Your first statement doesn't make much sense to me. OP, your whole post pretty much says that you think that people who are remote viewing or have OBEs/Astral Project are not actually moving around in our shared physical reality. What this should mean is that they are actually in some form of a dream state or highly altered state of consciousness, but instead you equate it to them tapping into some otherwise observable, non falsifiable, non-physical/non-corporeal reality rather than simply experiencing a highly convincing experience more akin to dreaming and hallucinating than anything else. Why do dreams have to be part of some larger non-corporeal reality that we somehow inexplicably get access to when we sleep, and occasionally while awake? How is that a more plausible explanation than it being a result of an altered state of consciousness? How is it that we are able to experience reality in the first place? The functionality of the brain in that regard is inexorably linked to dreaming and altered states of consciousness. Just because we appear to experiencing some form of reality, doesn't necessarily make it so. You could argue that you technically are, because dreams are real in the sense that the stimuli required for them to be experienced is taking place and measurable in physical reality, but there is definitely a nuance here that separates this argument from one where you try to argue that you are experiencing a different plane of reality or another dimension of some sort when you are in a dream, remote viewing, APing, OBEing, etc.
It seems to me that for the most part, you are thinking about the problem logically, but a faulty assumption that you haven't personally found enough evidence to shake your belief in is adding a layer of supernatural phenomena that has no way of ever being properly explained in scientific terms (at least not for a while in the future, if it's somehow true). If you didn't think that you surely must be tapping into another reality separate from our own (which, arguing that there is more than one reality doesn't make much sense unless you are talking about everyone's separate subjective realities they experience or something), then you would wind up concluding the same thing that both I, scientists, and plenty of other people who aren't willing to easily buy into supernatural phenomena come to about this subject: that it's an utterly convincing experience that, in all actuality, is all in your head. The brain is an absolutely stunning biological machine, and to that end people who are simply unwilling to believe that it's capable of this level of producing a vivid, mostly accurate, and again, utterly convincing internal reality that can be experienced during certain altered states don't seem to give it enough credit--that, and have historically had some stern beliefs in the supernatural that have been a major influence on their way of thinking for a good portion of their lives. It's plenty understandable why, but it doesn't make it correct.
If you simply replace your idea about tapping into a non-physical reality and say that you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, then the conclusion that remote viewing being legitimate becomes hazy. Do you say it doesn't exist, or that it does, but the definition of it has to be changed into one where they don't claim to be accessing physical reality? Then again, even explaining it the way you have, have you already concluded for yourself that remote viewing isn't possible unless you change it's definition to one where the person experiencing it is actually accessing a non-physical reality, rather than the original claim to be accessing physical reality itself? Doesn't that already invalidate the idea? And then I would argue that you introducing a new, untested, non-testable, non-falsifiable concept such a non-physical reality that we apparently can through some inexplicable mechanism we are able to access, with no clues other than it happens when we are in altered states of consciousness is a bit silly. The common thread in them all is the altered states, so why add new information to the idea after replacing old information (talking about the definition of remote viewing again, changing from the idea of accessing a physical reality to a non-physical one) like accessing a different reality and go with what we know is key to all this: the altered states. It's the simplest explanation... I know Occam's Razor doesn't automatically make something right, but there isn't a need to make things more complicated in this case. It's plausible, testable/measurable, and falsifiable. It's much more viable of an explanation, and the only one here that's scientific.
By the way, the idea of the real-time zone sounds cool and all, but what exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it just a code name for objective reality? There really isn't such a thing as real-time. Or, rather, you could also make the argument that time every where is real-time. Given what we know about space-time and how its curvature affects the passage of time, all perspectives in regards to its passing are equally real. There isn't one perspective any more real than the other, so your idea of a real-time zone, at least by its name, doesn't really make any sense to me. That being said, the time that passes for the matter in your feet is different from the rate that passes for the matter in your head, or any part of your body for that matter. This effect can be exaggerated near large bodies of gravity. So how is it that it can be said to be a real-time zone? The idea just doesn't sound like it jives with our ever growing understanding of physics.
|
|
Bookmarks