Scientists 'Unlock Mystery' of Astral Projection

[Sunset Dragon]

Or so they say. What do you think?

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/scientists...out-1538196076

[Rawnrr]

Simply because those areas are active during an OBE does not conclude that the obe is a brain generated illusion.
Jumping to conclusions as to what is cause and what is effect can cause some confusion.
The consciousness could be outside the body and those parts of the brain are merely the physical filters from which we become aware of the experience in our physical body. Stimulating those areas of the brain may even be able to shift the awareness to the obe state. But it does not mean the experience is internal.

The real test would be to see if the person experiencing this OBE effect could explore something outside of its body's field of reference and then describe what they saw. For example having some object in another room where the obe can go look, and the physical body have no way of knowing.

So really those scientists have not "solved" anything..they simply found which areas of the brain are active during an obe experience.

[Albalida]

those scientists have not "solved" anything..they simply found which areas of the brain are active during an obe experience.

That's the problem with making neuroscience the final answer. It's interesting, but if my brain starts firing off all these signals when I eat a bowl of cornflakes, that doesn't mean that the flavor is all in my head. Of course we have the advantage of agreeing on the experience of cornflakes outside of my brain activity. That still doesn't mean that, in absence of a repeatable experiment evidencing an OBE, neuroscience is where we stop looking.

Still, that article is interesting, even though the article writer sounds horribly obnoxious.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rawnrr

Simply because those areas are active during an OBE does not conclude that the obe is a brain generated illusion.
Jumping to conclusions as to what is cause and what is effect can cause some confusion.
The consciousness could be outside the body and those parts of the brain are merely the physical filters from which we become aware of the experience in our physical body. Stimulating those areas of the brain may even be able to shift the awareness to the obe state. But it does not mean the experience is internal.

The real test would be to see if the person experiencing this OBE effect could explore something outside of its body's field of reference and then describe what they saw. For example having some object in another room where the obe can go look, and the physical body have no way of knowing.

So really those scientists have not "solved" anything..they simply found which areas of the brain are active during an obe experience.

What you describe is qualitative date, but the study in the article delivers quantitative data. The research itself probably did include qualitative data that wasn't included in the article. The article seemed to deal with only one subject, too... and if so, it isn't a verified finding. If they tested several projectors and found the same brain pattern, then some sort of conclusions could be drawn.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Albalida

That's the problem with making neuroscience the final answer. It's interesting, but if my brain starts firing off all these signals when I eat a bowl of cornflakes, that doesn't mean that the flavor is all in my head. Of course we have the advantage of agreeing on the experience of cornflakes outside of my brain activity. That still doesn't mean that, in absence of a repeatable experiment evidencing an OBE, neuroscience is where we stop looking.

Still, that article is interesting, even though the article writer sounds horribly obnoxious.

OBE is so commonly documented in medicine that it's basically common knowledge that it does occur. Of course, if an experiment isn't repeatable the results aren't conclusive. That flavour is sensed through nervous system mechanisms that activate parts of the brain is probably thoroughly researched and conclusive.

In that we can only measure biophysical phenomena, that's what is measured. There are numerous accounts of astral projection and other OBE experiences, but they are subjectively described. This attempt was to show the brain activity occuring in just one subject, so it's interesting, and it might warrant a larger study, possibly, but because only subject was tested, it's possible that it was an anomaly.

Does it matter anyway? Science will never explain our deeper experiences, if nothing else because it can't get to the raw data and there are no words to describe them in a meaningful way. Science collects its data when a number of observers can watch the same meter, it falters when an individual watches their own meter.

Explaining the mechanisms of the brain is one thing. Explaining why an individual use of these mechanisms leads to a certain result is about as useful as trying to work out the vicissitudes of a business by understanding how a computers works.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Does it matter anyway? Science will never explain our deeper experiences, if nothing else because it can't get to the raw data and there are no words to describe them in a meaningful way. Science collects its data when a number of observers can watch the same meter, it falters when an individual watches their own meter.

Explaining the mechanisms of the brain is one thing. Explaining why an individual use of these mechanisms leads to a certain result is about as useful as trying to work out the vicissitudes of a business by understanding how a computers works.

The data is described as qualitative and quantitive. The quantitatve data is the measurable phenomena such as the brain scan results, the qualatitive data is an account of the subjective experience that the subject had. The research collects both of these kinds of data, hence the brain scan is shown and there is a description of the subject's experience, too. Thus it isn't just watching a meter. It includes reading the instruments and it includes the subject's description of experience. Both type of data were included in the article.

Originally Posted by Gem

The data is described as qualitative and quantitive. The quantitatve data is the measurable phenomena such as the brain scan results, the qualatitive data is an account of the subjective experience that the subject had. The research collects both of these kinds of data, hence the brain scan is shown and there is a description of the subject's experience, too. Thus it isn't just watching a meter. It includes reading the instruments and it includes the subject's description of experience. Both type of data were included in the article.

Okay but the point still hangs on the word "unlock". Qualitative data of this type can be so unreliable. How does a subject relate their experience in words? It's anecdotal and limited to the extreme. For example, under conditions of altered consciousness, time perception can be very different, difficult for the participant even to judge. It was exactly this issue that dogged research into the effects of hallucinogenic drugs. The chemistry was easy. The world that opened up, mystical experiences if you like, were beyond words... You'd hear someone claim "You don't know what the word 'beautiful' means until you've been there," sort of thing. They couldn't describe adequately what happened. With the best will in the world, there simply isn't an experiential vocabulary.

The ultimate question is, will this 'discovery' help a traveller of the astral maps?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Okay but the point still hangs on the word "unlock".

I don't know where the media gets these catch phrases from. It's just media hype.

Qualitative data of this type can be so unreliable. How does a subject relate their experience in words? It's anecdotal and limited to the extreme. For example, under conditions of altered consciousness, time perception can be very different, difficult for the participant even to judge. It was exactly this issue that dogged research into the effects of hallucinogenic drugs. The chemistry was easy. The world that opened up, mystical experiences if you like, were beyond words... You'd hear someone claim "You don't know what the word 'beautiful' means until you've been there," sort of thing. They couldn't describe adequately what happened. With the best will in the world, there simply isn't an experiential vocabulary.

The ultimate question is, will this 'discovery' help a traveller of the astral maps?

Al qualitative data is subjective, and described as an experience using words. This subject described a few different experiences in the paper itself, and the article mentioned the one of those. In the methodology it explaind how the subject communicated with the researchers to let them know when the projection began and when it ended, so the time issue was solved by that.

Qualitative data is subjective, so the subject can only do their best to describe the experience. It doesn't actually measure anything, though.

Yes, well, you've fallen into that trap - the exterior timing may differ vastly from the subject's perceived timing. It's the way it can go. You can drop off to sleep, dream that you've been away for ages and wake up to find you were asleep for 5 seconds.

It's ok as a piece of research but it tries to make the subjective "scientific" by aligning it with the quantitative. It's discovered a possible neural seat of astral projection, which is, well, fairly obvious really. I'm being the "devil's" advocate here, not wishing to soften science and particularly not turn neurology into a soft science, so I'm wary of experiments/research where the act of research itself can affect the outcome.