I’m amused by this NYT article, purporting to be ‘science’.
Blanke’s research is interesting, but his conclusion (“[mystical/supernatural experiences] are simply the brain’s attempt to make sense of conflicting information”) is fraught with logical fallacies (see below). And Brugger’s examples actually strengthen the idea that ‘mystical/supernatural’ experiences happen all the time, even “occur[ing] without electrical stimulation to the brain”; he only questions if you should call them ‘mystical’ or not. I suppose ‘mystical’ phenomena are only valid if rare?
If you’re interested in a scientific, very non new-agey exploration of out-of-body experiences, written by an American businessman, try Monroe’s Journey’s Out of the Body.
Anyway, since I’m a software engineer as well ‘interested’ in all things psychic, I figured I’d give a scientific deconstruction of the article, using classical logic:
Addressing Blanke first, his research consists of analyzing behavior resulting from selective electric stimulation to electrodes implanted in brain tissue. The female subjects describe out-of-body (OOB) experiences, and/or extra-sensory (ESP) perception (“shadow man who wanted to interfere with her”), when various electrodes are stimulated. These results are repeatable. All of this research is very scientific, very interesting, & in fact very validating to psychics — b/c there is no inherent contradiction to the assertion that ESP or OOB are actually related to various stimulations of parts of the brain. However, Blanke’s conclusion is that ESP and/or OOB do not exist simply b/c he can induce those behaviors via brain stimulation. This is a FALSE DILEMMA logical fallacy, implying that if stimulation can cause ESP or OOB experiences, these experiences must be a priori false. Similar implanted-electrode stimulation experiments by other researchers have demonstrated subjects smelling non-present scents & unconsciously moving limbs due to similar stimulations… but none of these researchers ever attempted to imply that these behaviors invalidated all similar scent-sensation or limb-movement which occurred when [that brain] was not under electrode stimulation. Instead, they simply concluded that these areas stimulated in the brain would ‘normally’ be stimulated when that scent, or limb-movement, was present. Why does Blanke conclude the ESP or OOB behavior differently?
Next, Blanke then gives an alternate explanation of the event, ignoring the woman’s own, clearly-stated experience (“the shadow man was also sitting and that he was clasping her in his arms”). Blanke instead interprets this as “the patient was experiencing an unusual perception of her own body, as a double. But for reasons that scientists have not been able to explain, he said, she did not recognize that it was her own body she was sensing”. This is ignoring the subject’s own testimony, applying his own analysis, & then willfully ignoring a huge inconsistency in his own analysis– namely the gender of the “shadow” figure. If not quite DENYING DOER fallacy (ie, ignoring contrary evidence to make one’s point), this is definitely a violation of Occam’s Razor– he never gives the option that perhaps she is sensing something actually present, which he cannot measure (& does not report attempting to measure). And by not ever addressing the opposite, ie. “untrue” possibility of his hypothesis (eg. “supernatural/mystical perceptions could be ‘real’”), he is definitely CIRCULARLY REASONING.
Addressing Brugger next, Merriam-Webster defines “mystical” as:
1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual’s direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.
Frequency of experience is neither noted here, nor implied. Thus, if, as Brugger states: “The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence  then “1a” definition of ‘mystical’ is occurring, at the very least. By admitting ESP & OOB experiences exist, but denying these are ‘mystical’, this is TESTIMONIAL FALLACY, if not simple inability to read a dictionary. 
Tags: meditation