--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > The brain seems to have a model of the body stored somewhere, somehow. Meditators sometimes experience this as seeing the body with eyes closed during meditation, which is interesting because the image of the body never includes the head, only the way the body looks like from the head during waking. It would seem the information for this internal image comes from the visual system, which has that perspective on how the body looks. Out of body experiences have been produced using laboratory methods, so it certainly seems possible that a woo factor need not be involved. > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711081249.htm > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130922205931.htm
As a general rule, I try to avoid discussing experiences with those who have never had them. It's pretty clear that the people trying to sound authoritative about OOB experiences haven't ever budged from their bodies and never will. :-) But the "internal body model" sounds pretty good to me. The mind tends to try to replicate, even in its fantasies and/or travels outside the body (I am open to either possibility, without attachment to either one), tends to be "looking out of" a very human pair of eyes, within a very human body. > A spiritual path is just a special sort of illusion, and people who hold to such views do tend to be threatened when those illusions are questioned, or seem to be undermined by science which has been eroding spiritual and religious beliefs for centuries. I completely agree, which is why I wrote my The Woo Factor post recently. *Nothing* pisses off a person who has bought into an illusion for many years more than someone pointing out that it's probably an illusion. > As for authfriend's beliefs in this regard, as least for the point of argument she sometimes seems to hold some esoteric ideas, but unless she specifically states just what she believes in this regard, I am not sure at all what she believes. I believe that this is intentional on her part. She likes to say things without really ever saying anything about what *she* believes. That's so that she can lash out later when someone attributes to her a belief she hinted at mightily, but was too wussy to commit to. > Her highly argumentative stance here might just be a product of her personality tendencies, and have less to do with what she thinks is true. After all, if you post something here, it is a near certainly that she will find something wrong with it. True that. After all, I'm one of the only one of her "declared enemies" left. The way she sees things, she's GOT to challenge everything I say. Especially if a few other people on the forum have been guilty of the Cardinal Sin of having pleasant conversations with me. :-) What's most fascinating is that she really seems to believe that no one has noticed this.
