Are you guys normal:)?

[astral_1976]

I would qualify it as 'the observer', or the perceiver. I just consider it the part of me that observes, the point of view.
In QM it would be that which measures. As controversial as it is, I'll take Dr. F.A. Wolf's description of it. (because I like it. )

Thanks CFTraveler...

I will however having hard time to accept the idea of "soul" or "observer" being the traveler in OBE.
The article you referred to me doesn't make sense (maybe I should read his full theory) but in this article he failed to explain what is the reflected vibration(soul) and how this reflection occurs, and refers to something called 'vibration' wilthout adequately explaning it. I guess somehow he tocuhes string theory but I didn't get his connections.

So in your model, the observer expands in to other states and later the 'accessed information' is downloaded into brain and the brain interprets the new data and give it a meaning by senses - like smell, touch, hear etc.

See this is actually interesting but let me turn this upside down. I always struggle with the concept of "observer" as mentioned in copenhagen school of thought. This is still a theory and I will tell you another alternative. It is called environmental reduction. See, according to copenhagen thought, the moon is not there if nobody is looking at it. Environmental reduction as suggested by Penrose argues that quantum states collapse as soon as it interacts with environment (already collapsed states). So the quantum collapse doesn't require a consciouss observer but only an adequate interaction with the environment.
So the moon is always there even nobody is looking at it.

Hameroff, takes it a step further and model this to explain consciousness. His theory, in a nutshell, argues that within Microtubilins (within neurons) there are sensors that interact with quantum information ( 1 and 0 being at the same time). When this quantum information interacts with the classical information (1 or 0) that is collected from our everyday environment by our sensory organs, making the quantum information collapse into 0 or 1 and this interaction creates the feeling of "awareness". So there is no observer in this model. Two different types of information (quantum and classical) meeting with each other and creating a consciouss experience. Consciousness is not continious and it happens 1/8 of a second.

This model to me, and for many others, is the most successful theory so far - although has recieved a lot of critism but not been able to proven wrong yet.

So how OBE occurs in this model?

Well, first of all, there is no expansion of observer or consciousness. Because there is no observer. When you have OBE, you basically tunning your brain into different frequencies and this experience allow microtubilins to collect different states of quantum information (so the tibulins as the reciever just tuned into different channels and starts gathering quantum information at different frequencies). And once the brain tuned into its regular frequency (I mean when we wake up from OBE), all downloaded quantum information during OBE clashes with the classical information (there is no observer) and we give a meaning to our OBE experience.

See, these two theories look a like but they are fundamentally different. One depends on "the observer" and the other depends on "the observed - the quantum information @ other frequencies"...

Sorry for the length of the message...but I had to let this out. Hope someone here debunk my model because I hate the idea that there is no "observer"

[CFTraveler]

I will however having hard time to accept the idea of "soul" or "observer" being the traveler in OBE.

First of all, I'm not going to debunk your exposition, because this is all theoretical and I still am not sure what permutations of these theories I subscribe to.

The article you referred to me doesn't make sense (maybe I should read his full theory)

I have a pdf in which he explains more what he thinks about QM and why he describes his spirituality in these terms. Perhaps this wasn't the best link, but I didn't have time to look for something more suitable.

So in your model, the observer expands in to other states and later the 'accessed information' is downloaded into brain and the brain interprets the new data and give it a meaning by senses - like smell, touch, hear etc.

The observer here being my point of view. I don't really see it as the soul, but I do see it as consciousness, whatever that is. And no, I don't know what consciousness is, I don't think it's a field, and I don't think it's energy, unlike most spiritually minded people.

See this is actually interesting but let me turn this upside down. I always struggle with the concept of "observer" as mentioned in copenhagen school of thought. This is still a theory and I will tell you another alternative. It is called environmental reduction. See, according to copenhagen thought, the moon is not there if nobody is looking at it.

My understanding of Copenhagen is that it is [there], but not as particle (or object), more of a probability wave, and it's ability to exist as object has to do with being measured or observed (or interacted with.) But if it is a probability wave (as in the twin slit experiment) then it has the ability to interfere with itself, and thus, exist. I'm probably wrong about this in many ways, but this is how I look at it.

Environmental reduction as suggested by Penrose argues that quantum states collapse as soon as it interacts with environment (already collapsed states). So the quantum collapse doesn't require a consciouss observer but only an adequate interaction with the environment.

Sounds somewhat like the one I was thinking of- maybe I got my theory from Penrose. To tell you the truth I've read so many versions of them that I don't remember all of them.

So the moon is always there even nobody is looking at it.

Ecco.

Hameroff, takes it a step further and model this to explain consciousness. His theory, in a nutshell, argues that within Microtubilins (within neurons) there are sensors that interact with quantum information ( 1 and 0 being at the same time). When this quantum information interacts with the classical information (1 or 0) that is collected from our everyday environment by our sensory organs, making the quantum information collapse into 0 or 1 and this interaction creates the feeling of "awareness".

You had me until the use of the word "feelings" to explain away consciousness, or self-awareness.
Our brains constantly make decisions, and these decisions are constantly affected by Quantum events, as you said, through the microtubulins, and just simply by the fact that neurons fire at the subatomic level and sometimes the rates of decay will make the difference between a neuronal discharge and not, causing changes in macro (classical) experience. But to say there is no observer is to deny the ability to receive this information and observe it in the first place- true, the physical part of what science considers consciousness to be is a side effect of brain function, but experimental information constantly shows us that decisions are being made sometimes before having the thought, and something is making the decision. So I still see the brain as an interface with whatever 'I' am, even if I don't call it 'consciousness'. Boy, it's harder to express than I thought.

So how OBE occurs in this model?
Well, first of all, there is no expansion of observer or consciousness. Because there is no observer. When you have OBE, you basically tunning your brain into different frequencies and this experience allow microtubilins to collect different states of quantum information (so the tibulins as the reciever just tuned into different channels and starts gathering quantum information at different frequencies). And once the brain tuned into its regular frequency (I mean when we wake up from OBE), all downloaded quantum information during OBE clashes with the classical information (there is no observer) and we give a meaning to our OBE experience.

But it doesn't clash, and is often validated. So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since I do agree that the brain collects and processes this information- I just don't see where the clash happens.

I have no problem with long threads but I often work with 'stream of consciousness', so forgive me if it appears if I'm arguing, I just kind of meander with the ideas as they are presented and go with it.

[astral_1976]

I have no problem with long threads but I often work with 'stream of consciousness', so forgive me if it appears if I'm arguing, I just kind of meander with the ideas as they are presented and go with it.

Oh no, on the contrary! This is great! I really enjoy discussing this!

The observer here being my point of view. I don't really see it as the soul, but I do see it as consciousness, whatever that is. And no, I don't know what consciousness is, I don't think it's a field, and I don't think it's energy, unlike most spiritually minded people.

I also agree that consciousness is not a field and it is not energy. See, the best explanation- in my opinion- come from Hameroff & Penrose. I explained this but let me clarify it again. My English - my second language - sometimes is not clear.
See when two classical information interacts with each other, something happens. I think of it this way, when two hydrogen atoms and One oxygen atom interacts than they create water. So water is H20 and it is wet...Wet is wet, it is just the property of two type of information (hydorgen and oxygen) meeting with each other
Hameroff argues that when quantum information and classical information interacts with each other (in given suitable conditions) something strange happens, it creates a consciouss event. Consciousness here is just like "wetness". So what is consciousness? It is the collpase of the wave function itself. In humans, these numerous consciouss events that happen in each nanosecond are organized by brain and creates the stream of consciousness as we know it.

Our brains constantly make decisions, and these decisions are constantly affected by Quantum events, as you said, through the microtubulins, and just simply by the fact that neurons fire at the subatomic level and sometimes the rates of decay will make the difference between a neuronal discharge and not, causing changes in macro (classical) experience. But to say there is no observer is to deny the ability to receive this information and observe it in the first place- true, the physical part of what science considers consciousness to be is a side effect of brain function, but experimental information constantly shows us that decisions are being made sometimes before having the thought, and something is making the decision. So I still see the brain as an interface with whatever 'I' am, even if I don't call it 'consciousness'

See, this is the main disagreement...There is no observer...There is only information. One classical type and one quantum type. Brain is only a reciever. It collects classical data and quantum data. Brain is also a platform where these two types of information can interact with each other. And when they do, 'consciouss' experience occurs. It may be hard to grasb but this is exactly what Hameroff and Penrose suggesting. And to me, it makes a lot of sense.

During OBE:
1-I meditate, and then my brain tune into different frequencies
2-Microtubilins start to collect quantum information - there is no observer going out of the body - It is like Television, your brain changed the channel and start getting information at different frequencies .
3-When I wake up, then brain does his chemical magic and allow DOWNLOADED quantum data interact with the EXISTING classical data.
4- When quantum data interacts with classical data, quantum data collapse and consciousness occurs.
5- Brain instantly integrates all collapsed information into experience, and you got an OBE experience.

But it doesn't clash, and is often validated. So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since I do agree that the brain collects and processes this information- I just don't see where the clash happens.

Ok, it seems they are very identical theories. But they are really different at the fundamental level.
Because I don't assume an observer. The only fundamental thing is "information" and their interaction with each other.
There is no observer to observe the information...There are only information.

wow...this is really hard to explain...lol

[Tutor]

inarguably, consciousness is simply You as you presently are. but in that consciousness is much more, even as that which is infinitely around external of your centralized aware being (epi-center/epic-enter) is much more; consciousness is an inifinite array of fields which within we secondarily all are, as well as within each...first is...all.

energy? hmmm, depends upon what any one person opinionatedly 'thinks' is "energy". but it (all in all) is spirit, polarized from within endlessly (you) to without infinitely (seeming as not you).

theo-retical science does not have to inform me that I am presently here, well...unless i am moronically seized/ceased with disbelief of myself first, as both that which querys and that which finds answer for me, within myself as I living this life, having to occasionally pinch myself for me lil ole pin headed reality check. damn that hurt...I am real... .

kudos to intellectual giddiness though... .

tim

"I can do wrong all by myself"...rightly so.

[CFTraveler]

Intellectual giddiness indeed....