The universe is conscious?

[Outrider]

Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible.

Fine, show it in some other method, but just suggesting it isn't sufficient. If you can cite it with no support, we can dismiss it on an equal basis. Worse, though, when you suggest that it interacts with physical things, we can at least look for the evidence of the influence, and that's missing too.

The phenomenon may sometimes have a physical component but most often may not.

If a phenomenon doesn't have a physical component, in what way is it a phenomenon? Phenomenon are, by definition, observable occurrences.

We just have to surmise based on indirect evidence that something exists....like we do for dark matter.

Dark matter is a phrase used to describe something we can show we haven't found or explained but for which we see effects; you're suggesting something you think you've found but can't demonstrate, which doesn't appear to have any effects.

Even when we visit real and exotic places, people do have both common and individual views about it.

And you've not given any reason to think that isn't something common to people and brain architecture rather than a common link to some 'quasi-physical' afterlife.

It is similar with quasi physical phenomena that are experienced directly without sensory inputs.

Such as?

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.

Perhaps, yes. In the absence of any evidence of external influences leading to similar sensory effects, that's a reasonable conclusion. They don't, necessarily, depend on there being an actual afterlife, but a common human idea that there is one perhaps is part of the situation.

O.

[Sriram]

Fine, show it in some other method, but just suggesting it isn't sufficient. If you can cite it with no support, we can dismiss it on an equal basis. Worse, though, when you suggest that it interacts with physical things, we can at least look for the evidence of the influence, and that's missing too.

If a phenomenon doesn't have a physical component, in what way is it a phenomenon? Phenomenon are, by definition, observable occurrences.

Dark matter is a phrase used to describe something we can show we haven't found or explained but for which we see effects; you're suggesting something you think you've found but can't demonstrate, which doesn't appear to have any effects.

And you've not given any reason to think that isn't something common to people and brain architecture rather than a common link to some 'quasi-physical' afterlife.

Such as?

Perhaps, yes. In the absence of any evidence of external influences leading to similar sensory effects, that's a reasonable conclusion. They don't, necessarily, depend on there being an actual afterlife, but a common human idea that there is one perhaps is part of the situation.

O.

What do you mean 'does not have any effects'...?! Clinical death is sufficient I should think.  People who had NDE's were all clinically dead.  Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead.

[Stranger]

What do you mean 'does not have any effects'...?! Clinical death is sufficient I should think.  People who had NDE's were all clinically dead.  Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead.

You seem to have lost track of your own argument. It's you who said:-

Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible.

Clinical death, near death experiences, and being blind are not things anybody is disputing. It's what you want to read into them that is disputed. Whatever you mean by "quasi physical", if it can't be investigated with physical evidence, then you need some other methodology that can distinguish what is a genuine "quasi physical" phenomenon from just making things up or guessing. So far, you seem to just what to assert it into existence.

[Outrider]

What do you mean 'does not have any effects'...?! Clinical death is sufficient I should think.  People who had NDE's were all clinically dead.

Clinical death is a process, not a status; it's starts at the cessation of blood-flow, and ends with death typically within five or six minutes of failure to get oxygen to the brain. During that time medical intervention is known to be capable, in some instances, of ceasing the process and having someone recover. It's therefore somewhat inaccurate to suggest that these people are 'dead' in the conventional sense.

Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead.

How do we know? If they're born blind, and have no sense of what seeing is, when they attribute a previously unknown state as 'sight' how do we tell that's actually the case? And even if neuronal activation as a result of ischemic damage causing chemical degradation, how is that evidence of anything more than a well understood biochemical process affecting a body part that we only partially understand? Where is the evidence that this is a result of 'quasi-physical' phenomena interacting with the brain?

O.

[Sriram]

Clinical death is a process, not a status; it's starts at the cessation of blood-flow, and ends with death typically within five or six minutes of failure to get oxygen to the brain. During that time medical intervention is known to be capable, in some instances, of ceasing the process and having someone recover. It's therefore somewhat inaccurate to suggest that these people are 'dead' in the conventional sense.

How do we know? If they're born blind, and have no sense of what seeing is, when they attribute a previously unknown state as 'sight' how do we tell that's actually the case? And even if neuronal activation as a result of ischemic damage causing chemical degradation, how is that evidence of anything more than a well understood biochemical process affecting a body part that we only partially understand? Where is the evidence that this is a result of 'quasi-physical' phenomena interacting with the brain?

O.

I think doctors like Sam Parnia with expertise in intensive care should know what death means.

If you read what Kenneth Ring has written above, I am sure he knows what he is talking about.   

[Outrider]

I think doctors like Sam Parnia with expertise in intensive care should know what death means.

And he does; he acknowledges the process, and wants to change some of the terminology around it because of that, not despite that. It's therefore disappointing that he understands that, with our current understanding, if damage is reversible it's not death and if it isn't reversible then it is death and redefine near death experiences as actual death experiences despite the fact that, by his own definition, they aren't that.

Equally, whilst Dr Parnia is undoubtedly well-qualified, his research on near death experiences isn't published in the same journals, or reviewed with the same authority, as his work on resuscitation techniques. His body of work earns him the right to be listened to, but the quality of the work that he produces in the area of NDE doesn't merit it being accepted as a viable demonstration of his hypothesis.

If you read what Kenneth Ring has written above, I am sure he knows what he is talking about.

Sighted people, in NDE, sometimes have a transendental experience. Blind people, in NDE, sometimes have a transcendental experience, which some of them initially ascribe to 'seeing'. The conclusion from that, for me, is that blind and sighted people have broadly the same experience under the same circumstances, but that blind people are aware that they are blind and so ascribe a previously unknown experience to that lacking sense, whereas people without that obvious lack don't have that easy answer.

It's possible that this is some people becoming aware of something real that we aren't normally aware of; but it's equally possible that this is the result of ischemic damage to parts of the brain triggering neurons and producing sensory experiences. One of those is dependent upon an entire facet of reality that we are completely incapable currently of demonstrating in any way, and the other is entirely in keeping with what we've already established about the brain. Why would we presume the former?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I think doctors like Sam Parnia with expertise in intensive care should know what death means.

If you read what Kenneth Ring has written above, I am sure he knows what he is talking about.

“One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.” (Carl Sagan)

If you think these people have published peer-reviewed findings on the matter, then tell us what those findings are. So far though, all you have is assertions (“the quasi physical is real”), cherry picking tidbits of observation and extrapolating from them huge and unwarranted claims, and a range of logical fallacies (the argument from authority being just the latest example).   

[Sriram]

It is quite simple.

1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.

2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed.  These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.

3. NDE's and OBE's are experienced by many people under certain circumstances. Researchers have enough evidence that these experiences are not just brain generated. Cases of born blind people seeing objects just like normal people, are instances. Corroborative details of activities in the surrounding area are also evidence.

4. Therefore experiences of an after-life and of a soul or consciousness surviving death, are also part of objective reality.

[torridon]

It is quite simple.

1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.

2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed.  These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.

..

That's not right.  Inter-subjective consensus does not equate to objectivity.  The fact that there exists a certain amount of commonality of experience merely reflects the common ancestry in the evolution of brains.  I see the sky as blue, so do you, maybe so does my pet dog, I don't know, but none of that means the sky is objectively blue, it merely follows from the commonality of visual perception in mammalian brains due to shared ancestry.

[Outrider]

1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.

We can conduct independent measurement and recording, however, and quantify phenomena, and have multiple subjective interpretations of the data to minimise the subjectivity. Absolute reality may be known; our limitation is on our ability to prove that, not necessarily to determine it.

2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed.  These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.

No, the false conflation of not absolutely proven but reliably evidenced (i.e. gravity, light) with practically unsupported fringe-science (NDE as evidence of souls, genomorphic theory) and absolute woo on the basis that we don't have absolute proof of any of them is nonsense.

3. NDE's and OBE's are experienced by many people under certain circumstances.

Yes, they do.

Researchers have enough evidence that these experiences are not just brain generated.

No, they don't. The fact that you have to assert these are down to 'quasi-physical' phenomena which we can't detect shows that we don't have any definitive evidence that these experiences are a response to any external factors

Cases of born blind people seeing objects just like normal people, are instances.

Because of the way the brain works it actually wouldn't be, but even if it were that's not what's being claimed.

Corroborative details of activities in the surrounding area are also evidence.

No. That people have sensory apparatus that continues to operate partially whilst the consciousness is suppressed is not evidence of the supernatural, it's evidence that our eyes don't disappear when we go to sleep.

4. Therefore experiences of an after-life and of a soul or consciousness surviving death, are also part of objective reality.

No, therefore you are reaching desperately to try to grasp at some sort of scientific validity for ancient superstition in the guise of overarching ancestral wisdom being realised. Every piece of solid evidence we have suggests that consciousness emerges from brain activity; there might be something else, it's a logical possibility, but in the absence not just of direct evidence for that 'other', and in the absence of any evidence of activity in the brain that can't be explained by the conventional mechanics, and in the absence of any need for such a mechanism to explain the observed phenomena, the likely explanation with the information available is that 'souls' need to go in the bucket alongside fairies and magic.

O.

[Sriram]

That's not right.  Inter-subjective consensus does not equate to objectivity.  The fact that there exists a certain amount of commonality of experience merely reflects the common ancestry in the evolution of brains.  I see the sky as blue, so do you, maybe so does my pet dog, I don't know, but none of that means the sky is objectively blue, it merely follows from the commonality of visual perception in mammalian brains due to shared ancestry.

Absolute objective reality is unknowable.

What you say clearly means that all experiences are subjective though it can be a shared subjectivity. Like watching a movie together. Many people may agree on what they see but it is nevertheless an illusion.

[Stranger]

1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.

Although you could argue that we can't be sure that what we think of as 'objective reality' is actually reality, it doesn't really matter. There is an obvious qualitative difference between what we perceive as 'objective reality' and other mental phenomena, and 'objective reality' is inescapable, we can investigate it with the tools of science, construct theories about it, and use technology to manipulate it.

If what we consider to be 'objective reality' isn't really reality, it might as well be and it is very easy to separate it from subjective experiences.

2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed.

Inducing similar mental states, by similar practices, is not the same things a showing that your are perceiving something external.

These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.

Nonsense. Until you can provide proper tests and falsifiable hypothesis, this claim is baseless.

3. NDE's and OBE's are experienced by many people under certain circumstances. Researchers have enough evidence that these experiences are not just brain generated. Cases of born blind people seeing objects just like normal people, are instances. Corroborative details of activities in the surrounding area are also evidence.

4. Therefore experiences of an after-life and of a soul or consciousness surviving death, are also part of objective reality.

This nonsense has already been dealt with multiple times.

Your total lack of objectivity and desperation to jump to a conclusion you want to be true is letting you down yet again.

[Sriram]

We can conduct independent measurement and recording, however, and quantify phenomena, and have multiple subjective interpretations of the data to minimise the subjectivity. Absolute reality may be known; our limitation is on our ability to prove that, not necessarily to determine it.

No, the false conflation of not absolutely proven but reliably evidenced (i.e. gravity, light) with practically unsupported fringe-science (NDE as evidence of souls, genomorphic theory) and absolute woo on the basis that we don't have absolute proof of any of them is nonsense.

Yes, they do.

No, they don't. The fact that you have to assert these are down to 'quasi-physical' phenomena which we can't detect shows that we don't have any definitive evidence that these experiences are a response to any external factors

Because of the way the brain works it actually wouldn't be, but even if it were that's not what's being claimed.

No. That people have sensory apparatus that continues to operate partially whilst the consciousness is suppressed is not evidence of the supernatural, it's evidence that our eyes don't disappear when we go to sleep.

No, therefore you are reaching desperately to try to grasp at some sort of scientific validity for ancient superstition in the guise of overarching ancestral wisdom being realised. Every piece of solid evidence we have suggests that consciousness emerges from brain activity; there might be something else, it's a logical possibility, but in the absence not just of direct evidence for that 'other', and in the absence of any evidence of activity in the brain that can't be explained by the conventional mechanics, and in the absence of any need for such a mechanism to explain the observed phenomena, the likely explanation with the information available is that 'souls' need to go in the bucket alongside fairies and magic.

O.

Supernatural?  Superstition?

Scientific validity does not necessarily mean only phenomena that are external to us.  Even personal experiences that have corroborative evidence and are experienced by many people, can have scientific validity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Absolute objective reality is unknowable.

It’s more nuanced than that, but yes.

What you say clearly means that all experiences are subjective though it can be a shared subjectivity. Like watching a movie together. Many people may agree on what they see but it is nevertheless an illusion.

You can’t know that it’s an illusion, but in any case that’s not the point. Axiomatically our understanding of reality is constrained by our ability to understand reality. Nonetheless, within that paradigm we codify truth values as “subjective” and “objective” by reference to various rules. The cheat you keep trying though is to jump straight from the former to the latter without bothering with the rules bit in between.

Take one of your favourites – NDEs. Sometimes people who have been close to death report certain phenomena. Fine. There are various possible explanations for those experiences, and currently no clarity about which (if any) of them are correct. You though just ditch all the possible real world options and jump straight to “afterlife”, apparently oblivious to the problem that you’d have a huge task to establish first such a thing even in principle let alone to demonstrate that the most feasible option is that people were on their way to it.               

[Sriram]

I am not trying to establish anything. Nothing is established beyond doubt...not the big bang theory, not the field theory, not string theory....  Any of these could be proved wrong anytime.

People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences.  That is it.

This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.

You can keep repeating the 'brain did it' theory for what all it is worth....but I am not convinced.

[BeRational]

I am not trying to establish anything. Nothing is established beyond doubt...not the big bang theory, not the field theory, not string theory....  Any of these could be proved wrong anytime.

People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences.  That is it.

This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.

You can keep repeating the 'brain did it' theory for what all it is worth....but I am not convinced.

They were never dead!

When they awake their brains try to fill in the gap. If they have heard an near death myth, they will use that.

Just like alien abduction. I can describe alien abduction and give a pretty good description of the aliens. How? because it's well documented.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I am not trying to establish anything. Nothing is established beyond doubt...not the big bang theory, not the field theory, not string theory....  Any of these could be proved wrong anytime.

People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences.  That is it.

Wrong again. “Clinical death” means just the cessation of blood circulation and breathing. It’s treated as a medical emergency that can sometimes be reversed with various resuscitation techniques. “Dead dead” these days is determined by brain death, and no-one has come back from that.   

This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.

Then your opinion is wrong for the reason I just explained.

You can keep repeating the 'brain did it' theory for what all it is worth....but I am not convinced.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

[torridon]

People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences.  That is it.

This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.

'After-life' and reincarnation claims founder because they do not even define exactly what it is that would be reincarnated, except in some sort of vague terms, like 'soul' or 'spirit'.  If you cannot define what a soul or a spirit is, then claims of evidence for or against them are baseless.

[Sriram]

'After-life' and reincarnation claims founder because they do not even define exactly what it is that would be reincarnated, except in some sort of vague terms, like 'soul' or 'spirit'.  If you cannot define what a soul or a spirit is, then claims of evidence for or against them are baseless.

Has anyone defined what dark energy is?! Or String?  Why should you define or know what something is before you acknowledge its existence?  You just know that there is something there that is causing certain effects.

Thankfully many scientists are not so blinkered. Many doctors and psychologists are studying nde's very objectively without brushing them off as brain generated hallucinations. Also, many scientists are studying the possibility of consciousness being independent of the brain.   

Your problem is that most of you associate nde's and consciousness being independent of the brain, with religion and supernatural phenomena. That is a major mental block. The two boxes syndrome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Has anyone defined what dark energy is?! Or String?  Why should you define or know what something is before you acknowledge its existence?  You just know that there is something there that is causing certain effects.

Thankfully many scientists are not so blinkered. Many doctors and psychologists are studying nde's very objectively without brushing them off as brain generated hallucinations. Also, many scientists are studying the possibility of consciousness being independent of the brain.   

Your problem is that most of you associate nde's and consciousness being independent of the brain, with religion and supernatural phenomena. That is a major mental block. The two boxes syndrome.

I just corrected your latest mistake (re "clinical death"). Why have you ignored the correction I gave you?   

[torridon]

Has anyone defined what dark energy is?! Or String?  Why should you define or know what something is before you acknowledge its existence?  You just know that there is something there that is causing certain effects.

Thankfully many scientists are not so blinkered. Many doctors and psychologists are studying nde's very objectively without brushing them off as brain generated hallucinations. Also, many scientists are studying the possibility of consciousness being independent of the brain.   

Your problem is that most of you associate nde's and consciousness being independent of the brain, with religion and supernatural phenomena. That is a major mental block. The two boxes syndrome.

You're not comparing like with like.

Observations that lead to notions of dark energy are not in any doubt. They are not some anecdotal claim, they come out of hard, measurable science.  NDEs on the other hand are only anecdotal claims of personal experience voiced by a small minority of individuals who were, admittedly, under severe ill health and stress, literally so ill they were dying.

Science does not take seriously anecdotal claims of people even in the best of health and perfectly balanced of mind. Even when in the best of health, personal evidence is considered the weakest form of evidence, certainly not the basis upon which to form entire new paradigms for the nature of reality.

[Bramble]

People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences.  That is it.

This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.

It’s disingenuous to refer to the term ‘clinical death’ to suggest people have actually crossed over to the ‘other side’ and returned to confirm your hope that death is not the end. We all know the difference between clinical death, from which people can sometimes be resuscitated, and actual death, from which nobody ever returns. They are quite different and there is no good reason to suppose that near death experiences tell us anything about actual death.

Your problems don’t end there though. Even if you could establish that a ‘soul’ (whatever that might be) transmigrates into a future life you would have to demonstrate that this entity was in fact the referent of the sense of ‘I’ that gives us a feeling of continuing identity during this life. Otherwise, the transmigration of said soul would be no more significant in terms of personal survival than, say, the post mortem recycling of ‘my’ carbon atoms into another life form. You appear simply to assume this convenience.

If a sense of personal identity did survive death then we would all be able to relate to ‘our’ former lives, but we don’t. When Bramble dies that, presumably, will be the end for Bramble. If Bramble ‘has’ a soul and you could prove that this will eventually go on to contribute to some new life - perhaps a cockroach called Pablo - on what grounds exactly should Bramble care two hoots about this? Will Pablo recall Bramble? Will the reincarnated Bramble find himself thinking ‘eating shit sure beats growing in a hedge?’

In an earlier post you claimed that souls and after-lives were important and meaningful to us, but in what sense could this be so if the ‘I’ of Pablo was fundamentally different from the ‘I’ of Bramble? When he is living as Pablo in a Bolivian toilet in what meaningful way will Bramble have survived his own death?

[Sriram]

It’s disingenuous to refer to the term ‘clinical death’ to suggest people have actually crossed over to the ‘other side’ and returned to confirm your hope that death is not the end. We all know the difference between clinical death, from which people can sometimes be resuscitated, and actual death, from which nobody ever returns. They are quite different and there is no good reason to suppose that near death experiences tell us anything about actual death.

Your problems don’t end there though. Even if you could establish that a ‘soul’ (whatever that might be) transmigrates into a future life you would have to demonstrate that this entity was in fact the referent of the sense of ‘I’ that gives us a feeling of continuing identity during this life. Otherwise, the transmigration of said soul would be no more significant in terms of personal survival than, say, the post mortem recycling of ‘my’ carbon atoms into another life form. You appear simply to assume this convenience.

If a sense of personal identity did survive death then we would all be able to relate to ‘our’ former lives, but we don’t. When Bramble dies that, presumably, will be the end for Bramble. If Bramble ‘has’ a soul and you could prove that this will eventually go on to contribute to some new life - perhaps a cockroach called Pablo - on what grounds exactly should Bramble care two hoots about this? Will Pablo recall Bramble? Will the reincarnated Bramble find himself thinking ‘eating shit sure beats growing in a hedge?’

In an earlier post you claimed that souls and after-lives were important and meaningful to us, but in what sense could this be so if the ‘I’ of Pablo was fundamentally different from the ‘I’ of Bramble? When he is living as Pablo in a Bolivian toilet in what meaningful way will Bramble have survived his own death?

Ok....I will not go into what is traditionally believed.

If you take NDE cases, you can see that people remain themselves even after death. They don't forget who they were. In fact most of them remember their dear ones and they sometimes wish to come back only due to their children.  They also see many others waiting to reincarnate.

Our consciousness is believed to have several levels. At one level we identify with the character that we are in this body.  At another level we remain independent of it.  During reincarnation, memories of previous lives are retained at the unconscious level and largely forgotten at the conscious level because they are irrelevant to this life.  However some children do remember their past lives.  Our past life is said to have an subtle unconscious effect on our present life.

Some cases of reincarnation have been documented by Dr.Jim Tucker of the University of Virginia.   

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/

https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

If you take NDE cases, you can see that people remain themselves even after death...

Flat wrong. People "remain themselves" after the temporary cessation of blood circulation and breathing, which is not particularly surprising. People who are actually dead on the other hand don't return to life to tell us about it 

The rest of your post collapses accordingly.   

[Outrider]

Supernatural?  Superstition?

Yes.

Scientific validity does not necessarily mean only phenomena that are external to us.

Nobody has suggested for a moment that it does.

Even personal experiences that have corroborative evidence and are experienced by many people, can have scientific validity.

Yes they can, especially those: sight, gravity, noise, electromagnetism... But, equally, there is a wealth of evidence to the various manners in which our sensory experience and our cognitive biases make our subjective experience at the best questionable. This is why we have developed a rigorous process like scientific enquiry to attempt to minimise the impact of those all too human foibles.

O.