A Little Weird » Blog Archive » Hacking Works Cited

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

March 9th, 2008 by Sean Hacking Works Cited

Recently I got into an argument about whether out of body experiences were real or not. Whenever I get into such an argument, I always force myself to be as scientific and logical as possible. This usually pisses skeptics off, because they are used to being the scientific guy, and the other person being the religious nut job.

I insisted that scientific evidence - if studied without bias - actually supports the theory that OBEs are real. The skeptic was quick to jump on that claim. He stated that OBEs (and their close cousin, near death experiences) were nothing more than a brain going crazy from the chemistry. He presented me with recent scientific studies and articles as proof:

1. Scientists Induce OBEs in the Lab - A scientist used virtual reality goggles to trick the brain into thinking it was out of body.

2. Extreme Gravity Triggers OBEs/NDEs - A report stating that extreme G-Forces will induce an OBE because of the lack of blood flowing to the brain.

3. People have NDEs While Brain Dead

Seems a little daunting at first - I mean, how could I call myself a scientific guy, when there is scientific evidence that OBEs/NDEs aren’t real?

It turns out it was pretty easy:

1. Did the scientists really induce an OBE? No. The virtual reality goggles gave a creepy illusion of being out of body, but the OBE state of mind wasn’t actually induced. It’s an optical illusion. Just because you can fake it, doesn’t mean that the original isn’t real. I can create a fake video of me walking - that doesn’t mean I can’t walk.

2. All the report states is that lack of blood flowing to the brain can induce a near death experience. Well, that doesn’t really say either way whether the experience is real or not. It just says that when you do things that might kill you, you might have a near death experience. Which is actually pretty obvious :-P. I can induce a gun shot wound by shooting someone in the leg. Does that mean gun shot wounds aren’t real? Of course not.

3. The third piece of evidence was the best. How many of you read the page? Probably not that many. It turns out that article is in favor of NDEs being real. The person I was arguing against only read the title. I read the article.

I want to point out two things: 1. I am right about the evidence supporting OBEs being real. I may make a separate post with a list of evidence in the future. But more importantly, 2. skeptics are full of shit.

Skeptics hide behind citing work, and long articles, and scientific studies - but they can only get away with it because it’s very rare for them to actually be challenged. It’s a game of intimidation - not one of pursuing truth. The strategy is simple: argue the skeptical position, and when someone challenges you, just google the topic and paste a bunch of links to scientific documents. No real effort required, and you look smart in the process, and feel good about bitch slapping some “moron”.

And for the most part, science has figured a lot of stuff out, so this strategy actually works really well. For example, if you were to get in an argument about evolution vs. creationism, you could just google it, and find enough links on the internet that supports evolution, and throw them in the religious guys face. You win.

But the reality of the situation is that science hasn’t figured everything out. And when it comes to the subject of parapsychology, they are light years behind.

The down side to this is that you have to know your stuff if you want to challenge a skeptic. The skeptic won’t put in the effort, so if you want to sound credible, you have to put in the effort for both of you. It is an uphill battle, and I’ve yet to see a skeptic change their mind, but it’s an important battle because it teaches us that science is far from perfect, and suffers from the same fundamentalism as any other system of beliefs.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm and is filed under Belief Systems, Science, Dream Phenomenon. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

### 9 Responses to “Hacking Works Cited”

1. Antisankari Says:
   March 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

   Then again…

   The ONLY reason we are still arguing for our cause is that not a single one of us has enough skills to make a waterproof demonstration. In your case the proof would include being able to do OBE at will.

   Why do waste time and energy in pointless debates when we could be using that time for proactive stuff. Meditation, physical exercise, QiGong, anything that might further our knowledge in the field of our interest.

   If we lose a debate, we look dumb.
   If the debate cannot be resolved, we have wasted our time.
   If we happen to win, Nothing is changed.

   Its all about the ego…

   // I really fear this post comes off the wrong way, but with no edit button it is what it is. =D

2. fruo Says:
   March 9th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

   I read the NDE article about the surgery, and that makes me wonder, if the brain doesn’t function, that means the consciousness is not dependent on the brain. So what is it
   ?

3. Mad Hatter Says:
   March 9th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

   I really dislike that “Scientist Induce OBE’s in lab” article. Ever since that study came out, I’ve seen it appearing everywhere. The “scientists” who perform these experiments more often then not don’t do their background research, as is rather blatant in this case. They have no idea what an OBE is if they’re calling those results out of body experiences.

   Science also suffers from something I’ll call conceptual momentum. People are so entrenched in their current ideology that they actively resist attempts to explore what has been deemed “impossible.” There’s also a lot of ego being thrown about. If you read the china study, there are great examples of how stubbornly the leading doctors are towards anybody (even well established doctors and nutritionists!) who try and go against the grain. They are made fun of, cut off, and have a hard time finding any funding in pursuing their ideas simply because they aren’t popular.

   I bet that it isn’t too much of a stretch to say that this sort of thing occurs in other branches of scientific research and testing too. As Sean has pointed out, there are far too many well documented and well performed studies and tests out there to simply dismiss ESP, PSI, OBE’s, or anything else. There’s not enough to prove them beyond a doubt, but there is more then enough to cast a good doubt that what we currently believe is wrong, and they most certainly deserve further research and testing, instead of the jeering and laughing at they currently receive.

   -Hatter

4. Hey_you Says:
   March 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

   I’ve had a similar discussion and I argued the exact same way peebrain did ie how does that invalidate OBEs? I would also like to point out that science hasn’t explained how consciousness arises from the brain and I personally doubt they ever will but “skeptics” are keen to take that as given.
   The most annoying tactic when the discussion turns to psi is the publicity stunt known as James Randi’s million dollar contest. To win the challenge you have to score so high above chance its unreasonable and unscientific.

   Anyway, lesson learned: don’t argue with self-proclaimed “skeptics”.

5. redefine Says:
   March 11th, 2008 at 5:52 am

   i think we’ve all had similar discussions.

   i’ve learned to just make my point, and then shut up, unless they say something interesting.
   but i mean, its not like its uncommon.

6. AndPious Says:
   March 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

   I agree with Hatter on all his points.

   Another thing to add is that not only doctors, but Scientists (who should be exploring everything and open to new ideas, right?) tend to do the same thing. It seems every time in past history (and now) that a new idea “against the grain” as he put it, is introduced, it gets pounded, chopped, and blasted into a million tiny pieces by the establishment, regardless of how valid it may be. The only modern example I can think of is a recent study by some German scientists (I think they were German) that seems to conclude that the speed of light is indeed not consistent. This goes against what we learned in elementary school, and these guys get crushed by the other mainstream scientists, but I suppose only time will tell what happens with the “discovery”.

7. Antisankari Says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 7:46 am

   Umm.. The speed of light is indeed not consisten. It varies by the material it goes through =P.

   I suppose they told the wolrd that the 299 792 458 meters / second in a vacuum is not always the upper limit?

8. ClearVision Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

   It’s impossible to fight the sceptics if we are without a piece of evidence that is “scientific”. Their idea of evidence is apparently different than that which we think of. “Evidence” in scientific terms means long term studies that come to a conclusive, undisputed 100% accepted result that psionics exists. Such studies just simply don’t exist.

   Again, as countlessly stated: This is called parascience for a reason. If evidence were clearly available in a scientifically acceptable form, it would be classified as “science” and the sceptics would have nothing to argue against.

   Quite honestly, I believe this is unjust and without any reason. Just the fact that it is classified as parascience proves that the system is broken.

   The end result being: Don’t argue with sceptics, UNLESS they have a good understanding of psionics (which scientists don’t). Otherwise, it’s like a fourth grader trying to argue against a university professor and still believing he is right (for all the wrong reasons).

   Come to think about it, you can view this from either perspective (sceptic/psionist) - it still applies.

9. ARandomKid Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

   “I read the NDE article about the surgery, and that makes me wonder, if the brain doesn’t function, that means the consciousness is not dependent on the brain. So what is it?”

   I’m wondering this as well…I’d always thought that our consciousness was connected to our brain activity in a way, but this is obviously false…so what exactly IS our consciousness dependent upon? Hmmm…to be honest, I’ve no clue at all.

   -ARK

### Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

- ## Pages

  - Welcome!
  - Blog
  - Forums
  - Games
    - Emergence Game
    - Geiger Game
    - Lottery Game
  - Contact

- ## Experiments

  - Lottery Project, Part 1
  - Lottery Project, Part 2

- ## Categories

  - Belief Systems (28)
  - Books (7)
  - Consciousness (4)
  - Conspiracy (5)
  - Dream Phenomenon (24)
  - ESP (17)
  - How-To (11)
  - Lottery (32)
  - Note to Self (21)
  - Personal Development (17)
  - Philosophy (31)
  - Random Stuff (11)
  - Science (26)
  - Subconscious (14)
  - Uncategorized (1)
  - Video (16)
  - Website (13)

- ## Archives

  - November 2011
  - November 2010
  - June 2010
  - February 2010
  - December 2009
  - November 2009
  - October 2009
  - August 2009
  - July 2009
  - May 2009
  - April 2009
  - March 2009
  - February 2009
  - January 2009
  - November 2008
  - October 2008
  - September 2008
  - August 2008
  - July 2008
  - June 2008
  - May 2008
  - April 2008
  - March 2008
  - February 2008
  - January 2008
  - December 2007
  - November 2007
  - October 2007
  - September 2007
  - August 2007
  - July 2007
  - June 2007
  - May 2007
  - April 2007

- ## Links

  - A State of Mind
  - Dreaming to Infinity
  - Monroe Institute on YouTube
  - Shifted Perspectives
  - UC Berkeley on YouTube

- ## Meta

  - Login
  - Valid XHTML

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2007-2009 Sean Connelly and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
Best viewed with Firefox, with minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. Microsoft can suck my balls.
A Little Weird is proudly powered by WordPress - Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).