triplechoice:

It is possible to 'see' thought forms which forms mind. Some persons are gifted with the ability to view, not with the naked eyes, what you're thinking and able to predict your next move.

But there's a raging controversy in certain quarters that neuroscientists should not proceed further for ethical reasons as it would mean that in the future unscrupulous individuals in possession of such scanners can view in pictures what exactly you're dreaming or thinking about and predict your next move

Not a good thing really.

Why "Not a good thing really" if "some persons are gifted with the ability"?

triplechoice:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience

I specifically went searching for the following in the article you posted:

Because brains differ so much, the scientists need a good idea of what a person's brain activity looks like when they are thinking something to be able to spot it in a scan, but researchers are already devising ways of deducing what patterns are associated with different thoughts.

Basically, they must know what's on my mind in order to be able to read my mind.

Scammers must also be provided with one's personal information before they can 'read' one's mind, even with a scanner.

budaatum:

You were doing so well until the above. There is no way to check if memories contained in mind is retained at death.

I think the correct thing you should have said is that there's no way that you know of to check
You can't speak for everyone as you don't know what others know that you don't know.

Sigh! Or should I say, pity such people do not write history books so their facts could be checked.

Some who were able to recall a previous life have had their stories verified . A little search on the net should bring you in contact with those or you conduct your own research by finding out if anyone around you can recall their previous life. You may get a confirmation if you succeed with it

budaatum:


It is simple to understand but it is definitely not true that "Outside the physical body it can operate unhindered".

How would you know? Have you had a direct experience of your consciousness operating outside your body ?

Take your car engine. It does not in any way "act as the brain" and it can not walk freely. You car moves under the specific direction of the brain of the driver otherwise it remains in park, non-operated and hindered by its lack of a brain.

I think the point made using the car analogy is lost on you. I am not just referring to the car alone but together with the driver.

Every environment has its limitations
While driving a car one is limited by the unique environment of the car. You can't be driving your car and at the same time walking inside of it to get to your destination. That's impossible. Outside the car ,one is free to walk to their destination .This my point .

budaatum:

Why "Not a good thing really" if "some persons are gifted with the ability"?.

Not everyone will abuse it
It is for their protection and those around them. Those who have the gift and abuse it ,with time will loose it.

I specifically went searching for the following in the article you posted:


Basically, they must know what's on my mind in order to be able to read my mind.

Scammers must also be provided with one's personal information before they can 'read' one's mind, even with a scanner.

If you had taken the time to read and understand why I referenced the article you would have not gone searching for that alone.

The main reason for that link is let us know the possibility ,in the future ,of directly knowing through more sophisticated brain scanner what is in ones mind . Science is progressive. Scientist continue to build on what has already been invented.

The technology we all enjoy today is something our primitive forbears would never had imagined possible.
Some years back video calls was only seen in science fiction movies, but today they are reality in our lives.

Everything scientists have invented was first conceived has a idea through imagination before it was brought to fruition.
You obviously don't think this way from some of your comments. You want to see it first before you accept it is possible. That kind of thinking won't lead to any kind of progress in the sciences or elsewhere

triplechoice:
How would you know? Have you had a direct experience of your consciousness operating outside your body ?

How would you know? Have you had a direct experience of your consciousness operating outside your body?

triplechoice:
I think the point made using the car analogy is lost on you. I am not just referring to the car alone but together with the driver.

The driver, who is a human being with a brain, can not be put together with the car such that the human brain becomes the car's brain.

triplechoice:

Everything scientists have invented was first conceived has a idea through imagination before it was brought to fruition.
You obviously don't think this way from some of your comments. You want to see it first before you accept it is possible. That kind of thinking won't lead to any kind of progress in the sciences or elsewhere

No I do not want to see it first, triple, I just do not accept that everything conceived in a mind is currently possible. And the article you posted shows how unscientific some scientist can be.

Even I can read your mind if I have a good idea of what your brain activity looks like when you are thinking something, and I do not need a scan to spot it. I just give you a questionnaire asking what you are thinking and then present it to you as your mind read. Its what scammers do.

triplechoice:
Some who were able to recall a previous life have had their stories verified.

This is absolute rubbish, triple, or you would post links to their stories that were verified.

budaatum:


How would you know? Have you had a direct experience of your consciousness operating outside your body?

You should answer the question first before throwing it back at me.

You made a claim about something without providing any reason to back it up. So I needed to ask you if you had had any experience of your consciousness operating outside your body to be sure of what you're saying.

nstead of giving and simple yes or no, you just want to complicate things by throwing it back at me. I need an answer from you first before I can answer yours.

budaatum:


This is absolute rubbish, triple, or you would post links to their stories that were verified.

I have on this same thread shared a link of a scientist involved in such research, and he is not the only one. The evidence they have gathered has been impressive, and it is becoming overwhelming for other scientist not to noticed. It's just a matter of time before they start looking into it.

Some of the things proven in the sciences exist first as rumors .You should always consider this before you dismiss anything as rubbish

In this age of the Internet you can get access to information that may be of help in your quest for the truth. I can't spoonfed your.

Besides you can do your own research. I already mentioned that'.You have boasted on this thread that you can employ the scientific method, so use that knowledge to know what is going on around you amongst the people you live it

budaatum:


No I do not want to see it first, triple, I just do not accept that everything conceived in a mind is currently possible. And the article you posted shows how unscientific some scientist can be.

Even I can read your mind if I have a good idea of what your brain activity looks like when you are thinking something, and I do not need a scan to spot it. I just give you a questionnaire asking what you are thinking and then present it to you as your mind read. Its what scammers do.

I used to the word, possibility, You don't know what that means?

Who is to say what is possible or not possible on the future? You?

triplechoice:


Besides you can do your own research. I already mentioned that'.You have boasted on this thread that you can employ the scientific method, so use that knowledge to know what is going on around you amongst the people you live it

My own research shows dead is dead. I asked for your research because you might be better at researching than I am and found what I haven't. But it seems you are reluctant to present your research to me your peer for review for some reason.

triplechoice:

I used to the word, possibility, You don't know what that means?

Who is to say what is possible or not possible on the future? You?

Pigs will fly someday because it's a possibility.

budaatum:

The driver, who is a human being with a brain, can not be put together with the car such that the human brain becomes the car's brain.

It appears it is difficult for you to consider things from the position of another

I have argued before now that consciousness has not emerged from matter and I still stick with that
Your response up there doesn't reflect correctly anything I have said


The analogy of the car,though not perfect, is simple to understand .The car and its engine is not what has emerged the driver inside it

So what are you talking about?

And you also think that any normal person would argue that a human brain can become the brain of a car.

A human being and a car are not the same entity. A human being can still function without car, but a car requires a human being to make it move even if driverless

triplechoice:


You should answer the question first before throwing it back at me.

You made a claim about something without providing any reason to back it up. So I needed to ask you if you had had any experience of your consciousness operating outside your body to be sure of what you're saying.

Instead of giving and simple yes or no, you just want to complicate things by throwing it back at me. I need an answer from you first before I can answer yours.

Actually, you made a claim without backing it up with anything. You never even claimed your consciousness operated outside your own body before making said claim.

No triple. My consciousness, as in my ability to be conscious, has not ever operated outside my body, not even when I was experiencing near death.

My consciousness is connected to the functions of my body so it can not operate outside my body just as the engine of a car can not get you anywhere if it is detached from the body of wheels and petrol tank and steering wheel and driver with a brain to direct it.

budaatum:


Pigs will fly someday because it's a possibility.

Not everything scientist imagined in the past would happen in the future has happened.. But some have become a reality.

A humanbeing that lacks the capacity to give free rien to his imaginative faculty would struggle to succeed anywhere.

budaatum:


Actually, you made a claim without backing it up with anything. You never even claimed your consciousness operated outside your own body before making said claim.

No triple. My consciousness, as in my ability to be conscious, has not ever operated outside my body, not even when I was experiencing near death.

My consciousness is connected to the functions of my body so it can not operate outside my body just as the engine of a car can not get you anywhere if it is detached from the body of wheels and petrol tank and steering wheel and driver with a brain to direct it.

The question you should asl yourrself is ,what do you know about how your consciousness operates?

Do you know everything?
You can be aware of something, but not fully conscious of it.
So tell me how are you sure you're fully conscious of your consciousness?

triplechoice:

It appears it is difficult for you to consider things from the position of another

I have argued before now that consciousness has not emerged from matter and I still stick with that
Your response up there doesn't reflect correctly anything I have said.

If only you would be conscious and stop projecting. Are you at all considering things from another's position on this thread? All I see is you asserting your position with little evidence and being incapable of defending said positions and not considering positions that oppose your position.

I don't know what "consciousness has not emerged from matter" means, to be honest with you, but consciousness has been found to be a function of living organisms, and living organisms are matter, so there is a connection between consciousness and specific types of matter, which one tends to not find in stones or dead people and dead animals, or you'd eat beef and hear it cry in consciousness of its pain, or a dead person might object to the coffin you've put them in.

Consciousness is not some thing that floats around outside the being that is being conscious, and live organisms are a requirement for consciousness.

triplechoice:


The question you should asl yourrself is ,what do you know about how your consciousness operates?

Do you know everything?
You can be aware of something, but not fully conscious of it.
So tell me how are you sure you're fully conscious of your consciousness?

Neither of us know everything triple, and how consciousness operates, or even what it means to be conscious, is one thing no one can possibly know everything about. But some things are fundamentally clear. Dead things are not conscious.

As for my own consciousness, it develops and grows daily, as I find things around and inside me that I have hitherto been unconsciousness of. But if I am aware of something, I, personally am conscious of that thing, though as you say, to what extent, is debatable.

P.s. Nairaland is a wonderful tool for growing ones consciousness, especially of oneself. One can go back and read one's past posts and see how conscious one was and is now.

triplechoice:


Not everything scientist imagined in the past would happen in the future has happened.. But some have become a reality.

A humanbeing that lacks the capacity to give free rien to his imaginative faculty would struggle to succeed anywhere.

This is not a reason for then assuming that everything scientists imagine happening in the future will become a reality, hence your "some".

And the other extreme is that a humanbeing who lives by the free reign of their imaginative faculty better be a creative artist or they might end up eating imaginary food. Neither extreme is good for successful living, I would think.

triplechoice:

So tell me how are you sure you're fully conscious of your consciousness?

This is a very silly question. However much one is conscious one can not be fully conscious of one's consciousness.

I actually have an experiment for this. I ask when was the first time you recognised your own consciousness, and I let you go off thinking about it for months and years since it's not a question one can answer without consciously thinking about it for a while.

budaatum:


Neither of us know everything triple, and how consciousness operates, or even what it means to be conscious, is one thing no one can possibly know everything about. But some things are fundamentally clear. Dead things are not conscious.

As for my own consciousness, it develops and grows daily, as I find things around and inside me that I have hitherto been unconsciousness of. But if I am aware of something, I, personally am conscious of that thing, though as you say, to what extent, is debatable.

P.s. Nairaland is a wonderful tool for growing ones consciousness, especially of oneself. One can go back and read one's past posts and see how conscious one was and is now.

The question I asked was simple, How conscious are you of your own consciousness

Everyone is not operating at the same level of awareness and one's level of awareness is determined both by the knowledge one has acquired and the experience had.

So what do we all know and what have we all experienced together each time you begin a statement with the word, we .......?

Is it not that you're speaking from what you know and have experienced, and from those of others whose knowledge and experienced you subscribed to, and using it to interpret what others know that you don't know?

If you think you know more than me, I dont claim to know it all, please share what you know .I am open to learn from anyone.

So far on this thread you're amongst those who have not shared their own thoughts concerning the OP; what is consciousness and where has it emerged from?. Let's hear your own thoughts too. State the facts about the human consciousness as you know and understand it.



I am not forcing anything one anyone, but sharing knowledge that I have. If you can't agree. with it for any reason, then you are free to stick with what you know as long as it's working for you and makes you understand yourself better.

budaatum:


This is not a reason for then assuming that everything scientists imagine happening in the future will become a reality, hence your "some".

And the other extreme is that a humanbeing who lives by the free reign of their imaginative faculty better be a creative artist or they might end up eating imaginary food. Neither extreme is good for successful living, I would think.

That's where common sense is needed. Top scientists are not devoid of common sense. They know how to edit whatever thoughts come into their heads and not just accept everything.

triplechoice:


The question I asked was simple, How conscious are you of your own consciousness

Everyone is not operating at the same level of awareness and one's level of awareness is determined both by the knowledge one has acquired and the experience had.

So what do we all know and what have we all experienced together each time you begin a statement with the word, we .......?

Is it not that you're speaking from what you know and have experienced, and from those of others whose knowledge and experienced you subscribed to, and using it to interpret what others know that you don't know?

If you think you know more than me, I dont claim to know it all, please share what you know .I am open to learn from anyone.


I am not forcing anything one anyone, but sharing knowledge that I have. If you can't agree. with it for any reason, then you are free to stick with what you know as long as it's working for you and makes you understand yourself better.

There is no way to measure how conscious I am of my own consciousness that I am aware of, triple, and even you would find it difficult to measure it for me or for yourself.

And knowing more than each other is not my concern, triple, and I am not talking "we" here since I am fully aware that consciousness is an individual thing despite there being a collective unconsciousness and consciousness.

If you have knowledge or and experience of consciousness, present it. But expect your peers here to scrutinise what you present, and ask for further evidence, because you must be aware that you are not conversing with people who would just believe you.

triplechoice:
So far on this thread you're amongst those who have not shared their own thoughts concerning the OP; what is consciousness and where has it emerged from?. Let's hear your own thoughts too. State the facts about the human consciousness as you know and understand it.

No, triple. I have not shared my thoughts, and precisely because they are mere thoughts that have not even progressed to beliefs not to talk of become knowledge, as in that which is actually known. I am conscious that my beliefs are not actual knowledge but unverified beliefs, which I describe as the crap people create in their heads and have no evidence of, like the dead being conscious.

Consciousness is the ability to be aware. As for where it emerged from, you might as well ask where life or the universe emerged from, answers to which would be mere speculation, and insisting on them makes them beliefs and not knowledge.

triplechoice:


That's where common sense is needed. Top scientists are not devoid of common sense. They know how to edit whatever thoughts come into their heads and not just accept everything.

Yuk, to common sense. What we are discussing here requires sense that is far from common, but can you see how I am not just accepting everything you are trying to put in my head?

I must be a top scientist!

budaatum:


Yuk, to common sense. What we are discussing here requires sense that is far from common, but can you see how I am not just accepting everything you are trying to put in my head?

I must be a top scientist!

It's your choice whatever you choose to accept. so don't accuse me of trying to put anything into your head. I don't expect everyone to accept whatever I present. Those who see something in anything I present may want to investigate it further ,but if you don't why wasting your time and energy resisting my comments?

The worst part is that you don't even take your time to read anything as most of your replies have shown. It is not only me you have done this to which I have noticed. A beg,oga Buda forget this matter until you're interested in a sincere conversation.



Before I forget, congratulations if you see yourself as a top scientist,but I think its all in your head because you have not demonstrated anything tangible for anyone to consider you as one.

Where are the scientific articles written and research you have conducted about anything?

When you're really interested in what I know and how I have come to know it I will know and be more willing to engage you. For now, I tell you, I don tire for your mata.

Happy Sunday.

triplechoice:


When you're really interested in what I know and how I have come to know it I will know and be more willing to engage you. For now, I tell you, I don tire for your mata.

Triple, first, I am not a top scientist, except if one goes by your definition of what a top scientist must do or be. I did however study science to university level since it is required for a degree in engineering, and a thing one learns from it is one will be asked for evidence for any claim one makes and one must ask for evidence for claims others make.

Second. If I was not interested in what you write (as opposed to what you claim you know), I would not waste my time engaging with you. Pity is, like most, you assume what you 'believe' is actual verified knowledge, despite the fact that you have not bothered to verify and have no evidence to make it knowledge but expect to be believed.

And third, you must be tired indeed, and must have been tired not to investigate the impossible phenomenas you present here as if they are facts you have evidence for, like reincarnation for instance, an age old myth that has been debunked numerous times.

Sorry, but I do not accept what you can not provide evidence for, which is indeed my choice. And if you present it on this public forum I reserve the right to wade in to show how little thought you've actually put into your claim.

Happy Sunday to you too. And may you be strengthened.

KnownUnknown:
https://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html

Nelson said conclusions from the research should be "cautiously drawn" until the findings pass the peer-review process, but they are nonetheless well-aligned with prior research on NDEs. "Lucid dreaming can be conditioned and bears an uncanny similarity to near-death," Nelson told Life's Little Mysteries. "Indeed, Raduga's study demonstrates the similarity of near-death and lucid dreaming. Evidence from many sources converges to support that lucid dreaming and near-death use similar brain mechanisms but in different circumstances."

I have the time to now respond to the report in the link you shared, but before doing so ,I would like to react to the above conclusion you lifted from it.

At first glance, it appears to have something in
it to suggest that the controversy around NDEs or OBEs has been settled, but after going through the full report, I didn't find anything that should warrant the conclusion made, but claims arrived at through mere speculation.



Lucid dreams and NDEs are subjective experiences, but different kind of subjective experiences. Artificial sweetener and honey can't be compared to be the same thing. The reaction we get from either substances in our taste buds and how our brains react to the different sweet experiences can't be exactly the same..

Lucid dreams can be conditioned, but NDEs happen spontaneously and in circumtances that are unique, so we can't say they use the same brain mechanism and not a different one. The researchers and the study participants have never had NDEs before, so how were they able to make the comparison to be sure it is the same. experience. Did they measure the light in the heads of the subjects used in the experiment to be sure it is of the same intensity? How did they judge that how the subject felt is exactly the same as those who have experienced it directly. Most people who experience NDEs usually say the experience is had to describe, but the conditioned subjects in the experiment find it very easy to describe their experience suggesting it can't be the same as the one that occur naturally.

The claim that lucid dreams and NDEs uses the same brain mechanism s misleading information. It is for the uninformed to swallow. There's no scientific evidence anywhere other than the assumption that they both uses the same brain mechanism. Those who experience NDEs are mostly those whose brains are nonfunctional. So how can a brain in such a condition still function to produce the vivid imageries associated with NDEs?

These question is what scientist who are
currently engaged in a massive study into the phenomena are trying to figure out, yet the study which was done around 2012 that is not published in any peer review journal, despite high hopes ,it would,, is stating something not scientifically correct or not proven yet.

Now ,let's get into the study proper to see if it can pass the test

As at the time the study was conducted, 2012, scientist investigating NDEs didn't have much data to work with. They rely only on the unverified stories of people who claim to have had the experience to carried out their investigation.. Also ,not much was known, unlike now, about dreams , especially lucid dreams.

So hampered by the above limitations the study group, proceeded to conduct an experiment to know the cause of the phenomena. The procees was flawed from the start by the assumption that NDEs is created by the brain and must be hallucination.

So with this wrong assumption influencing the whole process, they gathered 20 subjects, conditioned them to experience in their dreams the popular stories about NDEs: floating towards a brightlight, seeing dead relatives and experiencing a feeling of great love and so on, not being aware that not everyone has the same NDEs experiences .

After the experiment ,with the observation made in the brains of their conditioned subjects, they then used the results to speculate that the same brain mechanism must be responsible in the brains of those who claim to have had direct NDEs.

This honestly is horribly wrong. Truths in the sciences are arrived at through a direct observation or demonstration of natural phenomena. You don't speculate.

NDEs, in the clinically dead, as I already mentioned occurs mostly when the brains is in a nonfunctional state or reduced activity, so how were they able to know ,without direct observation, the exact brain mechanism involved in those having the experience spontaneously?. They just use the results from their experiment to speculate that's all.

Another. error in the study is the use of healthy people who have never had the experience in a false setting that is different from the usual natural settings; hospital wards, emergency wards, and those under the care of first responders., from where people have reported experiencing it. NDEs is not a regular occurrence outside its natural settings In fact it hardly happens.. OBEs can happen anywhere, but not NDEs.

I guess the researchers just like most people don't know the difference between the two terms, OBEs are NDEs and what they signify. They're used interchangeably by most people to mean the same thing, but they don't mean the same. OBEs is the general term which covers all kinds of experience when consciousness is said to operate outside the body, while NDEs is a type of OBEs that mostly happen to people having a traumatic experience; the clinically dead or those facing death such as drowning etc.

So the use of healthy subjects who never had the experience in investigating NDEs can be likened to using non athletes in a non sporting environment to determine the cardiorespiratory level of long distance runners. Very wrong move.

Modern research into the phenomena no longer make use of this method of simulating NDEs in people outside its natural settings in order to make sense of it .Scientist, unlike in the past , now realize that it is not enough to grasp all of the complexities involved in the phenomena.

So , what they do now is to go to where it is happening live; emergency wards, armed with highly sophisticated modern brain scanners and other devices to capture what goes on in the brains of people having the experience. They also use the opportunity to interview anyone willing to share their experience, to get a first hand report. This has been very helpful and they now know much more than before.

NDEs based on current findings is now called EVA , External visual awareness. They said the change of name is because the term NDEs or OBEs is not scientific enough to describe all they have found out about the phenomana. OBEs or NDEs limit the experience to just one kind of experience It also create the impression in people's mind of another body ,not seen, operating outside the body. Scientist says they have not seen any evidence of a body floating outside, but only evidence that consciousness can function outside the body. This to me is correct. There's no real tangible body floating outside.

What people perceive as a body floating out is an illusion created by how the mind perceive the expansion of consciousness that is occurring during that period. . In fact the so called hallucination experienced during this period is not we think it is . It is triggered by inner an experiences going on; consciousness expanding outside the body. It is just like wet dreams which corresponds to physiological process going on in the body that leads to real ejaculation. The dream is illusion, but what happens within our body . is real.



Again, another major error, is the study group focusing only on NDEs that appears hallucinatory while avoiding the ones that come with veridical vision; where the person experiencing NDEs is able to perceive directly from outside their bodies, what doctors and nurses are doing to revive it, something that should not happen given what is known in the sciences about how the human brain work; consciousness is not suppose to operate outside the body it is believed.

This particular kind of NDEs with veridical vision, is the major reason, scientists a now fully interested in investigating the phenomena. The study group in the report never succeeded in replicating this kind of NDEs . They avoided it ,I believe, because they realize it would put paid to what they want to establish that NDEs are supernatural claims and hallucination, which is not untrue, but not completely true.

The misconception of thinking that NDEs are supernatural claims is because of what religious people say about it. They don't really understand it and are usually excited to use it to validate their religious beliefs of heaven and hell as being real .

The popular kind of NDEs of seeing a bright night in a tunnel or the dead, is not wholly hallucinatory as people think. What has happened is that once consciousness expands beyond the body, it isno longer under the grip of the brain, it has the freedom to experience as real any memories contained within it, that is ,if it thinks of anything, it sees it immediately just like we experience in dreams. It doesn't mean it is dreaming during this period as it is still possible to see things that are "there". Those who don't have such expectations of seeing heaven or hell won't experience it, but usually have a direct perception of things from outside their body. However, not everyone remembers their experiences due to physiological or biological reason according to what scientist are finding out.

Finally,the report also contain a misleading information that OBEs or NDEs is caused by brain damage or psychosis. But this is not true
Healthy people have experienced the phenomena.The errors I have highlighted from the report is also found in most other study done before now to investigate the phenomena.. They're filled with conjectures and written in mostly tentative language, "it is likely that" it may be possible" etc. Meaning they're not sure of anything. But it is swallowed becuse a top scientist has written it ,so he should know better.

So ,you can see that you brought a very weak study that is shoddily done as prove that the phenomena is explained.It is actually garbage in and garbage out to confirm their assumption. Very disappointing I must say.

Here below is a snippet of how things are been done correctly. It involves scientist from different parts of the world working together to unravel NDEs. Thousands of hospitals, doctors and nurses are also involved in the investigation. It started in2014. The first phase ended with little success. The second phrase has also ended with the report soon to released.

Teasers from the report already released suggest surprises .

Below is brief description of current approach used in investigating NDEs. Nothing like creating fake evidence, simulation, to deceive the public

Below is an uncommon OBEs experience. I can confirm this because I was having almost the same kind of OBEs spontaneously while growing even till adulthood. Singing in the choir, and the next thing ,I am watching my body singing. Walking home, and the next I am observing my body from up below. Those experiences were the things that pushed me to investigate the phenomena everywhere; esoteric groups, sciences reading everything I could lay my hands..

I have leant a lot ,and the most important I learnt is that no group has the complete answer, science or others, but by combining all that I learnt from everywhere I have to a certain extent being able to put the different piece of the puzzle together to create a near perfect picture behind the reasons I had those experiences in the past.

triplechoice:
Below is an uncommon OBEs experience. I can confirm this because I was having almost the same kind of OBEs spontaneously while growing even till adulthood. Singing in the choir, and the next thing ,I am watching my body singing. Walking home, and the next I am observing my body from up below. Those experiences were the things that pushed me to investigate the phenomena everywhere; esoteric groups, sciences reading everything I could lay my hands..

I have leant a lot ,and the most important I learnt is that no group has the complete answer, science or others, but by combining all that I learnt from everywhere I have to a certain extent being able to put the different piece of the puzzle together to create a near perfect picture behind the reasons I had those experiences in the past.

Do you still have these spontaneous experiences?

Are these spontaneous experiences limited to your body’s location?

Can your “OBE body” view things that are not in your body’s vicinity?

Can your “OBE Body” travel? If yes, how far?

triplechoice:

Below is brief description of current approach used in investigating NDEs. Nothing like creating fake evidence, simulation, to deceive the public

The only people deceiving the public are those selling stories about NDE and OBE experience. The “current approach” looks like nonsense or maybe your screenshot didn’t provide enough information. What types of scientists are doing these studies?

“ Emergency Department or Research
staff will be alerted to cardiac arrest and
will attend with portable brain oxygen
monitoring devices and a tablet which
will display visual images upwards
above the patient as resuscitation is
taking place.”

Seriously?

After that fanciful activity, the whole thing still hinges on whatever fantasy the subject wants, which will be wholly dependent on what they already know or believe.

“Survivors will then be followed up and with their
consent will have in-depth, audio
recorded interviews.”