidence (or reasoning).

Proposing scriptural events like the six day creation is one thing and proposing an after-life is another. They are not the same thing and cannot be categorized together. The problem is that they often are lumped together.

But they're not. An afterlife is just reasoning- and evidence-free while six day creation actually goes against the evidence. What also you don't seem to be able to grasp is that neither of those are actually in the same category as speculations like IIT or Orch OR, which both at least make some sort of attempt to justify themselves and codify what they're actually suggesting.

This is where the two boxes syndrome comes into the picture.

Except, just from this post, I'd need five 'boxes'.

• Untested (untestable?) consequences of well tested (in other respects) theories, e.g. time travel based on general relativity.
• Attempts to extend known science (hypotheses), e.g. string theory.
• Detailed conjectures, not directly connected to known science, with some attempt at reasoning but no evidence, e.g. IIT.
• Baseless beliefs, e.g. an afterlife.
• Evidence defying beliefs, e.g. six day creation.

It seems to be you who only wants two...

[Sriram]

No boxes for me. I believe in reality as one continuum. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology...spirituality. They are all real...maybe there is more beyond that.

No natural and supernatural. No compulsion to believe or disbelieve in anything. 

No loss of dignity by accepting a soul or an after-life.   

[Stranger]

No boxes for me. 

The problem then being, if you don't assess things with regard to evidence and reasoning, you have no standard left except your own whims, imagination, and superstitions. You can completely detach yourself from reality.

That's probably why you have such a closed mind; no amount of evidence or reasoning can possibly puncture your beliefs because they have not been reached via evidence and reasoning in the first place. It also explains why you can't be talked out of beliefs even when they are obviously wrong misunderstandings (natural selection and memes being examples).

[Outrider]

There are many other ideas in science such as strings, multiple dimensions, time travel etc. which are also just conjecture.

Some of this is at the fringes of my knowledge, so I stand to be corrected but:

- string theory is a mathematical model, built upon our current understanding, of a potential mechanism that would explain some currently not explained phenomena. It is an hypothesis with potentially viable means of testing that are currently beyond our technical capability. I'd classify this is as cutting edge science.
- multiple dimensions is a conceptualisation of a potential cosmology based more on a philosophical than a scientific understanding, and I'd suggest is more science fiction at this point than science.
- time travel, depending on the particular version, ranges from a mathematical model which (currently) precludes any human involvement to pure science fiction: it's at best fringe science.

These are not the same, qualitatively, and they are all different from panpsychism or universal consciousness, which range from pure conjecture (in the vein of multiple dimensions) into deliberate attempts to conflate traditional superstitions with science.

Sure...there is lot of maths on pieces of paper but maths is not everything.

Pretty much everything we have reason to think actually is can be modelled with mathematics - mathematics isn't everything, but it could well describe everything.

But these ideas are considered as 'science' and discussed in seminars and articles are written about them.

Some of them are considered in a scientific fashion; string theory seriously, multiple dimensions and time travel perhaps playfully. None of them, importantly, would be considered to have been scientifically supported or validated.

But when it comes to the idea of a soul or after-life (for example), which are so fundamental,  it all becomes very funny and a 'you can't be serious' view is taken.

In what way are souls or afterlives 'fundamental'? If, as I suggest, neither of these things is real, how would we tell the difference? How would we know? Given that we have no evidence for them now, what would be missing if they weren't real?

Proposing scriptural events like the six day creation is one thing and proposing an after-life is another.

In the level of detail, perhaps, in the specificity - six day creation is like the specific heaven-hell-limbo combination of mainstream Christianity, supernatural creation by an interventionalist extra-universal deity is like proposing the concept of an afterlife, and is equally as unsupported by any sort of evidence.

They are not the same thing and cannot be categorized together.

They can, they are unevidenced claims proposed without the potential for falsification.

The problem is that they often are lumped together.

It's only a problem if you arbitrarily deem one of them to be somehow more valid than the other.

A soul (consciousness independent of brain) and an after-life are secular philosophical ideas and have nothing to do with religion or a God (though religions also advocate these ideas).

Absolutely. The reason they are philosophical ideas and not scientific ones is because they aren't based on anything demonstrable. Time travel, multiple universes and string theory are all extrapolated (more or less judiciously) from actually demonstrated phenomena and their explanations; they may be wrong, and souls may be a thing, but we differentiate between them based upon the current weight and availability of evidence.

This is where the two boxes syndrome comes into the picture.

I find it a little ironic that someone who complains about other people's overly reductionist views thinks that this breaks down into two simple boxes.

O.

[Sriram]

Some of this is at the fringes of my knowledge, so I stand to be corrected but:

- string theory is a mathematical model, built upon our current understanding, of a potential mechanism that would explain some currently not explained phenomena. It is an hypothesis with potentially viable means of testing that are currently beyond our technical capability. I'd classify this is as cutting edge science.
- multiple dimensions is a conceptualisation of a potential cosmology based more on a philosophical than a scientific understanding, and I'd suggest is more science fiction at this point than science.
- time travel, depending on the particular version, ranges from a mathematical model which (currently) precludes any human involvement to pure science fiction: it's at best fringe science.

These are not the same, qualitatively, and they are all different from panpsychism or universal consciousness, which range from pure conjecture (in the vein of multiple dimensions) into deliberate attempts to conflate traditional superstitions with science.

Pretty much everything we have reason to think actually is can be modelled with mathematics - mathematics isn't everything, but it could well describe everything.

Some of them are considered in a scientific fashion; string theory seriously, multiple dimensions and time travel perhaps playfully. None of them, importantly, would be considered to have been scientifically supported or validated.

In what way are souls or afterlives 'fundamental'? If, as I suggest, neither of these things is real, how would we tell the difference? How would we know? Given that we have no evidence for them now, what would be missing if they weren't real?

In the level of detail, perhaps, in the specificity - six day creation is like the specific heaven-hell-limbo combination of mainstream Christianity, supernatural creation by an interventionalist extra-universal deity is like proposing the concept of an afterlife, and is equally as unsupported by any sort of evidence.

They can, they are unevidenced claims proposed without the potential for falsification.

It's only a problem if you arbitrarily deem one of them to be somehow more valid than the other.

Absolutely. The reason they are philosophical ideas and not scientific ones is because they aren't based on anything demonstrable. Time travel, multiple universes and string theory are all extrapolated (more or less judiciously) from actually demonstrated phenomena and their explanations; they may be wrong, and souls may be a thing, but we differentiate between them based upon the current weight and availability of evidence.

I find it a little ironic that someone who complains about other people's overly reductionist views thinks that this breaks down into two simple boxes.

O.

There are probably many more such ideas which are mere conjectures but are taken seriously for discussion and study.

Souls and after-life are fundamental because they are about our basic nature and our ultimate future. These are much more meaningful and important to us and other living beings than parallel universes or strings or multiple dimensions or dark matter or big bang or black holes or higgs boson or whatever.....

Maths cannot be the basis on which our understanding of reality depends. It may help but it is only our personal subjective experiences that are fundamental and important. Merely understanding something intellectually means nothing at all in the final analysis.

There is enough data to suggest that a soul and an after-life are real. It is the two boxes syndrome that makes people of science dismiss such things as mere hallucinations and brain generated imagery etc. etc.

The two boxes syndrome is not just about categorizing phenomena. It is about biases and prejudices that make people view phenomena differently and with different perspectives. Confusing secular experiential phenomena with religious beliefs is another problem.

As I have pointed out many times....evidence depends a lot on our background, natural faculties, open mind, biases, technology and other factors. Reality exists at different levels.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/

[Outrider]

There are probably many more such ideas which are mere conjectures but are taken seriously for discussion and study.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so long as you remain mindful of what's conjecture and what's within the current bounds of the established science.

Souls and after-life are fundamental because they are about our basic nature and our ultimate future. These are much more meaningful and important to us and other living beings than parallel universes or strings or multiple dimensions or dark matter or big bang or black holes or higgs boson or whatever.....

They might be fundamental, if they exist. Until we have some sort of reason other than wishful reinterpretation of superstitions then they are exactly as fundamental to life as midichlorians. And, again, conflating conjecture like parallel universes and multiple dimensions with hypotheses like string theory and established phenomena like Higgs' bosons and dark matter doesn't help your argument.

Maths cannot be the basis on which our understanding of reality depends. It may help but it is only our personal subjective experiences that are fundamental and important.

Nonsense. We are able to cooperate and collaborate, to communicate and build culture because we have a subjective experience of a reality which retains consistency from individual to individual. Our experiences might be subjective, but the reality we are experiencing is objective and consistent and gives us common points of reference; when only one of us is experiencing something, that's reason to call into question whether it's them or reality. Maths is a tool we can use to describe that reality accurately in a way that helps to remove the subjectivity, to better establish detail about that reality - I can think of no better tool on which to found our understanding of reality, in both its performance to date and its potential for the future.

Merely understanding something intellectually means nothing at all in the final analysis.

If you aren't seeking to understand, then why are you discussing whether something is fact. If it doesn't matter to you, just believe what you will and enjoy your unjustified beliefs.

There is enough data to suggest that a soul and an after-life are real.

No. At best there are some unanswered questions about a few particular details in some personal accounts which may be unreliable.

It is the two boxes syndrome that makes people of science dismiss such things as mere hallucinations and brain generated imagery etc. etc.

That and the lack of an explanatory mechanism which involves souls or spirits, and the lack of any apparent source for these souls or spirits, and the infinite reduction that comes from presuming they must be there to explain consciousness, and the absence of unexplained phenomena in the overwhelming majority of brain activity which could be the result of souls, and then, finally, Ockham's Razor at the end asking why you want to add an unexplained phenomenon to try to explain another unexplained phenomenon when there are still valid hypotheses within the current paradigm which require exploration.

The two boxes syndrome is not just about categorizing phenomena. It is about biases and prejudices that make people view phenomena differently and with different perspectives. Confusing secular experiential phenomena with religious beliefs is another problem.

If you're trying to classify what you percieve as biases fine, but I've pointed out how you've horrendously oversimplified the situation in order to grant superstitions some sort of equal status with provisional science - perhaps tailoring to your own biases.

As I have pointed out many times....evidence depends a lot on our background, natural faculties, open mind, biases, technology and other factors. Reality exists at different levels.

No, just claiming 'levels' of perception doesn't change findings about reality. Yes our background can be influential - people who've been raised and educated in traditions of superstition don't differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable claims, it would seem.

O.

[Sriram]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so long as you remain mindful of what's conjecture and what's within the current bounds of the established science.

They might be fundamental, if they exist. Until we have some sort of reason other than wishful reinterpretation of superstitions then they are exactly as fundamental to life as midichlorians. And, again, conflating conjecture like parallel universes and multiple dimensions with hypotheses like string theory and established phenomena like Higgs' bosons and dark matter doesn't help your argument.

Nonsense. We are able to cooperate and collaborate, to communicate and build culture because we have a subjective experience of a reality which retains consistency from individual to individual. Our experiences might be subjective, but the reality we are experiencing is objective and consistent and gives us common points of reference; when only one of us is experiencing something, that's reason to call into question whether it's them or reality. Maths is a tool we can use to describe that reality accurately in a way that helps to remove the subjectivity, to better establish detail about that reality - I can think of no better tool on which to found our understanding of reality, in both its performance to date and its potential for the future.

If you aren't seeking to understand, then why are you discussing whether something is fact. If it doesn't matter to you, just believe what you will and enjoy your unjustified beliefs.

No. At best there are some unanswered questions about a few particular details in some personal accounts which may be unreliable.

That and the lack of an explanatory mechanism which involves souls or spirits, and the lack of any apparent source for these souls or spirits, and the infinite reduction that comes from presuming they must be there to explain consciousness, and the absence of unexplained phenomena in the overwhelming majority of brain activity which could be the result of souls, and then, finally, Ockham's Razor at the end asking why you want to add an unexplained phenomenon to try to explain another unexplained phenomenon when there are still valid hypotheses within the current paradigm which require exploration.

If you're trying to classify what you percieve as biases fine, but I've pointed out how you've horrendously oversimplified the situation in order to grant superstitions some sort of equal status with provisional science - perhaps tailoring to your own biases.

No, just claiming 'levels' of perception doesn't change findings about reality. Yes our background can be influential - people who've been raised and educated in traditions of superstition don't differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable claims, it would seem.

O.

Reality does not have to restrict itself to 'established science'. We should learn to look outside our comfort zone also if we  want to see reality.

NDE's are not superstition. They are real. Evidence is available but they are being reinterpreted by mainstream scientists to suit their comfort levels. 

[Stranger]

Reality does not have to restrict itself to 'established science'.

No it doesn't. However, what we can know about it is limited to that which we can objectively test or deduce. Reality is certainly under no obligation to conform to anybody's favourite superstitions or wishful thinking about how they want it to be.

We should learn to look outside our comfort zone also if we  want to see reality.

Irony.   

NDE's are not superstition. They are real.

I don't think anybody denies that near death experiences are real. They do not, however, provide evidence of any soul or afterlife.

[Outrider]

Reality does not have to restrict itself to 'established science'.

Science's remit, though, is reality.

We should learn to look outside our comfort zone also if we  want to see reality.

To paraphrase one of the great philosophers of our time, though, the problem with having too open a mind is that your brain falls out. We can look outside of our comfort zone, sure, but that doesn't mean just accepting every unsubstantiated assertion or even presuming they have equal weight.
 

NDE's are not superstition. They are real. Evidence is available but they are being reinterpreted by mainstream scientists to suit their comfort levels.

Nobody's suggesting NDEs are superstition; falling back on 'soul' as an explanation for them is superstition, though.

O.

[torridon]

..
Maths cannot be the basis on which our understanding of reality depends. It may help but it is only our personal subjective experiences that are fundamental and important. Merely understanding something intellectually means nothing at all in the final analysis.
..

Although if you have read Hoffman, and I think you have, you will understand that although our personal subjective experience is important to us and is undeniable, it is no guide to some sort of fundamental objective truth.  The nature of our personal experience is something honed by millions of years of evolution to keep us alive at minimal cost, it is not a guide to fundamental reality.  In other words, it is chock full of biases, shortcuts, etc so we have to factor that in if we are going to extrapolate from personal experience to objective truth.

[Sriram]

Although if you have read Hoffman, and I think you have, you will understand that although our personal subjective experience is important to us and is undeniable, it is no guide to some sort of fundamental objective truth.  The nature of our personal experience is something honed by millions of years of evolution to keep us alive at minimal cost, it is not a guide to fundamental reality.  In other words, it is chock full of biases, shortcuts, etc so we have to factor that in if we are going to extrapolate from personal experience to objective truth.

Objective reality need not be only physical. Objective reality can be quasi physical also. NDE's are personal experiences but the experiences have a lot of commonality and can be considered as objective reality.

All personal experiences cannot be dismissed as something happening in the brain of the individual and therefore of no relevance to objective reality.  It is like several people visiting a new exotic place and giving their opinion. There are bound to be both objective aspects and personal perspectives mixed together.

Yes....a degree of personal interpretation is unavoidable but that can be easily weeded out. Even in NDE's there are sometimes personal interpretations and cultural influences but that does not detract from the obvious common objective elements.

[torridon]

Objective reality need not be only physical. Objective reality can be quasi physical also. NDE's are personal experiences but the experiences have a lot of commonality and can be considered as objective reality.

All personal experiences cannot be dismissed as something happening in the brain of the individual and therefore of no relevance to objective reality.  It is like several people visiting a new exotic place and giving their opinion. There are bound to be both objective aspects and personal perspectives mixed together.

Yes....a degree of personal interpretation is unavoidable but that can be easily weeded out. Even in NDE's there are sometimes personal interpretations and cultural influences but that does not detract from the obvious common objective elements.

No personal experience is objective  it is personal.  There will be degrees of commonality in experience of course because there are degrees of commonality across brains.  The experience of pain you get when you touch something hot is probably very similar to the experience I get in a similar situation and it is probably similar to the experience of other mammals, say rats.  That there is a degree of commonality among the experiences produced by hypoxic brains, is not surprising.  It's a bit silly to take such experiences as a clue to some grand insight into the fundamental nature of reality; after all we now know that rats for example also seem to go through some sort of intense experience during early stage cardiac arrest, so this may be a phenomenology with a degree of commonality across all mammalian brains.

[Sriram]

Although if you have read Hoffman, and I think you have, you will understand that although our personal subjective experience is important to us and is undeniable, it is no guide to some sort of fundamental objective truth.  The nature of our personal experience is something honed by millions of years of evolution to keep us alive at minimal cost, it is not a guide to fundamental reality.  In other words, it is chock full of biases, shortcuts, etc so we have to factor that in if we are going to extrapolate from personal experience to objective truth.

You must remember that people who talk of exotic and non physical realities (like me for example) are not always talking of some fundamental ultimate truth. They are also only exploring and feeling their way around. It is no different from scientists exploring and investigating.

Non physical realities cannot be seen and experienced the same way that physical realities are. It is just that it is not something physical that can be easily sensed and shown to everyone else.  It is a personal experience but which can be had by others also if they follow the same method.  If I eat a chocolate for example, and feel its taste....the same can be sensed by others also and they could also agree on the same experience, if they take the trouble of eating it.  It is a personal experience but has a degree of objectivity to it. 

But if people don't want to taste the chocolate but expect the taste to be shown objectively on an instrument, that can't be done.

So, it is about subjective experiences but not without its objective elements. 

[torridon]

You must remember that people who talk of exotic and non physical realities (like me for example) are not always talking of some fundamental ultimate truth. They are also only exploring and feeling their way around. It is no different from scientists exploring and investigating.

Non physical realities cannot be seen and experienced the same way that physical realities are. It is just that it is not something physical that can be easily sensed and shown to everyone else.  It is a personal experience but which can be had by others also if they follow the same method.  If I eat a chocolate for example, and feel its taste....the same can be sensed by others also and they could also agree on the same experience, if they take the trouble of eating it.  It is a personal experience but has a degree of objectivity to it. 

But if people don't want to taste the chocolate but expect the taste to be shown objectively on an instrument, that can't be done.

So, it is about subjective experiences but not without its objective elements.

Not sure what you mean by 'non-physical' realities.  All experience derives ultimately from the interactions of our sense organs with our environment. Retinas interact with photos of light in predictable ways for example, and this leads downstream to the experience of vision.  What sense organs do we have that could interact with 'non-physical' realities ?

[Sriram]

Not sure what you mean by 'non-physical' realities.  All experience derives ultimately from the interactions of our sense organs with our environment. Retinas interact with photos of light in predictable ways for example, and this leads downstream to the experience of vision.  What sense organs do we have that could interact with 'non-physical' realities ?

Non physical means just that....something that cannot be sensed through normal five senses.  We can however experience such realities directly through the mind. This is what people probably refer to as the sixth sense. 

How do you 'see' your thoughts?   

[Stranger]

We can however experience such realities directly through the mind. This is what people probably refer to as the sixth sense. 

So how do you test that you are experiencing something that is outside your own mind, as opposed to some purely internal feeling or state of mind?

[ekim]

I think somebody needs to define what they mean by 'mind' so that you don't debate at cross purposes.

[torridon]

Non physical means just that....something that cannot be sensed through normal five senses.  We can however experience such realities directly through the mind. This is what people probably refer to as the sixth sense. 

How do you 'see' your thoughts?   

Your brain has no direct access to the outside world except via its sensors.  it is dark, damp, and enclosed in bone for its own protection.  All knowledge comes in via sensor channels, it has built twin detectors to front to sample ambient information bearing electromagnetic radiation and twin auditory receptors to side which sample information on pressure waves in the air.  Add to that, the vast number of tactile sensors distributed throughout the body and the olefactory sensors in mouth, tongue and nasal passage.  By such means, the brain gains information about the outside world.  There are no hidden internal sense organs in a brain, apart from the pineal gland, perhaps, which long ago used to be a third eye mounted on top of the head, but has long been subsumed into the brain and now serves the lesser role of regulating sleep/wake cycles.

[Sriram]

Your brain has no direct access to the outside world except via its sensors.  it is dark, damp, and enclosed in bone for its own protection.  All knowledge comes in via sensor channels, it has built twin detectors to front to sample ambient information bearing electromagnetic radiation and twin auditory receptors to side which sample information on pressure waves in the air.  Add to that, the vast number of tactile sensors distributed throughout the body and the olefactory sensors in mouth, tongue and nasal passage.  By such means, the brain gains information about the outside world.  There are no hidden internal sense organs in a brain, apart from the pineal gland, perhaps, which long ago used to be a third eye mounted on top of the head, but has long been subsumed into the brain and now serves the lesser role of regulating sleep/wake cycles.

A pdf article (47 pages) about NDE 's in the blind.   

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799333/m2/1/high_res_d/vol16-no2-101.pdf

By Kenneth Ring, Ph.D. Sharon Cooper, M.A. University of Connecticut


**************

This article reports the results of an investigation into near
death and out-of-body experiences in 31 blind respondents. The study sought
to address three main questions: (1) whether blind individuals have near
death experiences (NDEs) and, if so, whether they are the same as or dif
ferent from those of sighted persons; (2) whether blind persons ever claim
to see during NDEs and out-of-body experiences (OBEs); and (3) if such
claims are made, whether they can ever be corroborated by reference to in
dependent evidence.

Conclusion:

What seemed like an analog to physical sight really was not when examined closely. It is a dif
ferent type of awareness altogether, which we have called transcen
dental awareness, that functions independently of the brain but that
must necessarily be filtered through it and through the medium of
language as well. Thus, by the time these episodes come to our at
tention, they tend to speak in the language of vision, but the actual
experiences themselves seem to be something rather different alto
gether and are not easily captured in any language of ordinary dis
course.

What the blind experience is more astonishing than the claim that
they have seen. Instead, they, like sighted persons who have had
similar episodes, have transcended brain-based consciousness alto
gether and, because of that, their experiences beggar all description
or convenient labels. For these we need a new language altogether,
as we need new theories from a new kind of science even to begin
to comprehend them. Toward this end, the study of paradoxical and
utterly anomalous experiences plays a vital role in furnishing the
theorists of today the data they need to fashion the science of the
21st century. And that science of consciousness,... is surely already on the horizon.

**************

[Enki]

Sriram,

I read the whole paper, and, although interesting, I'm not really impressed by the conclusions. The findings in this paper seem to rely almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence, which you might find reassuring as some sort of backup for your ideas, but I do not. Although not the same as NDEs, there is a certain similarity in that it is generally accepted that people who are blind can also experience visual images when they dream,  even if they have been blind from birth. It also seems to be the case that before birth humans can exhibit evidence of visual electrical activity in brain scans.

Try reading this:

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/

[Sriram]

Sriram,

I read the whole paper, and, although interesting, I'm not really impressed by the conclusions. The findings in this paper seem to rely almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence, which you might find reassuring as some sort of backup for your ideas, but I do not. Although not the same as NDEs, there is a certain similarity in that it is generally accepted that people who are blind can also experience visual images when they dream,  even if they have been blind from birth. It also seems to be the case that before birth humans can exhibit evidence of visual electrical activity in brain scans.

Try reading this:

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/

The article is clear that born blind people do not (or may not) actually see real shapes and colors in their dreams, as normal people see them. They might probably just see blobs of colors because they do not identify objects with specific shapes, sizes and colors.

That is not however what the blind NDEers have stated. They have obviously seen objects the way normal people see them. 

[Enki]

The article is clear that born blind people do not (or may not) actually see real shapes and colors in their dreams, as normal people see them. They might probably just see blobs of colors because they do not identify objects with specific shapes, sizes and colors.

No problem.

That is not however what the blind NDEers have stated. They have obviously seen objects the way normal people see them.

You should read the paper that you referred to much more closely then because it doesn't assume that is so at all. Yes, it gives detailed anecdotal accounts by certain individuals, but later, in the same paper, admits that on further examination problems appear which suggests caution against taking such literal accounts at face value.

Indeed the authors of the report suggest( in the part entitled "Apparent Vision in the Blind: Is It Really Seeing?")  that you are simply incorrect to assume that.
 

As this kind of testimony builds, it seems more and more difficult to claim that the blind simply see what they report. Rather, it is beginning to appear it is more a matter of their knowing, through a still poorly understood mode of generalized awareness based on a variety of sensory impressions, especially tactile ones, what is happening around them.

And it ends this section with:

In summary, what we have learned from our respondents is that although their experiences may sometimes be expressed in a language of vision, a close reading of their transcripts suggests something closer to a multifaceted synesthetic perception that seems to involve much more than an analog of physical sight. This is not to say that as part of this awareness there cannot be some sort of pictorial imagery as well; it is only to assert that this must not be taken in any simplistic way as constituting vision as we normally understand it.

So I would suggest that it isn't obvious at all, and the idea that there is a relationship with dreaming in born non-sighted individuals, stands.

Yes, the article tries to explain this by some sort of holistic transcendental awareness, which, if I read it correctly, involves some sort of extra sensory perception which relies on their definition of consciousness. To this end, they put forward four postulates(which they are happy to accept are assertions), and which will remain in the realms of conjecture unless or until hard evidence supporting them comes to light. To my mind, the paper that they have presented doesn't come anywhere near to fulfilling that requirement.

[Outrider]

Objective reality need not be only physical. Objective reality can be quasi physical also.

In theory, yes. In practice, you have to show that's the case, you can't just decide to accept that it is. A flat earth could be physical reality, if only it wasn't for all the evidence of something else.

NDE's are personal experiences but the experiences have a lot of commonality and can be considered as objective reality.

No, commonality of experience could be due to an underlying reality, but it could equally be to do with structural commonalities within the human brain that lead to these impressions despite the lack of any objective cause. Very few people turn up naked to work unexpectedly, but it's a relatively common dream; just because people experience it, we can't automatically presume that it's real.

All personal experiences cannot be dismissed as something happening in the brain of the individual and therefore of no relevance to objective reality.

No, the experience is a phenomenon and has to be investigated. We know that people can, and regularly do, have experiences which are divorced from direct stimuli (like dreaming, or hallucinations), and we therefore need to independently corroborate claims of subjective experience before we accept that they accurately reflect reality.

It is like several people visiting a new exotic place and giving their opinion. There are bound to be both objective aspects and personal perspectives mixed together.

Except that the place in question is Narnia, and all the people who claim to have been there were in an extremely altered mental state at the time.... and we can't find the talking lion or the really, really deep wardrobe.

Yes....a degree of personal interpretation is unavoidable but that can be easily weeded out. Even in NDE's there are sometimes personal interpretations and cultural influences but that does not detract from the obvious common objective elements.

That fails to appreciate how fundamentally unreliable our personal experiences of the world are as a guide to what's 'real'.

O.

[Sriram]

In theory, yes. In practice, you have to show that's the case, you can't just decide to accept that it is. A flat earth could be physical reality, if only it wasn't for all the evidence of something else.

No, commonality of experience could be due to an underlying reality, but it could equally be to do with structural commonalities within the human brain that lead to these impressions despite the lack of any objective cause. Very few people turn up naked to work unexpectedly, but it's a relatively common dream; just because people experience it, we can't automatically presume that it's real.

No, the experience is a phenomenon and has to be investigated. We know that people can, and regularly do, have experiences which are divorced from direct stimuli (like dreaming, or hallucinations), and we therefore need to independently corroborate claims of subjective experience before we accept that they accurately reflect reality.

Except that the place in question is Narnia, and all the people who claim to have been there were in an extremely altered mental state at the time.... and we can't find the talking lion or the really, really deep wardrobe.

That fails to appreciate how fundamentally unreliable our personal experiences of the world are as a guide to what's 'real'.

O.

Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible. The phenomenon may sometimes have a physical component but most often may not. We just have to surmise based on indirect evidence that something exists....like we do for dark matter.

Even when we visit real and exotic places, people do have both common and individual views about it. It is similar with quasi physical phenomena that are experienced directly without sensory inputs.

All experiences are personal. They depend on our brain, senses, culture and so on. We just happen to find similarities with others because they also have similar senses and similar backgrounds.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible. The phenomenon may sometimes have a physical component but most often may not. We just have to surmise based on indirect evidence that something exists....like we do for dark matter.

You’ve wedged yourself into a cleft stick here. On the one hand you’re asserting there to be something “quasi physical” and telling us that the claim can’t be investigated with “physical measurements”, but on the other hand you’re also telling us that there is “indirect evidence” to justify you claim.

That doesn’t work. Either you position yourself on “there’s no evidence” territory (in which case all you have is guessing) or you accept the evidence-based model paradigmatically, in which case you must play by its rules. What you cannot do though is straddle both horses: you cannot try to dabble in just enough of the evidential paradigm to suit your purposes, and then jump straight to “therefore quasi physical”.

Observation reveals all manner of data. What that data may indicate in terms of knowledge though requires several more steps to eliminate the unfeasible guesses and leave the most feasible one standing. In science, the most feasible explanation is called a “theory”. 

What you’re doing though is jumping straight from guess to claim without the hard yards in between.           

Even when we visit real and exotic places, people do have both common and individual views about it. It is similar with quasi physical phenomena that are experienced directly without sensory inputs.

No, it’s not similar at all. When we visit “real and exotic places” different people will encounter and remember different data, but no-one doubts that the place itself exists. Your “quasi physical” claim is more akin to me saying I’ve been to Tahiti and you telling me about your trip to Atlantis or Narnia.     

All experiences are personal. They depend on our brain, senses, culture and so on. We just happen to find similarities with others because they also have similar senses and similar backgrounds.

Experiences are personal – that’s why we have methods and tools to verify objectively the narratives we arrive at to explain them. Thus my experience of leprechauns is considered less likely to be true than your experience of butterflies. Your problem here is though is that, absent some means to investigate and verify your claims, you’re moored in leprechauns territory.