What is logic?

[Lucanus]

Still too vague!

What does "the unconscious mind become conscious mind" mean?

Human beings barely are aware of less then 1% of the total knowledge.
Have you noticed that when you do not know an answer you think and think until the answer pop up if ever pop up.
Where does the answer come from?
It come from within Luc.
Within there are all the answer but to get these answers up to your mind you need a struggle most the time.
Anyway when the answer that previously was hidden within pop up into your mind then that particular
piece of knowledge now is part of your knowledge so the unconscious become conscious.

There is nothing more vague than saying "within". What is "within"? Is it memory? Is it the capability to extrapolate possibile answers from past experiences of similar circumstances? Or is it something else entirely?

How do you define the "unconscious mind"?

That particular knowledge that you own but you can not use yet.

If so, then how and why do you own this knowledge?

How do you determine that only through yoga - that is, through subjective experience - you can understand these deeper, but still objective truths of reality?

Your father is a very very powerful entity.
What belong to your father belong to you as well.
The only problem Luc is that you got to realize that between you and Him there is no distinction
and to realize this you need a powerful system that able you to reach this realization and this system
is called yoga.
Yoga is given to you from your father because He want you to own all He own.
Actually there is also an other system to reach your father but that is an extremely difficult system.

Who is this "father"? What proof is there for his existence? Why is he a masculine figure? How do you reach him through yoga? What is the other system to reach him?

And why does this sound a lot like a Christian's "You could believe if you really wanted to" argument?

How exactly should consciousness be affected?
From what we see though, it just isn't. People whose pineal gland was removed keep on living a normal life, they just need to take melatonin to compensate the insomnia that derives from the removal of the pineal gland.

I don't agree with your idea that without the pineal gland people can live a normal life.
The more you try to find out how people would live without the pineal gland the more you find
opposite opinions.
I personally think that without the pineal gland you would live like a zombie.
Here below one of the many many opinions.

https://watchers.news/2012/01/24/why-pin...ese-times/

And yet people are living quite well without it, and are able to function normally if they compensate the (very much physical) lack of melatonin secretion.

The article you quoted is first of all irrelevant to this argument, as it does not explain what should happen if the pineal gland were removed, except when it says that children show an earlier onset of maturity - but it doesn't have to do with people being zombies!

Other than that, the article doesn't clearly cite any sources, opens up the with very big, unsupported statements (which are completely mystical/religious in nature) and is full to the brim with some of the least sound logic I have ever heard, like this statement here:

Cleaning up the pineal gland is useful for those wishing to develop their multidimensional perception. The Pineal gland will naturally make its own DMT when fully operational and we will be able to remain in a visionary state most of the time. An awakened pineal gland brings the ability to consciously astral travel, explore other dimensions, foresee the future...

Like seriously who writes this stuff? If you get high on endogenous DMT, you are not having a spiritual experience. You're simply high on DMT and hallucinating. Jeez.

Also, how does consciousness interact with the brain if the pineal gland is removed?
It doesn't make a lot of sense - what is the function of the pineal gland if consciousness isn't really affected by its removal? You say that consciousness "stays where the pineal gland was". But if the biological structures that allowed for this supposed brain-consciousness interface aren't there anymore, how does it happen?

When you go inside your car you do not need to get connected with all the wiring that are inside the car yet you are able to tell your car to move.
The consciousness doesn't really need much to get connected to the rest of the body-brain.
Always remember that the consciousness being an abstract entity is far more superior to the matter such as the body-brain and everything that is superior is the boss which everybody will have to obey to.

Slow down. You still have to demonstrate that consciousness is separate from the brain and can exist independently from it for your famous car analogy to be indeed valid. So let's put this point on hold until you have done so.

And if you see the actual biological parameters of most of these people you'll see that about 50% of them are suffering only from a minor trauma or shock (such as hypoglycemia) and they are quite far from dying, as reported in the papers that I cited in my last post.
And this still doesn't take out the possibility of the NDE occurring while the patient recovers!

Awareness in these people who had an NDE is there all the time from the time that they leave their bodies to the time that they re enter their bodies.
There is no such a thing as recover.
There is instead a resuscitation.
Recover means that these people never really died which is not the case as doctors said that these people really died.

It might be so, but it also might not. There is no proof for any of your statements, and the materialistic alternatives (which I stated in the previous posts) are perfectly valid, as demonstrated by the fact that you're avoiding the question with more assertions, without any proof to be seen.

Again, you demonstrate a superficial view of the problem.
If someone has an NDE because of an accident, they clearly are not hooked up to an EEG machine when the injuries occur. So you just cannot know whether their EEG goes flat immediately.
There are no data to point in any direction. Be humble and say you don't know, because in this case, nobody can.
And again, as a side note, you still haven't taken into account the possibility of the NDE occurring during the recovery phase, when the brain "reboots".

Sorry Luc but hundreds of NDEs confirm what I already said.
Just read them.

Personal experiences are not objective evidence. They, more often than not, are biased, inaccurate and unhelpful. This is also the case with NDEs, seeing as they seem to be strongly influenced by the subject's culture and beliefs.

How about you read what the objective conditions of these patients actually are? I cited the articles in one of my previous posts. Are you so closed-minded and dogmatic that you can't even think that this kind of approach might be correct?

This statement is demonstrably false. People who take hallucinogenic drugs (such as LSD or Ketamin) very often report clear sharp and vivid experiences... But those are the experiences of a malfunctioning brain!

They surely think that those experiences are real but if they would have an NDE they surely would realize that an NDE is the real real experience.
100% real compare to maybe 1% real.

And yet there's this guy who's had Ketamin and then (for separate reasons) had an NDE and says that he experienced the exactly same things!

Do you trust his personal experience? If not why do you not try Ketamin? Remember that the statements you're making have to be tested!

And since you seem to imply that the NDEs do not occur in the brain (I assume your explanation is that "consciousness" is out of the body by that time), how does consciousness work without the biological scaffold of the brain?

Interesting question but easy to know.
Consciousness doesn't really need a brain to work.
It work even better when is free from the constraint of being stuck inside a brain but because
it is forced to live inside a brain then there got to be a relationship between her and the brain.
Sooner or later even the best relationship come to an end and the consciousness before it re enter
a new body-brain has got a relationship with the creator so relationships never really stop and a source of
nourishment for the consciousness exist all the time.    

Why is this necessary? Is there proof for this process? Why does it sound like it's made up by people who don't know what they're talking about?

How does it get "back in" when the patient recovers?

It just does.
Read the NDEs to see how they can.
http://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

Nope! You have to be more detailed if you want me to let go of my point of view. These are people with their own biases. I want objective evidence. As long as you provide none, my explanation will remain that NDEs are hallucinations.

Why is a brain - heck why are living organisms even necessary when consciousness is so clear and self-aware on its own?

The subconscious mind is certainly 100% aware but the conscious mind is not.
There is a gap in between and because the conscious mind is dependent on a body-brain then living organisms are necessary until the subconscious mind become conscious.

Aware of what? Why is the whole process necessary? Stop it with the "just-so" stuff, bring up the evidence.

But I am not arguing for any specific position! I'm just telling you how your model of reality doesn't work and how there is no good evidence to corroborate it.
I personally am of the opinion that materialistic explanations of the phenomena we see in our daily lives are to be preferred - and should therefore be the default position to take in absence of any evidence for anything.
Why do I think this? Because when we get to a sufficient level of scientific insight on the subject matter, our models work and allow us to progress further in our understanding of reality AND in our quality of life.

When when Luc?
In the meantime old books and philosophers busts get the dust while yogi get the real McCoy.  

When? How about every single time the scientific method has been applied. Look at electricity and magnetism. Look at evolution. Look at the whole of chemistry.

Philosophers and old books are cool and all, and they should be studied. But they should not be held on such a high standard. Today, we have a vastly superior understanding of the world compared to 3 or 4 centuries ago.

And that is because neuroscientists, unlike gurus or priests or what have you, are not satisfied by superficial, "just-so" explanations to such a complicated phenomenon.

How would you know that yoga is superficial when you never try it?  

Because your explanations of how it works give me the impression that it's all made up, superficial and inaccurate.