The Human Aura

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Johann

Scott, slit experiments involve highly focused, coherent light. That is exactly why biophotons are able to exhibit interference; because they are not disorderly like normal light. Try to find out more about this before attempting to apply your limited knowledge of conventional biology to it; this is not conventional after all.



There are over 50 groups around the world conducting bio-photon research. But yes, it is sad that science has not put more funding into this fascinating topic.

- Johann

Slit experiments involve (are caused by) interference as a property of waves. Light, sound, water, ... waves. It is interesting that it appears that a single photon can 'interfere' with itself - but it is still interference.
I have much more than a limited knowledge of conventional biology and we were talking about physics, mechanics not biology conventional or not.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Scott

No, not in a single short description without any other sensation to go with it.

Deaf persons can feel the thump of load base. The tactile response is not nearly as sensitive as hearing - but it can give some context.
People often describe blues as being cold and reds as hot. Though a blue flame is hotter than a red flame.
If you are trying to describe something to someone you try and do it with something you both share in common to give some reference and context to it.

I think you may be missing the point here. Let's assume that NDE OBE's are in some sense real - just an assumption, but please bear with it.

In a real OBE with the brain disabled and the mind functioning on its own, there clearly isn't an eye to see with - never mind two of them. Photons are presumably not refracted to a focus, nor do they stimulate any receptors - so what the hell does go on?

I am inclined to accept the premise to all this, so I have thought about it quite a bit! My best guess is that ordinary vision (and maybe echo location in bats, etc) is an approximation to some purely mental faculty. The same idea must apply to hearing - the separated mind presumably doesn't pick up pressure waves, but ordinary hearing corresponds to a purely mental faculty - probably something like ESP!

I always get frustrated with people who express orthodox scientific opinions on here, and fail to recognise the magnitude of what we are talking about here.

David

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think you may be missing the point here. Let's assume that NDE OBE's are in some sense real - just an assumption, but please bear with it.

In a real OBE with the brain disabled and the mind functioning on its own, there clearly isn't an eye to see with - never mind two of them. Photons are presumably not refracted to a focus, nor do they stimulate any receptors - so what the hell does go on?

I am inclined to accept the premise to all this, so I have thought about it quite a bit! My best guess is that ordinary vision (and maybe echo location in bats, etc) is an approximation to some purely mental faculty. The same idea must apply to hearing - the separated mind presumably doesn't pick up pressure waves, but ordinary hearing corresponds to a purely mental faculty - probably something like ESP!

I always get frustrated with people who express orthodox scientific opinions on here, and fail to recognise the magnitude of what we are talking about here.

David

Well, even from a physical basis we know we don't depend on light to see things.
(Dreaming, hallucination)

What might this "mental" thing be like? Do we possibly have a "mental brain", and the physical one is a mirror of that?

Good post though, I agree.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think you may be missing the point here. Let's assume that NDE OBE's are in some sense real - just an assumption, but please bear with it.

In a real OBE with the brain disabled and the mind functioning on its own, there clearly isn't an eye to see with - never mind two of them. Photons are presumably not refracted to a focus, nor do they stimulate any receptors - so what the hell does go on?

I am inclined to accept the premise to all this, so I have thought about it quite a bit! My best guess is that ordinary vision (and maybe echo location in bats, etc) is an approximation to some purely mental faculty. The same idea must apply to hearing - the separated mind presumably doesn't pick up pressure waves, but ordinary hearing corresponds to a purely mental faculty - probably something like ESP!

I always get frustrated with people who express orthodox scientific opinions on here, and fail to recognise the magnitude of what we are talking about here.

David

And if we assume that NDE and OBE's are not 'real' - not that the individuals are not reporting what they think they experience - there is a big difference. Then orthodox scientific explanations are very warranted. I would also express frustration of those that don't recognize the magnitude of what we are talking about.
The question was about sound of a tree. Not vision of an NDE. In bats, we can record the sound they use for echolocation, identify the structure that receives the echos. It is a fancy depth finder. There is not any extra sense.
Your assumption is that sensory input is coming in by way other than eyes, ears, ... and being processed in something other than the brain. That requires much more than the evidence supplied.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

Well, even from a physical basis we know we don't depend on light to see things.
(Dreaming, hallucination)

What might this "mental" thing be like? Do we possibly have a "mental brain", and the physical one is a mirror of that?

Good post though, I agree.

We can imagine things without light. Seeing I would say we still need light.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

In a real OBE with the brain disabled and the mind functioning on its own, there clearly isn't an eye to see with - never mind two of them. Photons are presumably not refracted to a focus, nor do they stimulate any receptors - so what the hell does go on?

Something I heard recently that is related to this was from that Dr John Long ( or is it Jeffrey?). Apparently a large percentage of NDE experiences reports a 360-degree field of vision - something we obviously cannot have via 2 eyes located on the front of our head.

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am inclined to accept the premise to all this, so I have thought about it quite a bit! My best guess is that ordinary vision (and maybe echo location in bats, etc) is an approximation to some purely mental faculty. The same idea must apply to hearing - the separated mind presumably doesn't pick up pressure waves, but ordinary hearing corresponds to a purely mental faculty - probably something like ESP!

In esoteric traditions, it has long been held that for each physical sense, there is an analogous spiritual sense, which is much richer.

So for physical hearing, there is an analogous spiritual hearing, etc.

This was the real meaning behind Pythagoras Music of the Spheres, which has been misinterpreted by today's materialistic consciousness.

Anyhow, I think we see the truth of this as reported throughout the NDE literature, as well as in certain spiritual traditions, such as Yoga.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Scott

And if we assume that NDE and OBE's are not 'real' - not that the individuals are not reporting what they think they experience - there is a big difference. Then orthodox scientific explanations are very warranted. I would also express frustration of those that don't recognize the magnitude of what we are talking about.
The question was about sound of a tree. Not vision of an NDE. In bats, we can record the sound they use for echolocation, identify the structure that receives the echos. It is a fancy depth finder. There is not any extra sense.
Your assumption is that sensory input is coming in by way other than eyes, ears, ... and being processed in something other than the brain. That requires much more than the evidence supplied.

What I am trying to point out, is that if you interpret the idea of an NDE in a very naive way, it seems stupid - I mean how can light reflected up towards the ceiling be refracted to a focus by something that can't even be seen by the medics present in the clinic? There are no end of absurdities you can find if you don't look at the idea in a deep enough way.

Try reading Bernardo's theories if you want to get some idea of the change in scientific perspective that might be required to make sense of ideas like this.

Science has been through a number of revolutions that overturned our vision of the physical world (as indeed, you were recently pointing out), yet left most calculations unchanged for all practical purposes. I think there is another one coming that involves the relationship of consciousness to the physical world. It will probably resemble the others, in that all the old calculations will still work for all practical purposes, and yet there will be new phenomena that could never have been predicted in the old scheme, and the fundamental picture of the world will change completely.

Yes, you can record the ultrasound of a bat, but my bet is that as they die, some of them have NDE's. If they do, they probably see themselves on the ground, but they create no sound, and couldn't focus the echos anyway. They probably plug into the same thing that people do when they have NDE's - something that approximates to sight but is perhaps rather more like a souped up form of remote viewing!

Conversely, if we assume NDE's are not real, orthodox science has a really tough job explaining the phenomenon. I'd guess that in many cases, the patient's eyes are closed, so they can't see all the things they seems to see - even if they are open, the field of view must be very limited - try describing the scene while you are in the dentist's char! Add to that, the fact that a severely compromised brain is not supposed to be experiencing mind blowing hallucinations and/or peeping out at the surgeons performing cardiac massage, and remembering them clearly. In addition, we might ask why NDE's seem to be "death oriented" - even when the person was not aware they were in danger, or were too young to understand death. NDE's are damn tough to explain conventionally.

David

[Johann]

Hey Ethan, you have a good knowledge of physics; maybe you can tell us if the paragraph below, apart from its poor usage of grammar, is correct:

Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological "laser" light. Such a light is very quiet (low-noise) and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superpose, and by virtue of this, constructive and destructive interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light.

- Johann

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Johann

Hey Ethan, you have a good knowledge of physics; maybe you can tell us if the paragraph below, apart from its poor usage of grammar, is correct:
- Johann

Hi Johann,

Yes, it sounds like a wordy way of saying "monochromatic light coming from a coherent source", but it appears technically correct.

Here is a decent image, which depicts laser light and sunlight and illustrates the meaning of those terms.

Monochromatic and Coherent light (See post #8)

I am unfamiliar with the mechanism, or source, of biophotons, though, so I have no idea how valid this claim is.

However, looking into biophotons some more IS on my to-do list, lol.

I found the material you posted earlier very interesting/intriguing and have been meaning to look into it more.

[sbu]

Ethan, I remember you had some interest in human auras. Science Daily features a debunking article regarding this phenomena today: Synesthesia may explain healers claims of seeing people's 'aura'

What are your thoughts?