Monroe Institute

[jfish]

Certainly in a normal state of being, the brain and consciousness are tied together. There are plenty of documented cases that point to the possibility that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. There isn't any irrefutable proof of this, however.

So where does this leave us? Many have concluded that the inquiry has gone far enough - since replicatable proof does not exist (or at least not to the extent that broad segments of society will accept it), then we should stop investigating such notions. Some feel the effort still might lead to something remarkable and elect to pursue an ongoing exploration. Others feel they've already proven to themselves that consciousness is ongoing and feel that the value of continued exploration for personal gain far outweighs putting time and effort into proving to others the reality they've experienced. I don't see any problem with encouraging further exploration among those who are inclined and have the wherewithal to do so.

[PixyMisa]

Certainly in a normal state of being, the brain and consciousness are tied together. There are plenty of documented cases that point to the possibility that consciousness can exist independently of the brain.
No there aren't.

There isn't any irrefutable proof of this, however.
There's no evidence whatsoever.

So where does this leave us? Many have concluded that the inquiry has gone far enough - since replicatable proof does not exist (or at least not to the extent that broad segments of society will accept it), then we should stop investigating such notions.
Should we keep investigating the idea that the world is only 16,000 miles around, as Columbus believed? Should we keep investigating the idea that every element "seeks its own level"?

Some feel the effort still might lead to something remarkable and elect to pursue an ongoing exploration. Others feel they've already proven to themselves that consciousness is ongoing and feel that the value of continued exploration for personal gain far outweighs putting time and effort into proving to others the reality they've experienced.
These people are wrong.

I don't see any problem with encouraging further exploration among those who are inclined and have the wherewithal to do so.
If that's what they want to do, fine. As long as everyone understands that what they are doing is a pathetic mockery of real science.

[dlorde]

Certainly in a normal state of being, the brain and consciousness are tied together.
What other state of being is there? (you may need to define what you mean by a 'state of being' in respect of human existence, and what it means for that not to be 'normal').

There are plenty of documented cases that point to the possibility that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. There isn't any irrefutable proof of this, however.
There are many claims, but no evidence. There is no conceivable physical mechanism, no physical hypotheses, and no claim I've heard that doesn't contradict what we already know about how the universe behaves. Plus, all the evidence we do have indicates beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness is a product of the functioning of the brain...

People still have doubts? Probably because either they aren't aware of all the above, or simply don't want to believe it. We all have experiences of things that aren't externally real, and it can be hard to distinguish the internal from the external.

... I don't see any problem with encouraging further exploration among those who are inclined and have the wherewithal to do so.

Such research is ongoing, for example, the AWARE study (http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38).

[marplots]

Consciousness without a brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis

And that, I think, is at the root of the arguments here. I think of human consciousness as part of a spectrum, certainly specific to humans as much as "human eyesight" is, but not special or mysterious -- even if not fully elucidated.

It's the mystification of what we experience that seems to drive the non-materialist side.

[dlorde]

Consciousness without a brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis
If chemotaxis is a form of consciousness, then so is any tropism or response to the environment. Doesn't this effectively devalue the word?

[PixyMisa]

I'd say so. Chemotaxis is a form of awareness, but not consciousness.

[jfish]

Let's try a little evaluating some possible explanations of a couple of data points. Suppose 2 people were placed in separate isolated chambers and went into an assisted state of mind that was subjectively unique. If it helps, we can start by calling it body asleep/mind awake. While in this state these individuals experience the same things at the same time (meet each other, meet others, travel to places together). Their respective experiences are recorded verbally while in this state allowing playback and verification. The recordings show the overlap and simtanaity in time.

Another two individuals (a man and a woman) are placed in the same state in isolated chambers and they meet in a non-physical way. They have what might be termed etherial sex. While there are similarities to intercourse, the depth of the experience far exceeds anything achieved through traditional intercourse. There are other subjective components that are unique. After returning to normal waking state, they compare their respective experiences and find complete agreement as to their shared experience.

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

[steenkh]

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?
You are asking for explanations of a hypothetical phenomenon?

[PixyMisa]

Let's try a little evaluating some possible explanations of a couple of data points. Suppose 2 people were placed in separate isolated chambers and went into an assisted state of mind that was subjectively unique. If it helps, we can start by calling it body asleep/mind awake. While in this state these individuals experience the same things at the same time (meet each other, meet others, travel to places together). Their respective experiences are recorded verbally while in this state allowing playback and verification. The recordings show the overlap and simtanaity in time.

Another two individuals (a man and a woman) are placed in the same state in isolated chambers and they meet in a non-physical way. They have what might be termed etherial sex. While there are similarities to intercourse, the depth of the experience far exceeds anything achieved through traditional intercourse. There are other subjective components that are unique. After returning to normal waking state, they compare their respective experiences and find complete agreement as to their shared experience.

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?
You made it all up.

[dlorde]

What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?
They are imaginary.

Suppose I had the powers of Superman, and could demonstrate them at will - what explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of those observable/replicatable phenomena?

[jfish]

These are experiences I've read about in multiple sources and, in one instance, talked with someone who has experienced what I've related. Rejecting them as imaginary seems a bit simplistic. Offer a hypothesis that explains why imaginary things can happen simultaneously in such detail. If you would prefer to reject these things out of hand because they don't square with how you perceive the natural order, that's OK. Just don't cloak the rejection as having anything to do with scientific inquiry.

[tsig]

Let's try a little evaluating some possible explanations of a couple of data points. Suppose 2 people were placed in separate isolated chambers and went into an assisted state of mind that was subjectively unique. If it helps, we can start by calling it body asleep/mind awake. While in this state these individuals experience the same things at the same time (meet each other, meet others, travel to places together). Their respective experiences are recorded verbally while in this state allowing playback and verification. The recordings show the overlap and simtanaity in time.

Another two individuals (a man and a woman) are placed in the same state in isolated chambers and they meet in a non-physical way. They have what might be termed etherial sex. While there are similarities to intercourse, the depth of the experience far exceeds anything achieved through traditional intercourse. There are other subjective components that are unique. After returning to normal waking state, they compare their respective experiences and find complete agreement as to their shared experience.

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

Let's not.

[tsig]

Let's try a little evaluating some possible explanations of a couple of data points. Suppose 2 people were placed in separate isolated chambers and went into an assisted state of mind that was subjectively unique. If it helps, we can start by calling it body asleep/mind awake. While in this state these individuals experience the same things at the same time (meet each other, meet others, travel to places together). Their respective experiences are recorded verbally while in this state allowing playback and verification. The recordings show the overlap and simtanaity in time.

Another two individuals (a man and a woman) are placed in the same state in isolated chambers and they meet in a non-physical way. They have what might be termed etherial sex. While there are similarities to intercourse, the depth of the experience far exceeds anything achieved through traditional intercourse. There are other subjective components that are unique. After returning to normal waking state, they compare their respective experiences and find complete agreement as to their shared experience.

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

These are experiences I've read about in multiple sources and, in one instance, talked with someone who has experienced what I've related. Rejecting them as imaginary seems a bit simplistic. Offer a hypothesis that explains why imaginary things can happen simultaneously in such detail. If you would prefer to reject these things out of hand because they don't square with how you perceive the natural order, that's OK. Just don't cloak the rejection as having anything to do with scientific inquiry.

So when you said "let's assume" you were telling less than the truth?

[PixyMisa]

These are experiences I've read about in multiple sources and, in one instance, talked with someone who has experienced what I've related. Rejecting them as imaginary seems a bit simplistic.
Why? There is never the slightest bit of evidence to support these claims; often, they in fact contradict what evidence is available.

The simplest coherent explanation is that the claims aren't true, that the events are some combination of misinterpretation, confabulation, hallucination, and lies.

Offer a hypothesis that explains why imaginary things can happen simultaneously in such detail.
Imaginary things can happen any way you want them to.

If you would prefer to reject these things out of hand because they don't square with how you perceive the natural order, that's OK. Just don't cloak the rejection as having anything to do with scientific inquiry.
The rejection is precisely scientific.

What's the evidence that these things happen? There's no evidence, just stories.

Okay, these things are just stories. Problem solved.

[Arouet]

What's the evidence that these things happen? There's no evidence, just stories.

The question is not whether stories are evidence or not (they are), but whether they are reliable or not (they often aren't). I don't think its true that there is no evidence of psi - there's lots of it. The question is how reliable that evidence is.

[dlorde]

Rejecting them as imaginary seems a bit simplistic.That's my hypothesis, a simplistic explanation for a simplistic anecdote - you asked, I gave. If you have a better one, let's hear it - it's more your claim than mine - burden of proof and all that.

Offer a hypothesis that explains why imaginary things can happen simultaneously in such detail.I did. Now you offer one - it's your claim.

If you would prefer to reject these things out of hand because they don't square with how you perceive the natural order, that's OK. Just don't cloak the rejection as having anything to do with scientific inquiry.

I rejected it after considering the 'evidence' you provided - which, you have to admit, is about as minimal as second-hand, hearsay, anecdotal evidence gets - not to mention being presented as hypothetical...

Better evidence will get more consideration. For an extraordinary claim, I'd expect high quality evidence. YMMV.

[PixyMisa]

The question is not whether stories are evidence or not (they are), but whether they are reliable or not (they often aren't). I don't think its true that there is no evidence of psi - there's lots of it. The question is how reliable that evidence is.
Stories are information, not evidence. They can lead to evidence, but are not evidence in themselves. (Unless you are studying something like anthropology or psychology - that is, studying the stories themselves.)

Stories of psi are not evidence for psi - they do not change the likelihood that psi is real one way or the other. There is, as I said, no evidence whatsoever for psi.

[Arouet]

Stories are information, not evidence. They can lead to evidence, but are not evidence in themselves. (Unless you are studying something like anthropology or psychology - that is, studying the stories themselves.)

Stories of psi are not evidence for psi - they do not change the likelihood that psi is real one way or the other. There is, as I said, no evidence whatsoever for psi.

Stories are evidence - they can be weak or strong depending on how well supported they are by other corroborating evidence, how reliable the source is, etc.

For example: your friend tells comes in from outside and mentions that its raining outside. You're facing away and didn't get a chance to see him before he leaves the room. You have no other information about the weather. Would you say that you had evidence of whether it was raining? Of course not, you have eye witness testimony. That is evidence. You can then evaluate how reliable his testimony is. You can choose to go look for corroborating evidence to back it up.

But its evidence. This is just semantics, and not terribly important, because the effect is the same (we're looking for reliable evidence not just any evidence), but still...

[PixyMisa]

If you tell me a story about four-sided triangles, that does not constitute evidence that triangles have four sides. They simply don't.

[PixyMisa]

And I'll agree that the two cases are not exactly the same, but they are sufficiently sameish that stories of psi just aren't evidence. At this point, we know that they don't even lead to evidence - not of psi, that is, though frequently of incompetence or fraud.

[Arouet]

If you tell me a story about four-sided triangles, that does not constitute evidence that triangles have four sides. They simply don't.

How would you know that triangles have three sides except that you were told about it? Stories are evidence. Some of them are completely unreliable, some of them are quite reliable. In general, if all we have are stories, without objective independent evidence, we would say the evidence is pretty weak for a proposition. I really think you're better served by talking about evidence in terms of degrees of reliability, rather than labeling some stories evidence and others not.

So its better to say that the evidence in favour of psi is unreliable, rather than say there is no evidence whatsoever.

[MuDPhuD]

These are experiences I've read about in multiple sources and, in one instance, talked with someone who has experienced what I've related. Rejecting them as imaginary seems a bit.

This whole thread is very interesting reading and reminds me of a hundred conversations I have had over the years.

JFish has repeated multiple times here that "there is evidence" or "there are many cases" etc., and his critics keep repeating "no there isn't (aren't)" .

Jfish, all they want is to be shown the cases where the "dead" person sees something they couldn't possibly have seen or known about otherwise. Like the case you mentioned about the woman who saw the saw. That sounds like an interesting example.
A skeptic will have many questions about this of course. Did she see the exact saw the surgeon was using? How do we know? Did the saw have some identifying marking which she was able to verify? I doubt it, one cranium saw looks much like another. Could she tell what brand it was? Something, anything which identifies the saw she saw as the exact one the surgeon used. Otherwise, a patient coming for brain surgery is described how the procedure is done, she may read about it, watch the learning channel, or have many other possible ways to know (before her operation) that the neurosurgeon will saw a hole in her skull. Once such a thought or image is present in the mind before the event, then you must admit that the mind is perfectly capable of constructing a "dream" containing those elements, without her consciousness leaving her body.
Likewise, the experience of the congenitally blind is intriguing. However, surely such a person has been wondering their whole life what it would be like to see? I would think a some point in their life it might be a constant preoccupation. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that blind people do sometimes dream of seeing, (although the one you mentioned specifically denied it) The fact that under the stress of hypoxia/hypercarbia/acidosis the brain has dredged up these thoughts surely is not surprising?

Given that a blind person reports a NDE in which she "sees", in what way is this related to vision through an eye? How can we we confirm that what she "sees" has any similarity to our vision using lens, retina, optic nerve, cerebral cortex, etc...? Why should it? The physical apparatus of the visual system limits what we experience as vision. Why should our unattached consciousness be similarly limited? Does the soul see infrared, hear ultrahigh frequency, smell as acutely as a dog? Why not?
All these described cases of NDE have similar problems. The conditions are not controlled. Every person's mind is filled, before the event, with sensory impressions of doctors, hospitals, surgery, etc. The fact that, under stress, the brain will manufacture "dreams" very similar to NDE is demonstrated fact. Why believe an NDE is more than that?

In any case, I hope I have clarified for you why what others are calling "stories" or "anecdotes" are not taken as serious evidence of consciousness existing separate from the Brain.

[PixyMisa]

How would you know that triangles have three sides except that you were told about it?
Why, through evidence.

[Arouet]

Why, through evidence.

Pixy, this isn't a controversial point. There are different kinds of evidence. Testimonial evidence is a kind of evidence. Different kinds of evidence are often presented together to try and demonstrate a certain proposition. The mere fact that a proposition is supported by one piece of evidence or another does not make it true. We determine how likely something is to be true based on the strength and reliability of the evidence presented.

ITT, jfish simply saying he's witnessed a certain phenomena is evidence of that phenomena. It's just very very very weak evidence and shouldn't be used to consider the proposition likely to be true. Members of the forum have asked for other forms of evidence to be presented. Sometimes a single piece of evidence can be used to support multiple - even contradictory - propositions. It's still evidence though.

The wiki definition is:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Witness accounts are without question used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

In law, such evidence is used all the time, and can even be determinative. Is this really so controvercial? I know its just semantics, but I think this is pretty well established.

[PixyMisa]

ITT, jfish simply saying he's witnessed a certain phenomena is evidence of that phenomena. It's just very very very weak evidence and shouldn't be used to consider the proposition likely to be true. Members of the forum have asked for other forms of evidence to be presented. Sometimes a single piece of evidence can be used to support multiple - even contradictory - propositions. It's still evidence though.
If I say I saw a four-sided triangle, that might mean I'm joking, confused, or delusional. It is not evidence that I saw a four-sided triangle, because that is already established to be impossible.

Psi isn't the same as a four-sided triangle, but it's damn close. Stories of psi don't constitute evidence for psi; they constitute evidence for confusion, delusion, incompetence and lies.

Do we use stories of psi to determine the truth of psi? No. We discard them, because they're long since established to be entirely worthless. By the definition you provided, they're not evidence.

[marplots]

The problem isn't just about the weight of anecdotal evidence, but the meaning of it. For instance, why is it an OBE and not a case of near-death mind reading? Surely they could have "seen" at least some of the stuff through the eyes of the other people there? Or an insect? Perhaps it is a case of clairvoyance, and the NDE is just a psychic vision like a medium would get.

The real failure of these claims, to me at least, is that there isn't any serious claim here, just a kind of awe and mysterious "something." They just don't seem to take their own subject all that seriously. Investigate it, clarify it, make some progress already. Then come back and tell us what you found out.

In the thirty or so years I've read about NDEs, I haven't seen a whit of progress and the argument is stalled at "do they exist or not." Please. Nail down the phenomenon and then for goodness sake, come up with some theory that has legs.

[PixyMisa]

Absolutely right. We have a story. Sure, the person probably did have an experience of some sort.

And then waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over here, we have a claim, which requires about a dozen different physical impossibilities, and probably doesn't actually explain the experience anyway.

And it's been that way since forever. We've only noticed it in the past century, when scientists actually took a look at claims of the paranormal and discovered that the can of worms was empty.

[Arouet]

Absolutely right. We have a story. Sure, the person probably did have an experience of some sort.

Yes, exactly. But look at the term marplots used "annecdotal evidence" I'm not arguing with you on the weight of this evidence. But there's nothing wrong with calling it evidence and I don't understand your reluctance to it. Such evidence is provided in court in waves. It's still evidence and the court has the duty to evaluate it. You can say that a piece of evidence does not support a certain proposition - its still evidence. The threshold for what is considered evidence is pretty low. The threshold for what is considered reliable evidence is much higher.

You are simply re-defining the word evidence here.

(you're triangle example is poor by the way, since triangles are defined at three sided. not a great analogy. If someone said they saw a four sided triangle we could just tell them they are wrong, because it is a logical impossibility that they are right.)

[quarky]

"Wrong" is over-rated, imho.

[MuDPhuD]

In the thirty or so years I've read about NDEs, I haven't seen a whit of progress and the argument is stalled at "do they exist or not." .

Near death experience is a phenomenon. It cannot be denied that it occurs. The question is why does it occur. Competing hypotheses have been advanced:
1. NDE is an OBE indicating the existence of consciousness (or the soul in the case of D.Chopra) separate from the brain, and
2. NDE is a dream state fully explained by the operation of the brain in a stressed situation.

The evidence presented for "1" is that
A: different people have similar experiences, and
B: the experiences purportedly contain actual elements of the environment around the "dead" person.
Unless the reported NDE contains very specific verifiable elements (my doctor was wearing a red plaid shirt and diagonally striped tie, etc.) then both A and B are ambiguous evidence. They are both easily explained by the alternative, simpler hypothesis #2. So far, as already noted numerous times in this thread, no one has reported such specific verifiable features of anyone's NDE. Hence the AWARE study seeking exactly that evidence.

In contrast there is a mountain of reliable verifiable evidence supporting the notion that consciousness IS brain activity.

[PixyMisa]

(you're triangle example is poor by the way, since triangles are defined at three sided. not a great analogy. If someone said they saw a four sided triangle we could just tell them they are wrong, because it is a logical impossibility that they are right.)
Correct. And psi is a physical impossibility. We know that psi events do not happen, and when people make such claims we can just tell them that they are wrong.

[Waterman]

There's an interesting profile of leading neurologist V.S. Ramachandran in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jan/30/observer-profile-vs-ramachandran

I was particularly struck by this:

What they [recent discoveries about neurons] appear to tell us is that humans are first and foremost mimics. We make ourselves up as we go along by improvising from what we see. This model also suggests the self is in dynamic interaction with otherness, both copying behaviour and projecting its emotions on to others, which is the basis for the vital human quality of empathy. (Ramachandran speculated in 2000 that autism was caused by deficient mirror neurons and medical research is now going in this direction.)

It's Ramachandran's contention that self-reflection was formed somewhere in this process of self-projection. The mirror-neuron system enables us to see another person's point of view, what's known as an allocentric view, as opposed to an egocentric one. Ramachandran suggests that "at some point in evolution, this system turned back and allowed you to create an allocentric view of yourself. This is, I claim, the dawn of self-awareness".

Very interesting, this would also fit with what little I know about feral children. Being raised in isolation without a 'mirror' would affect development particualrly thier ability to relate to others. Very interesting. It also fits with baby mimicing the facial expression of the adults they interact with. Not conclusive mind you but the pieces fit.

[Arouet]

Correct. And psi is a physical impossibility. We know that psi events do not happen, and when people make such claims we can just tell them that they are wrong.

C'mon, you know that's not the same thing. One is definitional. The other evidential. We decide what a triangle is. We don't decide whether psi is real. Why take this position as a skeptic. Why not just challenge the reliability of the evidence that is out there, rather than pretend it doesn't exist?

Proponents always accuse us skeptics of being dogmatic. I always tell them its not true for most. Please don't help make a liar out of me!

[PixyMisa]

C'mon, you know that's not the same thing.
Which is why I said they're not the same thing - just very very close.

One is definitional. The other evidential. We decide what a triangle is. We don't decide whether psi is real. Why take this position as a skeptic.
I don't. Never said I did.

We don't decide that psi is not real. We know psi is not real.

Why not just challenge the reliability of the evidence that is out there, rather than pretend it doesn't exist?
Because it doesn't exist.

Proponents always accuse us skeptics of being dogmatic. I always tell them its not true for most. Please don't help make a liar out of me!
I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being honest. The evidence is in. There's no such thing as psi.

All we can do with stories of psi is point out why they are worthless. There is no question whether they are worthless.

If someone comes to us with a story that the Earth is flat, we don't consider the value of that as evidence. They're just wrong.

(And if you come to us with a story that the Earth is round, we don't consider the value of that as evidence either.)

[Arouet]

I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being honest. The evidence is in. There's no such thing as psi.

That may be true - bit that's not the same thing as saying that there isn't evidence that may be suggestive of it- even though the conclusion turns out to be wrong.


All we can do with stories of psi is point out why they are worthless. There is no question whether they are worthless.

Well, I might disagree about there being a question, I think there is. But that's besides the point here: how do we figure out if there is psi or not? By examining the evidence! So let's just call it what it is: evidence.

I think what you really mean when you say there is no evidence that psi exists is that there is no reliable evidence that psi exists. Take the ganzfeld experiments. Are we doubting that the results are evidence? Of course not. But we we interpret the evidence, and see how reliable it is and how it supports the hypothesis. Let's say we examine all that evidence and we find it lacking. Does it suddenly become not-evidence? No. The evidence simply doesn't support the conclusion.

that's all I'm trying to say in this semantic discussion.


If someone comes to us with a story that the Earth is flat, we don't consider the value of that as evidence. They're just wrong.

Of course we consider the value of that as evidence. We just don't need to take very long to dismiss it as completely unreliable because we know of all sorts of other evidence that contradicts it.


(And if you come to us with a story that the Earth is round, we don't consider the value of that as evidence either.)

Of course you would. Someone reports that they were sailing, and watched as the earth curved at the horizon. That's not evidence of the earth being round? Of course it is.

I saw the guy run that red light! Is this not evidence of the guy running the red light? Of course it is.

What is a business record other than a story? We use this type of evidence all the time.

I think you've confused the [I]weight or probative value" of the evidence with the evidence itself. When a court excludes hearsay evidence, it does so because it deems such evidence unreliable, not because it doesn't consider it to be evidence at all. You're confusing whether a particular piece of evidence supports a particular proposition with it being evidence itself.

[PixyMisa]

Well, I might disagree about there being a question, I think there is. But that's besides the point here: how do we figure out if there is psi or not? By examining the evidence! So let's just call it what it is: evidence.
But what does a story tell us about psi? One way or the other, it tells us nothing at all. It's not evidence.

I think what you really mean when you say there is no evidence that psi exists is that there is no reliable evidence that psi exists. Take the ganzfeld experiments. Are we doubting that the results are evidence? Of course not. But we we interpret the evidence, and see how reliable it is and how it supports the hypothesis. Let's say we examine all that evidence and we find it lacking. Does it suddenly become not-evidence? No. The evidence simply doesn't support the conclusion.
Exactly. At that point, it's not evidence for psi. It's evidence for poor experimental design.

that's all I'm trying to say in this semantic discussion.
I agree that it's a fine semantic point, and not really key to the discussion.

I think you've confused the [i]weight or probative value" of the evidence with the evidence itself. When a court excludes hearsay evidence, it does so because it deems such evidence unreliable, not because it doesn't consider it to be evidence at all. You're confusing whether a particular piece of evidence supports a particular proposition with it being evidence itself.
My point is, this isn't a court, and the artificial rules of courts are irrelevant. In the real world, you have information. Information is only evidence with respect to a given hypothesis. If the information does not favour a given hypothesis over the null hypothesis (or over some other specific hypothesis), it is not evidence for that hypothesis.

There is, upon examination, no evidence for psi.

[steenkh]

But what does a story tell us about psi? One way or the other, it tells us nothing at all. It's not evidence.
Would it not be more correct to say that it is not credible evidence?

There are many situations in our daily life where we accept uncorroborated stories as evidence, mostly because we deem them plausible. A story about psi is not credible, and that I think that is why you do not want to see it as evidence.

We could rule out all evidence that is not credible, and say that we do not regard it as evidence, which is pretty much the normal usage, but it also means that something can be evidence in some situations and not in others. I think it is simpler that evidence is always evidence, but the credibility can change, but I admit that it can be tedious to insert "credible" in front of every use of valid evidence.

[PixyMisa]

Would it not be more correct to say that it is not credible evidence?
No, I think it's less correct.

It's not flat out wrong, but I think it's more correct to say it's not evidence at all.

If someone claims the world is flat, which of the following statements is a more accurate repesentation of the situation, and less likely to lead to misunderstsandings?

A: This is evidence that the world is flat.
B: This is not evidence that the world is flat.

There are many situations in our daily life where we accept uncorroborated stories as evidence, mostly because we deem them plausible. A story about psi is not credible, and that I think that is why you do not want to see it as evidence.
Well, it's true that it's not credible. But more than that, it's a claim of something established as impossible.

We could rule out all evidence that is not credible, and say that we do not regard it as evidence, which is pretty much the normal usage, but it also means that something can be evidence in some situations and not in others.
Yes, exactly. A footprint is just a footprint, unless you are using it to evaluate one hypothesis with respect to another.

So yes, something can be evidence in some situations and not in others.

[steenkh]

Well, it's true that it's not credible. But more than that, it's a claim of something established as impossible.
Is that not a dangerous position? Would this not have been said about quantum entanglement before it was discovered?

[PixyMisa]

Well, no. Nobody had established that quantum entanglement was impossible.

Once something has been established as fact, contrary claims are not contrary evidence. They're just noise.

[Arouet]

Well, no. Nobody had established that quantum entanglement was impossible.

Look, I don't believe in psi, but when has it (it being a collection of a bunch of different apparent phenomena) been established as impossible? Maybe not probable, but impossible? No one assumes that our current understanding of physical laws are complete. And it is impossible to rule out other rules that may play that allow psi.

Take God. I'm an atheist, but will I say that God is impossible? Of course not. I don't believe in God, but there may be a god. And if there is such a deity then who knows what is possible? That puts a lot on the table.

As a skeptic there is no need to go so far as to label things impossible (with the exception of logical impossibilities of course). Let's just look at the claims and see if they measure up!

[PixyMisa]

Look, I don't believe in psi, but when has it (it being a collection of a bunch of different apparent phenomena) been established as impossible? Maybe not probable, but impossible? No one assumes that our current understanding of physical laws are complete. And it is impossible to rule out other rules that may play that allow psi.
There is no possible mechanism for the sending or receiving of information (much less physical effects) that is typically claimed for psi, and no possible carrier. You'd have to junk the entire standard model, relativity, and quantum electrodynamics to make psi work. And I mean throw them out and rewrite them.

The standard model, relativity, and QED may be incomplete, but they are not wrong on that level. Nor is our knowledge of neurology and biophysics.

If someone is sitting in an empty, pitch-dark, lead-lined vault a mile below the surface of the Earth, with no electricity available, no signals from the surface at all, and they claim to be watching television, they are not watching television.

Take God. I'm an atheist, but will I say that God is impossible? Of course not. I don't believe in God, but there may be a god. And if there is such a deity then who knows what is possible? That puts a lot on the table.
No, it doesn't put a lot on the table. It puts absolutely everything on the table... Except for any possible way to distinguish between hypotheses.

As a skeptic there is no need to go so far as to label things impossible (with the exception of logical impossibilities of course). Let's just look at the claims and see if they measure up!
They don't. First, there's no evidence. Second, it's impossible.

[Arouet]

There is no possible mechanism for the sending or receiving of information (much less physical effects) that is typically claimed for psi, and no possible carrier. You'd have to junk the entire standard model, relativity, and quantum electrodynamics to make psi work. And I mean throw them out and rewrite them.

Why does this necessarily follow? What if the mechanism doesn't involve those mechanisms, but involves a parallel mechanism? What if there is a way to reconcile psi with our current knowledge? Again, not saying any of those are true, but why go so far as to say its impossible? We can't possibly know that. All we can do is deal in probabilities.


The standard model, relativity, and QED may be incomplete, but they are not wrong on that level. Nor is our knowledge of neurology and biophysics.

And if they were wrong or incomplete on that level, would we necessarily know? The best we can say is that there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is unlikely. We can't say: there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is impossible.


No, it doesn't put a lot on the table. It puts absolutely everything on the table... Except for any possible way to distinguish between hypotheses.

Sure it puts everything on the table. Then we have to look at the evidence. But our reasons for rejecting the evidence can't merely be: "you're wrong because its impossible". You'll agree with me that that's not skepticism.


They don't. First, there's no evidence. Second, it's impossible.

Sure but I'd simply phrase it as: the evidence in favour of psi is not sufficient to draw the conclusion they want us to draw.

With all due respect, I don't think your position here is skeptical.

[PixyMisa]

Why does this necessarily follow? What if the mechanism doesn't involve those mechanisms, but involves a parallel mechanism?
There can't be a parallel mechanism. That's ruled out by quantum mechanics. It would require subatomic particles to have additional properties beyond the ones we know about; if that were true, they would behave very differently - the Pauli Exclusion Principle would produce drastically different results if electrons had more properties, for example, regardless of what those properties were.

It's impossible.

What if there is a way to reconcile psi with our current knowledge?
That's easy: Psi doesn't exist. There, reconciled.

Again, not saying any of those are true, but why go so far as to say its impossible?
Because it's impossible.

We can't possibly know that.
We can know that; we do know that.

And if they were wrong or incomplete on that level, would we necessarily know?
If they were wrong on that level, we wouldn't even exist. All of physics and chemistry and every other science would by drastically different; life as we know it would be impossible, stars and planets as we know them would be unable to form.

The best we can say is that there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is unlikely. We can't say: there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is impossible.
As I've explained, it's not that there is no known mechanism. It's that we know there's no mechanism.

Sure it puts everything on the table. Then we have to look at the evidence.
No. If everything is possible, no amount of evidence can lead you to any conclusion.

But our reasons for rejecting the evidence can't merely be: "you're wrong because its impossible". You'll agree with me that that's not skepticism.
If something is impossible, like psi, then it is precisely skepticism.

Sure but I'd simply phrase it as: the evidence in favour of psi is not sufficient to draw the conclusion they want us to draw.
There's no such evidence in the first place, so sure, it's insufficient.

[Arouet]

I think we've taken this about as far as we can go here. I don't agree with your take on this.

[jfish]

I've read over 1,400 NDE accounts and many of them report seeing things in an out of body state that they couldn't observe otherwise. For example, one person had an NDE during a car accident. The person says he observed a rooftop bar on a nearby hotel. I have a friend who had an OBE while riding in a car. She says at some point her consciousness was outside the car briefly. I have another friend who reports that he was in a bar in Arizona with a friend when a man came up to them, pulled out a gun and tried to fire it (it misfired). My friend reports that when the gun was pulled and he thought his life was in danger, he experienced an OBE.

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified. Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something. When I shared the published report about two individuals at the Monroe Institute having simultaneous consciousness experiences outside their bodies, the response was it was imaginary. There isn't any point in my putting the effort into sharing these things if they are going to be rejected out of hand. I had hoped some people might be sufficiently interested to undertake some research on their own. I don't get the impression anyone wants to spend $20 and purchase Mindsight (the book on blind NDEs and OBEs).

Last Tuesday I had a group of people at my house. One had just come from an MC2 program at the Monroe Institute. That particular program is intended to teach people how to focus energy. She reported on some of the things that happened there - accelerated seed growth, lighting light bulbs and even some bending of spoons. Two other participants talked about their OBEs. I have no reason to doubt them but I don't have any proof to offer that they aren't making it up.

If you want more anecdotal reports that include references to verifiable things that were seen, purchase one of William Buhlman's books. Again, I expect that some will reject all this as being ficitious rather than entertain the possibility that there is truth here and that truth points to something too wonderous to conceive. I still pursue my path to experiencing something unique so that I might come to know rather than simply believe.

[PixyMisa]

I've read over 1,400 NDE accounts and many of them report seeing things in an out of body state that they couldn't observe otherwise. For example, one person had an NDE during a car accident. The person says he observed a rooftop bar on a nearby hotel. I have a friend who had an OBE while riding in a car. She says at some point her consciousness was outside the car briefly. I have another friend who reports that he was in a bar in Arizona with a friend when a man came up to them, pulled out a gun and tried to fire it (it misfired). My friend reports that when the gun was pulled and he thought his life was in danger, he experienced an OBE.

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified.
Exactly.

Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something.
When you're claiming that the stories point to something physically impossible, we'd be stupid not to require verifiable evidence.

When I shared the published report about two individuals at the Monroe Institute having simultaneous consciousness experiences outside their bodies, the response was it was imaginary. There isn't any point in my putting the effort into sharing these things if they are going to be rejected out of hand.
That's what we keep telling you. Stories are worthless. You need to provide actual evidence.

Last Tuesday I had a group of people at my house. One had just come from an MC2 program at the Monroe Institute. That particular program is intended to teach people how to focus energy.
Which is itself completely meaningless.

She reported on some of the things that happened there - accelerated seed growth
Evidence?

lighting light bulbs
Evidence?

and even some bending of spoons.
Bending spoons? That's a trivial conjuring trick.

Two other participants talked about their OBEs. I have no reason to doubt them but I don't have any proof to offer that they aren't making it up.
We're not asking for proof, we're asking for any evidence at all.

If you want more anecdotal reports that include references to verifiable things that were seen, purchase one of William Buhlman's books.
We don't want anecdotal reports at all. We want evidence.

Again, I expect that some will reject all this as being ficitious rather than entertain the possibility that there is truth here and that truth points to something too wonderous to conceive.
Sorry, that's just drivel.

Show us some evidence, then we'll consider the possibility that there might be something worth examing. Actually, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that if you show us something purporting to be evidence, we'll show you improper experimental design or improper use of statistics, but at least we can all learn something from that.

Stories are worthless.

I still pursue my path to experiencing something unique so that I might come to know rather than simply believe.
That's not a path.

[PixyMisa]

I think we've taken this about as far as we can go here. I don't agree with your take on this.
There's two points here.

One is semantic - what we mean by evidence and impossible. That's a question of common definitions; I am pointing out that my usage, while less pedantic, is more didactic.

The other is scientific and incontrovertible: Psi is at odds with known, thoroughly established science in every way imaginable. If psi is real, all of science is wrong. Since all of science is not wrong, psi is not real.

[Resume]

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified. Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something. .

Well of course. The accounts you relate are similar in effect to every anecdote I've ever heard from a paranormal enthusiast. They simply cannot be verified.

"Trust me," I'm asked.

No.

[Pixel42]

An interesting interview with one of the scientists studying NDEs in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/13/kevin-nelson-near-death-experience

[jfish]

I long ago gave up trying to convince anyone that there is verifiable evidence. Perhaps there are some readers who agree that further exploration is merited. That is a personal choice each person makes for himself. Pixy, you are free to reject everything until someone can provide irrefutable proof. I and others will continue to pursue exploration and evolution rather than remain tied to an ongoing limiting reality based on the "known" physical universe. I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with rejecting the possibility. We just have reached different conclusions based on our respective experiences.

[Marcus]

I've read over 1,400 NDE accounts and many of them report seeing things in an out of body state that they couldn't observe otherwise. For example, one person had an NDE during a car accident. The person says he observed a rooftop bar on a nearby hotel. I have a friend who had an OBE while riding in a car. She says at some point her consciousness was outside the car briefly. I have another friend who reports that he was in a bar in Arizona with a friend when a man came up to them, pulled out a gun and tried to fire it (it misfired). My friend reports that when the gun was pulled and he thought his life was in danger, he experienced an OBE.

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified. Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something. When I shared the published report about two individuals at the Monroe Institute having simultaneous consciousness experiences outside their bodies, the response was it was imaginary. There isn't any point in my putting the effort into sharing these things if they are going to be rejected out of hand. I had hoped some people might be sufficiently interested to undertake some research on their own. I don't get the impression anyone wants to spend $20 and purchase Mindsight (the book on blind NDEs and OBEs).

Last Tuesday I had a group of people at my house. One had just come from an MC2 program at the Monroe Institute. That particular program is intended to teach people how to focus energy. She reported on some of the things that happened there - accelerated seed growth, lighting light bulbs and even some bending of spoons. Two other participants talked about their OBEs. I have no reason to doubt them but I don't have any proof to offer that they aren't making it up.

If you want more anecdotal reports that include references to verifiable things that were seen, purchase one of William Buhlman's books. Again, I expect that some will reject all this as being ficitious rather than entertain the possibility that there is truth here and that truth points to something too wonderous to conceive. I still pursue my path to experiencing something unique so that I might come to know rather than simply believe.
Here's the problem. For many, many, years we have been treated to anecdotal reports of OBE's and ADE's. Sure, they looked intriguing 100 years ago, but if it was real, we would have evidence by now. Anyone can write anything in a book, it simply doesn't qualify as evidence. If someone tells me about their OBE, I don't think they are lying. They really believe they were out of body. However, all the evidence points to their experience taking place entirely within their brain.

[PixyMisa]

I long ago gave up trying to convince anyone that there is verifiable evidence.
You might have more success if you'd actually presented some.

Perhaps there are some readers who agree that further exploration is merited. That is a personal choice each person makes for himself. Pixy, you are free to reject everything until someone can provide irrefutable proof.
I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for evidence. Not stories. Evidence.

I and others will continue to pursue exploration and evolution rather than remain tied to an ongoing limiting reality based on the "known" physical universe.
That is the silliest thing you could possibly do.

I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with rejecting the possibility.
And yet...

We just have reached different conclusions based on our respective experiences.
No. We've reached conclusions based on the evidence. You've decided to believe regardless of the evidence.

[marplots]

You might try it the other way round and ask yourself how is it that we find ourselves in the state of not having an OBE. I mean during the regular working hours. What sort of thing is this that is overwhelmingly located and fixed to this body and why?

Shouldn't the number of cases of death/sleeping/unconsciousness that do not produce an OBE overbear the number that do? It would be an easier experiment to run -- the number of subjects seems vastly greater. And I think some understanding of why I seem to be conscious and located in this body is an interesting question all by itself.

[jfish]

I think the original intent of this thread was soliciting thoughts on the Monroe Institute. In my initial posting I mentioned that I would be going to the institute and was willing to share my take on the experience. Most participants either have already concluded there is no broader reality or have concluded that the strength of the evidence isn't sufficient to warrant more interest in exploring the possibilities. Consequently, sharing my experiences isn't likely to stimulate the type of conversation I'm really interested in (if there is a broader reality, what are the implications).

[PixyMisa]

Sharing your experiences may well be helfpful. Your experiences; not things you've read about, not stories other people have told you, not interpretations constructed after the fact. If you are willing to approach the matter skeptically, to recognise the falliblity of your senses and cognitive abilities, that just because you thought you saw something doesn't mean that there was anything there to see, much less that it was what you first thought.

Stories, though, are simply worthless.

[jfish]

I think the journey I'm on may not be successful if I maintain a skepitcal attitude. The achievement of an OBE, for example, seems to require a willingness to "go with the flow", so to speak. This is what the experienced OBErs say. For people like me who haven't spontaneously experienced an OBE, focusing your intent on having an OBE and believing it can be achieved seeim to be prerequisites to a successful OBE. Also, even if I am able to achieve an OBE, will I be able to contain my excitement to notice verifiable things abotu me that prove that it isn't a dream? Only time will tell, I guess.

[steenkh]

I think the journey I'm on may not be successful if I maintain a skepitcal attitude.
I think you are right. Self-deception is harder when you are skeptical. But a number of skeptics have experienced OBE's for themselves, so it is not impossible. However, skeptics would just enjoy the experience rather than think it represents the physical reality.

[jfish]

It may be that if/when I actually experience an OBE I'll come to the conclusion that it was just an interesting experience that doesn't represent a broader reality. However, I may also conclude, like many other OBE experiencers (perhaps most) that this really is more than just a brain produced awareness. Calling it self deception implies we know what the outcome will be in advance.

Here's an interesting web site I visited this week - www.reconciliationlife.com. A friend who attended a Monroe Institute program on healing last week met a neurologist there who had had an NDE. She know of my interest in NDEs and, in particular, what people in the medical community have to say about it. This isn't offered as proof of anything but the commentary does come from a person with a wealth of experience working with the human brain.

[marplots]

I think one cool thing is the ability to abandon a worldview based on materialism more easily than abandoning a worldview that includes the mystical. What status does the second have that trumps the first? Is it just more interesting?

[jfish]

Most people probably want to believe there is something more than a one lifetime existence in a material world. World religions feed that desire. Unfortunately, most religions require adherance to a set of beliefs and dogmas that are more about control than advancing spiritual freedom.

[thebigm]

jfish, I am doing something similar to you. I am approaching this skeptically, but with a feeling there is more to it than merely self deception.

I refuse to believe anything until I've experienced it first hand and even then, I am not going to take anything from it until I've experienced something that proves beyond reasonable doubt that I could not possibly have seen/known this in the physical world.

I am trying to gain more control over the lucid dream state instead as well as trying to induce an OBE. I have a friend that has recently moved to another city and I have not visited his apartment (or said city). My intention is to try and do this, although I realise it will be extremely difficult.

If I was able to experience something that I could not have previously known, or very unlikely have predicted then I think that would prove to me beyond reasonable doubt.

However, there is the odd possibility that I could gauge what his apartment would look like inside from inside or something going on there from just knowing him as a person and some kind of advanced intuition. Regardless, this wont be easy and I am still unable to gain enough control over the lucid dream state or induce an OBE at will, but it's an enjoyable practice.

[thebigm]

jfish - can I ask, are there any experiments you are trying in order to confirm/deny your belief/experimentation?

Would be interested in hearing about it, even if you'd rather keep it vague.

Cheers.

[steenkh]

I refuse to believe anything until I've experienced it first hand and even then, I am not going to take anything from it until I've experienced something that proves beyond reasonable doubt that I could not possibly have seen/known this in the physical world.
Very commendable, but could you please explain why first-hand experience is so important for you? I think it is unlikely that you really only believe in things that you experience first hand, and I hope that even if you do experience stuff first hand, you will not necessarily believe it if you think you can find no natural explanation. If for instance, you watch a conjurer perform a brilliant magic trick: you experience it first hand, and you cannot come up with a natural explanation. In this case, the only reason why you - presumably - do not believe it, is that you already know that it is a magic trick.

The reason why science tries to remove first-hand experience from the investigation is that it is known to be unreliable, and the scientific method employs careful controls to ensure as far as possible that we do not get fooled by tricks or our own ignorance. I really cannot see why first-hand experience and failure to find a natural explanation would be a reason to rationally believe in anything. Careful elimination of confounding factors would, on the other hand, be a reason for belief.

[jfish]

My first step in this process is to achieve an OBE. Once I know I can get to that state, I'll consider what kind of control I can exert to obtain proof. I recall one of Robert Monroe's experiences he shared in his book. He visited his ill friend in another town and was surprised when he didn't find him in his bedroom. Instead he located his friend outside with his wife. When Monroe later called his friend about this, the friend confirmed that he had gone outside at the time of the OBE. Apparently, he was getting bored lying in bed and decided to get up and go outside for some fresh air. The timing of the OBE visit and his friend's walk outside coincided with one another, according to Monroe.

One problem I see is that anyone can call this a "story". TheBigM, if you or I were to experience something similar, it may be abundantly clear to us individually that this is proof but that won't mean others will accept this as anything more than a story. Which takes me back to one of my main points - each person has to make his own judgement as to what constitutes proof for himself as an individual. While experienced OBErs think they have all the proof they need, for some reason they don't submit themselves to a rigorous examination by outside individuals. Perhaps if/when I've had an OBE, I'll better understand why that is the case.

[steenkh]

One problem I see is that anyone can call this a "story". TheBigM, if you or I were to experience something similar, it may be abundantly clear to us individually that this is proof but that won't mean others will accept this as anything more than a story.
It is certainly evidence that people tend to experience the same thing in the same circumstances. Why would it be "proof" of anything else?

Which takes me back to one of my main points - each person has to make his own judgement as to what constitutes proof for himself as an individual.
Are you talking about rational proof, or just an emotional proof - "gut feeling"?

[thebigm]

Very commendable, but could you please explain why first-hand experience is so important for you? I think it is unlikely that you really only believe in things that you experience first hand, and I hope that even if you do experience stuff first hand, you will not necessarily believe it if you think you can find no natural explanation. If for instance, you watch a conjurer perform a brilliant magic trick: you experience it first hand, and you cannot come up with a natural explanation. In this case, the only reason why you - presumably - do not believe it, is that you already know that it is a magic trick.

The reason why science tries to remove first-hand experience from the investigation is that it is known to be unreliable, and the scientific method employs careful controls to ensure as far as possible that we do not get fooled by tricks or our own ignorance. I really cannot see why first-hand experience and failure to find a natural explanation would be a reason to rationally believe in anything. Careful elimination of confounding factors would, on the other hand, be a reason for belief.

I am talking purely of a parapsychological or metaphysical experience of which there is a lack of scientific data and masses of contradictory beliefs (possibly due to this). Specifically trying to induce and OBE here and prove that it's not just a dream.

If I was able to verify something to myself, which to me proved beyond reasonable doubt that an OBE takes place not only inside the imagination of the person experiencing it.

What careful controls would you suggest adding to remove first hand experience? I mean the whole event takes place in first hand experience.

My thoughts are to try and project to a place I have never been and attempt to verify it. Then following that, try something a bit more complex.

[thebigm]

My first step in this process is to achieve an OBE. Once I know I can get to that state, I'll consider what kind of control I can exert to obtain proof. I recall one of Robert Monroe's experiences he shared in his book. He visited his ill friend in another town and was surprised when he didn't find him in his bedroom. Instead he located his friend outside with his wife. When Monroe later called his friend about this, the friend confirmed that he had gone outside at the time of the OBE. Apparently, he was getting bored lying in bed and decided to get up and go outside for some fresh air. The timing of the OBE visit and his friend's walk outside coincided with one another, according to Monroe.

One problem I see is that anyone can call this a "story". TheBigM, if you or I were to experience something similar, it may be abundantly clear to us individually that this is proof but that won't mean others will accept this as anything more than a story. Which takes me back to one of my main points - each person has to make his own judgement as to what constitutes proof for himself as an individual. While experienced OBErs think they have all the proof they need, for some reason they don't submit themselves to a rigorous examination by outside individuals. Perhaps if/when I've had an OBE, I'll better understand why that is the case.


Jfish – I found Monroe’s accounts fascinating. But like you said, until they are experienced firsthand they can be dismissed as stories and as you said, if you experience something similar it could also be dismissed as a story to anyone else. Completely agree with you that it's all in the opinion of the beholder, which is why it's a topic that could never reach an agreement.

As you suggested also, one of the major sticking points for me is also, why someone with a developed talent couldn’t replicate this in a controlled environment, or why they wouldn’t want to.
Supposing they are not a fraud that is.

[fuelair]

Why is this thread still going. Clearly there are two basic sides. One side requires evidence of things that, if real, overthrow a rather large part of our time-tested and verified and fully evidenced physical laws/procedures/facts/mathmatics (and for which there is no evidence that is not purely anecdotal). The other does not. Fine, I'm with the first group. If you aren't, good luck on the purple flying unicorns thing. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is surely a damned good starting point!!!

[ExMinister]

(snip) one of the major sticking points for me is also, why someone with a developed talent couldn’t replicate this in a controlled environment, or why they wouldn’t want to.Supposing they are not a fraud that is.

This is a question worthy of consideration. It has occurred to me, too.

One suggestion to you and jfish from someone who has had probably hundreds of lucid dreams/OBEs (me): Work to achieve them, figure out ways to test them, but don't settle for one experience as proof. Be your own harshest critic. A good experiment should be repeatable.

The more experiences I had, the more I began to gather evidence that made me suspect they were brain-based. I am not sure I could have reached that conclusion from just one or two.

I would have been more than happy to participate in a controlled trial, though my experiences happened spontaneously and I couldn't necessarily instigate them.

Just my 2 cents.

[jfish]

The thread began not as a discussion of whether there is proof of anything metaphysical. The thread began seeking input as to Monroe Institute perceptions/experiences. Those of us who are actively seeking first hand experiences and/or are still open to the possibility that we are more than physical beings are sharing our thoughts with one another. I suggest that those who have concluded there is nothing more than this physical existence have made their point and should consider moving on. Perhaps you have nothing more to offer to this thread.

[Mister Earl]

Why do you believe people can transmit thoughts to each other? That'd be the easiest method of all of winning Randi's million. Yet nobody can manage it.

[thebigm]

Why do you believe people can transmit thoughts to each other? That'd be the easiest method of all of winning Randi's million. Yet nobody can manage it.

Erm.

I...don't?

[thebigm]

This is a question worthy of consideration. It has occurred to me, too.

One suggestion to you and jfish from someone who has had probably hundreds of lucid dreams/OBEs (me): Work to achieve them, figure out ways to test them, but don't settle for one experience as proof. Be your own harshest critic. A good experiment should be repeatable.

The more experiences I had, the more I began to gather evidence that made me suspect they were brain-based. I am not sure I could have reached that conclusion from just one or two.

I would have been more than happy to participate in a controlled trial, though my experiences happened spontaneously and I couldn't necessarily instigate them.

Just my 2 cents.

That’s what I am working towards, like jfish and yourself, I cannot spontaneously bring on an OBE/Lucid Dream at will but I am trying to. I have been trying a bit too hard recently I think.

Had a dream the other night that I was trying to have a spontaneous OBE (not a lucid dream, I wasn’t aware I was dreaming), then I actually managed it I was hovering above my body and the shock of it drove me to wake up! So obviously the whole thing happened within a dream.

But – I am enjoying the experimentation and I have my notebook by my bed in case anything does happen that I think of that is worthy of writing down, so far I haven’t experienced anything that could be considered evidence. Like I said, if I can get to a stage where I can bring this on regularly I will try and experiment more in an attempt to prove to myself that there is, or isn’t, anything more to this than brain function.

Out of curiousity, what kind of evidence did you gather that led you to believe they were brain based?
Either way I am fascinated by dreaming and different states of consciousness so interested in hearing both sides of the coin. Especially from someone who has become sceptical about it through experience and then making that deduction.

Cheers.

[steenkh]

What careful controls would you suggest adding to remove first hand experience? I mean the whole event takes place in first hand experience.
You could introduce objective elements, probably by enlisting outside help. I think you or jfish have already discussed the possibilities of seeing things when in OBE that you could not possibly know when IBE. You could arrange to set up objects that will only be visible when hovering under the ceiling, and that you have no possibility of knowing in advance, like a computer picture. If physical objects like walls are no hindrance for OBE, you could have arranged to have an object locked up in a cupboard that you have no access to.

My thoughts are to try and project to a place I have never been and attempt to verify it. Then following that, try something a bit more complex.
Exactly. As long as you use your first-hand experience to gain information of the nature of the phenomenon, there is no problem. When you use it to convince yourself and others that the OBEs are real, you have a problem.

If OBEs are for real, it will be interesting how the "soul" sees anything. After all, we know that light consists of photons, and we can measure if just a single photon is missing from a light beam, so just how is the soul "seeing" anything? If the soul is not using light, it could be able to "see" stuff that is not visible with light, and colours (which are properties of light) would make no sense. The same goes for sounds that are movements of air, and how would a soul sense movement of air without blocking for the movement?

These are aspects you should be aware of if you consider OBEs to be real.

[Resume]

Out of curiousity, what kind of evidence did you gather that led you to believe they were brain based?
Either way I am fascinated by dreaming and different states of consciousness so interested in hearing both sides of the coin. Especially from someone who has become sceptical about it through experience and then making that deduction.

Cheers.

Had an obe once during a very intense panic attack; it was a product of very heightened senses and the mind. I didn't much care for it.

[Marcus]

That’s what I am working towards, like jfish and yourself, I cannot spontaneously bring on an OBE/Lucid Dream at will but I am trying to. I have been trying a bit too hard recently I think.

Had a dream the other night that I was trying to have a spontaneous OBE (not a lucid dream, I wasn’t aware I was dreaming), then I actually managed it I was hovering above my body and the shock of it drove me to wake up! So obviously the whole thing happened within a dream.

But – I am enjoying the experimentation and I have my notebook by my bed in case anything does happen that I think of that is worthy of writing down, so far I haven’t experienced anything that could be considered evidence. Like I said, if I can get to a stage where I can bring this on regularly I will try and experiment more in an attempt to prove to myself that there is, or isn’t, anything more to this than brain function.

Out of curiousity, what kind of evidence did you gather that led you to believe they were brain based?
Either way I am fascinated by dreaming and different states of consciousness so interested in hearing both sides of the coin. Especially from someone who has become sceptical about it through experience and then making that deduction.

Cheers.
I'm not an OBE believer but I've enjoyed lucid dreaming occasionaly for decades, it's contained completely within the brain and is lots of fun. The method I use to induce the state is one I learned a long time ago.

First, establish a trigger. It's something that will remind you that you are dreaming. In my case it's looking at my hands, In other words, I remind myself over and over while awake to look at my hands while dreaming.

Second, it is critical that you be thinking about the desired dream just before falling asleep.

So it goes like this: in the minutes before falling asleep, I think about, say, a flying dream, and remind myself to look at my hands. In the dream, I will remember my suggestion to look at my hands, and in that moment, I will remember that I'm dreaming. The trick is to not think about it too hard, or you will wake up. From that moment on you have control, if you want to fly to Brazil, say, no problem.

[steenkh]

In the dream, I will remember my suggestion to look at my hands, and in that moment, I will remember that I'm dreaming. The trick is to not think about it too hard, or you will wake up. From that moment on you have control, if you want to fly to Brazil, say, no problem.
I have also had lucid dreams, particularly when I was younger, but I cannot say that I was in control just because I knew I was dreaming. It often happened that wished the dream would stop because what happened was too silly, but I was just swept along and had to be satisfied that at least none of it was real. On rare occasions I was able to break off the dream at will, and even continuing the dream after having ensured that there was enough time before I had to get up.

[jfish]

I was discussing OBEs and lucid dreams with a friend who says she regularly has both. She said she perceives a difference between the two states. Sometimes she is in a lucid dream and then makes a conscious effort to convert it to an OBE.

Marcus, your comment about the importance of what you are thinking when you drift off to sleep is very much aligned with what is in Bill Buhlman's book on OBEs. One of the recommendations is to repeat to yourself as you are falling asleep "Now I'm out of body." I've tried that but the most I've been able to accomplish is getting into a slight vibrational state.

[thebigm]

Marcus - I read the 'hands' technique in a book on the subject by Robert Waggoner. It's interesting. I have tried it but to no avail so far.

My 'trigger' is to try and look in the mirror, in a dream your reflection barely resembles what you'd expect. The other night whilst dreaming I was on a train I saw there was a mirror and I looked in it and saw what looked like myself at the age of about 15 and the figure in the mirror waved. That was enough to make me realise I was dreaming.

jfish - I've read also that the 2 states are entirely different which is one of the reasons why I'd like to try and induce an OBE and see if I can consciously make things happen as I can in a lucid dream.

For example, in the lucid dream the other night I looked at the sun out of the window and thought about it falling towards the earth and that is what started to happen. Things got a bit intense and I woke up.

Would be interesting to verify the difference in feeling between the 2 states.

[steenkh]

My 'trigger' is to try and look in the mirror, in a dream your reflection barely resembles what you'd expect.
Really? I have dreamed that I shaved, and there was nothing strange about the reflection, except of course that when I woke up, my beard was still there!

[thebigm]

Really? I have dreamed that I shaved, and there was nothing strange about the reflection, except of course that when I woke up, my beard was still there!

:D

Yeah, I'm starting to think that I may have deep rooted self image issues now.

A lot of my 'false awakenings' have happened when looked at my reflection.
Once I had a lucid dream that I seemed to lose control of quickly and it got a bit frightening so I fought to wake up - although the usual way of waking up didn't work, after a few struggles I did it and sat up in bed feeling really unsettled. Got up, walked to the bathroom, looked in the mirror and my face was completely distorted. Walked back out of the bathroom and looked towards the bedroom and could see both mine and my partners legs in the bed, I freaked out and instantly sat up in bed again - I was actually awake this time. Although I felt extremely weird for the next few hours that morning, as the lucid dream experience felt as real as waking consciousness.

(This could potentially fall into the category above of being in a state of no control, although I think in this instance it was definitely psychological).


Anyway, that sucks for you though, getting up and going through the morning routine only to wake up and have to do it all again! Once I've looked in the mirror I can save myself the bother!

[steenkh]

Anyway, that sucks for you though, getting up and going through the morning routine only to wake up and have to do it all again! Once I've looked in the mirror I can save myself the bother!
That has been a theme of a number of dreams I can remember. The alarm clock rings, I get up, read the newspaper in bed, only to be interrupted by the real alarm clock waking me up. This is very frustrating, because I hate being woken by the alarm clock, and in this way I experienced it twice in one morning! I wish I could remember what I read in the newspaper in the dream ...

[thebigm]

That has been a theme of a number of dreams I can remember. The alarm clock rings, I get up, read the newspaper in bed, only to be interrupted by the real alarm clock waking me up. This is very frustrating, because I hate being woken by the alarm clock, and in this way I experienced it twice in one morning! I wish I could remember what I read in the newspaper in the dream ...

Yeah - that's interesting, you should leave a notepad by the bed and try and write it down.

I can't read things in my dreams, if I look at a book, it's incoherent generally, which is another launch into a lucid dream. Although not a premeditated one.

[jfish]

If you haven't already done so, you might consider reading one of William Buhlman's books. He outlines procedures he's used to exercise control over his OBE state. His observation (which is consistent with commentary by other OBE writers) is that sometimes the OBE goes beyond being in this physical reality and into a close approximation of this reality (a parallel reality) where there is a close match between the two but observable differences exist.

[steenkh]

If you haven't already done so, you might consider reading one of William Buhlman's books. He outlines procedures he's used to exercise control over his OBE state. His observation (which is consistent with commentary by other OBE writers) is that sometimes the OBE goes beyond being in this physical reality and into a close approximation of this reality (a parallel reality) where there is a close match between the two but observable differences exist.
Why call it a parallel reality, and not just "a dream that closely resembles the physical reality, but where observable differences exist"?

I mean, what entitles the parallel "reality" to be regarded as real?

[Resume]

Why call it a parallel reality, and not just "a dream that closely resembles the physical reality, but where observable differences exist"?

I mean, what entitles the parallel "reality" to be regarded as real?

Wish thinking can make almost anything appear real. What makes you feel "specialer," a dream or an OBE?

[thebigm]

If you haven't already done so, you might consider reading one of William Buhlman's books. He outlines procedures he's used to exercise control over his OBE state. His observation (which is consistent with commentary by other OBE writers) is that sometimes the OBE goes beyond being in this physical reality and into a close approximation of this reality (a parallel reality) where there is a close match between the two but observable differences exist.

I will purchase one now :) Almost finished my latest book so on the lookout for something new.

To touch upon Steenkh's question, what observable differences do you mean? Are you talking about the difference between a lucid dream and an OBE?

In which many reports from regular OBE'rs suggest that in a lucid dream you can manipulate the dreamscape and the surroundings and effectively create the state you are dreaming in, wheras in an OBE you seem bound by a different set of rules that resembles a state where you are not in control and cannot create/manipulate?

This is one of the reasons I am trying to achieve an OBE as well as regular lucid dreams to see if there is a difference for myself.

I know full well that they could just be different states of mind and if you go into an OBE with the expectation that you cannot control your surroundings then the power of your own mind may prevent you from doing so.

[marplots]

I still don't understand why drugs are off the table here. If I wanted to experience a state of altered consciousness, that seems the most direct and reproducible route. There's loads of literature on it and even traditional techniques from various cultures with many claims -- one or several ought to fit.

But I get the sense that using drugs is seen as inauthentic or "dirty" somehow. I'm wondering why that is?

[thebigm]

I still don't understand why drugs are off the table here. If I wanted to experience a state of altered consciousness, that seems the most direct and reproducible route. There's loads of literature on it and even traditional techniques from various cultures with many claims -- one or several ought to fit.

But I get the sense that using drugs is seen as inauthentic or "dirty" somehow. I'm wondering why that is?

Personally, drugs is off the table for me because I don’t want to put myself into a position where I’m not in control of myself.

I assume you’re talking about a hallucinogen and that’s the only reason I haven’t touched it. Not so much because it’s dirty.
If I was in a controlled environment with people that I trusted then I’d give it more consideration.

[thebigm]

By controlled environment I mean people that weren't on it that I trust would be able to keep me calm if I freaked out.

[jfish]

I use the term reality because I'm not convinced that there is only one reality. If we say there is only one reality, then are we rejecting the notion that there is something to experience after death? People who have near death experiences generally believe there is a clear distinction between dreaming and their NDEs. They often report that what they experienced in the NDE state is more real than what they experience in their every day lives. If there is an existence of sorts after death, then isn't that a separate reality?

[steenkh]

I use the term reality because I'm not convinced that there is only one reality.
You may well think there is more than one reality, but the question is how do you know when you are dealing with a reality or with an illusion? Because, surely, you accept that illusions do exist?

[jfish]

I agree that we can experience illusions and may consider that reality. That is why NDEs are of interest to me. The ability to create/experience illusions would seem to be diminished or nonexistent. In some cases the brain has shut down so if illusions are being experienced, what would be the source? Again, check out www.reconciliationlife.com for a perspective from a neurologist on his NDE.

thebigm - Buhlman's investigations into others' OBEs indicates OBEs can be startling and sometimes frightening. He also offers suggestions as to how to control the NDE through expressed commands. For people actively pursuing an OBE, I think it makes sense to read materials on the subject to help prepare oneself. About 2 years ago I woke up paralized. I had no knowledge of OBEs at the time and was freaked out by the experience. I fought desparately to regain control of my body. I tried calling out but couldn't utter a word. After having read some books on the subject, I think it would be a different experience were I to have one today. I would try to relax, repeat the phrase "now I am out of body" and use some other techniques to foster an OBE.

[Pixel42]

About 2 years ago I woke up paralized. I had no knowledge of OBEs at the time and was freaked out by the experience. I fought desparately to regain control of my body. I tried calling out but couldn't utter a word. After having read some books on the subject, I think it would be a different experience were I to have one today. I would try to relax, repeat the phrase "now I am out of body" and use some other techniques to foster an OBE.
You should have tried reading a book about sleep paralysis instead, because that's what it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

[steenkh]

About 2 years ago I woke up paralized. I had no knowledge of OBEs at the time and was freaked out by the experience. I fought desparately to regain control of my body. I tried calling out but couldn't utter a word. After having read some books on the subject, I think it would be a different experience were I to have one today. I would try to relax, repeat the phrase "now I am out of body" and use some other techniques to foster an OBE.
As Pixel42 said, it is sleep paralysis. I had it all through my youth, and I agree that it can be rather frightening. When fighting for control of the body, I sometimes managed to gain control of an arm or a leg, but it still did not lead to general control. It invariably ended with me relaxing and falling asleep (I only ever experienced it when I was tired and going to sleep; I have never experienced it in the morning). After a few times, I realised that it was no big problem, and when it happened I just relaxed and tried to sleep. I guess I could also have mumbled the magic words "now I am out of my body", but it was not necessary.

Actually, I cannot see how this could in any way be mistaken for an OBE, because with sleep paralysis it is quite clear that one is inside the body, trapped, just not in control. My only OBE was quite different, and was more akin to being "high", and I do not think that this similarity is a coincidence. But then my OBE was puny, and although I was hovering above the bed, I never saw my sleeping body. In fact, I never doubted that it was a dream like all other OBEs.

[dlorde]

If we say there is only one reality, then are we rejecting the notion that there is something to experience after death?
Yup, that's pretty much it.

People who have near death experiences generally believe there is a clear distinction between dreaming and their NDEs. They often report that what they experienced in the NDE state is more real than what they experience in their every day lives.
If their NDEs are anything like my lucid dreams, they will definitely seem far more real than everyday life. I still clearly remember lucid dreams I had over 40 years ago. They seem exceptionally real, but they're just a different state of consciousness.

If there is an existence of sorts after death, then isn't that a separate reality?
There isn't any existence for you after you die. That's what death means - the end of life. You can use your imagination all you like to create imaginary alternate or additional realities, but when you die you cease to exist as an individual. Parts of you may live on, e.g. your gut bacteria, and your scattered molecules and atoms continue to exist, but apart from the memories of people who knew you, that's it. Whether you can accept it or not makes no difference.

[thebigm]

There isn't any existence for you after you die. That's what death means - the end of life. You can use your imagination all you like to create imaginary alternate or additional realities, but when you die you cease to exist as an individual. Parts of you may live on, e.g. your gut bacteria, and your scattered molecules and atoms continue to exist, but apart from the memories of people who knew you, that's it. Whether you can accept it or not makes no difference.

Surely that's just an opinion?

[Pure Argent]

Surely that's just an opinion?

No.

"There is no you after you die" is "just an opinion" in the same way that "there is no invisible immaterial undetectable leprechaun dancing on my head" is "just an opinion". There is absolutely no evidence supporting either assertion. The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth.

Of course, this is a provisional statement. All you have to do to render it false is to produce an example of a situation where the universe doesn't act as though there is no you after you die.

[thebigm]

No.

"There is no you after you die" is "just an opinion" in the same way that "there is no invisible immaterial undetectable leprechaun dancing on my head" is "just an opinion". There is absolutely no evidence supporting either assertion. The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth.

Of course, this is a provisional statement. All you have to do to render it false is to produce an example of a situation where the universe doesn't act as though there is no you after you die.

Surely this is one that's impossible to prove either way, so there is no point in discussing?

"The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth" is an interesting thing to say. Can you elaborate please?

Agreed that lack of evidence is no reason to believe in something, but it doesn't render it's exploration useless. I mean your making your assertions as a being with 5 senses in a world that nobody has been able to fully understand to this date anyway.

I am not saying I believe in some form of existence after death, but based on what I know at the moment I'm not discounting it completely.

[Pure Argent]

Surely this is one that's impossible to prove either way, so there is no point in discussing?

Prove one hundred percent? No, we can't. Can we prove it well beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, we can, and we have.

There is no evidence of life after death. Every single investigation into life after death has turned up squat. The universe acts exactly as though there is no life after death. Thus there is no life after death.

"The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth" is an interesting thing to say. Can you elaborate please?

Sure.

"True", in this context, means "an accurate description of the universe". This isn't exactly controversial. It's just what "true" means: that a statement is factual.

To exist, an entity must have an effect on the universe, even if this effect is miniscule. If an entity has absolutely no effect on the universe, it does not exist, because it never interacts with anything else in any situation and causes nothing to happen. That is the definition of non-existence.

The universe we observe behaves in all situations exactly as though there is no afterlife, because it has no effect on our universe. Thus, it does not exist. Saying that it exists "in some other way" doesn't work either; it's the same thing as saying that the Trix rabbit exists, but he's invisible, immaterial, and undetectable by any means.

Agreed that lack of evidence is no reason to believe in something, but it doesn't render it's exploration useless.

I didn't say that the exploration was useless. I said otherwise, actually. If you explore the evidence and find an effect that the afterlife has on our universe, then you can prove that the afterlife exists.

I mean your making your assertions as a being with 5 senses in a world that nobody has been able to fully understand to this date anyway.

Hence the reason that we can never absolutely prove anything. Asking for absolute proof is pointless, because it can never happen. Asking for reasonable proof is all we can do.

I am not saying I believe in some form of existence after death, but based on what I know at the moment I'm not discounting it completely.

No one else is, either. We simply say that, before you can say that there is any reason at all to even consider the notion, you have to have some evidence. So far, there is none, so we discard the possibility until the evidence becomes available. And, at this point, it's been shown to be beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence will not be forthcoming. Barring some reality-shaking alteration in our understanding of the universe and the way the world functions, there is no way for the afterlife to exist.

[jfish]

Differences of opinion on the existence of evidence leads to different conclusions regarding the merit of ongoing exploration. There is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are dreams/lucid dreams and there is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are real experiences of an afterlife. We are left with making a personal judgement as to the merit of the evidence.

[Resume]

Differences of opinion on the existence of evidence leads to different conclusions regarding the merit of ongoing exploration. There is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are dreams/lucid dreams and there is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are real experiences of an afterlife. We are left with making a personal judgement as to the merit of the evidence.

Observed phenonmena such as dreams or hallucinations explain OBEs perfectly without adding unnecessary nonsense.

[thebigm]

Good post, thanks for the response.

Prove one hundred percent? No, we can't. Can we prove it well beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, we can, and we have.

There is no evidence of life after death. Every single investigation into life after death has turned up squat. The universe acts exactly as though there is no life after death. Thus there is no life after death.

I'm probably just being ignorant here but what studies have been carried out and what results have been found? Feel free to post a link to a resource here instead of spelling it out for me :D


"True", in this context, means "an accurate description of the universe". This isn't exactly controversial. It's just what "true" means: that a statement is factual.

To exist, an entity must have an effect on the universe, even if this effect is miniscule. If an entity has absolutely no effect on the universe, it does not exist, because it never interacts with anything else in any situation and causes nothing to happen. That is the definition of non-existence.

The universe we observe behaves in all situations exactly as though there is no afterlife, because it has no effect on our universe. Thus, it does not exist. Saying that it exists "in some other way" doesn't work either; it's the same thing as saying that the Trix rabbit exists, but he's invisible, immaterial, and undetectable by any means.

Firstly, I just want to point out that I agree 100% with the principle that no evidence against is not grounds to believe as then it is faith and not belief based on any rational principle - which is why I am merely interested in this and not a firm believer as yet.

So as you've stated, to exist, physically, in our physical universe then yes and entity must somehow effect our universe. It appears so far that there is no cast iron proof of this concept - just anecdotal evidence from the observer which is hard to replicate or prove. For example, reading one of Monroe's books where he discusses, whilst in a state of OBE, pinching a woman in her home that he knew and she remembered the following week when asked and had a mark on her sweater where this had taken place. Now obviously, to believe that without experiencing first hand is like believing that the bible is real, so we can discount these notions for the moment.

So that just leaves your Trix Rabbit example. Which is where I think that we can't discount something entirely. I just feel that we don't know nearly enough about our own consciousness, what is this consciousness? Are there other types of consciousness and if so, how do we explain them? Do they even need to have an impact on this universe? In normal waking consciouness they are all bascially the opinion of the observer. Different experiences lead to different opinions.

As jfish mentioned, there is no proof to everyone's satisfaction, because the examples seem to occur as a phenomena and are hard to recreate.

Again, purely anecdotal, but there are some examples in a book I am reading on Lucid Dreaming by a guy called Robert Waggoner that are interesting. I wanted to get a book on these states that is a different perspective from Monroe. Once in control of the dream state and 'lucid', interacting with the dream characters has apparently revealed things that the dreamer didn't consciously know. Which is interesting, if true. Obviously there are other possibilities, like subliminally hearing something and not realising and it coming out in this unconscious state.

IF (big IF) there is more to this than picking something up subliminally then, to me, it's well worth investigating (and I'm not doing much else when I'm asleep anyway).

I've rattled on too long there and probably typed a lot of pish, but I'd like to think that my approach to this is skeptical. Just not enough to say, "Not enough evidence, not worth pursuing".

I didn't say that the exploration was useless. I said otherwise, actually. If you explore the evidence and find an effect that the afterlife has on our universe, then you can prove that the afterlife exists.

I am glad you have this opinion, but looking through previous comments on the thread, it would appear on a skeptic forum that a large number disagree with you that there is any point in experimenting any further with this.






No one else is, either. We simply say that, before you can say that there is any reason at all to even consider the notion, you have to have some evidence. So far, there is none, so we discard the possibility until the evidence becomes available. And, at this point, it's been shown to be beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence will not be forthcoming. Barring some reality-shaking alteration in our understanding of the universe and the way the world functions, there is no way for the afterlife to exist.

Kind of summarised in my previous response, but, I don't feel there is enough evidence against pursuing this further, trying to become lucid in my dreams regularly (which I find enjoyable anyway) and attempting to replicate this OBE phenomena.

For what it's worth, I think and OBE and a Lucid Dream are the same thing, however, when inducing an OBE you basically are aware of the full experience of falling asleep, when usually you are unconscious when you drop into this state. However, when becoming lucid in a dream, things have already happened in the dream and are happening so it's more confusing as to what's going on.

[PixyMisa]

Differences of opinion on the existence of evidence leads to different conclusions regarding the merit of ongoing exploration. There is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are dreams/lucid dreams and there is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are real experiences of an afterlife. We are left with making a personal judgement as to the merit of the evidence.
Wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are experiences of an afterlife. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any sort of afterlife. Indeed, all available evidence says that this is impossible.

It doesn't matter how hard you wish for it, it doesn't change reality.

[Marcus]

Wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are experiences of an afterlife. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any sort of afterlife. Indeed, all available evidence says that this is impossible.

It doesn't matter how hard you wish for it, it doesn't change reality.
I agree. Just because two options exist (afterlife, no afterlife) doesn't mean they enjoy equal weight. It's early in the morning here, and I'm not giving the two options (sunrise, no sunrise) the same consideration.

[dlorde]

Surely that's just an opinion?

No, in my opinion, it isn't ;)

Further to the complete lack of evidence mentioned by Pure Argent, there is the total lack of any remotely plausible hypothesis or mechanism to explain how some kind of essence of self can persist after death. There is no 'spiritual entity'-(or whatever you want to call it)-shaped hole in physics. Such an entity would have to contain or be information of some sort. Information requires a substrate to exist - matter, or energy. Both can be detected in manifold ways and with incredible subtlety, but neither have been detected in that context (although a dying/dead body does provide some information by radiating thermal energy and leaking matter, it's not the afterlife as we know it, Jim).

We know about different forms of energy and how they can be used to store information, and we know that energy and any information it encodes will degrade over time unless it is refreshed. The whole fancy, messy concoction we call life is the prime exemplar of this - it's all there just to maintain and reproduce patterns of information, to convert energy to structure, hold entropy at bay, and reproduce that information. When life stops, the substrate degrades and the information is lost - hence reproduction and sex (woo-hoo!). If that information could exist on it's own in some way, the messy complexity of life simply wouldn't be necessary, and sex would be redundant (boo!). More importantly, there is no suitable substrate for that information outside the living body, there are no forces that can support it, there is no way to maintain it over time, and no way it could have any physical effect - and if there were such ways, it would be detectable. What we know for sure about the universe, which allows us to do all the clever technological things we can do, simply precludes that possibility. If there was 'life' after death, the universe would be very different because physics would be very different - ironically, there probably wouldn't be life...

Then there's the evolutionary argument... but enough.

The same lack of hypothesis/mechanism applies to NDE/OBE dislocate viewing: to see or interact (e.g. pinching a sweater so hard you leave a lasting mark - have you tried that?) requires physical interaction, the expenditure of energy - from where? To see 'as if you were really there' requires imaging optics, something to intercept the photons and interpret their patterns, not to mention travel from A to B. You can imagine what is somewhere else, but you can't see it without a camera or eyes. There is no remotely (ha!) plausible hypothesis for how NDE/OBE dislocate viewing could occur.

[thebigm]

Wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are experiences of an afterlife. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any sort of afterlife. Indeed, all available evidence says that this is impossible.

It doesn't matter how hard you wish for it, it doesn't change reality.

I don't think anyone is wishing for it. Just exploring the possibility and exploring one's own consciousness.

Whether there is any merit in doing this is completely up to the individual.

[Pixel42]

I don't think anyone is wishing for it.
You don't think that someone who responds to something as mundane as an episode of sleep paralysis by researching OBEs instead of researching sleep paralysis is wishing for something?

I'm prepared to admit that my own interest in such topics was fueled more by a hope of finding evidence that my consciousness would survive death than by pure scientific enquiry, though I would probably have denied it at the time. Accepting that no such evidence exists was hard.

[Sunstar]

Pixel42, i would be interested to read your experiences with exploring OBEs and sleep paralysis. Is there any particular thread where you discuss this on the forums?

I have another theory which is linked to all this. That is that if you wake earlier than usual and meditate you should enter a REM state of some kind and get sexually aroused which could cause orgasmic sensations to shoot up into the brain and this is what people mean by "kundalini".

What do you make of the phenomenon called "vibrations" which occur just before the so called astral body seperates from the physical? And does that have any link to auditory phenomena?

[Pixel42]

Pixel42, i would be interested to read your experiences with exploring OBEs and sleep paralysis. Is there any particular thread where you discuss this on the forums?
There have been several threads on sleep paralysis to which I have contributed, though I didn't have anything to add that wasn't widely known. I had regular bouts of sleep paralysis in my twenties, but the frequency gradually reduced and I haven't had one for decades. At the time I had no idea what it was, I'd actually stopped having them before I even came across the term. The first time it happened I thought I was dying, but I soon discovered that if I just relaxed and went back to sleep I would awake properly at my usual time with no ill effects. I sometimes had the sensation of something pressing down on me and a vague feeling of a presence, but I never had the kind of disturbing hallucinations that others have reported.

It was, in fact, at around the same time - i.e. in my twenties - that I was reading about things like OBEs (along with telepathy, precognition etc) and giving some credence to them but it never occurred to me to connect my experiences of sleep paralysis with OBEs - as steenkh says above sleep paralysis is the exact opposite experience of being shut into your body. I'm genuinely mystified as to how anyone could associate the two phenomena. I've never had what I would describe as an OBE, though I've had the usual dreams of flying etc, and I'd regretfully concluded that all supposed supernatural/paranormal phenomena were fantasies before I was 40.

I have another theory which is linked to all this. That is that if you wake earlier than usual and meditate you should enter a REM state of some kind and get sexually aroused which could cause orgasmic sensations to shoot up into the brain and this is what people mean by "kundalini".

What do you make of the phenomenon called "vibrations" which occur just before the so called astral body seperates from the physical? And does that have any link to auditory phenomena?
I make nothing of any of this.

[Sunstar]

LOL

Have you heard of REM atonia? Have you heard of "morning wood"? Have you heard of sexual arousal in REM states? Have you ever woken up aroused?

And wouldn't such orgasmic arousal involve nerve impulses from the genitals to the brain?

And wouldn't people in sleep paralysis have auditory hallucinations?

It is sad i have to type all this out.

[Resume]

LOL

Have you heard of REM atonia? Have you heard of "morning wood"? Have you heard of sexual arousal in REM states? Have you ever woken up aroused?

And wouldn't such orgasmic arousal involve nerve impulses from the genitals to the brain?

And wouldn't people in sleep paralysis have auditory hallucinations?

It is sad i have to type all this out.

Could you type just a bit more so your point might be made clearer?

[Sunstar]

Says someone that comes out of nowhere with nothing to add to the discussion?

[Resume]

Says someone that comes out of nowhere with nothing to add to the discussion?
Been involved in the thread since page one. So again, what are you on about?

[tsig]

Says someone that comes out of nowhere with nothing to add to the discussion?



You were asked for a clarification and decided on snark.

[Pixel42]

Have you heard of REM atonia? Have you heard of "morning wood"? Have you heard of sexual arousal in REM states? Have you ever woken up aroused?
I've heard of this, yes, but being a woman I've never experienced it.

And wouldn't such orgasmic arousal involve nerve impulses from the genitals to the brain?
Or vice versa, I imagine.

And wouldn't people in sleep paralysis have auditory hallucinations?
People in sleep paralysis do have auditory hallucinations, yes.

It is sad i have to type all this out.
Still waiting for you to type anything resembling a point.

[jfish]

I disagree with the statement Pixy posted sayig there is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are an experience of an afterlife. I don't think that is a logical conclusion based on my research. Here's a slight twist - there is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs aren't an experience of an afterlife. NDErs don't see their experiences as dreams or lucid dreams. What proof is there that a person who has had an NDE was actually in a dream state? It is just as much a hypothesis to say it was a dream as it is to say it was an exposure to an afterlife. Given the constraints of science and our unwillingness to subject people to life threatening experiences in the interest of studying NDEs prospectively, there isn't any evidence to support the proposition that an NDE isn't what the experiencers claim it to be.

[Resume]

I disagree with the statement Pixy posted sayig there is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are an experience of an afterlife. I don't think that is a logical conclusion based on my research. Here's a slight twist - there is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs aren't an experience of an afterlife. NDErs don't see their experiences as dreams or lucid dreams. What proof is there that a person who has had an NDE was actually in a dream state? It is just as much a hypothesis to say it was a dream as it is to say it was an exposure to an afterlife. Given the constraints of science and our unwillingness to subject people to life threatening experiences in the interest of studying NDEs prospectively, there isn't any evidence to support the proposition that an NDE isn't what the experiencers claim it to be.
It's not the same type of hypothesis. There is plenty of observable evidence for dreams, not plenty for an afterlife.

ETA: I don't care how many bare assertions NDE "experiencers" make, they're still bare assertions.

[steenkh]

Here's a slight twist - there is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs aren't an experience of an afterlife. NDErs don't see their experiences as dreams or lucid dreams. What proof is there that a person who has had an NDE was actually in a dream state? It is just as much a hypothesis to say it was a dream as it is to say it was an exposure to an afterlife.
There is no proof, of course. Many things are distinctly unlikely, but cannot be proven to be impossible, such as that the physical laws are enforced by billions of little invisible gnomes. The existence of an afterlife would mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of physics; it would mean that something beyond physics is daily interfering with physics through our brains, but that we have not been able to find even the slightest hint of this interaction; it would mean that our concepts of physics that are otherwise extremely well founded is without clue of this interaction being possible.

So, on one hand we have the possibility of physics being completely wrong, and on the other hand we have the possibility of NDE's consisting of quite ordinary physics: what do you think is the more likely?

This argument is summed up in the dictum coined by Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That NDE's are real is a very extraordinary claim, and the extraordinary evidence for this has never been presented.

[jfish]

Regarding physical laws - the hypothesis is that there is more than just a physical matter reality. Because the vast majority of humanity can't experience non-physical matter reality directly, doesn't mean alternative realities don't exist. Ordinary physics principals don't apply in non-physical matter reality so there are limitations in using those principals when talking about non-physical matter reality. This next comment isn't a particularly good one but I'll use it to try to make a point - If one wanted to study US culture, one wouldn't go to the North Pole.

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we require extraordinary evidence before even acknowledging the possibility of an alternate reality puts us in a chicken or egg situation. Because it is so hard to prove using physical matter principals, should we abandon the effort? Some people (I am among them) believe the anecdotal evidence is sufficient to warrant further exploration and that the implications are enormous.

Some other thoughts on the notion that NDEs are simply dreams or lucid dreams. It might be interesting to gather a large group of lucid dreamers and a comparably large group of NDErs and ask them to answer a variety of questions about their experiences. Would we find there was a statistical difference in their responses to the following questions:
In your dream/NDE state did you experience an all encompassing love that our limited vocabulary can't begin to describe?
In your dream/NDE state did you experience a live review in minute detail with parallel displays (not serial) of events and emotions experienced?
In your dream/NDE state did you ever wish you could have left your physical life behind to permanently stay in the dream/NDE state? If so, were you ever told you had things to accomplish in your life before you could make the final transition?
In your dream/NDE state was communication with other people/beings of a telepathic nature not using words but something more akin to a massive data dump of thoughts that have no parallel in our physical matter reality?
After completing your dream/NDE, did you ever note the high freqency of failure of electro-mechanical objects (such as wrist watches, light bulbs, microwave ovens or radios) when those objects were in close proximity to you?
After completing your dream/NDE, did you ever experience hightened empathic abilities or abilities to see the future of individuals you came in random contact with? Were these abilities something you welcomed or did they cause problems for you?
Did your dream/NDE state initiate a significant change in your philosophy about life?

I suspect that there would be a statistical difference between the responses. That doesn't prove anything. It would likely imply that it isn't particularly useful to categorize NDEs as dreams. Of course we can always chose to completely discard the NDE claims as lies but that isn't a very scientific way to approach the issue. We could also say the NDE state was a hallucination but that doesn't very well explain the after effects from the NDE state.

One last post regarding the limitations of our physical matter principals. Repeatedly, people go to the Monroe Institute to attend the MC2 program. Some, not all, learn how to focus mental energy to bend spoons. I haven't attended the MC2 program but I know 2 people who have and they report seeing participants bending spoons and forks. I saw a display of bent spoons and forks when I went to the Gateway Voyage program. We can either dismiss this out of hand by saying they are lies or there is collusion to dupe society, or we can take this as another indicator that there is so much more to learn about our innate capabilities and that, perhaps, there are more hypotheses that need to be developed to explain this aspect of reality.

All that I've posted here isn't intended to convince anyone of anything. I'm just sharing the things I've been exposed to that prompt me to want to explore further rather than discard the notion that we are more than our physical bodies.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

[Resume]

One last post regarding the limitations of our physical matter principals. Repeatedly, people go to the Monroe Institute to attend the MC2 program. Some, not all, learn how to focus mental energy to bend spoons. I haven't attended the MC2 program but I know 2 people who have and they report seeing participants bending spoons and forks. I saw a display of bent spoons and forks when I went to the Gateway Voyage program. We can either dismiss this out of hand by saying they are lies or there is collusion to dupe society, or we can take this as another indicator that there is so much more to learn about our innate capabilities and that, perhaps, there are more hypotheses that need to be developed to explain this aspect of reality.


No one can use mental energy to bend spoons; this is a parlor trick from the back of a cereal box and to trot it out here on this forum exposes your credulity.

Either that or you're trolling and I grabbed the lure like a walleye.

[Pixel42]

We can either dismiss this out of hand by saying they are lies or there is collusion to dupe society, or we can take this as another indicator that there is so much more to learn about our innate capabilities and that, perhaps, there are more hypotheses that need to be developed to explain this aspect of reality.
Or we can conclude that when people are keen to believe something they don't need to be lied to, they are perfectly capable of fooling themselves into believing it, even when all the evidence they need to work out what's really going on is right in front of them.

As there are innumerable examples of that third possibility, it's the one I'm going for.

ETA:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

You do realise that the road to belief in woo is by far the one most travelled?

[ExMinister]

Some other thoughts on the notion that NDEs are simply dreams or lucid dreams. It might be interesting to gather a large group of lucid dreamers and a comparably large group of NDErs and ask them to answer a variety of questions about their experiences. Would we find there was a statistical difference in their responses to the following questions:
In your dream/NDE state did you experience an all encompassing love that our limited vocabulary can't begin to describe?
In your dream/NDE state did you experience a live review in minute detail with parallel displays (not serial) of events and emotions experienced?
In your dream/NDE state did you ever wish you could have left your physical life behind to permanently stay in the dream/NDE state? If so, were you ever told you had things to accomplish in your life before you could make the final transition?
In your dream/NDE state was communication with other people/beings of a telepathic nature not using words but something more akin to a massive data dump of thoughts that have no parallel in our physical matter reality?
After completing your dream/NDE, did you ever note the high freqency of failure of electro-mechanical objects (such as wrist watches, light bulbs, microwave ovens or radios) when those objects were in close proximity to you?
After completing your dream/NDE, did you ever experience hightened empathic abilities or abilities to see the future of individuals you came in random contact with? Were these abilities something you welcomed or did they cause problems for you?
Did your dream/NDE state initiate a significant change in your philosophy about life?

What you have described above applies mostly to Western NDEs.

To be fair, your questionnaire might also include elements of non-Western NDEs, such as:

-Did your dream/NDE include interaction with Yamatoots (specifically related to death in certain cultures)?

-Were you told your near-death was due to a clerical error in the heavenlies and sent back? (quite common in some cultures)

-Did your dream/NDE include being required to defend yourself karmically and be held accountable by a now-talking chicken or other animal that you mistreated?

It seems outside the Western world, the all-encompassing love, the life review, and being sent back because you are not finished, are less common.

I also wonder nowdays, if NDEs are real, why do they so often contradict each other?

Some people like to say that you will see whatever you expect to see, culturally speaking, when you die. Which is fine, and I used to think that made sense, though I assumed the differences would be in only the more superficial elements, like perhaps what you see immediately upon arrival into an afterlife realm. The idea is to make the person feel comfortable, it is said.

But beyond the superficial initial contact, shouldn't there be some over-arching truth, some commonalities that are universally shared?

Instead, the more you research, the more you find that so much of it is contradictory in what seem to me important ways.

Just as a few examples: Some NDErs return convinced there is reincarnation, some that there absolutely isn't. Some return convinced that the fundamentalist Christians had it right all along, some convinced of just the opposite.

Some people say the angels told them there would be another world war. Some say the angels told them specifically God would never allow such a thing to happen again.

Some NDErs say they were shown that there is no hell. Some are convinced that not only is there a hell, but they were in it. These people also return greatly changed.

Some return having been shown that being Baptist was what got them to heaven. Some return realizing that the Buddhists had it right, and give up their Hindu beliefs to join a Buddhist monastery. Why weren't they shown that the Baptists had it right, too?

Anyway, there are others, but that's just a sampling.

Doesn't it make you wonder how it is possible that all the angels don't agree on whether there will be another world war, though they state their opinion with such authority? Wouldn't everyone on the other side know whether or not reincarnation is real? Do some of the beings of light/angels/loved ones/deceased really not agree on whether or not hell exists? Think the Baptists had it right?

Can you imagine a Western person being told on the other side, "Oops, we got the wrong person!" What Western person wouldn't revive, completely alarmed that the other side could be so clueless? If they don't have it together when it comes to matters as important as life or death, what hope is there for the rest of us?

It makes no sense to me.

[steenkh]

Regarding physical laws - the hypothesis is that there is more than just a physical matter reality. Because the vast majority of humanity can't experience non-physical matter reality directly, doesn't mean alternative realities don't exist.
But in order for you to have NDE's, that is experiences that you are able to tell others about afterwards, the different physical realities need to interact with each other. Somehow information from the other will have to get into this one, and that is exactly what will falsify our entire understanding of physics. So either we have the straightforward "NDE's are ordinary physical events from the only reality that exists", or we have your "there are more physical realities, and our understanding of nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, the lot, is down the drains".

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we require extraordinary evidence before even acknowledging the possibility of an alternate reality puts us in a chicken or egg situation.
Why? All you need is good evidence that cannot be explained away with normal physics - there is no chicken/egg situation here.

Because it is so hard to prove using physical matter principals, should we abandon the effort? Some people (I am among them) believe the anecdotal evidence is sufficient to warrant further exploration and that the implications are enormous.
That is fine, just go ahead. Occam's Razor is not proving that the reality we know is the only one we have, it merely guides us to where we will get most out of our efforts. If you would like to explore the possibility of the existence of little green men on a far away planet, or the existence of alternative realities, it is your right, and if you get the required evidence, you will have improved human knowledge immensely.

However, toppling modern physics is not something you should expect will be easy, and you will have to be acutely aware that nothing you have presented so far cannot be explained by ordinary physics - as we have pointed out.

[jfish]

Pixel, everyone has their beliefs. There are many communities of belief where members share/adhere to a set of underpinings. I chose the Robert Frost quote because I feel the direction my beliefs are evolving are sufficiently different from the majority of belief communities. (For the record I include atheism as a belief system.)

[jfish]

ExMinister, I've read some commentary by NDE researchers who recognize the diversity of NDE experiences. Some NDE and OBE researchers express the opinion that our experiences in physical matter reality influence the nature of what each individual will experience after death. Someone who is brought up in the Muslim faith will not likely be exposed to a Jesus figure. A child NDEr who has had no religious background will have a different experience relative to a person heaviliy invested in a particular religious faith. The NDERF web site has perhaps the most NDE first person reports of any NDE collection. When asked if NDEs made the reporting individuals more religious or spiritual, there are a breadth of responses. Some become more religious and become active in a church while others become disenchanted with organized religion yet still characterize themselves as spiritual.

As you noted the diversity of messages/interpretations among NDErs is a documented fact. I've read a few (very few) NDEs that started off horribly with demons and horrible creatures. A friend of mine who had an NDE related to Legionnaires disease saw demons but was not frightened because she had already experienced the overwheling love and had been healed. She knew she was going to recover and be fine so she took the brief presence of demons in stride. I simply look at this as an indication that it isn't easy drawing definitive conclusions about what awaits us.

If our experiences during our lifetimes influence what awaits us after death, then it makes sense to live a life that will produce more positive results later. Whatever your thougths are regarding what happens after death, I don't see any downside to adopting this attitude. Selfishness, self centeredness, pride and a lack of caring about our fellow man has the potential to negatively affect what awaits us. Why take a chance?

[marplots]

If our experiences during our lifetimes influence what awaits us after death, then it makes sense to live a life that will produce more positive results later. Whatever your thougths are regarding what happens after death, I don't see any downside to adopting this attitude. Selfishness, self centeredness, pride and a lack of caring about our fellow man has the potential to negatively affect what awaits us. Why take a chance?

I think this is a poor basis for acting honorably. If you ever determine that there is no life after death, you will lose your incentive to act positively. I do not think ideas of the afterlife add any justification for living the best life possible just because part of living the best possible life is worth doing all by itself.

Doesn't it strike you as a poor motivation as well? Are our lives so devoid of a willingness to act from our better natures that we need some kind of promissory note on a maybe/maybe not spiritual bank account? How is that not self-centeredness in a larger context?

If a man says, "I do not do what I think I should do because it is best, but because I am worried that my deeds may follow me after death." I read that as a kind of sad commentary on humans that, childlike, need an outside authority to keep them in line lest they steal too many cookies from the jar.

[steenkh]

If a man says, "I do not do what I think I should do because it is best, but because I am worried that my deeds may follow me after death." I read that as a kind of sad commentary on humans that, childlike, need an outside authority to keep them in line lest they steal too many cookies from the jar.
I agree. I have often encountered this thinking with Christians who think that only the fear of hellfire is preventing them from going on a spree of rape and murder.

In any case, jfish's argument is also wrong, because even if our present behaviour might influence a possible life after death, we cannot know what our behaviour should be. Perhaps we should strive to die in battle in order to get a seat in Valhalla?

[Resume]

(For the record I include atheism as a belief system.)

And you'd be incorrect.

[jfish]

I'm thankful for the dialogue. It prompts us to give thought to things we may not have considered.

Marplots, rather than use the term self centeredness, how about using the term self development which is free of the negative connotations associated with self centeredness. I'd compare my spiritual quest to attending a college. I'm doing this for self development. This self development also involves charitable work/contributions that existed far in advance of my interest in broader consciousness.

A second point regarding an outside authority - that is one of the reasons I'm at odds with mainline Christianity. The notion that we are to be judged by someone else it not consistent with NDEs. Ultimately, we are our own judge if one believes NDErs have anything of value to share.

Finally, before heading off to work, why do we do positive things for others in this world? What is it about our internal drive that causes some of us to behave this way? There are a variety of possible explanations. Here's one - it makes us feel good. Could that be considered a form of self centeredness? If so, perhaps being self centered isn't always a bad thing. Perhaps we are all self centered (motivated to do what is in our own unique best interests) and sometimes there is a coincidence with the greater good beyond ourselves. Other times the pursuit of personal interests places us at odds with the interests of others.

[ExMinister]

Hi jfish,

Your comments reminded me of research I have done in the past on the issue of who has distressing NDEs. I had a personal motivation for wanting to know about this. Here is a synopsis of what I have mainly found to date, taken from the IANDS web site.

Who Has Distressing NDEs?

As with the pleasurable NDE, distressing NDEs seem to occur about equally to people of both genders and of all ages, educational levels, socioeconomic levels, sexual orientations, spiritual beliefs, religious affiliations, and life experiences. Although people have sometimes wondered whether good people have pleasurable experiences and bad people have distressing ones, research has shown no such relationship between apparent life deeds and type of NDE (Rommer, 2000). In addition, some people's NDEs have contained both pleasurable and distressing elements, and among people who have had multiple NDEs, some have had a pleasurable experience one time and a distressing experience another, in no definite order.

The way one dies may be a factor in the type of NDE one has. Rommer found that dNDErs who had self-induced their deaths made up 55% of people in her research who reported a Type II Eternal Void experience, 18% who reported a Type III Hellish experience, and most of those who reported a Type IV Negative Judgment experience. Although it may be tempting to conclude that people who attempt suicide are being punished for trying to induce their own deaths, we must avoid this temptation, as the following paragraph will explain.

People who are in a distressed frame of mind at the time of their near-death episode and those who were raised to expect distress during death may be more prone to distressing NDEs. People who attempt suicide are almost always in a distressed frame of mind. Usually they are attempting suicide because they feel themselves to be in unendurable and unending emotional or physical pain. In addition, they are almost certainly aware of the widely held belief that suicide is cowardly and/or the wrong way to escape the pain of life. Although they hope for relief from their pain, they may also consciously or unconsciously fear punishment. In a heightened state of pain, as well as of fear and/or guilt, they are highly distressed and, consequently, may be somewhat more prone to having a dNDE.

However, the facts remain that

•The overall majority of distressing NDEs did not occur in the context of attempted suicide,
•Many pleasurable NDEs were the result of attempted suicide, and
•Many people who were in a distressed frame of mind and/or who expected judgement and punishment during death had a pleasurable NDE.
Bush (2002) examined the mystical literature of major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism; the research on other non-ordinary states of consciousness probably related to NDEs; and the data on distressing NDEs themselves. She came to the same conclusion as Rommer: Everyone has the potential to have a distressing near-death experience.

In summary, it is not known conclusively why most people report pleasurable NDEs and some report distressing ones. Whether this question can ever be answered, and what that answer might be, awaits further research

From http://www.iands.org/about-ndes/distressing-ndes.html

I have a close friend who had a distressing NDE. He was also in a great deal of physical pain and fear at the time of his experience. Not fear of what happens after death fear, but fear related to fearing for his life. He believes his experience was an afterlife encounter. He believes he deserved his distressing NDE because he'd been an awful person, but research like the above would tend to discredit this.

I was a spiritual person on a spiritual path for many years. I can only say, on my own behalf, that I had dedicated myself to a Buddhist-type path of loving-kindness for many years, I had disciplined myself through meditation and visualization to never judge, to think positively, and to help wherever I could. I worked closely with my dreams and believed them to be a source of spiritual guidance, and yet in 2005 I began to have horrible, vivid, demonic OBEs/lucid dreams that seemed incredibly real to me. I even converted to Christianity based on the advice of a well-meaning Christian friend. After I started back on seizure medications, the lucid dreams/OBEs stopped. Just like that.

So for me, amazingly, this was the product of a misfiring brain. I know firsthand what the brain is capable of creating, how real it seems, how frightening it can be, and how demonic experiences can in fact happen to someone who is living a pretty decent, unselfish life.

As a person who no longer believes that these experiences happen outside of one's own brain, it now upsets me to see how other experiencers tend to assume someone who has had a distressing NDE must have secretly been, at the very least, a negative person. Not you, jfish; I don't mean to imply that you would do that. I'm talking in general this is something I've seen.

It is really no different to me from the New Age you-create-your-own-reality belief, which I also used to hold, too, a belief that leads to cruel assumptions such as if you have cancer, you must have created it. Though at the time I didn't see that as cruel, I saw it as empowering.

This did not happen to me, in case it sounds like maybe I just have an axe to grind. No, most of the family and friends who witnessed my 3 years of dealing with these frequent demonic experiences were as baffled as I was, having known me and the kind of person I was.

The liberating aspect of you-create-your-own-reality is that you have the power to change your life with a change in thought. The dark, terribly harmful side to this belief is that if you get a profoundly negative experience, that is your creation too. You can live a good life and create a good afterlife experience, but if you have a distressing experience, you must have done something wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, I am totally in favor of experimenting with these things for yourself. Find out on your own, definitely. Test your experiences over a period of time. Be your own worst critic. Insist on not just one seemingly psychic experience, but several. Factor in any failures honestly.

I did this myself. During the years I was having the OBEs/lucid dreams, I immediately, as soon as I was "out," would attempt to ask a spiritual question or go somewhere or do something spiritual; I always had a spiritual focus, as to me being "out" was an incredible opportunity to explore what seemed to me the world of spirit, to test things, to learn. At the time I was completely convinced these were real spiritual experiences. Mostly mine began or ended in a frightening way, but sometimes they were neutral. I have my own theories now on why that was, based on Michael's Persinger's research out of Canada, but that's a whole different subject.

I found, as I've said many times before, to my increasing frustration, that I could never "learn" anything that I didn't already know. Now, of course, I think I understand why. But I am glad I experienced this for myself. If someone else had tried to tell it to me, I doubt it would have had the same impact. I might have thought they may have just been doing something wrong, or they weren't really "out," or they weren't really spiritual... I don't know.

At any rate, I wish you luck! I personally am curious about your experiences along these lines (the BigM, too, and anyone else seriously trying to explore along these lines in a rational way), and if you decide to share them here, I will enjoy reading them.

[marplots]

Finally, before heading off to work, why do we do positive things for others in this world? What is it about our internal drive that causes some of us to behave this way? There are a variety of possible explanations. Here's one - it makes us feel good.

Well, we are drifting from the OP, but I thought this deserved a comment. I think we generally act based on conclusions we have made about how the world works. An example would be someone whose experiences have taught them the world is full of avarice and competition contrasted with someone whose experiences tell them that other people are kind and trustworthy. The only nuance I'd add is that we also act, if possible, toward an idea of how the world ought to be, even if we know it isn't always.

In the main, I do not think that good or bad enter into it much. I think the vast majority of what we do is ethically neutral and not very well considered at all. For this latter reason, I reject the positive/negative dichotomy as artificial, relative, and not much of a guide. This is actually a good example of how my own experiences have colored my perceptions, which is what I was talking about above.

I certainly wouldn't insist that anyone else take my views as fundamental or valid unless they also matched their experiences.

[jfish]

I recently attended a holotropic breathing session (my first). I found the experience was very powerful. The altered state of consciousness that was created produced some rather dramatic effects. The cost was considerably less than a week long Monroe Institute program. For those readers interested in an experiential exploration of self, I'd recommend considering holotropic breathwork.

[Resume]

I recently attended a holotropic breathing session (my first). I found the experience was very powerful. The altered state of consciousness that was created produced some rather dramatic effects. The cost was considerably less than a week long Monroe Institute program. For those readers interested in an experiential exploration of self, I'd recommend considering holotropic breathwork.

Hyperventilating isn't good for you.

[Pixel42]

Hyperventilating isn't good for you.
Nothing which makes your brain malfunction is good for you, which is why taking recreational drugs is a bad idea.

Our brains have evolved to function optimally with a certain balance of chemicals, oxygen, sensory input etc. Changing that balance will therefore make your brain malfunction. Why anyone thinks that anything they experience during such a malfunction will reveal truths otherwise unavailable to them, and that it's therefore a good idea to deliberately make their brains malfunction, has always been a mystery to me.

[marplots]

Nothing which makes your brain malfunction is good for you, which is why taking recreational drugs is a bad idea.

Our brains have evolved to function optimally with a certain balance of chemicals, oxygen, sensory input etc. Changing that balance will therefore make your brain malfunction. ...snip...

This part is an interesting claim. If evolution of the brain has done this, does it follow that someone whose brain craves the enlightenment experience is already out of balance? After all, they are seeking something detrimental - or as you term it "a malfunction."

I am also wondering how it is that evolution could have optimally designed a brain for our current social environment, or even what "optimally" even means here. Is my brain "out of balance" and "malfunctioning" when I sleep? It certainly seems like something pretty bizarre is going on then.

My guess is that the phrase, "good for you" is where the problem enters. It seems to imply a standard set by historical accident grafted on by evolution. It would be just as valid to say that evolution, as it continues, brings this new sort of brain into the mix -- one that seeks out altered states.

[Pixel42]

Variety is generated all the time, what determines if a particular variant is selected for is whether it is beneficial, i.e. whether it results in the individuals who possess it living longer, and therefore having more offspring, than those who don't.

So what do you think, marplots? Does "craving the enlightenment experience", which seems to lead an individual to experiment with things like depriving themselves of oxygen and taking potentially dangerous drugs, increase or decrease their chances of living long enough to have offspring?

[marplots]

Variety is generated all the time, what determines if a particular variant is selected for is whether it is beneficial, i.e. whether it results in the individuals who possess it living longer, and therefore having more offspring, than those who don't.

So what do you think, marplots? Does "craving the enlightenment experience", which seems to lead an individual to experiment with things like depriving themselves of oxygen and taking potentially dangerous drugs, increase or decrease their chances of living long enough to have offspring?

I don't know. But that's why I don't think the good/bad framework based on evolution really says much. It might just as well be something that is both or neither. For instance, do the benefits of curiosity outweigh the hazards?

So much of what determines the number of offspring seems unrelated to experimentation. Maybe the guy/gal who is attracted to spirituality and exploration early on finds their calling and starts a Mormon family of a dozen or so later. I'm proposing evolution to be too blunt an instrument to care much.

And even if you can figure out a connection, you have to then demonstrate it won't simply arise anew in some sub-set of the population as an artifact. I do like the idea that a certain amount of curiosity is a good thing, but that's just something I prefer to think without investigation.

[jfish]

Pixel, I tend to agree with some of the points that marplots makes. Why use the word "malfunction" with its negative implications? How do we know it is a malfunction? Just because something is out of the ordinary doesn't mean it is a malfunction, does it? And how do we know that the normal state of the brain function is optimal? The breathwork program I attended was lead by a former psychiatrist. She found through her work that her patients benefited more from her alternative approach than those that went through traditional psychiatric treatment. She decided to embrace breathwork because she believes it is a better option and is a desirable means of understanding oneself.

[Pixel42]

I'm proposing evolution to be too blunt an instrument to care much. [...] I do like the idea that a certain amount of curiosity is a good thing, but that's just something I prefer to think without investigation.
I agree with both these statements. It's just that I thought you were implying that "craving the enlightenment experience" was the next step in our evolution or something.

Pixel, I tend to agree with some of the points that marplots makes. Why use the word "malfunction" with its negative implications? How do we know it is a malfunction? Just because something is out of the ordinary doesn't mean it is a malfunction, does it? And how do we know that the normal state of the brain function is optimal?
Evolution by natural selection produces organisms which are increasingly optimised for the conditions in which they live. So we know that our brains have evolved so that their normal working is optimal (or as close to it as several millions years of selection can produce) for the conditions under which they evolved. Anything that messes with that normal working, whether it's ingestion (deliberate or accidental) of a poisonous chemical or a result of illness or brain injury, must surely be classified as a malfunction.

There is a case to be made that society has changed so quickly that adaptations may not have kept up, though.

[marplots]

Before I lose track, "breathwork" is hyperventilation? What does that do?

(note to Pixel42: I don't intend to try it!)

[Pixel42]

Before I lose track, "breathwork" is hyperventilation? What does that do?
I know depriving yourself of oxygen is supposed to highten the sexual experience. Hence the occasional finding of the body of someone with a plastic bag over their head who accidentally suffocated themselves whilst masturbating, surely the most embarassing cause of death to end up on anyone's death certificate.

I'm not sure "breathwork" consists only of hyperventilation, though that's certainly something that's practised deliberately. I just looked it up and it's apparently not the lack of oxygen that causes the effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilating

Hyperventilation or overbreathing is the state of breathing faster and/or deeper than normal at rest,[1] with more specific sources generally adding being inappropriately high in regard to the respiratory drive from carbon dioxide,[2] or causing inappropriate decrease of it.[3] It can result from a psychological state such as a panic attack, from a physiological condition such as metabolic acidosis, or can be brought about by lifestyle risk factors or voluntarily as in the yogic practice of Bhastrika. It often occurs together with labored breathing, which, in contrast, can also be a response to increased carbon dioxide levels.

Hyperventilation can, but does not necessarily always cause symptoms such as numbness or tingling in the hands, feet and lips, lightheadedness, dizziness, headache, chest pain, slurred speech, nervous laughter, and sometimes fainting, particularly when accompanied by the Valsalva maneuver.

Counterintuitively, such effects are not precipitated by the sufferer's lack of oxygen or air. Rather, the hyperventilation itself reduces the carbon dioxide concentration of the blood to below its normal level because one is expiring more carbon dioxide than being produced in the body, thereby raising the blood's pH value (making it more alkaline), initiating constriction of the blood vessels which supply the brain, and preventing the transport of oxygen and other molecules necessary for the function of the nervous system.[4]

[Resume]

The breathwork program I attended was lead by a former psychiatrist. She found through her work that her patients benefited more from her alternative approach than those that went through traditional psychiatric treatment. She decided to embrace breathwork because she believes it is a better option and is a desirable means of understanding oneself.

Why is she "former?"

[jfish]

I didn't ask for specifics. Based on some general comments she made I got the impression she felt she could accomplish more by using alternative modalities than continuing to use traditional psychiatric modalities.

[Resume]

I didn't ask for specifics. Based on some general comments she made I got the impression she felt she could accomplish more by using alternative modalities than continuing to use traditional psychiatric modalities.

Accomplish more what?

[jfish]

Pixel, here's an alternative thought regarding evolution. Evolution isn't the only means of optimization and, given the slow pace of evolutionary change, it is very inefficient. Mankind has never been satisfied with relying solely on evolution to improve our lot in life. Experimentation and exploration seem to be part of our genetic makeup. Consider all the research going into gene therapy.

So what is wrong with seeking alternatives for better understanding ourselves (which can have a positive impact on how we relate with others)? There are many drugs on the market that are intended to alter an individual's mental state. Why should some be deemed illegal and others legal? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not?

[jfish]

Resume, I think her sense of accomplishment comes from helping others gain new insights into themselves. Most have issues of one sort or another that can be addressed more efficiently through the alternative approaches she takes to working with people.

[marplots]

...
So what is wrong with seeking alternatives for better understanding ourselves (which can have a positive impact on how we relate with others)? There are many drugs on the market that are intended to alter an individual's mental state. Why should some be deemed illegal and others legal? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not?

That part.
I am not against experimentation, but this isn't experimentation like they do in science. It's gathering experiences for entertainment. I do not think it does one whit to "better understand ourselves."

The difference to me is one between a mountain climber and a geologist. They might both climb mountains, but the first isn't trying to understand anything deep about mountains.

[Pixel42]

Pixel, here's an alternative thought regarding evolution. Evolution isn't the only means of optimization and, given the slow pace of evolutionary change, it is very inefficient. Mankind has never been satisfied with relying solely on evolution to improve our lot in life. Experimentation and exploration seem to be part of our genetic makeup. Consider all the research going into gene therapy.
I'm quite sure we're going to take charge of our own evolution very soon, if that's what you're driving at. I don't think we'll do it by altering our brains to make them malfunction, though, though we may well find ways of optimising them further than natural selection has and even of improving them in some ways.

So what is wrong with seeking alternatives for better understanding ourselves (which can have a positive impact on how we relate with others)?
Nothing at all. As long as you don't do yourself permanent damage in the process.

There are many drugs on the market that are intended to alter an individual's mental state. Why should some be deemed illegal and others legal? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I'm personally in favour of legalising all drugs, as I think it's entirely up to the individual what they choose to do their own bodies, as long as they are prepared to accept any consequences.

In general, however, and with the obvious exception of drugs like alcohol and tobacco which were in common use before their deletarious effects were apparent, the answer to your question is that drugs which are taken by a sick person whose brains are not working correctly to make them better (e.g. anti-psychotics or anti-depressants) are deemed acceptable, whilst drugs which are taken unnecessarily by a healthy person and which can produce adverse affects on them (either temporarily or permanently) are not. This is why the same drug can be acceptable when taken by a sick person but not when taken by a healthy person. This seems to me a perfectly reasonable distinction to make.

The difference to me is one between a mountain climber and a geologist. They might both climb mountains, but the first isn't trying to understand anything deep about mountains.

Well put.

We often learn most about how things work from how they behave when they're not working properly, and a great deal has already been learned about how the brain functions by studying how that functioning is impaired by poisonous substances as well as by illness and injury. That certainly extends to learning about how consciousness is generated by the brain by studying how that generation is impaired when the brain is not functioning correctly. I just don't think that those impaired states of consciousness can tell us any deep truths about the nature of reality.

[marplots]

We often learn most about how things work from how they behave when they're not working properly, and a great deal has already been learned about how the brain functions by studying how that functioning is impaired by poisonous substances as well as by illness and injury. That certainly extends to learning about how consciousness is generated by the brain by studying how that generation is impaired when the brain is not functioning correctly. I just don't think that those impaired states of consciousness can tell us any deep truths about the nature of reality.

Good point. Holding a magnet up against my old TV would warp the images in interesting ways. That didn't really tell me much about the television programs displayed, but it did tell me something about how a television screen works.

So, messing with your brain isn't about external truths, but it does tell you something about messing with brains.

[steenkh]

I'm personally in favour of legalising all drugs, as I think it's entirely up to the individual what they choose to do their own bodies, as long as they are prepared to accept any consequences.
Society also has to accept the consequences of more traffic killings, violence, increased health bills, and so on.

[jfish]

Marplots, seeking experiences doesn't necessarily have to be strictly entertainment, does it? If one is of Irish decent, for example, is traveling to Ireland and meeting distant relatives to learn more about one's heritage strictly entertainment? Might it lead to a broader understanding about oneself? Are the only people who can benefit from sessions with a psychiatrist those whose behavior patterns are outside cultural norms? Can't a well adjusted individual also gain some insights from guided assistance? If you agree with this statement, then perhaps the concern is the method being used to obtain insights. I then ask who has the right to judge for another what the right method is? One can consider the methods I'm using as foolish but that is purely a belief not based on any scientific evidence that I'm aware of. Many might think rock climbing is a foolish risk taking endeavor that is strictly done for entertainment but people who actively climb would take likely take exception to that. While there is some entertainment value, they learn something about themselves and trusting others through their endeavors. I would characterize my efforts as working toward self-actualization as opposed to entertainment.

There is a potential for signifcant societal gain if more people invested energy in learning about themselves in the broadest sense. Studying near death experiences has diminished many peoples' fear of death. I think I read that the majority of lifetime health care expenditures happen in the 6 months preceeding one's death. Many strive so hard to avoid the natural conclusion to life that a massive amount of resources are wasted. If our fear of death were diminished, perhaps we might make different judgements in our final stages regarding the balance between the value of living longer vs. the cost of achieving that extra time.

[steenkh]

Studying near death experiences has diminished many peoples' fear of death.
Including mine, but that does not mean that I believe in anything supernatural. It just means that if NDEs are formed before the ND, and not right after the ND, then there is some evidence that it can be a positive experience. If at all possible, I intend to savour it, when my turn comes.
I think I read that the majority of lifetime health care expenditures happen in the 6 months preceeding one's death.
That could also be because that period is the one where it is most needed.

Many strive so hard to avoid the natural conclusion to life that a massive amount of resources are wasted.
What do you mean "wasted"? If I could prolong my life by a month by spending all the rest of my money, I would do it. If I died begore that time, it could perhaps be said that the money was wasted. Personally, i would regard the money as wasted if I suffered all through that extra month.

[marplots]

Marplots, seeking experiences doesn't necessarily have to be strictly entertainment, does it? If one is of Irish decent, for example, is traveling to Ireland and meeting distant relatives to learn more about one's heritage strictly entertainment? Might it lead to a broader understanding about oneself? Are the only people who can benefit from sessions with a psychiatrist those whose behavior patterns are outside cultural norms? Can't a well adjusted individual also gain some insights from guided assistance? If you agree with this statement, then perhaps the concern is the method being used to obtain insights.

That last sentence is what I was getting at, yes.


I then ask who has the right to judge for another what the right method is?

Is "right" what you meant there? Certainly you would judge the better method to be the one that gives you the best results on as many dimensions as possible, wouldn't you?

One can consider the methods I'm using as foolish but that is purely a belief not based on any scientific evidence that I'm aware of. Many might think rock climbing is a foolish risk taking endeavor that is strictly done for entertainment but people who actively climb would take likely take exception to that. While there is some entertainment value, they learn something about themselves and trusting others through their endeavors. I would characterize my efforts as working toward self-actualization as opposed to entertainment.

I think this argument would work better if you thought that self-actualization was some unique property relative to you personally. Is that what it is? Isn't it a more general concept, broadly applied in psychology for a large class of people?

There is a potential for signifcant societal gain if more people invested energy in learning about themselves in the broadest sense. Studying near death experiences has diminished many peoples' fear of death. I think I read that the majority of lifetime health care expenditures happen in the 6 months preceeding one's death. Many strive so hard to avoid the natural conclusion to life that a massive amount of resources are wasted. If our fear of death were diminished, perhaps we might make different judgements in our final stages regarding the balance between the value of living longer vs. the cost of achieving that extra time.

There's a kind of flipping thing going on in your argument. On the one hand, seeking an OBE is a personal experience of exploration -- like finding out whether or not you like brandy by trying brandy. But then, there is a shift to the general case, and that's where I have a problem. We have an excellent method to gather evidence in the general case, one we trust wholeheartedly, the scientific method. Granted, the scientific method cannot tell me whether I will enjoy brandy or not, but we are then back to the difference between exploration and a real attempt at understanding.

If you wanted to see how an OBE/NDE affected people as a class, you'd study the before and after. I don't think this is the status you really want though. My sense is that you want the experience for yourself, to see your own particular before and after. In other words, you are not really out for understanding OBEs as a phenomenon, but as a way to alter your own worldview.

I'm not against curiosity, but think about where you will be no matter how it plays out. You will be in the position of someone who has had an experience, for good or ill, that cannot communicate the meaning because there is no logical path from here to there. Without repeating the experience for themselves, you don't have a basis to connect with others, there is no understanding other than a claim of, "I know what it feels like."

All I meant with my use of "entertainment" was that the guy who climbs the mountain as a hobby is seeking the emotional boost he gets in a personal way. Contrast this with someone studying mountains and I hope you'll see that passion and an emotional connection is seen as a source of error. Certainly the geologist might love mountain climbing and crave it as much as the other gal, but dispassionate analysis would rule the day for the academic part.

You are in the position of someone about to try brandy for the first time. They may hate it and move on to the next thing. They may love it and decide it is the best thing ever and completes their life's journey. But neither has really learned much at all about brandy. They only know how it makes them feel.

[jfish]

If it is true that there is nothing beyond this life, then you are right. All the experiences I've been pursuing are just generating an emotion or feeling and isn't much more than entertainment. If there is something beyond this life and the experiences provide some greater understanding, that isn't diminished by the fact it can't be proven using existing scientific methods. It may be a waste of time, but it may not be.

[marplots]

If it is true that there is nothing beyond this life, then you are right. All the experiences I've been pursuing are just generating an emotion or feeling and isn't much more than entertainment. If there is something beyond this life and the experiences provide some greater understanding, that isn't diminished by the fact it can't be proven using existing scientific methods. It may be a waste of time, but it may not be.

Well, I heartily approve. I'm going to hold you to your promise to let me/us know how it turns out. I applaud your willingness to pursue your own star and not to shy away from self-discovery.

[Pixel42]

If it is true that there is nothing beyond this life, then you are right. All the experiences I've been pursuing are just generating an emotion or feeling and isn't much more than entertainment. If there is something beyond this life and the experiences provide some greater understanding, that isn't diminished by the fact it can't be proven using existing scientific methods. It may be a waste of time, but it may not be.
It certainly can't do any harm - well unless you do something dangerous, and you sound sensible enough to avoid that (and to avoid the more obvious con artists who are just after your money) - and you might well learn something about consciousness, so go for it. And, as marplots says, let us know how you get on. :)

[jfish]

While I expect to have some interesting experiences along the way, the real proof, if there is any, will come from some other source. Perhaps Dr. Parnia's Aware project will provide some evidence one way or another. He's being very guarded about his project and data that has been gathered to date. He seems to have an objective mind and is taking great effort to design a worthwhile study.

[jfish]

It has been a while since the last posting. Many interesting experiences and people that I've had the pleasure to meet. One presentation was from a Dr. Eben Alexander. He is a neuro surgeon who had an NDE. Prior to his NDE he was a strong proponent of "reductive materialism". Under this hypothesis consciousness would ultimately be found to have a physiologic basis. It would just be a matter of developing the technology to find smaller, as yet discovered components of our brains. During his NDE his neocortex shut down. In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week. I'm looking forward to reading his soon to be published book on the subject.

[Resume]

In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week.

His opinion in this matter is exactly worthless. Examine the data and see where it leads. So far, for NDEs, not very far.

[marplots]

It has been a while since the last posting. Many interesting experiences and people that I've had the pleasure to meet. One presentation was from a Dr. Eben Alexander. He is a neuro surgeon who had an NDE. Prior to his NDE he was a strong proponent of "reductive materialism". Under this hypothesis consciousness would ultimately be found to have a physiologic basis. It would just be a matter of developing the technology to find smaller, as yet discovered components of our brains. During his NDE his neocortex shut down. In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week. I'm looking forward to reading his soon to be published book on the subject.

That's interesting. Is it possible that the memory was formed afterwards? For example, as he was slipping into a coma or emerging from it?

Since I'm a reductive materialist, I think brain "events" can happen through physical means, regardless of conscious state. So, for example, I would hold that such things can be formed unconsciously or pre-consciously, as long as there is some change, chemical, electrical, structural or some combination. Not firing for awhile would be enough for the state to change, since we know that disuse doesn't provide the reinforcement that would otherwise happen.

[Marcus]

It has been a while since the last posting. Many interesting experiences and people that I've had the pleasure to meet. One presentation was from a Dr. Eben Alexander. He is a neuro surgeon who had an NDE. Prior to his NDE he was a strong proponent of "reductive materialism". Under this hypothesis consciousness would ultimately be found to have a physiologic basis. It would just be a matter of developing the technology to find smaller, as yet discovered components of our brains. During his NDE his neocortex shut down. In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week. I'm looking forward to reading his soon to be published book on the subject.
It's a good lesson for all of us. No one is exempt from falling under the spell of supernatural beliefs given the right circumstances, even a neurosurgeon.

We don't need to discover any new parts of the brain, we just need to better understand the very, very, complex network of neurons that gives rise to conciousness.

[thebigm]

JFish - out of curiousity, how are you going with your own work/research on yourself in these matters?

I'm still absolutely intrigued by lucid dreaming and the concept of astral projection.

I've managed to do a lot of 'exploring' in the lucid dream state and try and 'see' things that would verify to me beyond reasonable doubt that this state is more than a mere dream.

So far it's been fruitless, I've floated up and mentally noted things on shelves in rooms that in waking consciousness aren't there.
In fact, more often than not the shelf isn't there. In this state I've opened a drawer on a cabinet that has contained objects I've remembered and when going to check, the cabinet doesn't even have a drawer.

I've also had conversations with 'beings' I guess, that I know in my waking conscious state who are still alive.
I asked someone who has been involved in the Monroe institute about this and she talked about multi dimensionality and how I should try and garner some information from the subject whilst in the lucid dream state that I couldn't know and then try and verify with the person when awake.

Again, what I took out of the state was nonsensical to the subject.

So, for me, I'm getting better control of my consciousness when not awake, however I've yet to find anything that proves to me that there's more to it.
I'll keep trying though as I enjoy it.

[jfish]

Saying that an expert's opinion is "worthless" on any topic seems a bit closed minded to me. When a hypothesis is offered to explain something, one should start from a neutral position rather than an outright rejection. A scientists approach would be to obtain more information to see whether or not it supports the hypothesis. Rejection shuts down any further exploration.

Consider that as early as 2,000 years ago there were some that believed an individual's health could be negatively affected by very small organisms. It took many more centuries before proof of this hypothesis could be generated. Something doesn't become true when it is proven to be true. The ability to prove something may lag the observation by a significant interval.

Here's a bit more from Dr. Alexander's presentation. He was adopted. Prior to his NDE he attempted to establish contact with his birth mother. He learned that she was still alive and had actually married his bioligical father and that they had additional children after marrying. When he asked if they would be willing to meet with him, they weren't willing because they had recently lost one of their daughters. During his NDE one of the experiences he had involved a beautiful woman telling him he was loved and that everything would be fine. After his NDE he recontacted his birth parents and this time they were willing to meet. Imagine his surprise when during that meeting his mother pulled out a picture of her deceased daughter (Dr. Alexander's sister) and the picture matched the woman who was with him in his NDE. I suppose you could speculate that Dr. Alexander was lying. ON the other hand, if true, Marplot's suggestion that Dr. Alexander's experience of seeing his sister in the near death state could not be explained by forming an unconscious or pre-conscious thought. He had no prior exposure to his sister.

I think it will be worth the wait to see what he has to say in his book but others may prefer to stick with their hypothesis that consciousness can't exist independently of the body. Of course there is no proof that consciousness can't exist without the body.

Regarding lucid dreaming - I haven't studied that aspect of experiences in much depth. I recently had a conversation with one of my nieces who is an undergraduate at Tufts. She says she lucid dreams at times. William Buhlman wrote a book on OBEs that may have some insight into lucid dreaming. He commented that what he sees in his OBE state does not always match what exists in the waking state. For example, a room in his house may appear to be the same room in his OBE state but sometimes there are subtle differences. The color of the paint might be different or a piece of furniture located in a different place. One hypothesis is that there are multiple dimensions that exist at the same time and that OBE/lucid dreams may allow an individual to move to another dimension that is very similar but not the same as the one of the waking state. I don't know much about string theory but I've read that it is dependent on more dimensions. If this is the case, then the suggestion of the person at the Monroe Institute may not necessarily produce anything.

ThebigM - you might consider reading a book titled Fringe Dweller. The Canadian writer talks about her experiences in the lucid dream state. (Her experiences are consistent with other people's experiences that I've met.) I'd be interested in your take on what she has to say if you get a chance to read her book.

[Pure Argent]

Saying that an expert's opinion is "worthless" on any topic seems a bit closed minded to me. When a hypothesis is offered to explain something, one should start from a neutral position rather than an outright rejection. A scientists approach would be to obtain more information to see whether or not it supports the hypothesis. Rejection shuts down any further exploration.

No. It's the responsibility of the person advancing the hypothesis to gather evidence to support it. If no evidence can be found, then it should be rejected.

Imagine his surprise when during that meeting his mother pulled out a picture of her deceased daughter (Dr. Alexander's sister) and the picture matched the woman who was with him in his NDE. I suppose you could speculate that Dr. Alexander was lying.

Or you could assert, with plenty of supporting evidence, that there is such a thing as confirmation bias and that memory is faulty.

ON the other hand, if true

But we have no reason to believe it to be true.

William Buhlman wrote a book on OBEs that may have some insight into lucid dreaming. He commented that what he sees in his OBE state does not always match what exists in the waking state. For example, a room in his house may appear to be the same room in his OBE state but sometimes there are subtle differences. The color of the paint might be different or a piece of furniture located in a different place. One hypothesis is that there are multiple dimensions that exist at the same time and that OBE/lucid dreams may allow an individual to move to another dimension that is very similar but not the same as the one of the waking state.

Or they could be, y'know, dreams.

[jfish]

There is a lot more evidence supporting the hypothesis that one's consciousness can exist independently of the body than there is evidence to the contrary. Dreams are not a viable explanation. People who have NDEs clearly differentiate their experiences from regular dreaming states. People who dream don't simulaneously dream about what is transpiring around them while they are dreaming. Lucid dreaming is a step closer to NDE experiences but I don't think lucid dreamers see what is happening in the waking world at the time they are lucid dreaming.


Perhaps there is a difference between a skeptic's perspective and a scientist's perspective. Might we say that a skeptic starts from the point of view that all hypotheses are not correct until proof is provided to move off that perspective while a scientist tries to be neutral about a hypothesis and moves in the direction that evidence takes him?

The notion of consciousness being capable of existing independently from the brain has been around for thousands of years as attested to by most religions. It has only been in the past 60 years or so that medical science has evolved to the point where a significant number of people can survive near death states such as cardiac arrest. Much more evidence is emerging that support the hypothesis. If someone can offer a better hypothesis (with supporting anecdotal evidence) as to why blind people in an NDE state can see what is transpiring around them or why a patient with eyes taped shut and ear canals sealed with high decible noise generators can accurately recall what happened during her operation, I'd like to hear it. Dreaming doesn't meet the standard of a logical explanation.

[rcfieldz]

Glad to see the responses. Interested to hear reactions as I'm researching the subject for a book and appreciate any feedback or questions. I'd simply like to open up a dialog. I'm not here as you mentioned Doc to "rant" about skeptics - I actually followed the line you referenced with a statement about my own skepticism, and actually I consider myself skeptical by nature, preoccupied with logic and reason. And also you should invite such dialog - I'm sure neither you nor anyone else came to this forum to merely share in the collective disbelief and disapproval of spiritual phenomena. You all came here because there's a part of you that wants to believe, to see someone win that million dollars, to know that there's more to life than than mundane existence, to face your fears of the unknown.
As to the million dollar prize and testing these phenomena, I'm a big fan of testing. Doc, you again misrepresented my message when you asserted that I was just waving my hands when presented with a challenge and explaining that my, "own particular beliefs can't/shouldn't/won't be tested." As I earlier stated, "to ignore the limitless mountain of information and evidence on these subjects is naive." Testing OBE's and psychic phenomena has been ongoing for dozens of years at reputable establishments such as Stanford, Princeton, Duke University and I can personally introduce you to a cross section of individuals you're welcome to query. Unfortunately much of this laboratory testing and evidence has been stricken from the mainstream media and history books, for the same reason Nikola Tesla has been erased. You know, the guy you learned about in grade school who invented AC electricity, AM/FM radio, wireless communication, the motor engine, and the x-ray among many others. The Man Who Invented the 20th Century. Oh wait, maybe you didn't hear much about him because he invented a system of free unlimited wireless electricity (see Wardenclyffe Tower). Or was it because he acquired these inventions in perfect detail through trace induced psychic flashes of white light. That and he said some things that made him unpopular like how he was in contact with spirits.
Despite all that there's still a great abundance of evidence out there. I'm not a big fan of Uri Geller because of some of his conduct and tendency towards theatrics, but look up "SRI Uri Geller" on google video and explain how he fooled those reputable Stanford Phd's. Statistically you've got at least one in a billion odds of matching the images in the sealed envelopes. How does he get so many? After seeing this and many other tests I still didn't believe so I had to go out around LA psychic shops till I found a few people that would do a blind reading with a question asking for a description of an certain thing, written on a folded paper inside a sealed opaque envelope. One woman nailed 2 out of 3. Know anything about math? There are over a billion objects/things in the world. Was it a clever cold reading that she knew one was the moon, and the other the Space Needle? Statistically impossible.
So am I just a sucker Sez and Sean? And if all of my lucid dreams, shared dreams, out of bodies, all the beings I've met, and all of the amazing information and guidance I've been given are just hallucinations, then I'm just stumped and equally astounded at the incomprehensible power of the human mind.
As to the Randi Challenge and your question Kitten, as far as I'm aware it's not as simple as remote viewing a few colors, numbers, or images. The Official Rules seem a little ambiguous - maybe someone could post a link explaining what kind of example protocol he would use. If he or anyone else wants to meet someone who is psychic, can communicate with spirits, or wants to learn to go out of body, feel free to contact me. I'm personally not interested in jumping thru hoops.

[Pixel42]

If someone can offer a better hypothesis (with supporting anecdotal evidence) as to why blind people in an NDE state can see what is transpiring around them or why a patient with eyes taped shut and ear canals sealed with high decible noise generators can accurately recall what happened during her operation, I'd like to hear it.
No such hypothesis is required until evidence is produced that either of these things have actually happened. And by evidence I mean peer reviewed scientific papers, not stories in a book.

[Resume]

There is a lot more evidence supporting the hypothesis that one's consciousness can exist independently of the body than there is evidence to the contrary. Dreams are not a viable explanation.

Holy crap, I must've missed something! Was this published in Lancet? Nature? Jama?

[Pure Argent]

There is a lot more evidence supporting the hypothesis that one's consciousness can exist independently of the body than there is evidence to the contrary.

Such as?

Dreams are not a viable explanation.

Why not?

People who have NDEs clearly differentiate their experiences from regular dreaming states.

How? And so what?

People who dream don't simulaneously dream about what is transpiring around them while they are dreaming.

Yes, they can. I've done it. It happens when you aren't fully asleep. But even assuming that you're right, so?

Lucid dreaming is a step closer to NDE experiences

How do you know?

but I don't think lucid dreamers see what is happening in the waking world at the time they are lucid dreaming.

Well, no. Because they're dreaming.

Perhaps there is a difference between a skeptic's perspective and a scientist's perspective. Might we say that a skeptic starts from the point of view that all hypotheses are not correct until proof is provided to move off that perspective while a scientist tries to be neutral about a hypothesis and moves in the direction that evidence takes him?

No. Because scientists believe the same thing. Science is simply applied skepticism.

Scientists and skeptics both start from a neutral position. It's just that, if there is absolutely no evidence supporting a hypothesis, both scientists and skeptics see that as a death blow. A lack of evidence in favor of something is, in the eyes of both science and skepticism (which, as I said before, are pretty much the same thing anyway), is the same as solid evidence against.

The notion of consciousness being capable of existing independently from the brain has been around for thousands of years as attested to by most religions.

Which is irrelevant, as it's the appeal to popularity fallacy.

It has only been in the past 60 years or so that medical science has evolved to the point where a significant number of people can survive near death states such as cardiac arrest.

So?

Much more evidence is emerging that support the hypothesis.

Such as?

If someone can offer a better hypothesis (with supporting anecdotal evidence)

The highlighted bit is your problem. Anecdotes are not evidence.

as to why blind people in an NDE state can see what is transpiring around them or why a patient with eyes taped shut and ear canals sealed with high decible noise generators can accurately recall what happened during her operation, I'd like to hear it.

You haven't given any evidence that they can.

Dreaming doesn't meet the standard of a logical explanation.

You haven't given any reason to think that it doesn't.

[jfish]

When a hypothesis is offered to explain something there usually is some time lag between the submission of the hypothesis and proof positive. It might be a short time lag or it could be thousands of years. (As was the case with the hypothesis that human health could be negatively impacted by micororganisms.) If one rejects a hypothesis because there is no published peer review in support of the hypothesis, that doesn't make the hypothesis errant. It just means there isn't proof. One can opt to wait for proof before giving any credence to the implications of the hypothesis or one can opt to explore the implications. If everyone chose the former approach, then scientific exploration would come to a standstill. Someone has to venture out and test the hypothesis.

In some ways that is what I'm doing. I want to explore for my own interests the ramifications of an eternal consciousness (or at least a consciousness that can extend beyond the limited life of my physical body). I'm achieving some things that are very satisfying to me. I post my notes because there seem to be a few people who are interested in hearing about the exploration. Some people in this conversation seem to be in agreement with me that there may not be a reductive materialist explanation for experiences people are having.

If people's anecdotes are not evidence, perhaps we don't share the same definition of evidence. An NDE with components that can't be explained as an extension of a waking realilty seems to me to be evidence that something else must be brought forward to explain the NDE. I would agree that anecdotes don't prove anything.

Pixel -how do you interpret the study that investigated blind people's NDEs? Because ethics won't permit us to create a near death state to study the issue in a controlled setting, does that mean considering the implications is a waste of time? The brain aneurism case that led to documented results that can't be explained as a dream. Is that not a form of evidence?

[jfish]

It occurred to me that this conversation about NDEs won't ever go anywhere because it can't be proved under the current environment (lack of testing capability in a really controlled setting). How about turning to a different subject that seems out of the realm of possibility. Most people would say that a spoon cannot be bent unless some physical force is applied to it. Yet there is a program at the Monroe Institute called MC2 that teaches people how to do that without applying force. What are the odds of this being true and capable of being observed in a controlled setting? 1,000 to 1? Higher? Infinite because it can't be done? Anyone willing to take the 50 to 1 odds? If I put up $1,000, would there be a skeptic or a pool of doubters who would pool $50,000 to have a shot at splitting my $1,000? If so, perhaps I could suggest a methodology for testing that would be acceptable.

[Pure Argent]

When a hypothesis is offered to explain something there usually is some time lag between the submission of the hypothesis and proof positive. It might be a short time lag or it could be thousands of years.

And, until such evidence is forthcoming, the hypothesis is dismissed. As soon as evidence is found, it's accepted. What's your point?

If one rejects a hypothesis because there is no published peer review in support of the hypothesis, that doesn't make the hypothesis errant. It just means there isn't proof.

Right. But, without evidence, the only logical conclusion is that it's false. Science deals with fact, not speculation. Someone might have hypothesized the existence of black holes years before any evidence of them was actually found, but until such evidence was found, the hypothesis was dismissed.

Opinions can be revised. It's not hard to do. But until you find evidence, the only logical conclusion is to dismiss it.

One can opt to wait for proof before giving any credence to the implications of the hypothesis

In other words, dismiss it until evidence is forthcoming, which is what I was talking about.

or one can opt to explore the implications.

Which is fine, if you can find someone who's willing and able to explore those. And if that exploration happens to turn up evidence, great; you now have a reason for others to accept the hypothesis. But if it doesn't, then it should be rejected even more strongly than it was before.

This is where it becomes a practical problem rather than a philosophical one. Given infinite man-hours and resources, skeptics would test every claim. But we don't have infinite man-hours. We have to pick and choose what we spend our time on, so we go with the things which look most likely to have some positive results - i.e., those which have at least some supporting evidence. Those which don't can still be explored if you can find someone with the money, time, and desire, of course, but you still can't say that it's logical to accept the hypothesis without evidence, and you certainly can't say that it's still worth exploring after your search turns up nothing - unless you later find some new method of investigating, of course, or some new piece of evidence which suggests that you should look again.

In short, it's great to say "hey, we should check this out", but you still have to have evidence before anyone accepts it, and you can't blame someone for refusing to accept it if you lack that evidence. That's doubly true if people have looked for the evidence already and found nothing.

If everyone chose the former approach, then scientific exploration would come to a standstill.

Not really. Knowledge tends to lead to more knowledge. But that's not really relevant to this discussion, as I explained above. In the end, you still have to be able to produce the evidence.

In some ways that is what I'm doing. I want to explore for my own interests the ramifications of an eternal consciousness (or at least a consciousness that can extend beyond the limited life of my physical body).

Exploring its ramifications is rather pointless when you haven't yet established that such a thing even exists. It's nothing but navel-gazing.

I'm achieving some things that are very satisfying to me.

I'm very happy that you find baseless speculation so fulfilling, but you really shouldn't come to a skeptics' forum and expect to get anything other than demands for evidence to support the existence of such a thing.

If you want to talk about what things would be like if such a thing did hypothetically exist - in other words, without having to post any evidence - go and start a thread in the Philosophy section saying "I want to talk about what things would be like assuming that consciousness is not limited to the brain". Even then, you'll probably get a lot of people saying that it's a pointless discussion, because it is, but you won't have to deal with people demanding evidence.

Some people in this conversation seem to be in agreement with me that there may not be a reductive materialist explanation for experiences people are having.

Those people are wrong.

If people's anecdotes are not evidence, perhaps we don't share the same definition of evidence.

Apparently not. And yours is wrong.

No offense meant, but that's really all there is to it. Anecdotes are not evidence. Period.

An NDE with components that can't be explained as an extension of a waking realilty seems to me to be evidence that something else must be brought forward to explain the NDE.

Firstly, you've yet to produce any account of an alleged NDE which can't be explained as a dream or hallucination. Secondly, if you had, you'd still have to prove that said NDE actually took place as described.

That's why anecdotes aren't evidence. Memory is fallible, confirmation bias is very real, and the human mind is just not good at recall.

I would agree that anecdotes don't prove anything.

Then they aren't evidence.

Pixel -how do you interpret the study that investigated blind people's NDEs?

Can you link me to this study? I don't think you've done so yet, but I could be wrong.

It occurred to me that this conversation about NDEs won't ever go anywhere because it can't be proved under the current environment (lack of testing capability in a really controlled setting).

Actually, it can be tested. Not with one hundred percent accuracy, of course, but it can. And it has been. There have been several studies on reports of NDEs, none of which have turned up any evidence supporting the idea that they're anything more than dreams or hallucinations.

Most people would say that a spoon cannot be bent unless some physical force is applied to it. Yet there is a program at the Monroe Institute called MC2 that teaches people how to do that without applying force.

And no evidence that said course actually works.

What are the odds of this being true and capable of being observed in a controlled setting? 1,000 to 1? Higher?

Much higher. Somewhere very near "impossible", in fact, because said trick has been investigated under controlled conditions hundreds of times and has never once been shown to be anything more than just that: a trick.

Infinite because it can't be done? Anyone willing to take the 50 to 1 odds? If I put up $1,000, would there be a skeptic or a pool of doubters who would pool $50,000 to have a shot at splitting my $1,000? If so, perhaps I could suggest a methodology for testing that would be acceptable.

I don't want to add any money to add to the pool, but the methodology of such a thing is simple. Put a man in a room with a spoon (a new spoon, provided by the testing committee and not so much as shown to the testee beforehand) on a table in front of him. Don't allow him to "apply force" to the spoon. See if he can bend it.

[Pixel42]

Can you link me to this study? I don't think you've done so yet, but I could be wrong.
IIRC jfish said he read about this study in a book.

From the wiki article on NDEs: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience)

A few people feel that research on NDEs occurring in the blind can be interpreted to support an argument that consciousness survives bodily death. Kenneth Ring claims in the book Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind that up to 80% of his sample studied reported some visual awareness during their NDE or out of body experience.[84]

From Ring's wiki entry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Ring)

Kenneth Ring (born 1936) is Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Connecticut, and a researcher within the field of near-death studies. He is co-founder and past president of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) and is the founding editor of the Journal of Near-Death Studies.[1]

[PixyMisa]

It occurred to me that this conversation about NDEs won't ever go anywhere because it can't be proved under the current environment (lack of testing capability in a really controlled setting). How about turning to a different subject that seems out of the realm of possibility. Most people would say that a spoon cannot be bent unless some physical force is applied to it. Yet there is a program at the Monroe Institute called MC2 that teaches people how to do that without applying force. What are the odds of this being true and capable of being observed in a controlled setting? 1,000 to 1? Higher? Infinite because it can't be done? Anyone willing to take the 50 to 1 odds? If I put up $1,000, would there be a skeptic or a pool of doubters who would pool $50,000 to have a shot at splitting my $1,000? If so, perhaps I could suggest a methodology for testing that would be acceptable.
There's a pool of skeptics who will put up a million dollars without you having to put up anything.

[Pure Argent]

IIRC jfish said he read about this study in a book.

From the wiki article on NDEs: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience)

A few people feel that research on NDEs occurring in the blind can be interpreted to support an argument that consciousness survives bodily death. Kenneth Ring claims in the book Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind that up to 80% of his sample studied reported some visual awareness during their NDE or out of body experience.[84]

From Ring's wiki entry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Ring)

Kenneth Ring (born 1936) is Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Connecticut, and a researcher within the field of near-death studies. He is co-founder and past president of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) and is the founding editor of the Journal of Near-Death Studies.[1]

Thank you. However, neither that article nor Ring's own page says that his sample had anything to do with blind people. Even assuming that it did, it doesn't say anything about when they were blinded. And even then, the actual study isn't available anywhere, as far as I can tell. So I wouldn't say that's particularly good evidence.

[steenkh]

Even assuming that it did, it doesn't say anything about when they were blinded.
And how on Earth do we determine that when blind people talk about vision, it has anything to do with vision as non-blind people experience it?
I mean if a person that has been blind all his life talks about a colour, how would we know that it has anything to do with actual colours?

[pakeha]

... Most people would say that a spoon cannot be bent unless some physical force is applied to it. Yet there is a program at the Monroe Institute called MC2 that teaches people how to do that without applying force. ....

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/mc_squared/

I had no idea the Monroe Institute had sunk so low.
jfish, try youtube to see how this is 'done'

[jfish]

I haven't been to the Monroe Institute's MC2 program but I know 3 people who attended on different occasions. Two of the 3 had success bending spoons. The 3rd didn't have success but observed others who had.

Suppose we start with the hypothesis that spoons or forks can't be bent using anything other than a force that can be measured in foot pounds. If we had an impartial expert (say a materials science professor at a recognized university) attend the MC2 program, might we have a start for designing a test to potentially disprove that hypothesis? If that expert registered for the program without disclosing his true intent and he were to observe a spoon or fork bending without any external torque being applied, would that serve as some form of evidence/proof? Perhaps if we defined a few more control elements, would that make it worthy of a run for the $1M? I'm looking for some objective thoughts on what would be required in a study design.

[steenkh]

Perhaps if we defined a few more control elements, would that make it worthy of a run for the $1M? I'm looking for some objective thoughts on what would be required in a study design.
I think definitely that a spoon bender winning the MDC would cause some attention in the physics departments. The protocol would definitely involve spoons that were guaranteed to be untampered, and slow motion video recording of the entire procedure where any moment of the spoon being temporarily out of sight would cause disqualification.

Alas, I seem to remember that the JREF has been so tired of spoon benders that they stopped testing spoon benders. Can anybody confirm?

[Pure Argent]

I haven't been to the Monroe Institute's MC2 program but I know 3 people who attended on different occasions. Two of the 3 had success bending spoons. The 3rd didn't have success but observed others who had.

And your evidence for this is...?

Suppose we start with the hypothesis that spoons or forks can't be bent using anything other than a force that can be measured in foot pounds. If we had an impartial expert (say a materials science professor at a recognized university) attend the MC2 program, might we have a start for designing a test to potentially disprove that hypothesis?

A start, yes.

If that expert registered for the program without disclosing his true intent and he were to observe a spoon or fork bending without any external torque being applied, would that serve as some form of evidence/proof?

No. Not unless he had some way of proving that he wasn't fooled in some way. I already outlined a very basic, very simple testing procedure for this.

[Pixel42]

Whoever is teaching the MC2 programme, and indeed anyone who's attended and is convinced they have indeed been taught how to bend cutlery with the power of their minds, is free to apply for the JREF $1m challenge and/or any of the many other prizes offered for proving the existence of the paranormal. Until and unless someone makes an application I see little point speculating about a suitable test protocol, though doubtless a good one already exists (haven't JREF tested spoon benders in the past?)

In the meantime if you want to pay a materials scientist to attend the course (and you almost certainly would have to pay him to take it as well as pay the cost of the course) and report on what he discovers go right ahead.

ETA: Just had a quick look at the list of threads in the challenge applications subforum but couldn't see any spoon benders.

[jfish]

I've had a chance to reflect off and on the past week about this conversation. The people I've met who have had an NDE and all the literature I've read point to a strong possibility that we have limiting beliefs about the breadth of our existence. That is my conclusion, anyway. The people who have actually had NDEs generally have a much stronger conviction about that than I. I could chose to spend more time and resources trying to persuade others about the merits of this perspective but that would detract from my efforts at self discovery. This web site is not well suited for people interested in discovery (Pure Argent's comment helped clarify that point for me). There are some participants who might have some degree of interest in discovery but probably have some reluctance to voice that interest in this forum.

ThebigM - if you would like to discuss lucid dreaming in more detail or have an interst in getting connected with other lucid dreamers, perhaps we can establish a line of communication apart from this forum. Leave me an email address in a private message and I'll get in touch with you.

[Resume]

This web site is not well suited for people interested in discovery (Pure Argent's comment helped clarify that point for me). There are some participants who might have some degree of interest in discovery but probably have some reluctance to voice that interest in this forum.

Many here have tried to help you discover the merits of critical thinking. You latest forum offering involved spoon-bending.

Do you see a problem?

[marplots]

This thread suddenly reminds me of dowsing.

Isn't there a class of dowsers who shrug their shoulders and back off from concrete claims and accept a kind of fog as their new stance?

Perhaps the OP was never a good measuring instrument for the subject at hand. Now, having investigated, they find no smoking gun but rather a set of facts and stories that can be thought about in a particular way, but that way doesn't advance our knowledge, and, I hope, doesn't completely resolve the inner conflict.

[jfish]

The exploration I've undertaken is to see if there is more to reality than most people perceive. The truths I'm seeking can't easily be subjected to scientific testing based on traditional physical principals. One can't measure the speed of light using a stop watch. Who would have thought 200 years ago that we could have an impact on atomic particle behavior through the power of observation. What is it about observation that affects these particles? I don't know enough about quantum physics to offer an explanation. Perhaps all we have is an observation without the ability to explain it as yet.

Suppose I went to the MC2 program at the Monroe Institute and personally was able to bend a spoon without the aid of any external known force. I would have a new truth through personal experience. Because I don't have the time and resources to replicate it to the satisfaction of others doesn't negate the new truth I would have experienced.

What is the purpose behind my explorations. I'm not into this for the potential notoriety. Perhaps there is a bigger prize that extends beyond the confines of this lifetime. I don't know if there is but I also don't reject the notion that perhaps there is. I hope to go beyond a purely philosophical thought process and experience a broader reality. Discussions here do not advance that objective unless I connect with other explorers who want to collaborate in discovery (and as one participant noted this isn't the place to find such people).

[Resume]

Suppose I went to the MC2 program at the Monroe Institute and personally was able to bend a spoon without the aid of any external known force. I would have a new truth through personal experience. Because I don't have the time and resources to replicate it to the satisfaction of others doesn't negate the new truth I would have experienced.


Suppose me auntie had balls. We can suppose a lot of things. Relating anecdotes isn't discovery nor exploration: it's telling yarns. 'Round here we like replication.

[Pixel42]

Suppose I went to the MC2 program at the Monroe Institute and personally was able to bend a spoon without the aid of any external known force. I would have a new truth through personal experience.
Only if you had carefully and methodically eliminated every possible way in which the people who run the program might have used simple magic tricks to convince you that you had personally bent a spoon without the aid of any external known force when you had actually done no such thing. How would you propose to do that in such circumstances?

[jfish]

Pixel42 - here's a brief note on what is done in the MC2 program. Each participant selects a spoon or fork to work with. A metalurgist who paid to participate in the program didn't see anything out of the ordinary as he selected his utensil. No one handles the participant's flatware but the participant. Those who are successful at bending the flatware initiate the bending while holding the flatware but the bending can continue once the flatware is set down. If there are magic tricks that can produce the same result, please comment on the methodology and I'll inquire to see if that could provide a logical explanation for the observed bending.

Resume - if attending the MC2 program to personally investigate the claim is not form of discovery, please provide another definition of discovery.

[marplots]

One would like to know that their explorations are valid and that they are not the victim of charlatans. It is a hard thing to both be accepting and not be gullible. How shall we travel the map and avoid all the false paths? Who should we trust and who should we question? How much should I trust my own experiences?

[Resume]

Resume - if attending the MC2 program to personally investigate the claim is not form of discovery, please provide another definition of discovery.

Discovering how to fool others, and yourself is interesting I guess. But a simple Google search about Project Alpha would be cheaper. The utensil bending there fooled many a scientist.

[Pixel42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

Throughout the early phases of the project, many people claiming to have psychic powers presented themselves to the lab. The vast majority quickly proved to have no such ability, or, just as commonly, used sleight of hand to make their "abilities" work. Many of these were convinced what they were doing was "real".


(My bolding)

[pakeha]

^^^
This.
jfish, did you take my advice to check out the youtube spoon-bending debunking?

[steenkh]

Those who are successful at bending the flatware initiate the bending while holding the flatware but the bending can continue once the flatware is set down.
And these people would never apply for the MDC? That indicates just how much they are making on their scam.

[dlorde]

If our fear of death were diminished, perhaps we might make different judgements in our final stages regarding the balance between the value of living longer vs. the cost of achieving that extra time.

Unfortunately, those few for whom the fear of death is diminished (e.g. by visions of an afterlife) and who also consequently value life less, can have a disproportionally negative effect on society (e.g. suicide bombers).

Not to say diminished fear of death is a bad thing, but it has it's dark side.

[jfish]

Pakeha - I did check out a few youtube videos on spoon bending. Some interesting ways to make it appear that a spoon is bending on its own. I didn't see any presentations where a utensil continued bending when placed on a table without any continuing human contact with it. If there is a video of such a thing, that would be of real interest to me.

dlorde - out of the 1,000 or so NDEs I've read about, I don't get the impression that an NDE experience results in a reduced appreciation for life before death. People who attempt suicide and recover come back with an understanding that committing suicide is a mistake. It doesn't necessarily follow that an enhanced appreciation for life after death through an NDE leads to a diminishment of appreciation for life before death. If anything, it is more likely that an NDEr will find a greater appreciation for life once he has shed his fear of death.

[pakeha]

^^^
Unless my memory has deteriorated, the technique for doing that is actually public knowledge.
I'll do some hunting, as all the links I had on the subject got lost in my third to last puter melt-down.

May I point out that MI's claims really do seem to be tripping down the path of conscious fraud?
I find this very sad, actually, as I've had dear friends pour their money into MI courses- specifically hemi-synch.

Hmm.
This subject (the spoon that continues to bend) has been already discussed on this forum 6 years ago:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45980

Here's an amusing link, the writer's advise to 'fake it till you make it' seems par for the course.
http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/138-How-to-bend-a-spoon-using-your-mind.html

Last link, I promise!
http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/167-Spoon-bending-instructions-and-pictures.html

[jfish]

I guess it has been a while since I last visited this site. A lot has transpired in my journey/exploration. Tonight at 10pm EST the Unexplained series on the bio channel is wrapping up its season with a 2 part show about the Monroe Intitute and its Lifeline program. Last spring I and 14 other people were at TMI for Lifeline. The Unexplained film crew was there all week recording our experiences. I'll be interested in seeing if there was independent 3rd party verification of the deceased beings some of us interacted with.

[Resume]

I guess it has been a while since I last visited this site. A lot has transpired in my journey/exploration. Tonight at 10pm EST the Unexplained series on the bio channel is wrapping up its season with a 2 part show about the Monroe Intitute and its Lifeline program. Last spring I and 14 other people were at TMI for Lifeline. The Unexplained film crew was there all week recording our experiences. I'll be interested in seeing if there was independent 3rd party verification of the deceased beings some of us interacted with.

Did you bend more spoons?

[jfish]

I haven't been to the MC2 program where spoons are bent. I have seen the youtube videos and compliment the people who can appear to be bending flatware when it really is a slight of hand. That doesn't change the fact that others I trust have participated in spoon bending. Probably some time in the 1st half of 2013 I'll get a chance to see it and, hopefully, accomplish it myself. If/when that happens, I'll have the first person proof I need. Just because someone can mimic the real thing, doesn't negate the reality of what some people can do.

[pakeha]

Welcome back, jfish.
I'm looking forward to seeing the telly programmes.

Mimic the real thing?
You still believe people can bend spoons with their mind and are willing to spend money to learn the technique?

[Resume]

If/when that happens, I'll have the first person proof I need. Just because someone can mimic the real thing, doesn't negate the reality of what some people can do.

Even if this were possible, as Randi likes to point out, you're doing it the hard way.

And anyway, how useful is bent flatware?

[Stray Cat]

I haven't been to the MC2 program where spoons are bent. I have seen the youtube videos and compliment the people who can appear to be bending flatware when it really is a slight of hand. That doesn't change the fact that others I trust have participated in spoon bending. Probably some time in the 1st half of 2013 I'll get a chance to see it and, hopefully, accomplish it myself. If/when that happens, I'll have the first person proof I need. Just because someone can mimic the real thing, doesn't negate the reality of what some people can do.
See this has always bothered me.
The flattest of all flatware is a knife.

I've yet to see anyone bending a knife. A spoon is easier for the very reason it's not flat and is the weakest of all cutlery.

[Lusikka]

Discovering how to fool others, and yourself is interesting I guess. But a simple Google search about Project Alpha would be cheaper. The utensil bending there fooled many a scientist.

BTW, have you ever read what Marcello Truzzi has written about the Project? It is not quite in line with the official Truth skeptics usually know.

Marcello Truzzi (1987): Reflections on "Project Alpha": Sientific Experiment or Conjuror's Illusion?. Zetetic Scholar, No 12-13, s. 73-98.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNos12-13.pdf (begins on page 73)
It takes a long time to load.

I apologize for the bad quality of the scanning. The Zetetic Scholar is a reminiscence of times, when skepticism was really skepticism and not the pseudo one like today.

[thebigm]

I guess it has been a while since I last visited this site. A lot has transpired in my journey/exploration. Tonight at 10pm EST the Unexplained series on the bio channel is wrapping up its season with a 2 part show about the Monroe Intitute and its Lifeline program. Last spring I and 14 other people were at TMI for Lifeline. The Unexplained film crew was there all week recording our experiences. I'll be interested in seeing if there was independent 3rd party verification of the deceased beings some of us interacted with.

jfish - am interested in hearing about your experiences with the monroe institute, I will PM you RE this as I am thinking about doing the gateway program, which is the precursor for all of the other courses.

I've posted on this thread previously and was given a reminder via e-mail about it recently. Since my last post I attended a Monroe weekend workshop, which was a hemi sync guided meditation for the main part.

It was interesting, but nothing ground breaking for me, I'm approaching this from a skeptical point of view. I couldn't say that anything I experienced was anything more than self hypnosis. I've achieved similar states of awareness and deep relaxation via normal meditation and also different states of awareness via just meditation. Which is why I'm keen to hear what you thought of Gateway before I part with (sometimes) hard earned.

I have read a lot on Out Of Body Experiences and it intrigues me so I've been practicing a lot of the techniques it suggests, being a frequent lucid dreamer and having previous fairly regular bouts of sleep paralysis and the accompanying vibrations (add the hallucinations(??) that accompany this). I've managed to induce an OOB at will twice, once the feeling of completely separating from my body but in complete darkness, the other a bit longer where I was stood up at the side of my bed and walked to the living room. I noticed at the time the room looked completely different. It could have just been a hallucination or a lucid dream based on a premeditated thought of what an OOB feels like, but it felt a lot more real. Although I'm just a beginner at this, the whole point in it is to try and bring some information back that proves to me (within reason) that the phenomena is more than a trick of the mind. In fact, it will take a few pieces of information to convince me of this (to prove that said 'information' is not something that I picked up subconsciously at some point in my life).

I'll keep going with it because it is interesting to me and I especially enjoy the lucid dream state so being able to gain more control here is fun and intriguing.

Good luck.

[pakeha]

BTW, have you ever read what Marcello Truzzi has written about the Project? It is not quite in line with the official Truth skeptics usually know.

Marcello Truzzi (1987): Reflections on "Project Alpha": Sientific Experiment or Conjuror's Illusion?. Zetetic Scholar, No 12-13, s. 73-98.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNos12-13.pdf (begins on page 73)
It takes a long time to load.

I apologize for the bad quality of the scanning. The Zetetic Scholar is a reminiscence of times, when skepticism was really skepticism and not the pseudo one like today.

I can't get the paper to load.
Could you quote from it, please, so we can get an idea of what it's about?

[catsmate1]

I can't get the paper to load.
Could you quote from it, please, so we can get an idea of what it's about?
It's a rather long winded (26 pages, about a quarter of the "journal") self published article by Marcello Truzzi in the journal he founded (Zetetic Scholar) attempting to pick holes in Project Alpha. Very defensive.
It's rather odd, he criticises the hoax (carried out by amateurs under laboratory conditions) while also criticising Randi for not replicating alleged paranormal feats under laboratory conditions.

[Resume]

It's a rather long winded (26 pages, about a quarter of the "journal") self published article by Marcello Truzzi in the journal he founded (Zetetic Scholar) attempting to pick holes in Project Alpha. Very defensive.
It's rather odd, he criticises the hoax (carried out by amateurs under laboratory conditions) while also criticising Randi for not replicating alleged paranormal feats under laboratory conditions.

Thanks.

(wouldn't load for me either)

[jfish]

Resume, you asked what is to be gained by bending spoons even if it were possible. I don't see any immediate benefit but it opens up possibilities. The double slit experiment (quantum physics) seems to point to the possibility that elemental particles react to observation. The phantom DNA effect also seems to indicate we may be able to influence how matter behaves. If we can bend spoons, can we apply that skill set to other things? Could it be used to help in the healing professions? Might we be able to focus that energy on tumors, for example? I don't have any answers, just possibilities.

For the more materially minded another component of the MC2 program is bringing group focus to influence the roll of dice. I haven't heard of any classes being able to fully control the numbers that show up on the dice but I've heard they can consistently improve the odds of a given combination being rolled.

If seedlings can germinate faster through focused energy, perhaps there are applications for enhancing agricultural output.

We may find that there are limitations to what can be done and we're left with little more than parlor entertainment.

[Resume]

We may find that there are limitations to what can be done and we're left with little more than parlor entertainment.

Let's first see if anything can be done.

First.

[Stray Cat]

We may find that there are limitations to what can be done
Indeed!, the main limitation being that so far, none of this nonsense has ever been shown to work.

and we're left with little more than parlor entertainment.
Or "Magicians" as they've been known for centuries.

[dlorde]

... It could have just been a hallucination or a lucid dream based on a premeditated thought of what an OOB feels like, but it felt a lot more real.

Lucid dreams I have had had a hyper-real feel to them; they're extremely vivid and memorable. Nevertheless, given the content, they were clearly unreal.

[tsig]

Resume, you asked what is to be gained by bending spoons even if it were possible. I don't see any immediate benefit but it opens up possibilities. The double slit experiment (quantum physics) seems to point to the possibility that elemental particles react to observation. The phantom DNA effect also seems to indicate we may be able to influence how matter behaves. If we can bend spoons, can we apply that skill set to other things? Could it be used to help in the healing professions? Might we be able to focus that energy on tumors, for example? I don't have any answers, just possibilities.

For the more materially minded another component of the MC2 program is bringing group focus to influence the roll of dice. I haven't heard of any classes being able to fully control the numbers that show up on the dice but I've heard they can consistently improve the odds of a given combination being rolled.

If seedlings can germinate faster through focused energy, perhaps there are applications for enhancing agricultural output.

We may find that there are limitations to what can be done and we're left with little more than parlor entertainment.

Hilited the operational words.

[jfish]

Stray cat, how do you know it has not been shown to work? Have you ever attended an MC2 program and proven that it was a hoax? You offer a hypothesis that it is nonsense but offer no proof. Nothing wrong with questioning whether something is real but to conclude something isn't real without investigating isn't very objective. It reminds me of some forms of religious faith.

[Stray Cat]

Stray cat, how do you know it has not been shown to work?
Because of the simple fact that it has not been shown to work.
If you claim it has, then show it.

Have you ever attended an MC2 program and proven that it was a hoax?
"Hoax" is your word not mine.

You offer a hypothesis that it is nonsense but offer no proof.
Hello jfish, let me introduce you to my friend burden of proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).
He's best friends with Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)

When you've learned what these words mean and how to apply them, we can talk science.

Nothing wrong with questioning whether something is real but to conclude something isn't real without investigating isn't very objective.
Are you aware of my investigations into claims of the paranormal?
No, I didn't think so (as psychic ability is pure bunk)

Yes, I've spent a lifetime questioning whether certain (paranormal) things are real... so far, not a single one of them has been... Now maybe yours is different, but until you can provide some evidence to back up these things that have NEVER been shown to be real, I can dismiss the claims as easily as you make them... The burden of proof is in your hands.

It reminds me of some forms of religious faith.
I don't base my life on faith, I base it on evidence.... got any?

[23_Tauri]

Resume, you asked what is to be gained by bending spoons even if it were possible. I don't see any immediate benefit but it opens up possibilities. The double slit experiment (quantum physics) seems to point to the possibility that elemental particles react to observation. The phantom DNA effect also seems to indicate we may be able to influence how matter behaves. If we can bend spoons, can we apply that skill set to other things? Could it be used to help in the healing professions? Might we be able to focus that energy on tumors, for example? I don't have any answers, just possibilities.
We used to have "god in the gaps", now we have "quantum in the gaps".

For the more materially minded another component of the MC2 program is bringing group focus to influence the roll of dice. I haven't heard of any classes being able to fully control the numbers that show up on the dice but I've heard they can consistently improve the odds of a given combination being rolled.
And you believe them? You believe in telekinesis purely through hearsay? Really? :confused:

If seedlings can germinate faster through focused energy, perhaps there are applications for enhancing agricultural output.
Please explain what you mean by 'energy' in this sentence and how it could have an influence on a distant object (i.e. a plausible mechanism). You could use the Bradford Hill criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Bradford_Hill_criteria) here to give your hypothesis more credibility, if you like.

Looking forward to what you come up with.

And welcome to the forum! :)

[Stray Cat]

And you believe them? You believe in telekinesis purely through hearsay? Really? :confused:
Yes, I don't think the phrase "you can do anything if you put your mind to it" extends to telekinesis. :D

Please explain what you mean by 'energy' in this sentence and how it could have an influence on a distant object (i.e. a plausible mechanism). You could use the Bradford Hill criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#Bradford_Hill_criteria) here to give your hypothesis more credibility, if you like.
Sounds to me like more W.C. Levengood guff and we both know how much success he had with his (Patented) magical energy to germinate seeds.

[Hellbound]

The double slit experiment (quantum physics) seems to point to the possibility that elemental particles react to observation.

No. Not in the way you're thinking, anyway. It shows no such thing.

Particles don't react to being observed. THat's the cart before the horse. The issue is that there's no way possible to observe a particle without interacting with it in some manner. Even just watching it means photons are being bounced off the thing, for example.

Particles don't magically change their behavior just because someone "observes" them due to any mystical effect. They change because the acts that are a part of that observing (using any known or theoretically devised method that might be possible, based on current knowledge) causes a change in the particles behavior.

[Lusikka]

I am sorry for the delay, but I have not read this thread for a time.

I can't get the paper to load.
Could you quote from it, please, so we can get an idea of what it's about?

Can you see if there is traffic on your line? The PDF
http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNos12-13.pdf
is really big and requires exceptionally long time to load. If you see traffic on the line, then it is loading and you have only to wait.

I had a lot of work to copy the article to a better readable Word file because the quality of the scanning is so bad the article cannot be copied without a lot of text missing. There became 29 tightly written pages. I can send to you the file privately if needed.

To quote the article is very difficult for me because of its length and very many details. Truzzi and Randi were then fellow skeptics and during the project Truzzi partly knew what was happening. Truzzi hoped that Randi would be like a gentleman in publicizing Project Alpha and Randi promised that but did not do so. There is also the funny story of a counter-hoax against Randi so that he gave his "Uri Award" to a phony project.

There is also a smaller PDF file that allows you to know what parapsychologists said but they are too much defending themselves in my opinion.
http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

[jfish]

I just finisher reading Dr. Eben Alexander's book Proof Of Heaven. (He was the cover story in a Newsweek article a few weeks ago.) Rather remarkable account of his near death experience from bacterial menegitis. Prior to his NDE he had a fairly typical view that NDEs were explained by natural processes in the brain. His opinion changed dramatically after his NDE. As a noted neurosurgeon with an impressive CV his opinion carries more weight than the average NDEr. In the appendix he lists 9 possible hypotheses that might explain his experience (other than consciousness can exist independently of the brain). Each one of them were found to not be credible explanations. Also he had an after-the-fact validation that his experience was real. A woman who was in his NDE turned out to be his sister whom he had never met (he was adopted as a baby). She had died prior to his NDE.

[Resume]

Prior to his NDE he had a fairly typical view that NDEs were explained by natural processes in the brain. His opinion changed dramatically after his NDE. As a noted neurosurgeon with an impressive CV his opinion carries more weight than the average NDEr.

No, it doesn't. Like any claimant his opinion makes no difference; it's the weight of the evidence that matters.


Also he had an after-the-fact validation that his experience was real. A woman who was in his NDE turned out to be his sister whom he had never met (he was adopted as a baby). She had died prior to his NDE.

You have no idea what was retrofitted to fit his episode. None.

[Pixel42]

Thread on Alexander's book: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=245522

[Resume]

Also, this: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/proof-of-heaven/