[Buddha-l] Re: Inducing Out-of-Body Experience

[Vera, Pedro L.]

>What the researchers are observing are NOT classic OBE's by any stretch
>of the imagination.  They are simply observing "proprioceptive
>illusions" of a very obvious, trivial and predictable sort. For example:
>it is easy to prove that people have "optical illusions" - but such
>illusions do not explain religious visions - UNLESS one has already
>accepted the prior assumption that religions visions are nothing but
>optical illusions.
 
Not having had these experiences or being an expert on this field I cannot ascertain how valid are the articles' definitions of this particular problem. However, they do state clearly (I did glance at the original publications) what their operational definitions are. It appears that you disagree strongly with the model used. It happens commonly enough in science. Then it might be possible to construct better models of the experiences being used and use those models for subsequent research.

>Who funds this crap
 
There are two reports from independent laboratories (one in the UK, the other one in Switzerland) that are published in this week's issue of Science. The source of funding is listed for each article. I enclose the full citation for each report and the source of funding, since it was asked.
 

1) H. Henrik Ehrsson, The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences, Science 24 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5841, p. 1048

 

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the PRESENCCIA (Presence: Research Encompassing Sensory Enhancement, Neuroscience, Cerebral-Computer Interfaces, and Applications) project, a European Union-funded project under the Information Society Technologies program. H.H.E. was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program, the Swedish Medical Research Council, and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research.

 

2 )Bigna Lenggenhager, Tej Tadi, Thomas Metzinger, Olaf Blanke

Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness

Science 24 August 2007:

Vol. 317. no. 5841, pp. 1096 - 1099

 

This work was supported by the Cogito Foundation, the Fondation de Famille Sandoz, the Fondation Odier, and the Swiss National Science Foundation

 

>and why is the New York Times writing about it?

I have no idea. It must have caught the attention of the Science editor, I guess.

> The sad thing is that
>the people who slobber approvingly over this kind of pseudo-scientific
>blather are the same people who moan and groan about "scientific
>illiteracy".

Having glanced at the articles, I do not find them "pseudo-scientific". It is possible (although I cannot judge that) that their operational definitions are not appropriate or the best ones to use. I leave that for the experts of this particular field to decide. It did make it through the peer-review system at Science; however, as it is commonly attested, the peer-review is far from perfect.

Best regards,

Pedro