Monroe Institute

[FuzzyQuark]

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/

I'd like to get some opinions on this establishment. The Monroe Institute was founded in 1972 by the late Robert Monroe who wrote 3 books about his "OBEs". The Institute runs all these programs where they claim to be able to teach astral travel, remote viewing, rescuing "ghosts", contacting your "higher self" etc. At first glance it looks like a load of new age woffle, and when you see the cost of their programs you can't help thinking that they are onto a good money-spinner. However, they have run these programs for decades (on a non-profit basis) and claim that thousands of people have been through them and experienced incredible results. It was even mentioned in the Wall Street Journal at one point.

They don't seem to advertise much commercially, so I'm presuming the programs are just passed around by recommendation. If it is a load of baloney that they are selling, it must be good baloney if so many people are willing to shell out the money for the programs over so many years.

I emailed them asking if they intented to try and prove to the wider world that all the stuff they talk about is true, and an Institute director replied saying that it was impossible to prove their ideas objectively and they simply help people to have certain experiences themselves. I've read a few books and articles by people who have been on the programs and they are quite interesting.

Please check out the website & post your thoughts.

[Anders]

The monroe institue is one of those countless organisations that's trying to separate people of thier hard earned money by giving them hours upon hours of woo-woo talk about how a better man you are going to be, by learning to do OBEs. Out-of Body Experiences is nothing more than a mild hallucination, which takes place in a persons brain, nowhere else! Often induced by drugs or sleep deprivation. I myself have experienced a mild form of OBE while in extremely relaxed situations (just before I get out of bed in the morning). Nothing supernatural about that, just pure wholesome brain activity. Robert Monroe, founder of the monroe institiure, though seem to have been severely hallucinating during his OBEs.

[evilgoldtoesock]

For amusement earlier this year, I tried a friend's copy of the Hemi-Sync audio program that is offered through the Monroe institute. Hemi-Sync is a series of New-Age self-help CDs that are sold for a hefty sum of cash on the institute's website. They claim to work by using using audio effects and inserted noise to increase the amount of active theta waves in the brain. The institute makes a variety of claims about the effects of Hemi-Sync, including a claim saying that the audio program can reduce the effects of ADHD.

Some hemi-sync tracks are purely sound effects, such as running water, while others have a voice narration. The voices are soothing, and give pseudo-mystical instructions related to meditation.

I personally noticed no unusual effects after going through part of the program. The sound effects did make me somewhat sleepy, but much of the drowsiness I experienced was related to my boredom with the new-agey narration.

Hmm, it kind of reminded me of the one of the therapy sessions in the movie, "Fight Club."

[FuzzyQuark]

I agree that it seems like a scam. I can't help wondering though, if it is a scam how it has managed to survive so long. Many of these quack therapies just come and go, yet the Monroe Institute have been around for decades and are still pulling people through the doors. That means either there are lots of gullible people out there and the Institute excels at taking money from them, or they are genuinely onto something.

Just for the record, I read all of Monroe's books & thought that the first one was promising, but he seemed to get a bit too carried away with the others. I tried his OBE technique many times and one time experienced the "surging waves of electricity" he described as the "vibrations", so I know for certain he was being truthful about that. Unfortunately I panicked at that point so nothing else happened and I haven't managed to reproduce it since. I also bought some of the Hemi-Sync CDs but apart from putting me in a very deep state of relaxation, nothing remarkable happened.

So in summary, I think they may be genuine, but I'd like to see (or experience) some concrete evidence.

[dennisb]

I have tested some different Hemi-Sync CD's and I can see some effects of the CD's:

I have tested for example "Surf", "Pain Control" and some more and AFAIK I was more relaxed etc. after using it.

I have talked to some guys that trained with Mr. Monroe when he trained some of the US Military and they warned my for some of the effects that could happen with the Hemi-Sync technology, which really scared me.

I am afraid I cannot quote them since this was discussed on a private quite large mailing-list, but PM me if you are interested about it.

// d

[SGT]

Originally posted by FuzzyQuark
I agree that it seems like a scam. I can't help wondering though, if it is a scam how it has managed to survive so long. Many of these quack therapies just come and go, yet the Monroe Institute have been around for decades and are still pulling people through the doors. That means either there are lots of gullible people out there and the Institute excels at taking money from them, or they are genuinely onto something.



Homeopathy survives for more than 200 years. Christianity for almost 2000.

[Nihilanth]

Sleep paralysis again. I'm sorry, but speaking as a long-time sufferer of this disorder, I can safely say that any "surging brain activity" you're feeling is the same thing, albeit triggered consciously instead of being your brain's attempt to freak itself out.

[KC.reason]

The funny thing about skeptics is that they'll cling dearly to their beliefs no matter how contradictory the evidence or experience. Even after reading all of Robert Monroe's books and many other books by the government psychic spys who trained at his institute, all of which seemed genuine and objective, I remained skeptical. But I'd always gone by the numbers and the numbers didn't add up - the government spending dozens of years and millions on training psychics at The Monroe Institute and other reputable laboratories like Stanford Research Institute. So I tried the Hemi-Sync cds and it took a couple months but soon I was having lucid dreams (where I was not partially but fully conscious inside my dreams) and out of bodies which, if one experiences, differ from the lucid dream in many ways. After doing this a couple times a week for a few years I've seen and experienced many of the things described in Monroe's books, and then some. And to people like Anders who boldly claim that this is, "a mild hallucination, which takes place in a persons brain, nowhere else," may I ask, what makes you an authority on the subject? Are you a neurophysicist or accredited mind scientist? Do you have extensive experience when it comes to hallucinations? Do you know many people who have died on the operating table and come back to tell their stories? The vast majority of people who have near death experiences have coinciding OBE's, which happen while their brains have NO electrical signals. Somehow a large percentage of them recall floating in the operating room, seeing their lifeless bodies on the table, and vividly recall what was being discussed and occurring in the room while they were dead. To ignore the limitless mountain of information and evidence on these subjects is naive. To slander people and their organizations that are doing something meaningful and important for humanity, just because you don't understand it and won't take the time to look into it, is libelous, to say the least. The Monroe Institute helped me change my life for the better. If interested look into it and go out and experience for yourself!

[Weak Kitten]

If they really are so fantastic then they should have no trouble passing a few simple tests. Let's take the whole out of body thing for example. It should be easy to do a simple test with colored objects on top of a cabinet that the subject cannot see.

If you cannot do out of body yourself KC then it should be a simple mater for you to find someone at the Monroe place who can. After all, that would most certainly count for the million dollar prize!

[Doc Daneeka]

The funny thing about skeptics is that they'll cling dearly to their beliefs no matter how contradictory the evidence or experience.
[snip]

The funny thing about True Believers is that they'll often come here, rant about how closed minded the skeptics are, and then respond to any challenges or requests for evidence by waving their hands vigorously about and explaining that their own particular beliefs can't/shouldn't/won't be tested.

Yet they expect to be taken seriously.

The vast majority of people who have near death experiences have coinciding OBE's, which happen while their brains have NO electrical signals.

Setting aside the "vast majority of people" claim, I'm curious. Has anyone ever been revived after reaching the point where there is no electrical activity in the brain? I'm...er, skeptical of that one.

[SezMe]

If it is a load of baloney that they are selling, it must be good baloney if so many people are willing to shell out the money for the programs over so many years.
Sylvia Browne has been successfully selling her hogwash for decades. There's a sucker born every minute so longevity has no bearing on veracity.

[Sean84]

Sylvia Browne has been successfully selling her hogwash for decades. There's a sucker born every minute so longevity has no bearing on veracity.

Do you often talk to zombies? Do they talk back? :D

[KC.reason]

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.

[jakesteele]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemi-Sync
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwave_synchronization

Monroe's whole thing is based on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats

Binaural beats

Binaural beats or binaural tones are auditory processing artifacts, or apparent sounds, the perception of which arises in the brain for specific physical stimuli. This effect was discovered in 1839 by Heinrich Wilhelm Dove, and earned greater public awareness in the late 20th century based on claims that binaural beats could help induce relaxation, creativity and other desirable mental states.[citation needed]

The brain produces a phenomenon resulting in low-frequency pulsations in the loudness and sound localization of a perceived sound when two tones at slightly different frequencies are presented separately, one to each of a subject's ears, using stereo headphones. A beating tone will be perceived, as if the two tones mixed naturally, out of the brain. The frequency of the tones must be below about 1,000 to 1,500 hertz for the beating to be heard. The difference between the two frequencies must be small (below about 30 Hz) for the effect to occur; otherwise, the two tones will be heard separately and no beat will be perceived.

Binaural beats are of interest to neurophysiologists investigating the sense of hearing. Binaural beats reportedly influence the brain in more subtle ways through the entrainment of brainwaves[1][2] and can be used to reduce anxiety[3] and provide other health benefits such as control over pain.[4]

I personally have done and still do the very basic hemi-synch masked by white noise. It definitely induces a meditative state just bio-feedback or other forms of meditation. As far as the OBEs or astral stuff, never even came close and I'm not paying money to try.

[Pixel42]

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,
The conspiracy theory subforum is down the hall.

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
Of course I've heard of Tesla, he's one of the most famous inventors who ever lived. he's even got an SI unit named after him.

because he invented a system of free unlimited wireless electricity (see Wardenclyffe Tower).
I think you're the one that needs to look it up, you appear to have got hold of some very odd notions about it.

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.
He was certainly a very odd man, prone to what we would now call OCD, but then lots of famous scientists and inventors were a bit odd and go even more so in their old age. Doesn't make his achievements any less remarkable, and it certainly hasn't led to him being written out of history.

Despite all that there's still a great abundance of evidence out there.
No, there's a great abundance of unsubstantiated stories out there that never stand up to scrutiny.

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?
He cheats. He's a magician, it's what they do. James Randi is also a magician, and can do all the tricks Gellar can do and more. He neither has, nor claims to have, paranormal abilities.

[SezMe]

So am I just a sucker Sez and Sean?
Yes.

[catsmate1]

If they really are so fantastic then they should have no trouble passing a few simple tests. Let's take the whole out of body thing for example. It should be easy to do a simple test with colored objects on top of a cabinet that the subject cannot see.

If you cannot do out of body yourself KC then it should be a simple mater for you to find someone at the Monroe place who can. After all, that would most certainly count for the million dollar prize!
Sidenote: actually he'd be able to claim ~US$2.5 million from the various skeptic challenges. Even in today's dollars that's not bad for a simple demonstration taking a few hours in total.
I wonder why he hasn't applied.;)

[catsmate1]

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.
Actually I came here for information on certain loony conspiracy theories; I stayed for the intelligent banter.

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.
Really? You may need to believe to reassure yourself, others do not.

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.
Yet after all this effort there is no demonstrable result, what should that tell us?

Unfortunately much of this laboratory testing and evidence has been stricken from the mainstream media and history books,
And the conspiracy theories begin............

for the same reason Nikola Tesla has been erased.
I don't know about you but my secondary education did cover Tesla; he's quite a well known figure in physics.

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.
Ah evidently my education was at fault because it only covered the reality of Tesla's work rather than the imaginary parts. For example, being able to transmit electric power wirelessly (with significant losses and unknown environmental effects) doesn't help at all in generating that power in the first place.

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. Geller has long since been exposed as a pathetic fraud, that you still believe in his "powers" says much about your credulity. And credibility.

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.
Oh dear, not this rubbish again.

So am I just a sucker Sez and Sean?
It appears to me, from our very limited interaction, that you're young and credulous; you want to believe in something, even if it's not actually real.

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.
There's nothing supernatural or paranormal about lucid dreaming. If you wish to post more details on your experiences I'm sure others will explain hy they're also not paranormal.

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.
There is a sub-forum here dedicated to the Challenge, I suggest you post a request there. The protocol, including definition of success conditions, is agreed in advance by both sides.

[OlegTheBatty]

A subjective experience does not stop being a subjective experience just because one learns to induce or manipulate the experience.

[Ersby]

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.

Randi did something similar for Italian TV...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=181637

[Psiload]

Will somebody please contact the guv'mint disinfotainment agent in charge of keeping Nikola Tesla's name out of the mainstream media and tell him to get off his lazy ass?

-The cheesy 80's hair band Tesla was named in his honor.

-The Mythbuster's tested(and busted) Tesla's "earthquake machine".

-None other than the great David Bowie portrayed Nikola Tesla in 2006 in the movie The Prestige.

-PBS, The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, etc... frequently run documentaries about the life and times of Nikola Tesla.

-There's a company named Tesla Motors which manufactures electric cars which are marketed to the general public.

-Nikola Tesla's wiki page is longer than my arm.

-The name Tesla attracts "free energy" scammers and conspiracy theorists across the internet like poop draws flies.

To whomever is responsible for keeping the Tesla thing under wraps... you're doing it wrong.

[Doc Daneeka]

[snip]
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.
[snip]

Actually, you did rant. If you say that you weren't waving your hands, then ok - I accept that part.

At any rate, you came in here claiming to be skeptical about this stuff, and then immediately proceeded to tell us how meaningful and important the institute is for humanity, implied that we're not qualified to speak on these matters (though apparently you are), and then accused us being criminals (defamation being actionable in most jurisdictions, and actually criminal in many).

That does not a good first impression make. Having seen this before, and more than a few times, I thought it might be fun to oppose your gross generalization with my own. Usually, I am quite happy to invite dialogue. However, there are times when someone's first post is insulting enough that rational discourse doesn't appear to be the objective.


[snip]
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.
[snip]

I'd love to see someone win the million, but only because it would mean that there's a whole new area of knowledge out there; one that managed to lurk around, unevidenced, for centuries. That's brilliant. No part of me desires belief, though. Any idiot can believe something, but actually learning about it requires effort and discipline, and is rewarding in ways that mere belief can never be.

[SezMe]

I'd love to see someone win the million, but only because it would mean that there's a whole new area of knowledge out there; one that managed to lurk around, unevidenced, for centuries. That's brilliant. No part of me desires belief, though. Any idiot can believe something, but actually learning about it requires effort and discipline, and is rewarding in ways that mere belief can never be.
Well said, Doc.

[Doc Daneeka]

Well said, Doc.

Thank you :)

[siddhigyrl]

Back to the Monroe Institute--my mother works as a home healthcare nurse in that stretch of central VA. She has been out to the MI on many occasions to care for several "family" members. Mom is definitely a bit wooish, but she describes those MI people as off the deep end.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

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.I'm astounded by it everyday. Most notably its ability to fool you. I'm not just pointing my finger at others either, I fool myself all the time:mad:. Being skeptical is a great start at a defense, but never think you can't be fooled.

[Mister Earl]

Sounds like someone ran in to the old military group that tried to do remote viewing. If memory serves, Pat Price was the big gun there, and they believe that he "died" and was working underground for the government, since he was the best of all of them. I have a book written by a member of this group at home that I've read thoroughly.

It's all make-believe, though. Remote viewing does not work.

[jfish]

I've met several people who have had a near death experience. This stimulated my curiosity leading to a lot of reading about these experiences and the research that seems to indicate they are more than hallucinations or created by the brain. You might read the book Mind Sight as one example. It didn't come to any definitive conclusions but presents interesting results from a study of the Blind.

This NDE research led to an intellectual exploration of other areas of reality. I just finished reading two of Robert Monroe's books and My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell. Campbell is a nuclear physicist who participated in Monroe Institute studies. What I read indicates there might be much more to reality than our 5 senses can perceive. I am registered to attend the Gateway Voyage at the Institute in December. Yes it is expensive. I guess I'm fortunate in that I can afford the price. In any event I see this as an investment in an exploration. I'm going into it with an open mind yet trying to limit any preconceived notion about what I will experience. If nothing comes of it other than a relaxing week, the cost in time and money is negligible. If I gain new insights and learn some new Knowns, then perhaps the week will be a turning point for me.

As I understand the scientific method, a hypothesis is formed. Data is collected in an objective manner to see whether or not the data supports or does not support the hypothesis. I'm trying to maintain that perspective as I prepare for the week at the Institute.

[Resume]

[QUOTE=jfish;6584007]
If I gain new insights and learn some new Knowns, then perhaps the week will be a turning point for me.
QUOTE]

I think the "known" you'll learn is that beguiling the credulous is profitable.

[jfish]

You may be right. One can't be sure until one embarks on the journey for himself. In the 15th century some European explorers thought they would see for themselves whether there was a new trading route to the west. Probably most people at the time thought they were crazy. It seemed pretty apparent that the world was flat to the casual observer.

Consider the singer from Atlanta who had an operation to repair her brain aneurysm. A standard operating procedure was too risky so she opted for a different procedure whereby her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees and her brain waves were flat before removing the blood from her body. (To measure brain waves high decibel noise generators were sealed in her ear canals.) From our current medical perspective she was dead - no heart beat and no brain activity. After repairing the blood vessel in her brain, the physicians returned her blood and resusitated her body. After her recovery she accurately reported conversations between the physicians in the operating room and could describe the surgical tools used. The attending physician commented that this doesn't offer definitive proof of NDEs but he could come up with no other logical explanation.

Whether one choses to accept or dismiss such things is a personal choice.

[marplots]

Consider the singer from Atlanta who had an operation to repair her brain aneurysm. A standard operating procedure was too risky so she opted for a different procedure whereby her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees and her brain waves were flat before removing the blood from her body. (To measure brain waves high decibel noise generators were sealed in her ear canals.) From our current medical perspective she was dead - no heart beat and no brain activity. After repairing the blood vessel in her brain, the physicians returned her blood and resusitated her body. After her recovery she accurately reported conversations between the physicians in the operating room and could describe the surgical tools used. The attending physician commented that this doesn't offer definitive proof of NDEs but he could come up with no other logical explanation.

I admire your willingness to have your heart stopped and body temperature lowered. But it seems risky to me.

I am more curious that you would willfully seek to undergo a "transformative experience" and even pay to do so. Be very careful when you entrust your own personality and worldview into the hands of others. The level of trust must be extremely high here. In effect, you are asking to have your brain remodeled. For good or ill, you will not be the same person... I find this disturbing.

[godless dave]

You may be right. One can't be sure until one embarks on the journey for himself. In the 15th century some European explorers thought they would see for themselves whether there was a new trading route to the west. Probably most people at the time thought they were crazy. It seemed pretty apparent that the world was flat to the casual observer.

No, it didn't. It seemed pretty apparent that the earth was a sphere. That's why a Greek mathematician attempted to measure its circumference almost two thousand years before Columbus sailed to the Americas.

[Captain_Swoop]

Uri Geller!!

:dl:

[Resume]

Consider the singer from Atlanta who had an operation to repair her brain aneurysm. A standard operating procedure was too risky so she opted for a different procedure whereby her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees and her brain waves were flat before removing the blood from her body. (To measure brain waves high decibel noise generators were sealed in her ear canals.) From our current medical perspective she was dead - no heart beat and no brain activity. After repairing the blood vessel in her brain, the physicians returned her blood and resusitated her body. After her recovery she accurately reported conversations between the physicians in the operating room and could describe the surgical tools used. The attending physician commented that this doesn't offer definitive proof of NDEs but he could come up with no other logical explanation.


This sounds very anecdotey, and while a certain someone who posts frequently on this subforum adores such things, the rest of us require a bit more. A citation perhaps.

[Captain_Swoop]

Yup, extraordinary claims and such.

[jfish]

I appreciate the concern expressed by marplots. I've done some due diligence and critically considered my motivations for this prior to making the commitment. Thanks for your note and words of caution. I've heard some negative reports of people pursuing spiritual enlightenment.

Regarding citations - I first read about the Atlanta singer in the book The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences authored by Janice Holden, Bruce Greyson and Debbie James. I read a second reference to the operation in the book The Science of Life After Death. The singer's name is Pam Reynolds. The neurosurgeon's name is Robert Spetzler. I think the original publication of this case was in a 1998 book Light and Death written by a cardiologist named Michael Sabom. If anyone is interested, you can google the name Pam Reynolds and read more about the case.

[Pure Argent]

Consider the singer from Atlanta who had an operation to repair her brain aneurysm. A standard operating procedure was too risky so she opted for a different procedure whereby her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees and her brain waves were flat before removing the blood from her body. (To measure brain waves high decibel noise generators were sealed in her ear canals.) From our current medical perspective she was dead - no heart beat and no brain activity. After repairing the blood vessel in her brain, the physicians returned her blood and resusitated her body. After her recovery she accurately reported conversations between the physicians in the operating room and could describe the surgical tools used. The attending physician commented that this doesn't offer definitive proof of NDEs but he could come up with no other logical explanation.

Can you provide documentation of this event, please?

[catsmate1]

You may be right. One can't be sure until one embarks on the journey for himself. In the 15th century some European explorers thought they would see for themselves whether there was a new trading route to the west. Probably most people at the time thought they were crazy. It seemed pretty apparent that the world was flat to the casual observer.
Rubbish. Long before 1492 it was well known that the Earth was spherical, e.g. Aristotle's argument (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Saristot.htm) in the fourth century BCE and the later efforts by Eratosthenes of Cyrene and Khalif El Ma'mun to measure it's circumference.
The panel of experts, appointed by Ferdinand, to examine Columbus's plan were actually correct; his plan to sail west to to the Indies would not (and did not) succeed because Columbus grossly under-estimated the circumference of the Earth and the distance to be sailed.
If it hadn't been for the presence of the Americas, unknown to Columbus, the expedition would have perished in the ocean.

Consider the singer from Atlanta who had an operation to repair her brain aneurysm. A standard operating procedure was too risky so she opted for a different procedure whereby her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees and her brain waves were flat before removing the blood from her body. (To measure brain waves high decibel noise generators were sealed in her ear canals.) From our current medical perspective she was dead - no heart beat and no brain activity. After repairing the blood vessel in her brain, the physicians returned her blood and resusitated her body. After her recovery she accurately reported conversations between the physicians in the operating room and could describe the surgical tools used. The attending physician commented that this doesn't offer definitive proof of NDEs but he could come up with no other logical explanation.
Citation?

Whether one choses to accept or dismiss such things is a personal choice.
No it depends, in rational people, on the evidence.

[dirtywick]

You may be right. One can't be sure until one embarks on the journey for himself. In the 15th century some European explorers thought they would see for themselves whether there was a new trading route to the west. Probably most people at the time thought they were crazy. It seemed pretty apparent that the world was flat to the casual observer.

Consider the singer from Atlanta who had an operation to repair her brain aneurysm. A standard operating procedure was too risky so she opted for a different procedure whereby her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees and her brain waves were flat before removing the blood from her body. (To measure brain waves high decibel noise generators were sealed in her ear canals.) From our current medical perspective she was dead - no heart beat and no brain activity. After repairing the blood vessel in her brain, the physicians returned her blood and resusitated her body. After her recovery she accurately reported conversations between the physicians in the operating room and could describe the surgical tools used. The attending physician commented that this doesn't offer definitive proof of NDEs but he could come up with no other logical explanation.

Whether one choses to accept or dismiss such things is a personal choice.

There are several timelines I found googling the case. I haven't found one that states anything other than her recollections are of events that occured while she was under anesthesia.

[Zanders]

There are several timelines I found googling the case. I haven't found one that states anything other than her recollections are of events that occured while she was under anesthesia.

It would be best to get testimony from the doctors as well, because people can make up, fabricate or accidentally exaggerate things in their minds.

[jfish]

Catsmate1 and Pure Argent - I'm not sure what more I can give you for citations other than the books I read the account in which I mentioned earlier today. Do you want page number in the books or is there something else I can give? I suppose I could obtain Sabom's book which might have testimony from the lead physician on the case.

There are other possible explanations for Pam Reynolds' experience. There are some cases where people come out of general anesthesia while in the midst of the operation. (I work with anesthesiologists and CRNAs.) That doesn't seem to be what happened with Pam but it is a possibility.

For those who need irrefutable evidence before accepting the possibility that there is a broader reality,there isn't any as yet. I simply look at the preponderance of evidence and conclude there is a good likelihood there is some truth there. Rather than wait for the final irrefutable evidence, I chose to explore the possibilities. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just sharing where my journey is leading me.

[jfish]

There were some requests for citations regarding the Atlanta singer's NDE. Pages 191 to 193 in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences is where I got my initial information. The authors were Janice Holden, EDD, Bruce Geyson, MD and Debbie James, RN/MSN. The book was published in 2009. It reviews all the major research into NDEs and could be a useful textbook for a college course.

Catsmate1, you made a comment about rational people relying on evidence. Believing in something can come from two perspectives. One can rely on others conducting well designed experiments to verify a hypothesis or experience is real. One can also personally experience something and come to the conclusion on his own as to whether something is real. In the later case it is a personal decision and, I would argue, is based on rational evaluation of the experience to reach that conclusion.

If one can experience something out of the ordinary, believes in the reality of that experience but can't prove it to other people, does that mean the experience wasn't real? Does the lack of evidence that can be shared with others mean that person is irrational if he believes the experienc he had was real? Replicatable proof isn't necessary for something to be real. It may be necessary to offer proof in order to gain wide acceptance but that doesn't mean something isn't real.

Dr. Sam Parnia's AWARE study might be of interest to people. In cooperation with a number of hospitals, Dr. Parnia is placing "targets" in operating rooms above visible lines of sight. Images displayed on these targets would change randomly. Greyson's research published in 2003 found 23% of cardiac arrest patients had an NDE. If some of those people have out of body experiences in the operating room, one would expect some of those patients might recall seeing the targets and be able to accurately report the image displayed on the target.

[Pixel42]

Catsmate1, you made a comment about rational people relying on evidence. Believing in something can come from two perspectives. One can rely on others conducting well designed experiments to verify a hypothesis or experience is real. One can also personally experience something and come to the conclusion on his own as to whether something is real. In the later case it is a personal decision and, I would argue, is based on rational evaluation of the experience to reach that conclusion.
The problem with basing beliefs on personal experiences alone is that we know our perceptions are unreliable. The various cognitive biases we are all subject to, the fallability of memory ... there are many reasons why any conclusion we reach based on personal experiences alone might be wrong.

That doesn't mean we should dismiss such experiences, it just means that - until we also have supporting reproducible evidence - the most we can say is that such experiences are interesting and worthy of further study.

There are many cases where enough such study has already been done to be able to reliably conclude that the supposed phenomenon suggested by personal experience does not exist, e.g. astrology, dowsing etc. I don't think NDEs are yet in that category, but they seem to be heading that way.

People who believe in something based entirely on personal experiences and invest emotionally in that belief can often find it very difficult to accept the evidence that eventually shows that belief to be mistaken. So it's generally an unwise thing to do.

[sophia8]

Dr. Sam Parnia's AWARE study might be of interest to people. In cooperation with a number of hospitals, Dr. Parnia is placing "targets" in operating rooms above visible lines of sight. Images displayed on these targets would change randomly. Greyson's research published in 2003 found 23% of cardiac arrest patients had an NDE. If some of those people have out of body experiences in the operating room, one would expect some of those patients might recall seeing the targets and be able to accurately report the image displayed on the target.The problem with that type of test is that somebody in the hospital will know that the image is there and what it is. A hospital cleaner will almost certainly know, and might talk about it in the patient's hearing. One or two of the surgical staff might know, and talk about it during the operation, when the patient isn't fully 'under'.
So, if the patient does accurately identify the image, there are three possibilities:
1) She really did have an OBE and saw the image for herself;
2) She developed telepathic powers and 'saw' somebody thinking about it;
3) She overheard people talking about it, either before or during the operation.

Applying Occam's Razor, which of those three is likely to be correct?

[jfish]

In Mind Sight authored by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper and published in 2008 the researchers investigated over 30 NDEs among blind people. Their reported experiences of seeing activities going on around their bodies and in areas not in the vicinity of their bodies is an interesting read. The authors could not come up with irrefutable evidence but their work is very compelling. There isn't any irrefutable evidence to show that these experiences weren't real.

Another interesting study of mediums was conducted by the Windbridge Institute. The use of quadruple blind research methods provides some support to the notion that some mediums are able to provide more accurate readings than a control group. Not enough space here to explain the research. If you are interested, go to the Windbridge web site.

More than one pair of participants in the Monroe Institute Gateway Voyage report interacting in a non-physical state with other participants. They were in separate isolated booths (CHEC units) yet the were able to meet with one another.

Regarding the AWARE project - you should investigate the format of the study. The study design is such that a cleaning person couldn't know the image that was being displayed at the time of the NDE.

[marplots]

jfish, I ran across this thread posted at the Monroe institute site:
http://www.monroeinstitute.org/forum/discussion/250/scam/

I am not challenging the experiences or what they might mean. What I am interested in is what attracts you to having an OBE? Is it idle curiosity or do you see it as having some deeper meaning or relevance?

To ask it another way-- even if I provisionally accept all the claims, I am still left wondering why people would want to do this. So I'm asking you.

[jfish]

My interest in broader realities began when a friend had an NDE during a workplace accident. Until recently it was an intellectual curiosity that prompted me to read about all these studies. (As an undergraduate I was an experimental psychology major.) Once I accepted that there may be truth to the notion that we are more than our physical bodies and our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies, my curiosity grew. What Robert Monroe and others have written about their experiences is way outside the norm of western society's belief system. I could reject it out of hand but the explorer in me wants to investigate further. Reading more won't take me any further than where I am currently. Thus far my efforts have only been an intellectual exercise. I'm hoping that my time at the Institute will provide an experience allowing me to move beyond curiosity and into knowing.

One concept is that we are here to evolve our consciousness. Our lives in this physical plane are temporary. Some say our core self will continue exist after our bodies fail. (This isn't that dissimilar to the tenets of most world religions.) If I can get a glimpse into the non-physical realm, what might I learn from that? Would I chose to live my life differently in pursuit of a longer term goal? I don't know the answers. I might come back with little to show for the expenditure of time and money. But I also might gain some valuable insights.

I suspect that if I have some remarkable experience, I may not be that interested in sharing my perpsective in this forum. My sense is that most participants in this thread are inclined to find reasons to reject things out-of-hand. This is different from having a healthy scepticism but a willingness to jointly explore the possibilities.

[jfish]

Sophia8 - I have some experience in American hospital settings. Operating room personnel probably would be aware of the study. But to see the images, they would have to get to a height to see the images. Talking about the specific images seen would have to be a fairly constant conversation topic in order to influence all potential cardiac patients coming through the OR. I suppose it is possible that a maintenance worker could make an effort to see the images. It is unlikely that person would be around a cardiac patient and coincidentally be sharing the specific images he saw. If someone were intentionally trying to disrupt the research, he would likely be placing his employment at risk given the hospital's support for conducting the research. You might try googling the AWARE project, read about the study's design, then suggest ways the design could be flawed or improved. That would be an interesting subject.

[marplots]

I suspect that if I have some remarkable experience, I may not be that interested in sharing my perpsective in this forum. My sense is that most participants in this thread are inclined to find reasons to reject things out-of-hand. This is different from having a healthy scepticism but a willingness to jointly explore the possibilities.

I think you are right. I would point out that you have a better 'voice' than most when it comes to presenting controversial matters. You have been careful to keep your claims attached to your own personal opinions instead of asserting broadly applicable dogmatism or proselytizing.

Since I have no access to an explorer such as yourself (and more interestingly, a before and after version of you) I think there is value in hearing how the journey progresses. Consider that you may be doing a service to the few while deflecting the ire of the majority.

[Pixel42]

Another interesting study of mediums was conducted by the Windbridge Institute. The use of quadruple blind research methods provides some support to the notion that some mediums are able to provide more accurate readings than a control group. Not enough space here to explain the research. If you are interested, go to the Windbridge web site.
The work of Radin, Schwartz et al is often mentioned on this forum, I think it's fair to say that the assessment of most of the sceptics here who have looked into it in any detail is that their methods are sloppy and their conclusions questionable.

I glanced at a couple of the papers on their list of publications and was intrigued, but I'm not an expert on experimental technique or statistical analysis. There are several posters here that are, and if you really want to discuss this work - and I personally would be very interested in such a discussion - I think your best bet would be to select the paper(s) you think provide the best evidence and start a thread specifically about them.

My sense is that most participants in this thread are inclined to find reasons to reject things out-of-hand. This is different from having a healthy scepticism but a willingness to jointly explore the possibilities.
I think it would be fairer to say that we tend to follow David Attenborough's advice: "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause".

Experience has taught us that what others consider evidence of the paranormal/supernatural invariably turns out to have a much more plausible mundane explanation when subjected to critical analysis. After dozens of such experiences, when a new claim is made that appears to be identical to all the previous claims the default becomes to assume that will again be true unless a very compelling case is made to the contrary.

Bear in mind that a good percentage of the posters here are former believers who have already made the journey on which you are embarking.

[jfish]

Thanks for the recent posts. They restore some confidence that some participants are open to respectful conversation and recognize that there probably isn't anyone who can prove his/her perspective is provable.

[alfa1]

Robert Monroe wrote 3 books about "OBEs"

Very good books!

[Foolmewunz]

I prefer the more sordid NDE researchers. Who was that Swiss (Swedish?) doctor who believe(promoted) the idea that spirits could have sex with the living and was making a decent living at it until her "spirit" turned out to be a friend in a turban who was passing STDs around to her patients?

Now that's the kind of NDE research we need more of!

Seriously? I think the jury's still out on NDE's. There's a whole lot we don't know about the brain, and all I've seen so far is compilations of a bunch of conveniently similar anecdotes (having culled the inconveniently dissimilar, I'm sure). I've only been on the forums sporadically the last month, but I think we're still adhering to the rule of thumb that the plural of anecdote is not data.

[blue sock monkey]

I prefer the more sordid NDE researchers. Who was that Swiss (Swedish?) doctor who believe(promoted) the idea that spirits could have sex with the living and was making a decent living at it until her "spirit" turned out to be a friend in a turban who was passing STDs around to her patients?

Now that's the kind of NDE research we need more of!


I believe the lady you are thinking of is Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. There's an amusing/depressing account of her involvement with the Monroe Institute in Paul Edward's book challenging reincarnation.

[sophia8]

In Mind Sight authored by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper and published in 2008 the researchers investigated over 30 NDEs among blind people. Their reported experiences of seeing activities going on around their bodies and in areas not in the vicinity of their bodies is an interesting read. The authors could not come up with irrefutable evidence but their work is very compelling. There isn't any irrefutable evidence to show that these experiences weren't real.
The problem with any kind of test using "blind" people is that the huge majority of blind people actually have a small amount of vision, even if it's only enough to distinguish shadows or colours. You can only be sure that somebody is well and truly without sight when they have no eyeballs.
Also, how could these these particular blind people tell that they were seeing something? That's a pretty firm indication that they weren't born blind; they could therefore possess visual memories that their subconscious could use to form a false memory of this experience.

[Captain_Swoop]

I want to see a mechanism.

Where does the 'energy' come from?

It's like Astrology, no viable mechanism.

[Foolmewunz]

I believe the lady you are thinking of is Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. There's an amusing/depressing account of her involvement with the Monroe Institute in Paul Edward's book challenging reincarnation.

That's the one! (I actually went and looked her up after making my post and got wrapped up reading about her yesterday. I was going to post the name, but you got there first.)

[blue sock monkey]

That's the one! (I actually went and looked her up after making my post and got wrapped up reading about her yesterday. I was going to post the name, but you got there first.)

Great minds...;)

Ron Rosenbaum did an essay about her, I think for Slate. She sounds pathetically deluded, defensive and desperate--a waste of a once-promising mind. But I confess that the "spirits" with STDs make me snicker!

[ExMinister]

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/

(snipped) I emailed them asking if they intented to try and prove to the wider world that all the stuff they talk about is true, and an Institute director replied saying that it was impossible to prove their ideas objectively and they simply help people to have certain experiences themselves. (snipped)

How is it impossible to prove their ideas objectively?

Psi tests have been going on for years attempting to have people "out of body" identify items in adjacent rooms, read over a shoulder, travel to a specified location and report back.

That statement is clearly a cop-out.

More accurate might be to say they are not interested in proving their ideas objectively?

My guess would be it is much more profitable to have people experience things themselves without having to worry about the pesky little matter of evidence.

[ExMinister]

Sleep paralysis again. I'm sorry, but speaking as a long-time sufferer of this disorder, I can safely say that any "surging brain activity" you're feeling is the same thing, albeit triggered consciously instead of being your brain's attempt to freak itself out.

I just want to point out that sleep paralysis is a little different from lucid dreaming. As you know, in sleep paralysis you are struggling to awaken, feel as though you're wide awake but paralyzed, and often terrifying imagery is involved.

I've also experienced lucid dreaming, which is the feeling of awakening in a dream state. There is no feeling of paralysis involved. It seems quite real. You can travel through the stars, have conversations with spirit guides and deceased loved ones. I have done this for years.

Some people, I believe, confuse this with actually being out of body.

Personally, I think that is what is happening at the Monroe Institute.

[jfish]

Regarding the study of Blind people - of the 31 subjects 14 had been blind from birth and 11 lost their sight before the age of 5 (pgs 11 and 12 of Mind Sight). One subject, Vicki Umipeg, had been blind from birth. When asked if she could ever see anything, her response was "Nothing, never. No light, no shadows, no nothing, ever." Her optic nerve was destroyed when she was born premature, placed in an incubator and received too much oxygen. At age 22 Vicki was involved in a major car accident. While in the emergency room at the hospital, she regained her awareness and watched a male doctor and a woman working on her body. She reported she could overhear their conversation. Her "consciousness" left the fooom, went up through the ceilings of the hospital "until she was above the roof of the building itself, during which time she had a panoramic vieew or her surroundings." There is much more to her NDE. This doesn't constitute definitive proof, it's just her recollections. I find it very interesting and don't dismiss it. There are other congenially blind peoples' NDEs that are also reported.

Studies of how the brain works show its amazing complexity. However, if consciousness can exist independently of the body, understanding how the brain works will not explain consciousness. Is anyone aware of any studies or hypotheses as to how man can think creatively? Can original artistic talent be traced to some chemical reaction in the brain?

[jfish]

Another book I've read is My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell. Campbell was one of the original researchers with Robert Monroe. He was the nuclear physicist of the group. On page 84 I pulled the following quote - "One of our first experiments ws for Dennis and me to take a trip (experience) in the nonphysical together. Our independent descriptions of what we were experiencing should correlate closely if the experience were real and independent of either of us. From the beginning of our training, we had learned to give real-time descriptions of whatever we experienced. A microphone was suspended from the ceiling above each of our heads. What we said was recorded on tape. Dennis and I could not hear each other because we were in separate soundproof chambers. Dennis and I quickly achieved the appropriate altered state, left of bodies, and met in the nonphysical as planned. It was a long adventure. We went places, saw things, had conversations with each other and with several nonphysical beings we happened to run into along the way. Bob had let us go a long time before he ended the session and called us back. We pulled off our EEF and GSR electrodees and stumbled out of the darkness into the hallway of the lab." Bob Monroe played the tapes back. "The correlation was astounding. For almost 2 hours we sat there with our mouths open, hooting and exclaiming, filling in the details for each other......I was dumbfounded. There was only one good explanation. THIS STUFF WAS REAL! My mind searched for some other more rational explanation. Perhaps only one of us imagined the trip and the other was reading his thoughts telephathically... The undeniable fact was: We had seen the same visuals, heard the same telepathic conversations, and experienced the same clarity....We repeated the experiment with similar results. Nancy Lee and I shared equally astonishing joint experiences. We tried other things as well. We read three and four digit numbers written on a blackboard next to the control room. Somebody would write a random number and we would read it while our bodies lay asleep....We went places - to people's homes - and way what they were doing, then called them or talked to them the next day to check it out."

Sorry this was so long but I found it really interesting.

[marplots]

That is astonishing. Do you believe them?

[autumn1971]

Another book I've read is My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell. Campbell was one of the original researchers with Robert Monroe. He was the nuclear physicist of the group. On page 84 I pulled the following quote - "One of our first experiments ws for Dennis and me to take a trip (experience) in the nonphysical together. Our independent descriptions of what we were experiencing should correlate closely if the experience were real and independent of either of us. From the beginning of our training, we had learned to give real-time descriptions of whatever we experienced. A microphone was suspended from the ceiling above each of our heads. What we said was recorded on tape. Dennis and I could not hear each other because we were in separate soundproof chambers. Dennis and I quickly achieved the appropriate altered state, left of bodies, and met in the nonphysical as planned. It was a long adventure. We went places, saw things, had conversations with each other and with several nonphysical beings we happened to run into along the way. Bob had let us go a long time before he ended the session and called us back. We pulled off our EEF and GSR electrodees and stumbled out of the darkness into the hallway of the lab." Bob Monroe played the tapes back. "The correlation was astounding. For almost 2 hours we sat there with our mouths open, hooting and exclaiming, filling in the details for each other......I was dumbfounded. There was only one good explanation. THIS STUFF WAS REAL! My mind searched for some other more rational explanation. Perhaps only one of us imagined the trip and the other was reading his thoughts telephathically... The undeniable fact was: We had seen the same visuals, heard the same telepathic conversations, and experienced the same clarity....We repeated the experiment with similar results. Nancy Lee and I shared equally astonishing joint experiences. We tried other things as well. We read three and four digit numbers written on a blackboard next to the control room. Somebody would write a random number and we would read it while our bodies lay asleep....We went places - to people's homes - and way what they were doing, then called them or talked to them the next day to check it out."

Sorry this was so long but I found it really interesting.

It would be interesting, if they had then made the logical decision that they should write a coherent method, perform the experiment under properly controlled conditions, and then submit a detailed report of the results to a peer-reviewed journal in the appropriate field. They apparently did not; they simply continued to perform for their friends without attempting to do the things which would make their results available for further analysis and study. Science involves replication of results, and novel results, when properly presented, are eagerly examined.
Cold fusion is an excellent example: it utterly contradicted what physicists thought they understood about the universe, but it was a properly submitted article reporting about a properly done experiment. Scientists were unbelievably happy to have their notions of the universe challenged, as long as it was done properly. The replications of the experiment indicated that the signal was probably noise, of course, but there was no barrier to an utterly against-the-mainstream idea not being fodder for the appropriate publication.

[jfish]

I don't know why they haven't chosen to pursue a rigorous experimental design. There could be any number of reasons. This could all be a fabrication of stories by a group of people intent on having the ultimate joke on everyone. Maybe submitting to such tests was not high on their list of priorities. Perhaps they wished to spend their spare time exploring vs trying to prove to others what they already knew to be true (true from their perpsective).

There are others who attended the Gateway program that make similar claims (to have met up with one another in the nonphysical while their bodies were in CHEC units). The Executive Director of the Institute documents his experience in his book The Spiritual Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe.

These anecdotal accounts are not proven facts but they are similar. They pique my curiosity and have contributed to my interest in experiencing this first hand. Taking someone else's word for it should not be the final step in something as potentially remarkable as this.

[ExMinister]

It would be interesting, if they had then made the logical decision that they should write a coherent method, perform the experiment under properly controlled conditions, and then submit a detailed report of the results to a peer-reviewed journal in the appropriate field. They apparently did not; they simply continued to perform for their friends without attempting to do the things which would make their results available for further analysis and study. Science involves replication of results, and novel results, when properly presented, are eagerly examined.
Cold fusion is an excellent example: it utterly contradicted what physicists thought they understood about the universe, but it was a properly submitted article reporting about a properly done experiment. Scientists were unbelievably happy to have their notions of the universe challenged, as long as it was done properly. The replications of the experiment indicated that the signal was probably noise, of course, but there was no barrier to an utterly against-the-mainstream idea not being fodder for the appropriate publication.

I agree.

I can write a book and say all that stuff, too, if I want.

I might even have a lot of witnesses who will swear I'm sincere. Maybe I've taught them to experience the same thing. Does this prove that we aren't all experiencing a brain-generated phenomena? Is there any real proof for my wilder claims? Do I get a published book out of the deal and become semi-well-known for sharing my "experiences?" Why believe me? Why believe them?

I don't know why they haven't chosen to pursue a rigorous experimental design. There could be any number of reasons. This could all be a fabrication of stories by a group of people intent on having the ultimate joke on everyone. Maybe submitting to such tests was not high on their list of priorities. Perhaps they wished to spend their spare time exploring vs trying to prove to others what they already knew to be true (true from their perpsective).

There are others who attended the Gateway program that make similar claims (to have met up with one another in the nonphysical while their bodies were in CHEC units). The Executive Director of the Institute documents his experience in his book The Spiritual Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe.

These anecdotal accounts are not proven facts but they are similar. They pique my curiosity and have contributed to my interest in experiencing this first hand. Taking someone else's word for it should not be the final step in something as potentially remarkable as this.

If your amazing mind managed to provide you with an incredible but hallucinatory out-of-body experience, you would now have the personal experience you are after. Then what?

[marplots]

jfish, I wonder if you have considered the short-cut of peyote or other, straightforward method? I understand that OBE is touted as an effect in hallucinogens like Salvia and others. Is it a matter of authenticity? How do you view these other methods?

[tsig]

I don't know why they haven't chosen to pursue a rigorous experimental design. There could be any number of reasons. This could all be a fabrication of stories by a group of people intent on having the ultimate joke on everyone. Maybe submitting to such tests was not high on their list of priorities. Perhaps they wished to spend their spare time exploring vs trying to prove to others what they already knew to be true (true from their perpsective).

There are others who attended the Gateway program that make similar claims (to have met up with one another in the nonphysical while their bodies were in CHEC units). The Executive Director of the Institute documents his experience in his book The Spiritual Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe.

These anecdotal accounts are not proven facts but they are similar. They pique my curiosity and have contributed to my interest in experiencing this first hand. Taking someone else's word for it should not be the final step in something as potentially remarkable as this.

Neither should your own experience be taken as the final word.

[jfish]

It is possible that what is being experienced are hallucinations. I've read enough research and anecdotal NDE reports and met enough people with 1st person reports on NDEs for me to believe they are not hallucinations. Hallucinations don't seem to provide a good explanation of congenitally blind peoples' observations while in an NDE state. That doesn't prove anything. However, consider that there is no proof that these aren't real experiences. The objections posted in this thread amount to no more than hypotheses as well.

By taking drugs to induce an altered state, one is adding a variable that contaminates the experience, in my opinion. I suppose one could argue that listening to sounds over headphones during the Gateway program also contaminates the experience.

A lot of very experienced researchers have tried to prove the validity of NDEs but have not been able to do so as yet. My credentials fall far short of being able to design a test. Also I'm not willing to disrupt my current life to the extent necessary to conduct tests. This would probably require a full time effort. So if there is no proof one way or another, what is one left with? For me I want to come to my own conclusions based on my study of available information and personal experience. I'll leave it up to others to try to gather the proof.

It occurs to me that another reason the early researchers at Monroe didn't try to prove their experiences were real is because that wasn't their objective. Robert Monroe wanted to experiment with sound technology to see if he could help others experience what he had experienced. Trying to prove what he experienced was real would have distracted him from his primary goal.

[Resume]

A lot of very experienced researchers have tried to prove the validity of NDEs but have not been able to do so as yet.

It occurs to me that another reason the early researchers at Monroe didn't try to prove their experiences were real is because that wasn't their objective. Robert Monroe wanted to experiment with sound technology to see if he could help others experience what he had experienced. Trying to prove what he experienced was real would have distracted him from his primary goal.

The highlighted is a lot of hooey. Providing credible evidence that these experiences are "real" would be a world altering event; it would be suggestive of an afterlife and scientists would be tripping over each other to get in on the research.

[Captain_Swoop]

How would a human 'consciousness' exist without the brain?

Whhere would the energy come from? What would be it's mechanism?

[ExMinister]

Jfish, you offer that as a possible explanation, but what is the point of Robert Monroe helping others to experience what he experienced if he has absolutely no scientific evidence that it is other than a hallucinatory event?

Choosing to believe what you want to believe, based on anecdote or personal experience, the experiences of others, the teachings of a guru or holy book, is a matter of personal taste. People believe all sorts of things for which there is no scientific evidence as a matter of personal taste. It is simply not science. Part of the beauty of science is that its findings are not the slightest bit dependent on personal taste.

It doesn't matter how scientific Monroe Institute attempts to sound. If they haven't subjected their claims to rigorous, properly controlled scientific testing, it doesn't really matter what they claim because they can claim whatever they want, right? Since they have chosen not to have it tested correctly, you have only their word on it, which means whether you choose to believe it or not is a matter of personal taste, nothing more.

[jfish]

I agree with you, ExMinister. It is only a personal choice. Something can be true but not provable, right? Our ability to prove or disprove Robert Monroe's claims is limited by our current scientific methods and the cultural mores we live by. One way to prove it would be to bring people to a near death state under controlled circumstances. Dr. Parnia's approach would be enhanced if he could actually induce a near death state without the risk of permanently losing the subject.

Regarding where energy comes from - out knowledge of energy and matter and the interaction between the two is continually evolving. I think I heard recently (within the past 2 weeks or so) that researchers were able to isolate anti-matter for a sixth of a second. Who would have thougth that possible 30 years ago. Quantum theories are relatively new. I suspect that if we were able to know the state of science from the perspective of 200 years from now, we would be amazed at what had been discovered. I believe we need to have a healthy disrespect for what we think we know. When we are presented with things that seem to contradict our perceptions, we can write them off or we can ponder whether there might be something worth studying.

[Resume]

[QUOTE=jfish;6603708] I believe we need to have a healthy disrespect for what we think we know. QUOTE]

I think we should celebrate what we know, and the method by which we know it.

[Weak Kitten]

I remember once when I fainted from dehydration I had a similar experience to what people claim in near death or out of body experiences.

My vision went black around the edges and everything became blurry until all I could see was what seemed to be a tunnel with a light at the end. I became very dizzy which gave me the sensation of floating, this was heightened by my actually falling to the ground. My mind raced frantically to figure out what was happening and using what little data was still coming in from my senses my mind struggled to put together an image of where I was and what was around me. That estimate looked almost like I was looking down on myself by the lack of details made me realize that this was just a mental estimate and not a real perception.

I was nowhere near death, just dehydrated and probably suffering from lack of sleep, yet I experienced something very similar to what is reported in out of "body experiences". Did I experience a borderline "out of body" or is it that the human brain simply has a set of experiences that happen whenever we unwillingly drop into unconsciousness? What would it take to convince you that this is just a natural reaction and there is no extra part of the person that is floating outside the body?

[jfish]

I don't think one has to be near death to have such an experience. A friend told me about an out-of-body experience he had when someone pulled a gun on him and his friend. The trigger misfired but the fright it caused him was sufficient, in his mind, to cause the OBE.

Weak Kitten, from what little you wrote about your experience it isn't clear whether or not you had a momentary OBE brought on by your dehydrated state. If you saw your body and were separate from it, isn't that by definition an OBE? If you didn't see your body from a different physical perspective, then it would appear as though you didn't have an OBE.

I haven't studied OBEs so my opinions in this arena are very speculative. I'm guessing that if we asked people who had OBEs brought on by perceptions of near term danger to themselves (like my friend had), we would find their experience would not include the breadth of things reported in NDEs (meeting deceased loved ones, traveling to different locations, meeting a being of light and having a live review, for example). Perhaps I'll spend some time reading about OBE circumstances and experiences.

As far as convincing me that our consciousness cannot exist independent of the brain, it would probably require someone doing some research that proved all conscious thought was inextricably linked to the brain. For the vast majority of us, our conciousness has never existed other than when our brains were operable. But that doesn't prove that consciousness is 100% derived from brain activity and when the brain ceases to function our consciousness also ceases. Proving one way or another is a difficult undertaking. Experiences of the majority don't negate the experiences of the minority.

[Pixel42]

Evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain:

1. It develops gradually as the brain develops

2. It ceases during dreamless sleep

3. It ceases during most comas

4. It is affected - even changed significantly - by damage to the brain

Evidence that consciousness can exist independantly of the brain:

1. Some unreproducible anecdotes

[Captain_Swoop]

Regarding where energy comes from - out knowledge of energy and matter and the interaction between the two is continually evolving. I think I heard recently (within the past 2 weeks or so) that researchers were able to isolate anti-matter for a sixth of a second. Who would have thougth that possible 30 years ago. Quantum theories are relatively new. I suspect that if we were able to know the state of science from the perspective of 200 years from now, we would be amazed at what had been discovered. I believe we need to have a healthy disrespect for what we think we know. When we are presented with things that seem to contradict our perceptions, we can write them off or we can ponder whether there might be something worth studying.

No, this is a cop out.
You are proposing a 'theory of the gaps' I can say that 200 years ago we had no evidence of your 'Out of Body' woo and now with all the advances in science since then we still have no evidence. I would thnik 200 years is long enough to decide there's nothing worth studying when all the evidence we do have against your OBE.

[jfish]

Captain Swoop, we all have the freedom to interpret anecdotal evidence as we individually wish. As I've said repeatedly, I interpret what the information I've received differently from how most people chose to interpret the information they have received. A few centuries ago could anyone have understood that disease could be caused by microscopic viruses? No. If anyone had proposed such an idea at that time, they would have been considered wooish.

Pixel42, perhaps while the brain is functioning it controls consciousness. While it is functioning, perhaps it isn't possible for the broader capacity of consciousness to be experienced. I don't have the answers. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong. I'm simply more inclined than most to believe we don't have all the answers to this consciousness issue.

[marplots]

jfish, I for one would still encourage and support you on your quest. It would very much interest me to find out what experiences you have -- not just final, but also what your training is like. I think you should be able to do this without violating any confidential matters with the Monroe Institute.

The critical thing would be to see the journey and not just the destination. If you return here and only report the result, besides the normal mocking, there will be the taint of a post-conversion.

When do you expect to go?

[Captain_Swoop]

If they had provided evidence of the virus they wouldn't have been considered Wooish. How do you think we came by the knowledge and why was it accepted into the Mainstream.

Plural of Anecdote is not Data.

WHat happens in another 10 years, 20 years 30 years when your gaps are smaller and there is still no evidence to support OBE?

Not one bit apart from stories?

[Pixel42]

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong. I'm simply more inclined than most to believe we don't have all the answers to this consciousness issue.


I certainly don't believe we have all the answers on the issue of consciousness. I don't think you're "more inclined than most" to believe we do, because I'm sure most people, like me, don't think we really have any answers to speak of at all. I listed all the evidence I could think of about the particular aspect of consciousness you raised in the expectation that you or others would dispute, comment and/or add items to either list.

[jfish]

In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.

[Kid Eager]

In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.

Hi - I've looked over the posts in this thread and some of the links and I believe your above interpretation of the situation is flawed.

You have submitted a position that the OBEs have been researched and are valid, and are achieved by some non-specific and as-yet unidentified mechanism. The sceptical enquirer naturally examines the claim and the evidence and says:

"There is insufficient or no current credible evidence to substantiate the conclusion being drawn, nor the mechanism whereby OBE could/would be achievable."

Which part of the above is causing you difficulty? You have formed a belief that others have examined and discovered to be one of your metaphorical sand castles.

If you are geniune in your intent, better evidence and a testable hypothesis would be the way to go, rather than asking for people to tell stories...

Regards,
KE

[dirtywick]

In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.

This is not a fair reaction. You want people to think critically about only certain aspects of OBEs, worried that those who will accept OBEs will not be critical enough and those who don't are too critical and won't accept flimsy evidence. Good luck, but you can't have it both ways.

[Pixel42]

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex.
Some of those castles have foundations in reality, and others are just castles in the air.

If you're a serious seeker of the truth, the question you need to ask yourself is: what's the best way to find out which is which?

If comfort rather than truth is what you seek you can choose to live in whichever floating castle most takes your fancy, being careful never to look too closely at the foundations. That's the easy choice, and it's the one most people make. It's not the one most of the members of this forum have made, however.

[jfish]

KE - In your next to last sentence if you replace the word "discovered" with "believe", I would think that is a more accurate assessment. Discovered implies some basis of proof. There is no proof that our consciousness does not survive the death of our physical bodies. If there is some proof, cite the studies rather than use your own observations. I think there is evidence that suggests the possibility that perhaps consciousness does continue.

In your last sentence regarding better evidence - the evidence is not sufficient as yet to prove the hypothesis. As I have said my interest is not primarily to discuss how to go about designing testing methods and presenting evidence. Not that that isn't a worthwhile endeavor. If others think I should expend some effort in that direction, then their interests and mine diverge. I want to explore the possibilities of a hypothesis rather than tackle the more challenging task of trying to prove something that is beyond my means to accomplish.

It seems to me that it boils down to different interests. Others want proof which I can't provide. They don't want to consider the implications without proof (with the possible exception of marplots). There is nothing wrong with that perspective. If one doesn't think there is any possibility of a broader reality, why would one want to spend any time discussing it?

Perhaps if/when there is proof, the interests of others' in this thread will more closely coincide with mine. Not knowing when that proof might arise, I don't see that my regular participation will add any value. I wouldn't think people will find fault with that. What I may or may not experience in the Gateway Voyage doesn't seem to be of any interest to most here.

[Kid Eager]

KE - In your next to last sentence if you replace the word "discovered" with "believe", I would think that is a more accurate assessment. Discovered implies some basis of proof. There is no proof that our consciousness does not survive the death of our physical bodies. If there is some proof, cite the studies rather than use your own observations. I think there is evidence that suggests the possibility that perhaps consciousness does continue.


No, the use of the word "discover" was quite intentional: the evidence to substantiate your claim did not survive scrutiny.

Your attempt to turn the burden of proof is an amusing contrivance: if you were serious about this you would not have to resort to such an obvious deflection.

You made the claim, your evidence was found wanting, yet now it's *OUR* job to prove the negative? I lol at your presumption.

Have a nice out-of-pocket experience. Should your experience result in some evidence, I'd love to see it (noting that anecdote =/ evidence), as OBE is an intriguing *possibility*.

KE

[jfish]

KE - I never claimed to have any evidence that proved anything. In fact I've said repeatedly that what I've shared doesn't prove anything. I've pointed out some worthwhile studies that warrant consideration. As I noted, whether an individual finds anything of value in the research is a personal choice. From my perspective you have missed the point of my involvement in the discussion.

[Rugby]

jfish, I am interested in your experience at the MI and i hope you share it here. I am new here so I will reserve comments. i hope this thread is not dead.

[marplots]

jfish, I am interested in your experience at the MI and i hope you share it here. I am new here so I will reserve comments. i hope this thread is not dead.

I don't think it is dead, we are just waiting for an update.

[jfish]

Here’s an update. For readers who need proof of something extraordinary before perceiving any value, I suggest not bothering to read this note. I have no proof to offer – only commentary. This information is intended for people who have an interest in exploring possibilities.
The Monroe Institute’s primary objective is to provide programs that facilitate the exploration of human consciousness. Several times each day we went into individual booths that insulated us from ambient light and sound. While in the booths (CHEC units) we listened to audio programs that guided us into expanded consciousness. Most of us (there were perhaps 2 exceptions) felt we experienced something out of the ordinary. Was this real or just an active imagination creating an experience? I can’t say for sure. In one session I had a sense of 3 dimensionality that was very different from what I experience when I simply visualize in a normal state of consciousness. After each session we gathered in a meeting room and had an opportunity to share what we had experienced.
One evening we had a guest speaker, Joe McMoneagle. Several decades ago the US military got word that the Soviets were developing “remote viewing” capabilities to gather intelligence. Remote viewing allows an individual with sufficient training and skills to observe a location that is separated from the location of the observer’s body. The military realized that, if true, there were significant implications for how to gather intelligence. Skip Attwater was tasked with exploring whether there was any truth to the possibility of remote viewing. He concluded there was and set up a remote viewing unit for the military. Joe was the first person to join the unit. His story is remarkable. We viewed an old television program that tested his abilities. Joe has written some books about his experiences if you would like to know more. Joe shared some rather noteworthy viewings he had.
There was a display in one room showing several bent forks and spoons. There is a graduate program that teaches participants how to focus energy and beliefs to achieve psychokinesis. This display was the result of this particular course.
So what does all this mean? Are we more than physical beings living only one lifetime on this planet? If so, what implications are there? I have my opinions which will influence how I live the remainder of my life. The changes in me will be subtle to most of my circle of friends. There are less expensive opportunities to experience a subset of what is offered in the Gateway Voyage program. Several people who live near me have expressed an interest in an Excursion Weekend. Hopefully that will happen in the first quarter of 2011. The more people who adopt an explorer’s attitude, the more we can help one another ponder the questions posed above.

[marplots]

Very interesting Jfish. Thank you.

[imjohn]

That's it? They put you in a booth and put you to sleep with boring audio and then showed you bent silverware as an inducement to take another course?

What is this obsession with bending silverware, anyway. Is there a silverware bending profession (aside from phony psychic) that I never heard of?

I hope that you do not spend too much of your money on this stuff, Jfish.

[marplots]

What is this obsession with bending silverware, anyway. Is there a silverware bending profession (aside from phony psychic) that I never heard of?

From a magician's perspective, the advantage of bending silverware (flatware really) along with keys and coins, is that people are familiar with them and they have a cache of normalcy. I might mention that coin bending effects are quite popular and sell well in the magic community. I think they've outperformed keys and silverware simply because they are at hand and bending them doesn't really destroy anyone's could-be-valuable property. It also seems a bit more impossible to bend a disc of metal that you couldn't bend with your hands anyhow.

I've often thought that bending breakable stuff would be more impressive. I've never seen the bent paving brick trick.

[imjohn]

For sleight of hand bending metal is a neat trick for sure and bending paving bricks would be a ton of win!

[Weak Kitten]

For sleight of hand bending metal is a neat trick for sure and bending paving bricks would be a ton of win!

The trick is to bend them before you bake them!

[imjohn]

Exactly my thought -- the win comes in doing the sleight of hand. I can't do the simplest card trick, so I salute those who can pull this stuff off! (Honestly as stage magicians of course.)

[AvalonXQ]

Anyone take a look at the Monroe Institute's patents? They've held a set for many years.

[Resume]

Anyone take a look at the Monroe Institute's patents? They've held a set for many years.

Hemi-sync?

[jfish]

The value one gets from a Gateway experience is something that can only be judged by each individual. If someone is interested in exploring the possibility that he/she is more than a brain housed in a physical body that comes to an end when the body dies, the Monroe Institute offers a means of exploring that possibility. Since there is no guarantee of an outcome, one has to weigh his own cost/benefit ratio to determine whether this is a desirable course to take. Because of my extensive readings about NDEs and having met several people who shared their personal experiences, I was perhaps more inclined to believe there is something worth exploring than someone who hasn't read the literature (or has read the literature but has come to a different conclusion than I). My personal valuation of the potential benefit was likely much higher than the benefit most others would perceive before attending. On the cost side of the equation, I probably have more disposable personal income than most. Since I perceive the potential being high for a benefit and the cost is not that significant to me, it should be apparent why I reached the conclusion to attend. The bent flatware was interesting. From my point of view if there is an ability to bend flatware, it is of only minor significance. There are other programs I'd take as a follow up to the Gateway Voyage but that is only my subjective valuation.

[marplots]

jfish,

I take it then that the experience matched your expectations? Have you decided on whether to continue your explorations and do you know what your next adventure will be yet?

[Rugby]

I suspect jfish could describe some interesting experiences in detail but may be reluctant to experience the ridicule that would surely follow in this forum. Someone who is firmly rooted in scientific naturalism might find jfish's experiences in direct confrontation with their belief system. I would like to hear more.

[Zanders]

In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.

You might want to have a look at this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=190522)

[jfish]

My exploratory nature compels me to continue seeking experiences and knowledge. I've had another unique experience this week. It is hard to describe but I'll make an effort. I had gone through a guided session (guidance coming from a CD I received at the Monroe Institute) of expanded awareness and was coming back to normal physical consciousness. I didn't experience anything really remarkable in the session until I came back to the fully conscious state. At that time I felt I had an etherial body that was slightly bigger than my physical body and it (my etherial body) sank back into my physical form. It was a momentary sensation that might have simply been imagery my mind created.

I'm visiting my wife's extended family over the holidays. One sister-in-law asked me about a book I am reading. It is titled Adventures Beyond The Body. After giving her an overview she commented that she had had an out-of-body experience many years ago. It didn't last long. While floating above her body she heard a strong voice articulate something like 'Not now, you aren't ready.' It sufficiently frightened her such that she refuses to explore this.

[Resume]

My exploratory nature compels me to continue seeking experiences and knowledge. I've had another unique experience this week. It is hard to describe but I'll make an effort. I had gone through a guided session (guidance coming from a CD I received at the Monroe Institute) of expanded awareness and was coming back to normal physical consciousness. I didn't experience anything really remarkable in the session until I came back to the fully conscious state. At that time I felt I had an etherial body that was slightly bigger than my physical body and it (my etherial body) sank back into my physical form. It was a momentary sensation that might have simply been imagery my mind created.


Now that wasn't difficult to admit, was it?

[jfish]

I wouldn't chose to use the word "admit". It connotes a sense of being wrong earlier. I haven't claimed that anything I've experienced to date was something more than imagery my mind created.

I've recently been studying out-of-body issues and have started attempting to achieve such a state. I've had some interesting sensations and imagery thus far that are consistent with what is reported as preludes to OOB. These sources/books also indicate there is a very clear difference between imagery and actually experiencing consciousness outside one's body. When one's consciousness fully leaves one's body, it is clear to the experiencer that this is different. If/when I cross that line, I'll report it. Until then, my experiences are interesting but are still in the realm of imagery created by my mind.

[Resume]

I wouldn't chose to use the word "admit". It connotes a sense of being wrong earlier. I haven't claimed that anything I've experienced to date was something more than imagery my mind created.

I've recently been studying out-of-body issues and have started attempting to achieve such a state. I've had some interesting sensations and imagery thus far that are consistent with what is reported as preludes to OOB. These sources/books also indicate there is a very clear difference between imagery and actually experiencing consciousness outside one's body. When one's consciousness fully leaves one's body, it is clear to the experiencer that this is different. If/when I cross that line, I'll report it. Until then, my experiences are interesting but are still in the realm of imagery created by my mind.

Maybe acknowledge would have been more precise on my part.

[jfish]

Yes, acknowledge is a good choice. Thanks.

[Rugby]

jfish,
How does the prospect of these experiences fit with any other religious or world views that you may have?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's an easy way to test the legitimacy of your out of body experiences. Get someone to write something on a bit of paper and leave it somewhere where you can't see it - say on top of a cupboard. Even better, get someone you know to ask someone you don't know to write something on a bit of paper so that you don't know anyone who knows what's written on there and can't get any subconscious clues. Make sure that what's written on the paper isn't something simple like "Hello", but something less easy to guess (but clear and in English) like "marmalade".

When you're having an OBE, try to determine what's written on the paper. If you're successful without cheating, then it's worth considering that there's something in it. If you're not, then it's worth considering that there isn't. Equally, try to find others who claim the ability and see if they'll agree to be tested like this.

My prediction? Very few will consent to being tested, and those who do will either fail or cheat. But it seems like a worthwhile test if you're honestly interested in verifying the veracity of these experiences before denouncing science and rational thinking as castles made of sand which will be washed away.

[jfish]

Regarding my religious views - they have evolved considerably over the past decade independently of my Monroe experience. Throughout my life I've been an active participant in a mainline protestant denomination and have been in leadership positions at the churchs I have attended. My research into near death experiences starting in 2002 produced some conflicts between traditional religious beliefs and what NDErs were experiencing. Perhaps the most obvious was the nature of judgement. NDErs who had life reviews were judging themselves rather than being judged by Jesus or some other entity. The more I read, the more I came to realize my past understandings were based on an ancient set of beliefs and were in need of a serious update. A big part of my ongoing journey is to refashion my beliefs to be more in concert with the things I'm learning. I'm beginning to develop an outline for a college course I'm thinking of offering next fall on consciousness and reality.

Regarding OBE proof as suggested by Sceptic Tank - Thomas Campbell claims that he did this during his years of work with Robert Monroe. I think I recall reading it in his book My Big TOE but I might also have read it in one of Robert Monroe's books. I get the impression that once one has successfully achieved a fully conscious altered state or OBE, the importance of proving the ability to others isn't as interesting a proposition as dedicating oneself to exploring the new reality. Since I haven't achieved that state, I can't speak from experience. From my perspective right now, I'd like to be able to do that (offer proof) but I haven't made it to the other side as yet. Also, I suspect that even if I were able to do that, only those people who were physically present would believe it. While I've tried to be as open and honest as possible in my postings, I doubt there are any readers who would take my word for it if I were to report I was successful.

[thebigm]

Jfish – I felt compelled to register, as I stumbled upon this forum and thread by accident when googling for more info on the Monroe Institute and feel I am on the same path as you, however, just at the very start.

I was experiencing sleep paralysis accompanied vibrations and I was scared by this experience so I went online to discover what it could be, some sites linked to sleep paralysis medical sites and others, to my surprise, psychic websites. The latter being a possibility I had never considered.

Anyway, through reading things I got on to the Monroe books and have just finished his 2nd book, Far Journeys after reading Journey’s out of the body – I am about to commence his final one. I’ve been lucid dreaming on and off for 5 years, I can’t bring one on purposely very often, only in a light state of sleep and then rarely. I can only do it purposely if I have wakened from one and fall asleep again immediately. However, it has led me to consider other things about life more than the physical experience, especially given that to me, being in this state feels as real as anything I am experiencing during normal waking consciousness. I clearly recall one night I was snoozing on the couch and I felt strange so I got up and stood in the middle of the room, I seemed to realise that I was lucid dreaming and turned round to see myself sleeping on the couch. This could have been a vivid dream, because, I have no evidence to prove otherwise. I just feel that this is worth considering.

I am attending one of the Monroe Institute weekend excursions this weekend on how to achieve different focuses during meditation, if you are interested I can let you know what it is like.

I know you may not want to post your experiences about your Gateway Voyage program on here, but if you wanted to PM me, I’d be very interested in hearing more details about your experience and what happened.

From reading this thread it appears there are a lot of methodical/logical thinking people on this site who have never had any experiences like this and are very quick to dismiss the notion of anything spiritual or what would be deemed supernatural as they have not experienced anything that would compel them to. I was one of them until I started to experience these things myself and decided to research further. I’m also not religious whatsoever.

Lest ye see miracles ye will not believe.

I’ve not seen a miracle, but I feel that I’ve touched on something that is worth considering and exploring further.

[marplots]

Can either of you answer something that puzzles me?

I'm curious to know if you think lucid dreaming is more than, well... dreaming?

I only ask because what I've experienced I had no trouble merely classifying as a dream state -- strange, I'll admit, but I didn't think of it as a wholly different animal.

[Pixel42]

From reading this thread it appears there are a lot of methodical/logical thinking people on this site who have never had any experiences like this and are very quick to dismiss the notion of anything spiritual or what would be deemed supernatural as they have not experienced anything that would compel them to.
This is a false (though common) assumption. Plenty of sceptics have had such experiences, and after exploring all possibilities (not just the ones they would like to be true) have eventually reached the conclusion that supernatural explanations are by far the least likely. If anything sceptics are more likely to have had such experiences than is usually the case, as it was just such experiences that led them to look into subjects most people never take much interest in.

[Resume]

From reading this thread it appears there are a lot of methodical/logical thinking people on this site who have never had any experiences like this and are very quick to dismiss the notion of anything spiritual or what would be deemed supernatural as they have not experienced anything that would compel them to.

How do you imagine many skeptics begin? Once you realize there can be many natural explanations for a phenomenon that at first credulous blush appears paranormal, you then begin to look at similiar situations more critically. The claim "you just haven't had your own experience" is pretty hackneyed I'm afraid.

[blue sock monkey]

How do you imagine many skeptics begin? Once you realize there can be many natural explanations for a phenomenon that at first credulous blush appears paranormal, you then begin to look at similiar situations more critically. The claim "you just haven't had your own experience" is pretty hackneyed I'm afraid.


Concur. I had a number of experiences I couldn't explain: I saw a few "ghosts," had an out-of-body incident, and had a couple of dreams that came true. But I kept looking into possible reasons for these occurences, and found that natural, skeptical explanations made far more sense than the paranormal.

[dlorde]

I love all that stuff - lucid dreams, flying & levitating dreams, OBEs, etc. I've had a few OBEs (induced by intoxicants or illness), but what I experienced, though in part detailed, was at best a rough approximation of what was really there, and mostly quite different. I have no doubt they were internally generated - they had common features with my dreamscapes. Looking back, it's entirely possible that a couple of them might actually have been dreams; it wouldn't be the first time I mistook an ancient dream memory for the real thing...:rolleyes:

It is now recognised that the brain systems involved in different states of consciousness can be, and are, active/inactive in various combinations and that partial dream states while apparently fully conscious are not uncommon. The surprising part is how little we notice these overlapping states in everyday life.

[thebigm]

Apologies for the comment making an assumption that skeptics were so because they were without experience.

[thebigm]

Can either of you answer something that puzzles me?

I'm curious to know if you think lucid dreaming is more than, well... dreaming?

I only ask because what I've experienced I had no trouble merely classifying as a dream state -- strange, I'll admit, but I didn't think of it as a wholly different animal.

I am not sure. A lucid dream to me feels as real as anything that's happening in the waking physical world, perhaps more real because you are without restriction.

I'm really unsure, all I know is that something in it, to me, makes it feel like it's worth pursuing further. I'm speaking purely on a personal development front.

[jfish]

For the most part I am encouraged by the recent comments. There seems to be a bit more civility and less outright rejection of people's interpretations of their experiences. I think there is a diverse range of abilities to experience altered states of consciousness. Some people (by far a minority) are able to experience a what seems to be a clear separation of consciousness from their physical body. I haven't achieved it but I'll keep trying and seeking alternative approaches when one technique isn't successful.

I have experienced paralysis once after awakening from sleep. It happened several years ago before I had studied anything but near death experiences. It was somewhat frightening at the time. If it were to happen again, I believe I would have the presence of mind to release any fear and try to explore it and understand it better.

thebigm - I would be interested in hearing about your Excursion experience. I will be meeting with a group of 20 to 40 people later this month to share my experience at TMI. I've started a conversation with a Monroe Institute trainer about arranging an Excursion weekend for people who have an interest but can't afford the price of a full week at the Institute. Most of these people have been on a journey of spiritual exploration for many more years than I and have had some remarkable experiences of their own. Some might decide to save up for a Gateway Voyage.

marplots - sometimes when I sleep in (rare occasion these days) I drift into a quasi-dream state. I'm aware that I'm in the state which is what differentiates it from a normal dream state. I don't have the ability to directly affect what goes on in the quasi-dream state. I haven't read anything about lucid dreaming so I can't offer much on this topic. For all I know this may fit the definition of a lucid dream.

One of the challenges I face is finding time to devote to this exploration. Many people say meditation is an important component of any effort. When in college many years ago I briefly participated in TM. A few months ago I picked it up again and hope it creates opportunities for new experiences.

[Rugby]

jfish and thebigm, I hope you continue to share experiences here. I explored NDEs and the Monroe Inst. after the death of a child some years back and I must say that I think there is more than just brain activity going on in these situations. I don't perceive that you have any particular agenda to provide misleading information so hopefully even if our skeptic friends don't buy in to your experiences completely, I think they will find them interesting and worthy of comment.

I would also invite Pixel42, blue sock monkey and other seasoned skeptics to define the term skeptic as it applies in this forum. I find that I am as skeptical of most "scientific naturalists" as I am about fundamentalist religious zealots. I get the feeling from some comments that the "skeptic" position here rules out anything that violates pure scientific naturalism. Am I right?

[marplots]

<lots snipped>... I find that I am as skeptical of most "scientific naturalists" as I am about fundamentalist religious zealots. I get the feeling from some comments that the "skeptic" position here rules out anything that violates pure scientific naturalism. Am I right?

Mostly right. Two side notes. The first would be that scientific naturalism is thought to be the result of skepticism applied, so rather than immune to the method, it results from the method. The second is that, from what I've read, many JREF members are keenly interested in finding out new science and where the edges of knowledge may be and hope to see these edges extended.

While there is a harshness when already covered mystical ground is reheated and served up as if it were a palatable dish, there is also an adventurous, explorer's craving to see beyond the next hill.

[Rugby]

Thanks marplots. I don't mean to plow old ground, unless of course it is needed. The easiest way to summarize my problem with "scientific naturalism" is that it is a bit of a circular argument. Also in my opinion, there is more unknown science than known.

If there in fact is something to OBEs and these "altered states" it certainly could "extend the edges" of knowledge as we currently define it. If I had the time, I would be interested in trying the Monroe Institute just for kicks and giggles.

[DevilsAdvocate]

So, jfish (and others), why do you believe your experiences are indicative of something other than normal brain activity?

It has long been known that an altered state of consciousness can be achieved through different type of dreaming, lack of blood to the brain, psychosis, meditation, and drugs. Nobody disputes that dreams and hallucinations are very real experiences. Nobody disputes that someone on LSD has a very real experience of an altered state of consciousness and perception of reality. But these are explained by changes to brain functions, which in turn change the brain’s perception of reality, and not by some dualistic mind/soul/spirit/other body. Why do you think the experiences from the Monroe Institute are in anyway different or are not explainable by these means?

What do you hope to achieve or find with your explorations? The experiences you described seem very similar but very mild to experiences on hallucinogens such as LSD. The entire hippie movement was founded largely on exploring altered states of consciousness brought on by LSD, marijuana and even Transitional Mediation. The phenomenon has been well explored. What do you hope to find? Do you think you are exploring an undiscovered phenomenon of the universe, or do you think you are exploring different ways to alter your brain (not that there is anything wrong with that)?

As far as out of body experience and remote viewing: Why do you think the military stopped investigating the phenomenon? Or do you have a conspiracy theory where the military is using it is secret?

[Pixel42]

I would also invite Pixel42, blue sock monkey and other seasoned skeptics to define the term skeptic as it applies in this forum. I find that I am as skeptical of most "scientific naturalists" as I am about fundamentalist religious zealots. I get the feeling from some comments that the "skeptic" position here rules out anything that violates pure scientific naturalism. Am I right?
Scepticism does not really "rule out" anything. It does, however, require evidence before ruling something in. And that evidence must have been gathered whilst carefully and methodically eliminating all the known ways in which our pattern-seeking brains and imperfect perceptions occasionally inadvertantly fool us.

[Resume]

Thanks marplots. I don't mean to plow old ground, unless of course it is needed. The easiest way to summarize my problem with "scientific naturalism" is that it is a bit of a circular argument. Also in my opinion, there is more unknown science than known.

If there in fact is something to OBEs and these "altered states" it certainly could "extend the edges" of knowledge as we currently define it. If I had the time, I would be interested in trying the Monroe Institute just for kicks and giggles.

Could you please define the highlighted? Thanks.

[blue sock monkey]

Scepticism does not really "rule out" anything. It does, however, require evidence before ruling something in. And that evidence must have been gathered whilst carefully and methodically eliminating all the known ways in which our pattern-seeking brains and imperfect perceptions occasionally inadvertantly fool us.


Well-said! This is my position on skepticism as well.

[jfish]

Evidence - how do we define that term? I suggest that there are gradients of evidence. At one extreme evidence requires obtaining the same results from repeated testing in a controlled environment. At the other evidential extreme are snipets of experiences/observations that point to a new possibility. I believe new paradigms are uncovered/discovered by people who have a loose definition of evidence. Achieving broad acceptance of new paradigms requires the diligence of people focused on gathering hard evidence. We should celebrate the importance of both perspectives and exclude none.

Some consciousness explorers posit that we are eternal beings. Our presence here in this physical time and place is part of a larger plan to evolve our eternal being. From their vantage point we live multiple lives chosing experiences to be had and lessons to be learned that are part of that evolutionary process.

This sounds pretty far out there to most people. Perhaps 10 years ago I would have thought anyone espousing that perception was somewhat psychologically off center. However, as I read the research on near death experiences, I began to see that there was some credible evidence pointing toward a strong possibility that these experiences could not be explained by chemical/electrical processes physically located in the brain. (There isn't any one study that permitted me to come to that point of view.) Once I dropped my scepticism regarding the reality NDEs, a broader array of possibilities became apparent. I don't know whether I'll be successful at achieving a knowing (as opposed to a believing) that I'm more than my physical body but the potential of gaining that knowing is motivating me at this time. If I'm successful in finding a way to achieve that knowing, I'm also intrigued by the new doors of exploration that might open up. I expect achieving this knowing will not come easy for me.

"Unknown science" - how do we explain creative thought? What is gravity and how can it be harnessed? Perhaps the breadth of things we don't know exceeds that which we do know. Who will be the ones to convert unknown science to known science? As I suggested earlier, it starts with dreamers/explorers but also involves people focused on hard evidence.

[Rugby]

Could you please define the highlighted? Thanks.

More unknown science than known- What I mean is that even with the scope of our current knowledge of physics and science, there are fundamental things that we can measure, quantify, predict, etc. but we can't explain why they actually exist. jfish mentioned gravity- we can explain the effects of gravity but not what creates the force. There are many other aspect of physics, radiometry, medicine where our knowledge is still very incomplete. The idea that time is not constant, only relative, is difficult for me. Perhaps it is my weak intellect that is struggling with these concepts. Explaining "creative thought"...that would be another difficult task. Good one jfish.

I hope this rambling explanation is sufficient.

[Pixel42]

Evidence - how do we define that term? I suggest that there are gradients of evidence. At one extreme evidence requires obtaining the same results from repeated testing in a controlled environment. At the other evidential extreme are snipets of experiences/observations that point to a new possibility.
All new discoveries in science start with the latter and end with the former.

The fact that anecdotal evidence, on its own, is not sufficient to reach a definite conclusion does not mean that it is worthless. It's always where we start, and often leads us to a new understanding. But we know that our brains are not perfect recording devices, being prone to malfunction and to cognitive biases even when not malfunctioning, and so these sources of potential error have to be carefully and methodically eliminated before we can be sure that anecdotal evidence is telling us something about reality. In the case of supposedly paranormal phenomena doing so invariably results in those phenomena disappearing, which is why we tenatively conclude (at least until new evidence is found for which this is not the case) that these phenomena are artifacts of our brains rather than aspects of reality.

In the case of NDEs we are still in the investigation stage, but what we do know seems to be pointing in the usual direction.

[jfish]

I agree that we're making some remarkable progress in understanding how the brain functions. However, there is so much that can't be explained by what we do know about brain processes. For example, some NDErs report having life reviews in which they not only relive their own experiences, they relive the experiences from the perspective of the people they interacted with. How can a brain replay the experiences of others? The hypothesis that our consciousness is not fully tethered to our brain is one possible explanation. I can't think of any research into brain functions that offers a better explanation of this apparent phenomena.

I recall reading one NDE where an individual was involved in a road rage incident years before his NDE. (I might have mentioned this in an earlier posting.) He followed the person who cut him off. When the offender parked his car, the enraged man got out of his car and assaulted the other man. Years later when he had his NDE, he relived the incident from the perspective of the man he had assaulted. His remorse over his actions was life changing. If one believes there may be truth to such a life review, one may chose to be more careful about his interactions with others. I know I have adopted a more patient lifestyle. I'm much more likely to apologize if I think I may have offended someone rather than simply let it pass and figure he'll get over it.

[steenkh]

How can a brain replay the experiences of others? The hypothesis that our consciousness is not fully tethered to our brain is one possible explanation.
There is no way to validate that what this brain replayed was the actual experience of the other, only that this was what he imagined to be the experience of the other.

Why should it be unlikely that we dream that we are someone else or somewhere else?

[jfish]

You are right when you say that there is no way to validate. I suspect that if we were to ask the individual, he would say his experience was not at all like a dream. NDErs report that their experiences are not at all dream-like. To them it is a different sense than anything we experience whether awake or asleep. Some say it is more real than our reality when we are awake. Since non-NDErs have no basis from which to compare this form of consciousness, we have a tendency to assume it must fit into some state with which we have some familiarity.

We should be careful about assuming the brain had anything to do with this experience. While we have no definitive proof that the experience was achieved independently of the physical body, we have no definitive proof that the brain/physical body was involved.

I recall reading about a study of cardiac arrest patients. The subjects were divided into 2 groups - those that claimed they had had an NDE and those that made no such claim. Every subject was asked to describe/imagine what had happened to them while in cardiac arrest. NDE descriptions closely matched what actually happened while non-NDErs had a much smaller degree of correlation between their reports and what actually happened. There wasn't a linear gradiency in accuracy. NDErs were substantially more accurate. This doesn't prove anything but it is more supportive of the hypothesis that our consciousness is not dependent on our brains than that our brains are actively driving all aspects of our perceptions.

[Resume]

.

I recall reading about a study of cardiac arrest patients. The subjects were divided into 2 groups - those that claimed they had had an NDE and those that made no such claim. Every subject was asked to describe/imagine what had happened to them while in cardiac arrest. NDE descriptions closely matched what actually happened while non-NDErs had a much smaller degree of correlation between their reports and what actually happened. There wasn't a linear gradiency in accuracy. NDErs were substantially more accurate. This doesn't prove anything but it is more supportive of the hypothesis that our consciousness is not dependent on our brains than that our brains are actively driving all aspects of our perceptions.

You of course can provide a citation for the above, correct?

[jfish]

It would take some effort on my part to locate the specific reference given all the books I've read on NDEs. If it would prompt you to attempt to locate the material for further research on your part, I'll try to find the reference to the study. I'd rather not put the effort in if whatever I do results in an immediate dismissal anyway.

[Resume]

It would take some effort on my part to locate the specific reference given all the books I've read on NDEs. If it would prompt you to attempt to locate the material for further research on your part, I'll try to find the reference to the study. I'd rather not put the effort in if whatever I do results in an immediate dismissal anyway.

It seems then you are not looking for discovery but affirmation/conformation of your biases. I'm out.

[PixyMisa]

It would take some effort on my part to locate the specific reference given all the books I've read on NDEs. If it would prompt you to attempt to locate the material for further research on your part, I'll try to find the reference to the study. I'd rather not put the effort in if whatever I do results in an immediate dismissal anyway.
This is exactly the sort of evidence that can be closely examined to see if (a) it is reliable and (b) it supports the conclusion. We can't do that without knowing who conducted the study and where it was published.

Of course, it's almost certain that we'll tear it apart, but that's just something you'll have to live with.

[jfish]

Here's a thought. Purchase a couple of books, read them, then let's discuss the contents. The first book I suggest reading is The Handbook of Near Death Experiences - Twenty Years of Investigation edited by Janice Holden, EdD, Bruce Greyson, MD and Debbie James RN/MSN. I think you will find these individuals have respectable academic credentials. At the time the book was written Holden was the Chair of the Department of Counselilng and Higher Education at the Univ. of North Texas and is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Near-Death Studies. Greyson is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Assoc. and holds positions at the University of Virgina Medical School. James is a Senior Instructor in the Nursing Education Dept. at the Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The second book is Lessons From The Light by Kenneth Ring, PhD. This is a somewhat easier read than the first book. Ring is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Conn. He shares his perspective on what we can learn from the near-death experience. Ring is a prolific NDE researcher.

If anyone can suggest a book that has been written that offers evidence that near death experiences are generated by biological functions, I'd be happy to read that and comment.

I admit that I have a bias toward believing we are more than physical beings and that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies. I cannot say I know this to be a fact. If the hypothesis is true, the implications are considerable. Discussion of the implications is another topic that would be too far out there for most people to want to contemplate. I chose to explore consciousness and live my life in a way that might contribute to a greater eternal value given the possibility that the hypothesis is true. A person doesn't need to buy into the notion that we are eternal beings to achieve the same result. Its all about how you chose to live your life and the breadth of love you exude in your interactions with others.

[Arouet]

Here's a thought. Purchase a couple of books, read them, then let's discuss the contents.

On a forum I find it much easier to look at individual studies, rather than entire books (which may or may not accurately summarize the actual studies. It takes awhile to read whole books and most don't have the time. But we can all look at a study in a short time. Why don't you pick a study that you find convincing that are available online for everyone, then start a thread on it? There will be people here willing to look into it carefully.

[blue sock monkey]

If anyone can suggest a book that has been written that offers evidence that near death experiences are generated by biological functions, I'd be happy to read that and comment.

Dying to Live, by Susan J. Blackmore. Her book on consciousness and memes, The Meme Machine, is also useful.

[dlorde]

I admit that I have a bias toward believing we are more than physical beings and that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies. I cannot say I know this to be a fact. If the hypothesis is true, the implications are considerable. Discussion of the implications is another topic that would be too far out there for most people to want to contemplate. I chose to explore consciousness and live my life in a way that might contribute to a greater eternal value given the possibility that the hypothesis is true.

Many specific brain areas have been identified that appear to deal with specific aspects consciousness. I'm curious to know how you square this predilection with all the evidence from brain injuries and surgery that when particular parts of the brain are damaged or stimulated, various aspects of consciousness are also damaged or stimulated. For example, damage in various areas can cause inability to recognise faces, or inability to recognise objects, or inability to name objects, or failure in categorising objects, or Capgras syndrome (seeing friends or loved ones as strange imposters), or inability to form new memories, or loss of prior memories, or confusion of different objects, or mystical/religious experiences (temporal lobe), or hallucinations, or inability to recognise parts of the body as self, or total loss of emotion, or inability to plan ahead, or blind-sight (where the subject is not aware that they can see, but clearly can), or believing they can see when truly blind, or pathological emotion, or change in personality, or - in the case of split-brain subjects - two separate consciousnesses in a single brain.

I've only scratched the surface of all the weird and interesting known ways consciousness can be damaged or changed, but, of course, it can also be altered in interesting ways by drugs.

To me, this kind of evidence very strongly suggests that consciousness is a function of the brain, and I'd need to see very convincing evidence, preferably including an hypothesised mechanism, before entertaining the idea that it isn't. So far, I've seen no convincing evidence or hypotheses at all.

How do you reconcile this kind of evidence with your predilection that consciousness may not be solely a function of the brain?

[jfish]

One possibility is that the brain is a tool for consciousness. Damage the tool and consciousness cannot express itself in the physical world. Separate consciousness from the tool and all kinds of interesting things get reported.

Here's one study that may be of interest. Mindsight: Near Death and Out of Body Experiences in the Blind. It is a small paperback book that can be read in a short period of time. (Remember, I've never claimed there is any one study that proves anything. From my vanatage point one has to read many studies going at the issue from a variety of perspectives to start believing there may be something to this.) This particular study is interesting because some of the congenitally blind subjects report seeing activities around them while in a near death state. I recall one subject reported seeing activities that were not located in the immediate vicinity of her body. If true, this supports the notion that the brain might be a useful but not necessary tool for consciousness.

[jfish]

Regarding Dying to Live - I haven't read the book but I came across a critique on the IANDs web site. The person writing the critique claims to have spoken to the author. Ms. Blackmore "confirmed ... that the work was primarily that of conjecture and speculation". In the critique it was noted that Ms. Blackmore's preface makes a statement that 'science tells us that death is the end'. I don't think science makes such a statement. That is an opinion that probably isn't proved by any science.

I haven't read the book so I can't comment first hand. Blue sock - please provide some specific information on the research that is mentioned in the book. I'd be interested in hearing about the methodology employed, the data that was obtained and the linkage between the data and the conclusions reached.

[dlorde]

One possibility is that the brain is a tool for consciousness. Damage the tool and consciousness cannot express itself in the physical world. Separate consciousness from the tool and all kinds of interesting things get reported.
If you can provide some coherent hypothesis for how all of the mental difficulties I mentioned could be simply aspects of damage to a tool, or alternatively, provide some coherent description of what this consciousness might consist of, I'd be interested. I assume it must be part of the physical world to use the brain as a tool - so how do you suppose it might do that? what do you suppose it's made of? how do you suppose it maintains itself apart from the brain? where does the energy come from to keep it going?

I recall one subject reported seeing activities that were not located in the immediate vicinity of her body. If true, this supports the notion that the brain might be a useful but not necessary tool for consciousness.
I've had dreams where I've dreamed I visited all kinds of places - it doesn't support the notion that my consciousness can really travel when I'm dreaming.

Give me a reasonable hypothesis of how consciousness can be separate from the brain and use the brain as a tool. Not anecdotes, just some plausible mechanism - anything at all.

[jfish]

I don't believe there is currently an explanation based on known physical properties for how consciousness might be capable of existing on its own (without a brain). My point is that there is a lot of general evidence that points to the possibility that consciousness can be separated from the body. These experiences fall into the realm of a broader reality that can't be measured very easily with traditional means.

Many years ago the notion of there being unseen animals that could negatively affect one's health was considered preposterous. Once technology advanced to the point we could see bacteria and viruses, sterile hospital environments became the norm. People could observe the affects of unsterile operations but had no logical explanation for why deaths occurred so frequently after operations were performed. Perhaps there is a similarity with NDEs. We can observe the effects after the fact but have not developed the means to measure or replicate them. (Although some people who have attended the Monroe Institute courses might say the out-of-body portion of NDEs can be replicated if one is willing to work at it and has an open mind.)

In the case of the blind person - I suppose one somewhat implausible explanation for seeing things in a near death state is the subjects dreamt the activities going on around them. However, it doesn't seem likely that someone would dream something that actually transpired in this physical reality. The author, Kenneth Ring, notes that his interviews happened quite some time after the experiences. It is possible the participants (the NDErs and those at the scene when the NDEs happened) conspired to construct these remarkable reports.

[marplots]

jfish, I think the problem is that there are conflicting theories without much in the way of good experiments to decide between them. I do not mind interesting theorizing, after all, I am a fan of strange physics. But without any clear methodology, it remains a kind of armchair philosophizing or a sort of chatting over beers.

To make an impact, there has to be theory and demonstration that any schlump can put their hands on. You need something like the levitating magnet for superconducting. Now that's a solid demo that grabs people by the throat. What I see in the "field" is more of a love for the mysterious and the outre -- as if simply pinning things down would damage the beauty of the ideas.

As long as the Monroe Institute remains elitist and arcane, they will never attain the credibility of, say, Harvard Medical school. I suppose this is fine if one wishes to be a guru on a mountain top, but keeping things esoteric only invites doubt.

[Pixel42]

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".

[dlorde]

I don't believe there is currently an explanation based on known physical properties for how consciousness might be capable of existing on its own (without a brain).
Indeed. There doesn't even appear to be any plausible speculation. One wonders why it's even suggested...

My point is that there is a lot of general evidence that points to the possibility that consciousness can be separated from the body.
A lot of uncorroborated anecdotes, but nothing more - unless you know of some other evidence?

These experiences fall into the realm of a broader reality that can't be measured very easily with traditional means.
What do you mean by 'broader reality'? Reality is the sum of real things, anything else is not real, by definition. If this unattached consciousness can affect the physical brain, then it must be physical and real. If it's physical and real and can affect the brain's operation - the functional neurophysiology of which we understand well - then we should easily be able to detect/measure it or it's effects, because complex and subtle though the brain is, neuronal operation is well understood and well within the scope of our instruments. Odd then, that no external influence of this kind has been detected with the 'traditional means' that can so easily detect and measure neuronal function. I'm guessing, but you don't have the foggiest idea of what other means might detect this control mechanism, right?

In the case of the blind person - I suppose one somewhat implausible explanation for seeing things in a near death state is the subjects dreamt the activities going on around them. However, it doesn't seem likely that someone would dream something that actually transpired in this physical reality.
Well quite - if their brains were active enough to dream, they'd be active enough to perceive their environment, though not necessarily consciously aware of that. So, as an explanation, dreaming would be redundant as well as, as you say, somewhat implausible. My point was that anecdotal evidence without corroboration is no more reliable a guide to reality than my dream report.

It is possible the participants (the NDErs and those at the scene when the NDEs happened) conspired to construct these remarkable reports.
A conspiracy theory? That's almost facetiously implausible - surely it's more likely that the author faked the reports. But there's a far more plausible explanation - people have broadly similar internal (imaginary) experiences, because their brains and they way they are wired are broadly the same. Stimulate the brain in the right place (e.g. temporal lobe) and you'll get a similar experience to reported NDEs and OBEs. People are subject to broadly similar illusions, delusions, hallucinations, perceptual errors, memory distortions & failings, etc., etc. And you want to believe, on anecdotes alone, that these particular reports are different - unlike all others, they're real; there's no known or even hypothetical mechanism for how this could be possible, and no evidence to support it, but you want it to be real.

It seems to me you might make more progress by examining why you want consciousness independent of the brain to be a reality...

[dlorde]

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:Quote:
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".
Yup, it all fits very well; and the modelling and projection of another's point of view seems likely to provide a selective advantage in the development of complex societies.

[PixyMisa]

I don't believe there is currently an explanation based on known physical properties for how consciousness might be capable of existing on its own (without a brain). My point is that there is a lot of general evidence that points to the possibility that consciousness can be separated from the body.
And our point is no there isn't.

There are stories. These stories are not supported by evidence, and when evidence is available, the stories are often flatly contradicted.

These experiences fall into the realm of a broader reality that can't be measured very easily with traditional means.
Same problem. There are stories of experiences that could be interpreted as invoking a "broader reality".

There is no evidence at all.

Many years ago the notion of there being unseen animals that could negatively affect one's health was considered preposterous. Once technology advanced to the point we could see bacteria and viruses, sterile hospital environments became the norm.
Piffle.

People imagined spirits and demons, not microbiology.

Perhaps there is a similarity with NDEs. We can observe the effects after the fact but have not developed the means to measure or replicate them.
Double piffle.

The thing about diseases is that people actually catch them. It's an observable physical replicatable fact.

The thing about NDEs is that they are indistinguishable from dreams.

(Although some people who have attended the Monroe Institute courses might say the out-of-body portion of NDEs can be replicated if one is willing to work at it and has an open mind.)
Why would an open mind matter?

You have to be honest, sure, and rigorous in your research protocols. But if I mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, I get an exothermic reaction and water whether my mind is open or not.

In the case of the blind person - I suppose one somewhat implausible explanation for seeing things in a near death state is the subjects dreamt the activities going on around them. However, it doesn't seem likely that someone would dream something that actually transpired in this physical reality. The author, Kenneth Ring, notes that his interviews happened quite some time after the experiences. It is possible the participants (the NDErs and those at the scene when the NDEs happened) conspired to construct these remarkable reports.
Not deliberately, but memory is malleable, and what people remember of their experience will change after talking to others. Collecting interviews long after the event is a good way to guarantee that the reports won't be accurate.

[PixyMisa]

A conspiracy theory? That's almost facetiously implausible - surely it's more likely that the author faked the reports. But there's a far more plausible explanation - people have broadly similar internal (imaginary) experiences, because their brains and they way they are wired are broadly the same. Stimulate the brain in the right place (e.g. temporal lobe) and you'll get a similar experience to reported NDEs and OBEs. People are subject to broadly similar illusions, delusions, hallucinations, perceptual errors, memory distortions & failings, etc., etc. And you want to believe, on anecdotes alone, that these particular reports are different - unlike all others, they're real; there's no known or even hypothetical mechanism for how this could be possible, and no evidence to support it, but you want it to be real.
It needn't be a conspiracy, unless you take the view that it's our brains conspiring against us.

If what is remarkable about these reports is that the Nearly Deaders are able to report things they couldn't have known at the time because they were, well, Nearly Dead, then collecting interviews at a much later date after the ND has had time to talk to other people about the events of the day.... Well.

jfish, take a look at these lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

These are all ways in which our brains play tricks on us. This is why we're not impressed by anecdotes - even if the person is as honest as the day is long, our minds and memories are not reliable.

[jfish]

Good commentary. Before providing some specific cases from Mindsight, I'd like to offer some general thoughts. As I indicated before skeptics and explorers/hypothesizers need each other. If it weren't for the later, the pace of discovery would be much slower. If it weren't for the former keeping things grounded, there would be a lot of unfounded hype tossed out to all the people who are willing to blindly accept a lot of 'snake oil salesmen'.

I'll share at least one case study in Mindsight but before I do, let me share my thoughts on why we should respect the work of the authors. Some of this should be apparent to anyone connected with a university but perhaps it should be stated. Kenneth Ring taught psychology at the University of Conn. and is one of the more prolific NDE researchers. A professor at a large public university would put his position at risk if he attempted to falsely present his findings. That doesn't mean people haven't done that before but it is not the norm.

Most of what I present here is either a quote or a paraphrase from the book. The researchers contacted 11 American organizations for the blind and enlisted their help in locating potential participants for the NDE/OBE study. Information about the research goals was sent out in the respective publications of those organizations. Of the 46 people who responded there were 31 who qualified for inclusion and were interviewed - 20 females and 11 males ranging in age from 20 to 70. All were Caucasian and overwhelmingly Christian with respect to their original religious background. Of the NDEs 13 had their experience through an illness or surgical procedure, 6 were the result of an accident, 2 were mugged, 1 was nearly killed in a rape, 1 almost perished in combat and 1 survived a suicide attempt. 14 of the 31 subjects were blind from birth, 11 became blind after birth and 6 were severely visually impared. Of the 14 blind from birth, only 3 were full term deliveries. The remaining 11 were born prematurely from 1946 to 1958 and all were placed in incubators where they received excessive concentrations of oxygen resulting in retrolental fibropasia.

The blind persons in the sample recount experiences that clearly conform to the familiar prototype of the beatific NDE first popularized in Raymond Moody's book, Life After Life. Their narratives tend to be indistinguishable from those of sighted persons with respect to the elements that serve to define the classic NDE pattern.

One subject was Vicki Umipeg. Vicki was in the womb only 22 weeks at delivery weighing 3 pounds. She was placed in an incubator and received too high a concentration of oxygen suffering such optic nerve damage as to leave her completely blind. In her interview she stated that she never saw anything in her life - "no light, no shadows, no nothing, ever." At the age of 22 she was working as an occasional singer in a night club in Seattle. One night she was unable to get a ride home in a taxi and accepted transportation from a couple of patrons who were inebriated. A serious car accident occurred in which she was thrown from the vehicle and suffered extensive and life threatening injuries. She had no recollection of how she got to the hospital emergency room but once there she regained awareness and found herself up on the ceiling watching hospital personnel working on her. She could hear their conversations. She tried to communicate with them to say she was fine but drew no response. She was also aware of seeing her body below her which she recognized by certain establishing identity features. She then found herself going up through the ceilings of the hospital until she was above the roof of the building. There was much more to her NDE but it isn't necessary to go into that level of detail.

This account doesn't prove anything but it is interesting that a congenitally blind individual can report very specific details about what she "saw" while in a near death state.

Brad Barrows was another subject who had been blind from birth and who had an NDE at the age of 8. While at the Boston Center for Blind Children Brad had a particularly difficult night (ever and breathing problems). At one point Brad remembers his breathing virtually stopped. At that moment his NDE began. He recalled floating up close to the ceiling and seeing his apparently lifeless body on the bed. He also saw his blind roommate get up from his bed and leave the room to get help. Next he found he was able to penetrate the 2nd floor ceiling and soon found he was "going straight up toward the roof of the building, actually up and over it." He reported what he saw. When asked if he "knew or saw" these things, he said "I clearly visualized them. I could suddenly notice and see them ... I remember ..being able to see quite clearly."

That's enough for tonight. Perhaps later this week I'll post some other portions of the book that might add some additional dimensions to the ones I've mentioned above.

[steenkh]

This account doesn't prove anything but it is interesting that a congenitally blind individual can report very specific details about what she "saw" while in a near death state.
Why would blind people have no concept of what is outside their own bodies? Could a blind person not dream about outside their own bodies, or being above the roof of a house? Can blind people not dream about seeing?

How would we know that this was an experience different from what their imagination could produce? Are there any features that would be impossible for a blind person to imagine, or that a blind person could not possibly have heard of?

When asked if he "knew or saw" these things, he said "I clearly visualized them. I could suddenly notice and see them ... I remember ..being able to see quite clearly."
And that is evidence that he actually visualized it, or could it be that he fantasized about what he thought seeing would be like?

to me it would be more impressive if he had seen something that could only be a result of actually seeing, such as a dead pigeon on the roof that cannot be seen by people on the ground, or a special car in the parking lot that nobody had found reason to mention.

[jfish]

It had snowed the day before Brad Barrows NDE. After he went throught the roof, he reported he could see snow everywhere except for the streets that had been plowed. I think there were more details for other subjects that I'll have to cull out another night.

I sent an email to a blind friend asking if he would be willing to share some specifics regarding what he dreams. If he choses to share that information, I'll pass it along.

A thought occurred to me today. Using the word "dream" as a possible explanation for an NDE probably isn't appropriate. I assume my dreams are like most peoples' in that my dreams never involve looking at myself from a position outside my body. I don't get a chance to exercise choice within my dreams. I don't recall in fine detail all that transpired in a dream and I couldn't recount specific dreams after a period of weeks have gone by. I don't have another word to use but I submit calling these experiences dreams is probably not an appropriate choice of words. Calling them hallucinations probably is inaccurate also. LSD trips are surreal - users have a warped sense of reality. Things that are seen during NDEs that are of this physical reality are not warped. That's not to say that as NDEs progress the experiencers don't have other worldy experiences.

[Rugby]

So while no conclusive test report has been been presented in this forum to prove that one can extract one's being from their physical body, this phenomenon does have some very consistent characteristics that have been documented in thousands of cases. I am interested in one's ability to control and remember these events, be they true OBE occurrences or brain chemistry events (ah, a new term- BCEs). So jfish how is your personal progress with the Monroe technique?

I would also be interested to know if blind folks are blind in their dreams or if they can see in their dreams. Does anyone know the answer to this?

[steenkh]

It had snowed the day before Brad Barrows NDE. After he went throught the roof, he reported he could see snow everywhere except for the streets that had been plowed.
I hope you can understand why such information is not very impressive. I believe every blind person knows that after a snowfall there is snow everywhere except where it has been plowed. Now, if he had said, the parking lot has not yet been plowed, or there is snowplow working outside the building right now, and this could have been corroborated by witnesses, then you might be on to something.

[Pixel42]

I assume my dreams are like most peoples' in that my dreams never involve looking at myself from a position outside my body. I don't get a chance to exercise choice within my dreams. I don't recall in fine detail all that transpired in a dream and I couldn't recount specific dreams after a period of weeks have gone by.
Certainly not true of everybody. For example I've had a few lucid dreams where I realised I was dreaming and was able to "take control" of the dream, and there are people who claim to be able to do this whenever they like. My recall of those dreams is particularly vivid, and though most of my dreams fade away quickly there have been a few which stayed with me, especially if I made a special effort to recall them as soon as I woke up. I also think I remember a few dreams where I watched myself as though I was watching someone on TV, though I'm less sure of that.

[Arouet]

It had snowed the day before Brad Barrows NDE. After he went throught the roof, he reported he could see snow everywhere except for the streets that had been plowed. I think there were more details for other subjects that I'll have to cull out another night.


The problem with the reported cases of veridical OOBEs during NDEs is that I don't believe any of them were controlled.

The AWARE study is seeking to change that. I eagerly await the results.

[PixyMisa]

A thought occurred to me today. Using the word "dream" as a possible explanation for an NDE probably isn't appropriate.
Why?

I assume my dreams are like most peoples' in that my dreams never involve looking at myself from a position outside my body.
I certainly have dreams like that, and it's not at all uncommon.

I don't get a chance to exercise choice within my dreams.
I do. There's something known as lucid dreaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream) which has many similarities with NDEs and OBEs.

I don't recall in fine detail all that transpired in a dream and I couldn't recount specific dreams after a period of weeks have gone by.
It depends on how and when you wake up. If you get woken up abruptly during a vivid dream, you are more likely to remember it than if you wake at the end of a normal sleep cycle.

I don't have another word to use but I submit calling these experiences dreams is probably not an appropriate choice of words.
I don't think any of your reasons are valid.

Calling them hallucinations probably is inaccurate also.
Hallucinations generally refer to false or grossly inaccurate sensory data received when the subject is fully consicous, so yes, hallucination is probably not the best word.

LSD trips are surreal - users have a warped sense of reality. Things that are seen during NDEs that are of this physical reality are not warped.
Begging the question.

[jfish]

Here is some additional content from Mindsight regarding dreams of the blind. There has been a great deal of research devoted to the dreams of the blind. As a result of all these investigations, certain generalizations about the presence of visual imagery in dreams appear to stand up quite well . Among these empirical cornerstones (as summarized in Kirtley [1975] are the following: (1) There are no visual images in the dreams of the congenitally blind, (2) Individuals blinded before the age of 5 also tend not to have visual imagery, (3) Those who become sightless between the age of 5 to 7 may or may not retain visual imagery.

In the Mindsight interviews the researchers routinely asked respondents about the nature of their dreams. What they found accords with the generalizations just described. In addition respondents often said their NDEs stood out as radically different from dreams precisely because they contained visual imagery whereas their dreams had always lacked this element. Here's a segment of Vicki Umipeg's interview:
Interviewer: How would you compare your dreams to your NDE?
Vicki: No similarity, no similarity at all.
Interviewer: Do you have any kind of visual perception in your dreams?
Vicki: Nothing. No color, no sight of any sort, no shadows, no light, no nothing.

Other survey participants express similar views - absence of visual imagery in dreams. This suggests that the visual part of NDEs whether a person is blind or not should probably not be called a dream. It seems to me that it is something different.

[jfish]

Rugby - Some thing have transpired since my TMI experience that on the surface may not seem particularly noteworthy. When I related them to the TMI CEO recently, he expessed some excitement for my progression. If I relay them here, I think the more useful discussion of Mindsight will be displaced by dismissal of my experiences by the majority of the participants in this thread. My experiences would be better shared with an explorer community than with a skeptic community. If you are still interested, let me know and I'll send you a private message.

[PixyMisa]

My experiences would be better shared with an explorer community than with a skeptic community.
Well, no.

A skeptical community will ask questions, compare your experiences with relevant scientific knowledge, and of course, seek evidence.

If this "explorer community" doesn't do these things, then they're not doing anything useful at all.

[steenkh]

Interviewer: Do you have any kind of visual perception in your dreams?
Vicki: Nothing. No color, no sight of any sort, no shadows, no light, no nothing.
I wonder how she knows what colours, light, and shadows are - if she has always been blind. I could just as easily think that she imagines what they are, but that it would not be the same as what people with normal vision experiences.

I would also like to point out that souls or ghost similarly have no eyes - they certainly do not block light - and that they should therefore not experience the world with light and shadows as seeing people do.

In short, I do not trust these descriptions very much. If the blind people really had a soul that temporarily left their bodies, they should not describe their experiences exactly as if they had suddenly gained sight.

But I acknowledge that the dreams experienced as NDEs can be much different from dreams one normally remembers. It will be interesting to find out why. My first guess would be that a lack of oxygen to the brain gives a profoundly different experience than sleep.

[tsig]

Rugby - Some thing have transpired since my TMI experience that on the surface may not seem particularly noteworthy. When I related them to the TMI CEO recently, he expessed some excitement for my progression. If I relay them here, I think the more useful discussion of Mindsight will be displaced by dismissal of my experiences by the majority of the participants in this thread. My experiences would be better shared with an explorer community than with a skeptic community. If you are still interested, let me know and I'll send you a private message.

If by explorer community you mean credulous fools then you're right.

[Rugby]

While I can certainly qualify as a credulous fool in many regards, I am interested in the technique, or "sensation" of leaving my body and visiting possibly with deceased persons. I frankly am less interested in the causation of the experience. I think jfish has a valid point in wanting not to redirect the current line of discussion. If the latest experience did not seem "particularly noteworthy", then it may be worthwhile to wait until there is something more tangible to share here.

The topic of the OBEs of the blind is interesting, both the descriptions of the experiences and the skeptical discussion offered. The questions raised are valid. jfish is there a link to read more detail of these interviews?

Also jfish I am open to a private message if you have the time.

[jfish]

As I've said in the past we all have different standards we apply when we individually consider whether observations/studies point to a new hypothesis. Given the diversity of things I've read and the first and second person NDEs/ADCs/OBEs I've heard, I've come to the conclusion that there is something to the notion that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies. I can't possibly enumerate in this forum all the information I've absorbed over the years that has brought me to that conclusion. I could continue to bring new information to this thread but my time is better spent continuing my exploratory activities.

It is unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to make judgements about others. What is to be gained by calling people who don't agree with you a fool? You may think that I and others are fools, but why articulate such a confrontational thought? It certainly doesn't encourage discussion from which new information might emerge. Since you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you judge? I might suggest some thought be given to your motivations, tsig. I suspect there might be issues that need resolution.

[PixyMisa]

As I've said in the past we all have different standards we apply when we individually consider whether observations/studies point to a new hypothesis. Given the diversity of things I've read and the first and second person NDEs/ADCs/OBEs I've heard, I've come to the conclusion that there is something to the notion that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies.
If those claims were substantiated by evidence, then that would be a reasonable position.

However, they aren't.

Therefore, it's not.

I can't possibly enumerate in this forum all the information I've absorbed over the years that has brought me to that conclusion. I could continue to bring new information to this thread but my time is better spent continuing my exploratory activities.
As I said before, no, it's not. If you care about the truth - and I'm assuming you do - your time is best spent here, examining whether there is any reason to believe any of these claims.

So far, no.

It is unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to make judgements about others. What is to be gained by calling people who don't agree with you a fool?
No-one here would call someone a fool because they disagreed with them.

You may think that I and others are fools, but why articulate such a confrontational thought?
This is a skeptics' forum, not a diplomats' one. If you say something foolish, that fact will be noted.

It certainly doesn't encourage discussion from which new information might emerge.
Yes, actually, it does. This is how science works, and science WORKS.

Since you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you judge?
We judge based on the evidence.

I might suggest some thought be given to your motivations, tsig. I suspect there might be issues that need resolution.
Appeal to motive. It's a logical fallacy.

[jfish]

Judge based on evidence - so until there is evidence, anyone studying a hypothesis is a fool? It's ok to say something is foolish until hard evidence can be presented? Isn't that a catch 22? If everyone thought that way, then no one would seek evidence because it would be a foolish endeavor.

The intial post to this thread was what prompted me to participate. I was willing to share my TMI experience under the belief many might have an open minded interest. It seems as though a minority of participants have that interest but not the majority.

I don't have the level of proof that most seem to require to warrant considering the implications. That doesn't mean definitive proof won't be forthcoming. I've seen enough evidence to believe that proof will surface at some point in the future. I chose to start working toward the benefits that will come if the hypothesis is correct.

[tsig]

As I've said in the past we all have different standards we apply when we individually consider whether observations/studies point to a new hypothesis. Given the diversity of things I've read and the first and second person NDEs/ADCs/OBEs I've heard, I've come to the conclusion that there is something to the notion that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies. I can't possibly enumerate in this forum all the information I've absorbed over the years that has brought me to that conclusion. I could continue to bring new information to this thread but my time is better spent continuing my exploratory activities.

It is unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to make judgements about others. What is to be gained by calling people who don't agree with you a fool? You may think that I and others are fools, but why articulate such a confrontational thought? It certainly doesn't encourage discussion from which new information might emerge. Since you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you judge? I might suggest some thought be given to your motivations, tsig. I suspect there might be issues that need resolution.

Yes it is unfortunate.

[tsig]

Judge based on evidence - so until there is evidence, anyone studying a hypothesis is a fool? It's ok to say something is foolish until hard evidence can be presented? Isn't that a catch 22? If everyone thought that way, then no one would seek evidence because it would be a foolish endeavor.

The intial post to this thread was what prompted me to participate. I was willing to share my TMI experience under the belief many might have an open minded interest. It seems as though a minority of participants have that interest but not the majority.

I don't have the level of proof that most seem to require to warrant considering the implications. That doesn't mean definitive proof won't be forthcoming. I've seen enough evidence to believe that proof will surface at some point in the future. I chose to start working toward the benefits that will come if the hypothesis is correct.

What would you call someone who insisted on studying a hypothesis for which there is no evidence and all previous studies have found no evidence and that if you grant the hypothesis no evidence can be found?

[PixyMisa]

Judge based on evidence - so until there is evidence, anyone studying a hypothesis is a fool?
That depends on how you study it. If you are looking for hard evidence, that's good. If you're simply collecting more stories which are no better supported than any of the stories you already have, then at some point - at some point that is now long past - that becomes a worthless pursuit.

It's ok to say something is foolish until hard evidence can be presented?No.

Isn't that a catch 22?No.

If everyone thought that way, then no one would seek evidence because it would be a foolish endeavor.Not at all.

Seeking evidence is not the same as collecting stories - unless you're an anthropologist studying folklore or something.

What you need is some objective corroboration, not just stories piled upon stories.

What you also need at some point is a falsifiable hypothesis. You can use the stories to form that hypothesis, then seek objective evidence to test it; that's fine. You said as much in your first post in this thread.

But that's not what you're doing. Stories by themselves are just stories. And people lie. We lie to other people, we lie to ourselves, we don't even know we're lying much of the time. Our memories and our minds are simply unreliable, so believing that a story - and doubly so a story told a long time after the event - is necessarily an accurate representation of what actually happened is folly.

The intial post to this thread was what prompted me to participate. I was willing to share my TMI experience under the belief many might have an open minded interest. It seems as though a minority of participants have that interest but not the majority.We're very interested in how the brain works.

However, we know damn well that there's no magic involved in NDEs or OBEs, because there's no magic.

I don't have the level of proof that most seem to require to warrant considering the implications.You don't have any evidence.

That doesn't mean definitive proof won't be forthcoming.Actually, yes, that's what it does mean. The complete failure of paranormal research to produce a single repeatable experimental success in eighty years tells us that there is nothing there. Real scientists do this every single day. Parapsychologists? Not one single thing, ever.

I've seen enough evidence to believe that proof will surface at some point in the future.You haven't seen any evidence at all.

I chose to start working toward the benefits that will come if the hypothesis is correct.Wrong order. First you establish the hypothesis, then you apply it to the benefit of all mankind.

The other way 'round never works.

[jfish]

Guess we just have opposing viewpoints. No need to spend more time if you don't see any value in considering the information I've provided.

[dlorde]

Guess we just have opposing viewpoints. No need to spend more time if you don't see any value in considering the information I've provided.
I think the point is that the information provided has been considered, and the consensus is that, interesting though it is, it's not any more useful as evidence than what is already available, and what is already available is not convincing evidence of anything unusual or unexpected. It's no more useful than fisherman's stories - any number of "It was this big" stories will be unconvincing without good corroborating evidence, such as a photograph, or the bones.

[PixyMisa]

Or the fish.

If all we had was fishermen's stories, and not a single actual fish, in all of human history - who would believe in fish?

That's what the difference is, jfish. You've believed the fishermen's tales. We're waiting to see a fish first. It doesn't even need to be this big; it just needs to be appopriately fishy.

[jfish]

Again, we just don't see things the same way. I think the NDEs of blind people have a strong "fishyness" to them. The research shows these blind NDE experiences are not traditional dreams. I suspect if we delved into lucid dreaming, we would find considerable differences between blind NDE experiences and lucid dreams as well. For example, does a lucid dreamer experience the dream from a perspective separate from his body - can he see his body apart from his the point of his visual reference? When he becomes aware of his lucid dreaming is he located in the exact place his physical body is located while in the dream state? Does he travel through physical objects and observe external environments that match the physical environment that exists at that point in time? Does he see the activity of others that can be corroborated independently by those people he observed in his lucid dream state? There is more in the book Mindsight - one case in particular that has some independent 3rd party verification of what a blind person saw. For readers/participants who are interested in knowing more read the book.

[ExMinister]

Again, we just don't see things the same way. I think the NDEs of blind people have a strong "fishyness" to them. The research shows these blind NDE experiences are not traditional dreams. I suspect if we delved into lucid dreaming, we would find considerable differences between blind NDE experiences and lucid dreams as well. For example, does a lucid dreamer experience the dream from a perspective separate from his body - can he see his body apart from his the point of his visual reference? When he becomes aware of his lucid dreaming is he located in the exact place his physical body is located while in the dream state? Does he travel through physical objects and observe external environments that match the physical environment that exists at that point in time? Does he see the activity of others that can be corroborated independently by those people he observed in his lucid dream state? There is more in the book Mindsight - one case in particular that has some independent 3rd party verification of what a blind person saw. For readers/participants who are interested in knowing more read the book.

My 2 cents as an extremely frequent lucid dreamer (several times a week at times) who used to believe many of them were OOBEs.

- Yes, sometimes it is possible to view the body apart from the point of visual reference. It is possible to look down from the ceiling as you feel yourself floating upward and see your body. I believe this is a function of memory. It is easy enough for the brain to come up with an image of what you might look like from the ceiling.

- When you become aware of lucid dreaming, occasionally it is during a dream in a dream setting. Other times it feels as though you have awakened "in your body" in the exact position you recall having fallen asleep in. It is also possible to have this happen while falling asleep, for example, lying on my back one morning and feeling as though I never actually fell asleep but instead, quite awake, left my body from the top of my head, went through the wall, and travelled through a dark tunnel backwards, emerging into a lucid dream scene. Even stranger, I was able to awaken and repeat the same process 3 times.

- Yes, it's possible to travel through physical objects - ceilings, bedroom walls - and sometimes the scenery looks quite realistic.

Other times it is clearly a fantasy realm, or one thing will be out of sync (for example, awakening to find snow on the ground in real life, absent in the lucid dream, also absent the night before so unexpected).

- Interestingly, I have correctly observed the activity of other people in my household, who at the time were sleeping. I have awakened to find them in the exact same position I saw them in while dreaming. I believe, again, that it is fairly easy for the brain to guess this, especially when it involves someone who tends to sleep in the same one or two positions. Other times I have awakened to find them in different positions, contradicting what I saw just before waking up.

I have even felt myself re-enter my physical body lying on my back, and awakened to find that I was in fact on my side!

- Again, it is even possible to experience a tunnel type of event in a lucid dream. One of my most vivid involved traveling at breakneck speed through a tunnel that was like being inside a kaleidoscope, it felt to be in outer space, and emerging into a lighted area that turned out to be a cave.

Weird stuff.

Having experienced so much of this type of activity, I find it much easier to believe NDEs will turn out to be similar to lucid dreaming, though I don't think the phenomenon is identical.

One thing the NDE reports tend to lack is the fantastical element. Occasionally it is there, as in chariots moving across the sky, or children who see living friends and relatives, or talking chickens. But for the most part NDE reports tend to lack the fantastical elements of dreams, even lucid dreams. Granted, some accounts may deliberately omit the stranger details for the sake of credibility.

I do wonder, also, how many NDEs we DON'T hear about because they DID include fanstastical or otherwise inaccurate elements that clued the person into the fact that it was a dream. These types of experiences would obviously tend to be dismissed as unreal and not shared.

Just my 2 cents.

[PixyMisa]

Again, we just don't see things the same way. I think the NDEs of blind people have a strong "fishyness" to them.
No, you've just accepted a story, and one told second hand and after a signifcant delay. There's not even a sign of a fish.

The research shows these blind NDE experiences are not traditional dreams.No, no it doesn't.

I suspect if we delved into lucid dreaming, we would find considerable differences between blind NDE experiences and lucid dreams as well. For example, does a lucid dreamer experience the dream from a perspective separate from his body - can he see his body apart from his the point of his visual reference?As already noted, that sort of dream is very common.

When he becomes aware of his lucid dreaming is he located in the exact place his physical body is located while in the dream state?Not necessarily, but that's certainly not true of NDEs either. You're cherry-picking.

Does he travel through physical objects and observe external environments that match the physical environment that exists at that point in time?You mean, dream that he does so? Sure.

Does he see the activity of others that can be corroborated independently by those people he observed in his lucid dream state?There is no evidence of any such thing happening with NDEs. That's the point. There's a story, collected years after the fact. And?

There is more in the book Mindsight - one case in particular that has some independent 3rd party verification of what a blind person saw. For readers/participants who are interested in knowing more read the book.Okay, let's discuss that case. What are the exact details?

[dlorde]

...
Just my 2 cents.

Good value, thanks.

My lucid dreams generally haven't involved passing through physical objects - they pretty much keep to standard physics, except I can often levitate or fly. When I levitate or fly in a lucid dream, I have a clear recollection of having done this many times in previous dreams, and sometimes find it hard to believe I can't do it in the real world. One odd and consistent feature for me is that nobody in the dream takes much notice of levitation - even if you float around at head height.

I found I can smell in a dream - I tried smelling what looked like a rose in a vase, which turned out to be a pink fabric carnation when I got closer. It had an artificial scent, like air-freshener.

Reading doesn't seem to work - whenever I focus on text on a sign or poster, it blurs or changes to nonsense.

[PixyMisa]

One thing the NDE reports tend to lack is the fantastical element. Occasionally it is there, as in chariots moving across the sky, or children who see living friends and relatives, or talking chickens. But for the most part NDE reports tend to lack the fantastical elements of dreams, even lucid dreams. Granted, some accounts may deliberately omit the stranger details for the sake of credibility.

I do wonder, also, how many NDEs we DON'T hear about because they DID include fanstastical or otherwise inaccurate elements that clued the person into the fact that it was a dream. These types of experiences would obviously tend to be dismissed as unreal and not shared.
Hard to say, but selective reporting is a huge problem in this sort of study.

[PixyMisa]

Reading doesn't seem to work - whenever I focus on text on a sign or poster, it blurs or changes to nonsense.
Yes, that seems to be near-universal - you can't read in dreams.

[jfish]

Thanks for the commentary on lucid dreaming. I'm curious as to what you think the difference would be between a lucid dream and an OBE? Why do you think you aren't experiencing a separation of your consciousness from your body? Ex, your comments parallel those of OBErs in many ways. I wonder why some people call an experience such as yours a lucid dream while others use OBE as a descriptor? Do you think there is a substantative difference between the two? What makes it a dream to you?

[Rugby]

Fuzzyquark's original request at the opening of this discussion was in regard to the Monroe Institute. Some in our discussion seem to consider the entire idea of the OBE as bunk, a few of us (myself included) think there could be more to it. A few of us have exhibited the circular reasoning that bothers me at times. I consider the OBE as a phenomenon that has not been fully explained. It may be all in the brain, however there has not really been proof that it is or is not. Just because we can not currently observe it or measure it with transducers, etc. doesn't prove that it is not "real".

Thanks to Google I found a Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research published report in which a subject who claimed to have these experiences was monitored for several nights with brain activity transducers, etc. During one of these nights she was able to move out of body to a position where she read a number on a piece of paper that had been placed in a position where she could not see it unless in this state. After several unsuccessful attempts she had an OBE, read the numbers and remembered it when she "woke" up. Unfortunately I have yet to find any repeat of this type of experiment in a documented report even though this experiment happened in 1967. I mention it here to ask if this is the type of "proof" that is desired.

I don't think jfish said that this was magic. What jfish did submit was that there have been thousands of documented occurrences of this phenomenon. I recall reading that as many as 1 in 8 people have had this type of experience. My wife had one after surgery. She had never heard of the experience before but it was classic in the sense that she was above the room watching nurses and doctors, etc. She had no reason to create this event.

I say it is worth further discussion. I hope the rest of you agree.

[PixyMisa]

Thanks for the commentary on lucid dreaming. I'm curious as to what you think the difference would be between a lucid dream and an OBE? Why do you think you aren't experiencing a separation of your consciousness from your body?
Well, two main reasons:

One, that's impossible.

Two, there is no evidence that any such thing has ever happened, that is, there is no confirmed objective evidence to corroborate any report, ever.

Do you think there is a substantative difference between the two? What makes it a dream to you?
It is a dream. He's dreaming. People do that. His dreams are slightly different from the most common variety, but are quite widely experienced nonetheless (I have such dreams myself), and while they may appear to represent reality, the accuracy rate is not very good. And even that is after cherry-picking - after eliminating the dreams that obviously don't represent reality.

[PixyMisa]

Fuzzyquark's original request at the opening of this discussion was in regard to the Monroe Institute. Some in our discussion seem to consider the entire idea of the OBE as bunk, a few of us (myself included) think there could be more to it. A few of us have exhibited the circular reasoning that bothers me at times. I consider the OBE as a phenomenon that has not been fully explained. It may be all in the brain, however there has not really been proof that it is or is not. Just because we can not currently observe it or measure it with transducers, etc. doesn't prove that it is not "real".
Yeah, it pretty much does.

What exact mechanism are you proposing for this out-of-body projection?

Electromagnetism? Sorry, but that would be blindningly obvious.
Gravity? Impossible; the force is entirely too weak.
Weak force? Doesn't act over that sort of distance.
Strong force? Doesn't act over that sort of distance.

So we know up front that what you are proposing is basically impossible. When faced with such a claim, we want the evidence to be exceptionally strong before we even provisionally accept it. Instead:

Thanks to Google I found a Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research published report in which a subject who claimed to have these experiences was monitored for several nights with brain activity transducers, etc. During one of these nights she was able to move out of body to a position where she read a number on a piece of paper that had been placed in a position where she could not see it unless in this state. After several unsuccessful attempts she had an OBE, read the numbers and remembered it when she "woke" up. Unfortunately I have yet to find any repeat of this type of experiment in a documented report even though this experiment happened in 1967. I mention it here to ask if this is the type of "proof" that is desired.
We have one unrepeated experiment from 44 years ago that had one possible hit. And I'd bet if we could examine the protocols more closely that we'd found that the researchers just got sloppy.

I don't think jfish said that this was magic.
That's what it is, though. There is simply no possible way in which this can happen. This is not a problem, because there is no evidence that it does happen.

What jfish did submit was that there have been thousands of documented occurrences of this phenomenon.
Which is not true at all.

There have been vast numbers of reports of such an experience. There have been zero documented occurrences of the phenomenon.

I recall reading that as many as 1 in 8 people have had this type of experience. My wife had one after surgery. She had never heard of the experience before but it was classic in the sense that she was above the room watching nurses and doctors, etc. She had no reason to create this event.
You have no reason to dream at night. It's just what your brain does when you unplug it from sensory input.

I say it is worth further discussion. I hope the rest of you agree.
I'm happy to discuss it, sure. It's an interesting subject, why the brain reacts in this way.

There are still no fish though.

[marplots]

<much snipped>

I don't think jfish said that this was magic. What jfish did submit was that there have been thousands of documented occurrences of this phenomenon. I recall reading that as many as 1 in 8 people have had this type of experience. My wife had one after surgery. She had never heard of the experience before but it was classic in the sense that she was above the room watching nurses and doctors, etc. She had no reason to create this event.

I say it is worth further discussion. I hope the rest of you agree.

I agree, it's worth discussion.

[jfish]

Perhaps it would be helpful to recap evidence that human conciousness is not as restricted as most people perceive it to be.

Studies show that there are a significant number of people who report unique experiences when in a near death state. Common components of these experiences as first detailed by Dr. Raymond Moody include ineffability (words don't exist to fully communicate the nature of the experience), the sensation of being pulled through a dark space/tunnel, observing one's body from a place separate from the body, meeting other spiritual beings (often deceased loved ones), communicating telepathically with these beings, encountering a bright light and meeting beings of light, experiencing a life review (sometimes experiencing it from the perspective of others the NDEr had interacted with), seeing extraordinary sights, experiencing a love that is beyond anything imaginable in this world, and resistance to returning to the physical body. Not all these are present in an NDE but they are observable commonalities.

Bind people have NDEs and report seeing their surroundings for the first time in their lives. What they see is subject to verification of which there is some documentation.

The ability to see and hear what is going on around an NDEr is not dependent on having measurable brain activity. While hooked up to brain monitoring equipment showing no brain responsiveness to external stimulit (flat brain waves), an NDEr heard the operating room conversation while high decible clicks were taking place in her ear canals. She also saw the tool used to open her skull for surgery while under anethesia. Her surgeon had no logical explanation for how she could have experienced this. An anesthesiologist reports that he can think of no logical way she could have seen the tool while under anesthesia with flat brain waves, no blood in her system and her heart not functioning.

Remote viewing is generally accepted as a reality. Government programs have been created to take advantage of this capability (google Stargate Remote Viewing). Video documentation exists that corroborates testimony from remote viewers.

Consciousness explorers at the Monroe Institute report simultaneous sharing of experiences and communications with other explorers in a non-physical environment while they are located in separate, isolated chambers. This has been separately reported by subsequent participants in Monroe Institute programs.

What are the explanations and research that have been offered to refute the hyypothesis? Let's start with NDEs are nothing more than dreams. Blind people who have never had sight in any form (during dreams or otherwise) suddenly have sight and report verifiable activities and things around them. Of course many NDErs report seeing verifiable things around them - its just that the experiences of blind people rules out the possibility that things seen during their lives contribute to their sightings.

NDEs are lucid dreams. There appears to be some overlap between lucid dreams and NDEs. It would be helpful to know if lucid dreamers have the breadth of experiences of NDErs outlined above. NDErs overwhelmingly report that their experiences are real (not dreams) while lucid dreamers seem to know they are in a lucid dream state. This indicates a subjective difference between lucid dreams and an NDE.

THere doesn't seem to be any credible scientific evidence that provides strong refutation of the hypothesis. There is research that explains how the brain works but that isn't the same thing as providing a coherent theory that explains the breadth of things being experienced by NDErs under the reported circumstances. Participants in this thread offer their own hypotheses but, thus far, these can't be considered more than speculation.

[ExMinister]

This might be of interest to anyone who is at all interested in the skeptical side of the NDE issue: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

It is a lengthy article that discusses many aspects of NDEs that are less well known, including hallucinatory and cross-cultural aspects, and it also discusses some of the more famous cases, such as the one you mention above (the woman undergoing neurosurgery for an aneurysm).

Thanks for the commentary on lucid dreaming. I'm curious as to what you think the difference would be between a lucid dream and an OBE? Why do you think you aren't experiencing a separation of your consciousness from your body? Ex, your comments parallel those of OBErs in many ways. I wonder why some people call an experience such as yours a lucid dream while others use OBE as a descriptor? Do you think there is a substantative difference between the two? What makes it a dream to you?

NDEs are lucid dreams. There appears to be some overlap between lucid dreams and NDEs. It would be helpful to know if lucid dreamers have the breadth of experiences of NDErs outlined above. NDErs overwhelmingly report that their experiences are real (not dreams) while lucid dreamers seem to know they are in a lucid dream state. This indicates a subjective difference between lucid dreams and an NDE.



I have to disagree that lucid dreamers know they are in a dream state. Whether or not you view lucid dream experiences as dreams or actual out-of-body events is a matter of personal belief and probably the varying nature of lucid dreaming.

As I said above, these experiences vary quite a bit. If all you ever did was wake up in the middle of an ongoing dream scene, suddenly aware you were dreaming, then yes I could see how you might assume it was nothing more than a vivid and unusual dream experience. I had plenty of those and maybe if that was the extent of it, I would have viewed mine as dreams, too.

If you have the types of lucid dreams with sensations of leaving your body, traveling through a tunnel or even just floating up near the ceiling, then it is not at ALL clear that it is a lucid dream. It definitely had me fooled for a long time!

What happened, oddly enough, is that these occured with such frequency that I eventually just had too many of them to remain a believer!

By that I mean that after awhile I couldn't ignore the fact that there WERE discrepancies between what I saw while "out" and what I should have seen - the snow on the ground that I mentioned earlier being just one example.

I have a friend who has written a book on his NDE, a very sincere man who believes whole-heartedly that his NDE was a genuine spiritual event. He says it felt MORE real than normal waking consciousness, which is one reason he believed it wasn't "just a dream."

But then I came across a few lucid dreamers who also claimed that their lucid dreams seemed "more real" than waking consciousness.

That was not the case for me. My lucid dreaming consciousness has always seemed exactly the same as my waking consciousness.

If I were to have a near-death experience, would it be similar to my lucid dreams but with near-death imagery? I wonder.

[marplots]

This reminds me of discussions about UFOs in the following way, that "sky phenonmenon" are unique in the sense of circumstance, but broadly categorized into types and a meta-type that demands an explanation for this higher category as a whole construct. It assumes facts not in evidence -- that all phenomena are related because of a common theme. But the common theme is just what we want to prove, so it's circular.

When trying to debunk UFOs, it does no seeming harm to the general belief to analyze and explain any specific as mundane. The general is still supported by other, as yet unexplained things. There seems to be a slippery way of saying, "Well, in that instance, I think you might be right, it might have been Venus. But certainly it wasn't Venus in this other case."

I hope you see the problem here. At best, you can claim that not all cases are explained to your (or my) satisfaction. It is not kosher to then use these in an additive manner. This is not evidence accumulation, because to say that these are related in one way would be just as valid if I arranged them in another way.

To make it clear, Evolution would have to be altered significantly if several (fewer than the accumulated lore on OBE) examples existed of fossils that ruined the "hierarchy" of life. It would be "wrong" in that sense. But if I discover that one, or a few, examples of the metaphysical are fraud or mistakes, the overall idea isn't bothered in the least.

Why am I not justified in claiming that I can induce an out-of-body experience by giving drugs and then assume that all other such experiences are the result of whatever changes drugs cause? If you wish to bring in other, "impossible" add-ons, so what? I might as well assume that drug-style effects also bestow psychic or pan-observational abilities.

If I agree there is plenty of evidence that something extraordinary is going on, aren't I then left struggling to find a theory that is both robust and explanatory for these happenings? It seems to me that when many, many theories fit a set of reports, I have no basis to accept one over another -- even Occam doesn't help much.

We absolutely need some way to decide between competing theories here. Until then, not much of merit can be said and no conclusions should be drawn. The entertainment value may remain and I can see how it might be a pleasant diversion, but other than that it seems sterile and dead.

[jfish]

Marplots, you are right that we shouldn't try to subsume every extraordinary experience under one banner. At least you don't dismiss the experiences and that there may be competing theories as to causes. From that point of view one can decide whether or not to investigate further. We can live our lives in a traditional way or pursue the threads of evidence to see where they will lead. Opportunities exist to facilitate this exploration. I don't know where it will lead for me but I'd like to investigate the possibilities.

Exminister, your experiences are very interesting. Much of what you relay parallels Robert Monroe's early experiences. Some people have spontaneous out of body experiences, some have to work at it before achieving the goal, and others don't ever have any success. It would be an interesting experiment for you to attend a Gateway program at TMI and share your experiences. I wonder if during your lucid dreams you felt you could carry on a conversation with someone who is awake? People in altered states of consciousness at TMI seem to be able to experience non-physical interactions while at the same time communicating with an individual in a control booth. Physical status monitors attached to the person in the altered state measure biological changes that have some correlation to the commentary of the subject.

[Arouet]

jfish: are you satisfied with the controls in previous studies? Are you satisfied that a flat EEG means that no-activity is going on in the brain? Are you satisfied that it is known exactly when these folks are having their experiences?

While it is true that science has not quite explained NDEs to date, hypotheses abound and research is being done. The AWARE studies appears to be the most controlled study (by a long shot) of NDEs to-date and the results are not in yet. Research in the brain continues. We are aware that EEGs do not pick up on all brain activity. These are complex issues indeed - I wouldn't rush to judgment here.

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps it would be helpful to recap evidence that human conciousness is not as restricted as most people perceive it to be.

Studies show that there are a significant number of people who report unique experiences when in a near death state.
If by "unique" you mean "dreamlike", then yes.

Common components of these experiences as first detailed by Dr. Raymond Moody include ineffability (words don't exist to fully communicate the nature of the experience)Ineloquence.

the sensation of being pulled through a dark space/tunnel, observing one's body from a place separate from the body, meeting other spiritual beings (often deceased loved ones), communicating telepathically with these beings, encountering a bright light and meeting beings of light, experiencing a life review (sometimes experiencing it from the perspective of others the NDEr had interacted with), seeing extraordinary sights, experiencing a love that is beyond anything imaginable in this world, and resistance to returning to the physical body. Not all these are present in an NDE but they are observable commonalities.Stop right there.

Some people have NDEs when they are Near Death - others don't.

Some report being pulled through a tunnel - others don't.

Some report an out of body experience - others don't.

And so on.

These are not "observable commonalities". All horses have four hooves: That is an observable commonality.

This is just cherry picking.

Bind people have NDEs and report seeing their surroundings for the first time in their lives. What they see is subject to verification of which there is some documentation.Evidence?

The ability to see and hear what is going on around an NDEr is not dependent on having measurable brain activity.Evidence?

While hooked up to brain monitoring equipment showing no brain responsiveness to external stimulit (flat brain waves), an NDEr heard the operating room conversation while high decible clicks were taking place in her ear canals.Evidence?

She also saw the tool used to open her skull for surgery while under anethesia.Evidence?

Her surgeon had no logical explanation for how she could have experienced this. An anesthesiologist reports that he can think of no logical way she could have seen the tool while under anesthesia with flat brain waves, no blood in her system and her heart not functioning.Whether the surgeon or anaesthesiologist could explain it is irrelevant, particularly when no evidence has been supplied that the event actually happened.

Remote viewing is generally accepted as a reality.Evidence?

(If remote viewing is real, why is the Million Dollar Challenge still open?)

Government programs have been created to take advantage of this capability (google Stargate Remote Viewing).And failed completely.

Video documentation exists that corroborates testimony from remote viewers.Evidence?

Consciousness explorers at the Monroe Institute report simultaneous sharing of experiences and communications with other explorers in a non-physical environment while they are located in separate, isolated chambers. This has been separately reported by subsequent participants in Monroe Institute programs.Reported?

Where's the evidence?

What are the explanations and research that have been offered to refute the hyypothesis?Simple: It's all just a bunch of stories. There's nothing to refute.

Let's start with NDEs are nothing more than dreams. Blind people who have never had sight in any form (during dreams or otherwise) suddenly have sight and report verifiable activities and things around them.Evidence?

Of course many NDErs report seeing verifiable things around them - its just that the experiences of blind people rules out the possibility that things seen during their lives contribute to their sightings.Evidence?

NDEs are lucid dreams. There appears to be some overlap between lucid dreams and NDEs. It would be helpful to know if lucid dreamers have the breadth of experiences of NDErs outlined above. NDErs overwhelmingly report that their experiences are real (not dreams)Evidence?

while lucid dreamers seem to know they are in a lucid dream state.Yes, that's what the "lucid" part means.

This indicates a subjective difference between lucid dreams and an NDE.So NDEs are just normal dreams then.

THere doesn't seem to be any credible scientific evidence that provides strong refutation of the hypothesis.Sure there is: It's just dreams.

Covers every single fact in evidence.

There is research that explains how the brain works but that isn't the same thing as providing a coherent theory that explains the breadth of things being experienced by NDErs under the reported circumstances.In fact, our knowledge of brain functions explains NDEs very well - so far as they are established to actually happen.

It doesn't explain the features that are claimed to happen, but for which no evidence has been provided. When the evidence is presented, we can examine it and see.

Participants in this thread offer their own hypotheses but, thus far, these can't be considered more than speculation.No, you have that precisely backwards.

You have accepted a collection of stories as fact. For no rational reason.

We are basing our position on solid scientific data and reliably tested theory.

You want to establish your position as more than day-dreaming? You need to present evidence.

[PixyMisa]

This might be of interest to anyone who is at all interested in the skeptical side of the NDE issue: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

It is a lengthy article that discusses many aspects of NDEs that are less well known, including hallucinatory and cross-cultural aspects, and it also discusses some of the more famous cases, such as the one you mention above (the woman undergoing neurosurgery for an aneurysm).
Thanks, that looks like an excellent review of the evidence for NDEs.

[Rugby]

Electromagnetism? Sorry, but that would be blindningly obvious.
Gravity? Impossible; the force is entirely too weak.
Weak force? Doesn't act over that sort of distance.
Strong force? Doesn't act over that sort of distance.

You have no proof of your premises. I would agree that consciousness is probably not an energy field of gravity or strong force. The other two- well I'm not sure I would rule them out, I'm really not familiar with brain waves but I assume they are electromagnetic in nature. Are you suggesting, PixyMisa, that consciousness can be measured with transducers? Do you believe human consciousness like software, wherein it needs some medium to operate?

[PixyMisa]

Electromagnetism? Sorry, but that would be blindningly obvious.
Gravity? Impossible; the force is entirely too weak.
Weak force? Doesn't act over that sort of distance.
Strong force? Doesn't act over that sort of distance.You have no proof of your premises.
We can detect the electromagnetic field generated by the brain quite easily. It is very weak, and it is impossible for it to generate out-of-body experiences.

A field strong enough to interact with the environment in the way you suggest would, as I noted, be blindingly obvious; if such a field existed it would wreak havoc on computers amd communications equipment; it would be the number one engineering problem for modern civilisation.

Is it?

No.

I would agree that consciousness is probably not an energy field of gravity or strong force. The other two- well I'm not sure I would rule them out, I'm really not familiar with brain waves but I assume they are electromagnetic in nature.Yes. The electrochemical signalling between neurons creates an electric field; the bulk electrical field of all this activity is what we detect with an EEG and term "brain waves".

Are you suggesting, PixyMisa, that consciousness can be measured with transducers?Certainly. We do that already.

Do you believe human consciousness like software, wherein it needs some medium to operate?Can you give me an example of anything that doesn't need a medium to operate? Something that actually exists?

[Rugby]

We can detect the electromagnetic field generated by the brain quite easily. It is very weak, and it is impossible for it to generate out-of-body experiences.

A field strong enough to interact with the environment in the way you suggest would, as I noted, be blindingly obvious; if such a field existed it would wreak havoc on computers amd communications equipment; it would be the number one engineering problem for modern civilisation.

Is it?

No.

Yes. The electrochemical signalling betweent neurons creates an electric field; the bulk electrical field of all this activity is what we detect with an EEG and term "brain waves".


Certainly. We do that already.


Can you give me an example of anything that doesn't need a medium to operate? Something that actually exists?

Your premise is that human consciousness then is an electrical field? Or is the consciousness just the "software" operating in the chemical computer we call the brain, and the chemical computer in turn is generating some electromagnetic waves that scientist have learned to measure with an EEG?

[Rugby]

Can you give me an example of anything that doesn't need a medium to operate? Something that actually exists?

Knowledge?:rolleyes:

[PixyMisa]

Your premise is that human consciousness then is an electrical field? Or is the consciousness just the "software" operating in the chemical computer we call the brain, and the chemical computer in turn is generating some electromagnetic waves that scientist have learned to measure with an EEG?
More the latter, but that's not quite right either.

The brain is an electrochemical computer; the neurons are elements in a vast computational array. Consciousness is what happens when complex information processing machinery is focused partly on its own activity - rather than just looking at the data and calculating a result, it looks at how it does that, while it is actually happening. (Which is why we find that conscious awareness lags measurably behind events.)

Neurons act kind of like transistors - though they are signficantly more complex than an individual transistor. They receive, amplify, and direct signals. The signals are carried by electrochemistry, and it is the combined electrochemical activity of all those billions of neurons that generates the electric field that we detect with an EEG.

That's why a standard EEG can only detect very general states of mental activity; it's measuring a field averaged out across all the neurons in your brain. Other techniques such as fMRI and PET can detect much more localised detail, but generally have slower response times.

[PixyMisa]

Knowledge?:rolleyes:
In what way does knowledge operate without a medium?

Is it written down in books?
Is it remembered by people?
Is it stored in computers?

I see a whole lot of mediums there.

[Rugby]

In what way does knowledge operate without a medium?

Is it written down in books?
Is it remembered by people?
Is it stored in computers?

I see a whole lot of mediums there.

Right, it seems that knowledge as we know it can not exist without some medium. It would then follow that for the OBE to be real, there would have to be some other medium that is currently not known to science.

[beren]

Right, it seems that knowledge as we know it can not exist without some medium. It would then follow that for the OBE to be real, there would have to be some other medium that is currently not known to science.
Such as?
I'd there any evidence for such a medium?

[PixyMisa]

Right, it seems that knowledge as we know it can not exist without some medium. It would then follow that for the OBE to be real, there would have to be some other medium that is currently not known to science.
That's the invisible bigfoot fallacy: You are inventing entire new realms to account for the fact that your premise is not supported by evidence.

Do you have any evidence that this other medium exists? If we had robust, repeatable experimental evidence that OBEs (a) existed and (b) could not be accounted for by known physical interactions, that would be one thing.

But proposing entirely new sets of physical laws on the basis of something which has never even been confirmed to happen is quite another. The four known forces are obvious and universal; they don't hide from experimenters.

If the strong force failed (somehow) all atomic nuclei would disintegrate.
If the electromagnetic force failed, people and plants and buildings would all disintegrate.
If the gravitational force failed, planets and stars and galaxies would disintegrate.
If the weak force failed, nuclear reactions would stop, the Earth's core freeze solid, and all the stars would go out.

That's how significant a real fundamental force is. And you want to add a new one with just the wave of your hand?

[Pixel42]

In fact, our knowledge of brain functions explains NDEs very well - so far as they are established to actually happen.
jfish is doing the equivalent of accepting stories of alien abduction at face value because they have some common features, ignoring the fact that those common features are fully explained by the symptoms of sleep paralysis.

[PixyMisa]

Not to mention popular culture. Funny how the aliens in abductions all look like movie aliens.

[ExMinister]

jfish is doing the equivalent of accepting stories of alien abduction at face value because they have some common features, ignoring the fact that those common features are fully explained by the symptoms of sleep paralysis.

Sleep paralysis, hypnagogic hallucination and lucid dreaming in some combination, yes.

Not to mention popular culture. Funny how the aliens in abductions all look like movie aliens.

Yes, and a few centuries ago it was mostly all demons and fairies.

The cultural influences, especially cross-cultural differences, of NDEs are down-played. Also down-played are contradictory accounts (not long ago I came across 2 of these, both by devout Christians. One man claimed to have been told by the angels that another world war would never again be permitted on this planet. The woman was claiming she'd been told by the angels that another world war was inevitable and shown graphic images as a warning).

The popular literature would have us believe that there is a common thread of truth to all of these experiences and that they don't vary except superficially. Simply not true.

[tsig]

Right, it seems that knowledge as we know it can not exist without some medium. It would then follow that for the OBE to be real, there would have to be some other medium that is currently not known to science.

Then what follows logically from that is that OBE's are not real. What does not follow its that we should invent a whole medium unknown to science.

First prove the reality of the phenomenon then seek an explanation for it.

All you have now is conflicting anecdotes.

[Rugby]

I made no claim that there is some other medium to "contain" knowledge, although it is an interesting thing to ponder a bit- knowledge without a medium- is it still knowledge or is it nothingness?

Consider this possibility: what if there is actually some electromagnetic field present that departs the body. I suggest that it may not be known simply because the equipment in these labs does not have the sensitivity to detect the field. For example with regard to radiometery, some measurements can be made with a $5,000 spectroradiometer while some require the sensitivity of a $100,000+ device.

Aside from that, even if they are brain chemistry events, I still find that the idea of inducing this state and remembering the events that transpire intriguing.

[PixyMisa]

I made no claim that there is some other medium to "contain" knowledge, although it is an interesting thing to ponder a bit- knowledge without a medium- is it still knowledge or is it nothingness?
The question is meaningless.

Consider this possibility: what if there is actually some electromagnetic field present that departs the body.
We'd know.

I mean, there are electromagnetic fields radiated by the body. We know about them. We measure them with EEG (brain), ECG (heart), and EMG (muscles). These fields are far, far too weak to interact with the environment in any significant way.

And yet, we know they are there.

I suggest that it may not be known simply because the equipment in these labs does not have the sensitivity to detect the field. For example with regard to radiometery, some measurements can be made with a $5,000 spectroradiometer while some require the sensitivity of a $100,000+ device.
No, you're not paying for sensitivity there, you're paying for discrimination - the ability to distinguish between frequencies very precisely and accurately. If all you need to know is whether a field is being generated and how strong it is, that's easy.

We know that:

There is no mechanism in the body for producing such a field.
There is no mechanism in the body for receiving such a field.
There is no such field.

Aside from that, even if they are brain chemistry events, I still find that the idea of inducing this state and remembering the events that transpire intriguing.
They're dreams, verging into hallucinations in some cases.

Now, yes, these are very interesting subjects in psychology and well worth your time, but they are most certainly not supernatural.

[ExMinister]

Also, the psychology might be interesting but as soon as these events are interpreted as supernatural there is risk we will give these brain-generated experiences more value than they warrant.

I've read of an Asian male who joined a Buddhist convent as a result of his NDE. While this might be a positive thing overall for him, it is still something he likely wouldn't have done had he not taken the NDE as literally real.

I have known lucid dreamers who take their dream advice that seriously. I did that, too, at times. If you believe you are having an OOBE, in communication with a spirit realm who has more information than you do, you are going to take it very seriously.

Similar to the amount of weight a believer gives the advice of a psychic, thought to have access to information unavailable to ordinary humans.

[steenkh]

I've read of an Asian male who joined a Buddhist convent as a result of his NDE.
I take it he did not see Jesus in his NDE, then?

[dlorde]

Studies show that there are a significant number of people who report unique experiences when in a near death state. Common components of these experiences as first detailed by Dr. Raymond Moody include ineffability (words don't exist to fully communicate the nature of the experience), the sensation of being pulled through a dark space/tunnel, observing one's body from a place separate from the body, meeting other spiritual beings (often deceased loved ones), communicating telepathically with these beings, encountering a bright light and meeting beings of light, experiencing a life review (sometimes experiencing it from the perspective of others the NDEr had interacted with), seeing extraordinary sights, experiencing a love that is beyond anything imaginable in this world, and resistance to returning to the physical body. Not all these are present in an NDE but they are observable commonalities.
Either they were unique experiences or they had sufficient commonalities to be grouped together - I don't think you can reasonably have both.

Nevertheless, practically all the NDE experiences you describe have been reported by fighter pilots suffering oxygen starvation under extreme G stress (G-LOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC)). Dr James Winnery wrote a technical report (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html) about them for the NIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_Science).

...An anesthesiologist reports that he can think of no logical way she could have seen the tool while under anesthesia with flat brain waves, no blood in her system and her heart not functioning.

No blood in her system? I think not, and I seriously doubt an anaesthetist would say that.

Remote viewing is generally accepted as a reality.
No it isn't, not by a long chalk.

Government programs have been created to take advantage of this capability (google Stargate Remote Viewing).
The US military studied it for a while, but even they found it to be completely useless, so they lost the funding and were forced to drop it. If there had been the slightest indication it could be useful, they'd still be playing with it.

There doesn't seem to be any credible scientific evidence that provides strong refutation of the hypothesis.

There's no credible evidence in favour of it, and plenty that cerebral hypoxia produces similar experiences.

More interesting is the endangered Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/sightings.html), discussed here (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2799).

[ExMinister]

No blood in her system? I think not, and I seriously doubt an anaesthetist would say that.

True, not her system - no blood in her brain. Pam Reynolds:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#pam

[Rugby]

[QUOTE]I mean, there are electromagnetic fields radiated by the body. We know about them. We measure them with EEG (brain), ECG (heart), and EMG (muscles). These fields are far, far too weak to interact with the environment in any significant way.[HILITE][HILITE]

And yet, we know they are there.


No, you're not paying for sensitivity there, you're paying for discrimination - the ability to distinguish between frequencies very precisely and accurately. If all you need to know is whether a field is being generated and how strong it is, that's easy.

No, you are paying to measure a signal 10E-10 weaker than the noise floor of the less expensive instrument.

We know that:

There is no mechanism in the body for producing such a field.
There is no mechanism in the body for receiving such a field.
There is no such field.

?? see your words highlighted above

[jfish]

dlorde - I work with many anesthetists and anesthesiologists. I related the account of the aneurism case based on published data from the case medical records. The comment I relayed was from a verbal conversation I had about a month ago with an anesthesiologist.

[Resume]

dlorde - I work with many anesthetists and anesthesiologists. I related the account of the aneurism case based on published data from the case medical records. The comment I relayed was from a verbal conversation I had about a month ago with an anesthesiologist.

The Anecdotal Anesthetist would be a good title for something.

[dlorde]

dlorde - I work with many anesthetists and anesthesiologists. I related the account of the aneurism case based on published data from the case medical records. The comment I relayed was from a verbal conversation I had about a month ago with an anesthesiologist.
The anesthesiologist said she had "no blood in her system"? Are you sure you remember that correctly?

If so, next time you see him/her, please ask if that's really what was meant - I mean, did they just replace her entire blood volume with saline? if so, why?

[PixyMisa]

No, you are paying to measure a signal 10E-10 weaker than the noise floor of the less expensive instrument.
That's a discrimination issue too, rather than sensitivity per se. It's very difficult to pick up low-energy events in high energy environments.

But that's irrelevent to the case in hand. These OBE fields (if they existed, which they don't) would be claimed to have significant interactions with the environment and significant effects on the brain in a standard working environment. The brain is a dazzlingly insensitive instrument when it comes to electromagnetic fields compared to any sort of common electronic device, even consumer-grade gadgets. Fields that would fry the circuitry of a cellphone have no measurable effect on the brain.

So, as I said, if there were such a field, we would know instantly. Not just through sensitive scientific instruments, but through immediate environmental drama - all the computers in the vicinity would crash, cellphones lose signal or reboot themselves, light bulbs flicker and explode, circuit breakers trip, and so on.

?? see your words highlighted aboveYes, I see them. I wrote them. These fields do not in any way resemble the field you are suggesting for OBEs. They are produced by small electrical currents produced when neurons and muscle cells fire. To detect them we need to attach sensitive electrodes to the skin right over the relevant part of the body. Humans themselves are completely incapable of detecting these fields. And the fields have no effect on the environment.

[marplots]

How would a hard-to-detect OBE-EM field keep from getting absorbed by all the surrounding "clutter?" I don't see how it can simultaneously be low level and still remain coherent... unless -- the FCC has a restricted band for OBEs!

I just knew that eventually the government would be involved. Because there is nothing they enjoy spending my tax dollars on more than secret woo programs. Dirty scoundrels.

[steenkh]

How can an electrical field overhear conversations of nurses, or rise above the roof to take look at the surroundings?

[PixyMisa]

We use electromagnetic fields to do things like that - laser microphones and terahertz or X-ray backscatter scanners, for example. With appropriate ingenuity, the electromagnetic force is exceptionally versatile.

However, you need significant amounts of energy to do that sort of thing, and very specific emitters and receivers.

The energy involved would make the fields obvious; they simply don't happen. The emitters and receivers would be anatomically obvious; they simply don't exist.

Since the mechanism is impossible and the event doesn't happen, the only rational thing to do is reject the hypothesis as a waste of time.

[dlorde]

The anesthesiologist said she had "no blood in her system"? Are you sure you remember that correctly?

If so, next time you see him/her, please ask if that's really what was meant - I mean, did they just replace her entire blood volume with saline? if so, why?
@jfish - please don't bother to answer that, I realise I was being pointlessly pedantic - due to being, as the politicians have it, 'tired and emotional' :rolleyes:

[dlorde]

How would a hard-to-detect OBE-EM field keep from getting absorbed by all the surrounding "clutter?" I don't see how it can simultaneously be low level and still remain coherent... unless -- the FCC has a restricted band for OBEs!

I assume the implication is that the field or force is not EM, but something unknown to science, which is why we can't measure it. This amazing unknown-to-science force can somehow support and maintain consciousness independently of the brain, allows it to move around - even pass through solids, to perceive visible light as if through physical eyes, yet does not absorb light (or it would be seen hovering over the operating table). It physically (yet undetectably) interacts with the brain, while (crucially) having no other detectable physical effects whatsoever (or we would have noticed them). And it does all this without measurably using any energy from the environment or the body. Surely supporting consciousness can't be its only role, so who knows what other undetectable properties it has...

It's totally spiffing stuff, and you'd think government and military scientists would be working feverishly to discover more about it, but no - the blinkered fools spend their money on conventional science.

[Resume]

I assume the implication is that the field or force is not EM, but something unknown to science, which is why we can't measure it. This amazing unknown-to-science force can somehow support and maintain consciousness independently of the brain, allows it to move around - even pass through solids, to perceive visible light as if through physical eyes, yet does not absorb light (or it would be seen hovering over the operating table). It physically (yet undetectably) interacts with the brain, while (crucially) having no other detectable physical effects whatsoever (or we would have noticed them). And it does all this without measurably using any energy from the environment or the body. Surely supporting consciousness can't be its only role, so who knows what other undetectable properties it has...

It's totally spiffing stuff, and you'd think government and military scientists would be working feverishly to discover more about it, but no - the blinkered fools spend their money on conventional science.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't that Stargate nonsense cost the taxpayers something like 10 mildo?

[marplots]

I assume the implication is that the field or force is not EM, but something unknown to science, which is why we can't measure it. This amazing unknown-to-science force can somehow support and maintain consciousness independently of the brain, allows it to move around - even pass through solids, to perceive visible light as if through physical eyes, yet does not absorb light (or it would be seen hovering over the operating table). It physically (yet undetectably) interacts with the brain, while (crucially) having no other detectable physical effects whatsoever (or we would have noticed them). And it does all this without measurably using any energy from the environment or the body. Surely supporting consciousness can't be its only role, so who knows what other undetectable properties it has...

It's totally spiffing stuff, and you'd think government and military scientists would be working feverishly to discover more about it, but no - the blinkered fools spend their money on conventional science.

I'm in. If it's OK with you, I'll just steal liberally from your post when I am writing the ad copy. Would it violate any consumer protections if I just went ahead and called it, "low-cal" or should I stick to the weaker, "sugar-free"?

[tsig]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't that Stargate nonsense cost the taxpayers something like 10 mildo?

What's a mildo?:D

[marplots]

What's a mildo?:D

Grinds wheat into flour.

[dlorde]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't that Stargate nonsense cost the taxpayers something like 10 mildo?
They focused on the finger pointing at the moon and missed all the heavenly glory :p

[dlorde]

I'm in. If it's OK with you, I'll just steal liberally from your post when I am writing the ad copy. Would it violate any consumer protections if I just went ahead and called it, "low-cal" or should I stick to the weaker, "sugar-free"?

You're welcome. Just let me know when you have a usable saleable product.

[Rugby]

Keep in mind that if the program was working, they would announce that it was not working, and shut it down and take it in a black hole.

Or based on standard governmental procedure, if it wasn't working they would still be blindly pouring money into it. You know the drill: if it doesn't work, it needs more funding.

Perhaps Stargate found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[tsig]

Keep in mind that if the program was working, they would announce that it was not working, and shut it down and take it in a black hole.

Or based on standard governmental procedure, if it wasn't working they would still be blindly pouring money into it. You know the drill: if it doesn't work, it needs more funding.

Perhaps Stargate found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The government solution to a black hole is to keep throwing money in it till you fill it up.

[Rugby]

It seems that we all may agree that the crux of our discussion deals with the idea or concept of consciousness existing outside of the body. In fact this may be key to many things discussed in this site. I am not convinced that we are merely chemical processes.

"[T]he apparent contrast between the continuous onward flow of associative thinking and the preservation of the unity of the personality exhibits a suggested analogy with the relation between the wave description of the motions of material particles, governed by the superposition principle, and their indestructible individuality."

-Niels Bohr

This is currently the direction I am investigating. Is anyone here familiar with quantum mechanics?

[jfish]

I don't have a strong background in quantum mechanics (no formal schooling beyond some entry level physics classes in college). I've read a bit about it as a possible foundation for understanding some of the experiences people report. The main point I get from it is Newtonian physics is no longer the only basis for understanding reality. I suspect that quantum physics won't be the only alternative we'll uncover either. If we could look forward 100 years, I'd bet we would be just as astounded as someone 100 years ago would be over the state of science today.

[PixyMisa]

It seems that we all may agree that the crux of our discussion deals with the idea or concept of consciousness existing outside of the body.
Yes, that's the crux. It doesn't.

This is currently the direction I am investigating. Is anyone here familiar with quantum mechanics?
There are several working physicists on the forums, though they're more likely to be found in the Science section.

But before you begin, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, and vice versa.

[PixyMisa]

I don't have a strong background in quantum mechanics (no formal schooling beyond some entry level physics classes in college). I've read a bit about it as a possible foundation for understanding some of the experiences people report.
Yes, there's a lot of that. It's all garbage.

The main point I get from it is Newtonian physics is no longer the only basis for understanding reality. I suspect that quantum physics won't be the only alternative we'll uncover either. If we could look forward 100 years, I'd bet we would be just as astounded as someone 100 years ago would be over the state of science today.
Unlikely. A hundred years ago - well, say, 120 - we didn't know how the Sun worked. And we knew that we didn't know. We didn't know how the Earth's core could still be hot, or why the orbit of Mercury was the way it is. And we knew we didn't know. And we knew that the answers would contain surprises.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics didn't come out of nowhere; they were the answers to specific scientific questions. There are far fewer questions like that today - still some, but not so close to home and not with such great significance.

[Rugby]

But before you begin, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, and vice versa.

Google the quantum enigma or Schroedinger's Cat. When you can explain that to me then perhaps I will agree with your reductionist approach. (You would also merit consideration for a Nobel prize.)

[jfish]

I'd be interested in any comments about how we know that there are far fewer questions of great significance today. Doesn't that require knowing what we don't know? Is it possible we learn the most when we have a healthy scepticism about how much we think we know?

[PixyMisa]

Google the quantum enigma or Schroedinger's Cat.
There is no quantum enigma.

Schrodinger's Cat is an examination of interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) of Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't change the actual physics, and the actual physics tells us that quantum effects are irrelevant to consciousness, and consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects.

And we know, beyond any sane question, that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and occurs within the brain. Simple as that.

When you can explain that to me then perhaps I will agree with your reductionist approach. (You would also merit consideration for a Nobel prize.)
Explain what?

[PixyMisa]

I'd be interested in any comments about how we know that there are far fewer questions of great significance today. Doesn't that require knowing what we don't know?
Yes. Which is exactly what I pointed out.

In the late 19th century there were major problems for physics close to home. How did the Sun keep shining? Why was the interior of the Earth still hot? Why did Mercury orbit the Sun in that particular path?

These questions gave us Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

There are still plenty of things we don't know, but they're simply not the same sort of gaping holes to be filled by revolutionary theories.

Is it possible we learn the most when we have a healthy scepticism about how much we think we know?
Yes. And we do.

But you have to have an actual basis for skepticism. If you just make stuff up because it feels good, you not only don't learn anything at all, you actually unlearn stuff you already knew.

[PixyMisa]

Rugby, if you're referring to the book Quantum Enigma, read this: http://www.amazon.com/review/R6TRDL5TUH2LP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R6TRDL5TUH2LP

It concisely summarises why, even if the book gets the details of quantum mechanics right (and it apparently does), it's still garbage.

[Rugby]

There is no quantum enigma.

Schrodinger's Cat is an examination of interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) of Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't change the actual physics, and the actual physics tells us that quantum effects are irrelevant to consciousness, and consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects.

And we know, beyond any sane question, that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and occurs within the brain. Simple as that.


Explain what?

Are you kidding? There are books written about the enigma and college courses taught about it. Einstein said "I have though a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."

Smarter people than you or me have stated that there is a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. I merely stated that it warrants some further investigation on my part. You keep demanding that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. I say that just because it has not been measured does not mean that it does not happen.

Explain is light a wave or a particle? That would be a start.

[Rugby]

Rugby, if you're referring to the book Quantum Enigma, read this: http://www.amazon.com/review/R6TRDL5TUH2LP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R6TRDL5TUH2LP

It concisely summarises why, even if the book gets the details of quantum mechanics right (and it apparently does), it's still garbage.

it's still garbage? You have a bad attitude.

[tsig]

it's still garbage? You have a bad attitude.

He's actually one of the nicer posters here.

What is the connection between consciousness and quantum theory? If consciousness can exist outside the brain then why do we need a brain?

[Rugby]

PixyMisa I read the review of the book. The writer of the review seems to have a problem with free will. Do you also question free will? If so, give me your definition of free will. I think I believe in free will but if I am to spar with you on that too, then I want to know a bit more of your position please.

The authors are physicists and they do avoid making theories about the psychological side of the issue. The book is focused mainly on the physics and the history of the discovery. It does a good job of helping a weak minded sap like myself understand the basis of the issue. I must say that it is a bit unnerving.

[Joey McGee]

Are you kidding? There are books written about the enigma and college courses taught about it. Einstein said "I have though a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."

Smarter people than you or me have stated that there is a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. I merely stated that it warrants some further investigation on my part. You keep demanding that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. I say that just because it has not been measured does not mean that it does not happen.

Explain is light a wave or a particle? That would be a start.

In 80 years physics still has not solved that problem to everyone's liking. There are several people, such as Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, who believe that m-theory is correct, but we will need extremely expensive experiments to complete it and prove it and that could take generations.

In the meantime a lot of people, such as Deepak Chopra, have capitalized on the strangeness and mysteriousness of new physics. It's a gigantic woo-magnet. It's incredibly hard to test or prove anything in this area and everyone is battle-weary from the speculation and pontification from woomeisters and the debunking that is necessary afterwards.

If anyone comes up with any solid evidence one way or the other it won't be ignored. It's such a difficult area to do research in I'm sure that any revelations will come from new experiments and researchers.

[Rugby]

What is the connection between consciousness and quantum theory? If consciousness can exist outside the brain then why do we need a brain?

The connection does not imply that consciousness can exist outside of the brain, but I guess one could extrapolate to that position. It was/ is not an easy thing to comprehend. It has to do with atoms in certain tests showing and influence of the "observer". The test has been repeated many times. There are many interpretations of what it means, some of which are pretty "spooky" to use Einstein's description. I feel it is worth further study on my part.

[Rugby]

In 80 years physics still has not solved that problem to everyone's liking. There are several people, such as Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, who believe that m-theory is correct, but we will need extremely expensive experiments to complete it and prove it and that could take generations.

In the meantime a lot of people, such as Deepak Chopra, have capitalized on the strangeness and mysteriousness of new physics. It's a gigantic woo-magnet. It's incredibly hard to test or prove anything in this area and everyone is battle-weary from the speculation and pontification from woomeisters and the debunking that is necessary afterwards.

If anyone comes up with any solid evidence one way or the other it won't be ignored. It's such a difficult area to do research in I'm sure that any revelations will come from new experiments and researchers.

What better place than here to serve as a woo filter? I still have an open mind.

[Rugby]

He's actually one of the nicer posters here.



I enjoy PixyMisa. No bad intended on my part.

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa I read the review of the book. The writer of the review seems to have a problem with free will.
So does science.

Do you also question free will? If so, give me your definition of free will. I think I believe in free will but if I am to spar with you on that too, then I want to know a bit more of your position please.I don't question so much as answer it, as so many have done before:

Libertarian free will is a logical contradiction.

Compatibilist free will is an incontrovertible reality.

The authors are physicists and they do avoid making theories about the psychological side of the issue.No they don't. They do make theories; they just refuse to examine or even acknowledge them. Libertarian free will is precisely such a theory.

The book is focused mainly on the physics and the history of the discovery. It does a good job of helping a weak minded sap like myself understand the basis of the issue. I must say that it is a bit unnerving.But it gives you entirely the wrong impression, and that's why the book is garbage. Free will and consciousness have absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Garbage In - libertarian free will - Garbage Out - the utterly confused notion of created reality.

[PixyMisa]

Are you kidding? There are books written about the enigma and college courses taught about it. Einstein said "I have though a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."
Sure. So?

Smarter people than you or me have stated that there is a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics.
Perhaps so. They're dead wrong. Roger Penrose is undoubtedly smarter than me by some measures. He is also dead wrong, hopelessly wrong, in his theories of quantum consciousness.

I merely stated that it warrants some further investigation on my part.
It doesn't.

You keep demanding that consciousness does not extend beyond the body.
I demand nothing. I merely point it out as established scientific fact.

I say that just because it has not been measured does not mean that it does not happen.
Whoa there.

We have three facts to hand:

First, it's impossible.
Second, it's undetectable.
Third, it explains nothing.

Put those together, and yes, it means that it does not happen.

Same thing applies to homeopathy, or astrology, or any of the hundreds of other fashionable myths.

Explain is light a wave or a particle? That would be a start.
No.

[PixyMisa]

The connection does not imply that consciousness can exist outside of the brain, but I guess one could extrapolate to that position.
That's exactly the problem. There is no such connection, and the fact that the book asserts there is - on the basis of the authors' unexamined and logically incoherent assumptions - leads readers like you to extrapolate from that error to further errors.

That's why I said that the book is garbage.

It was/ is not an easy thing to comprehend. It has to do with atoms in certain tests showing and influence of the "observer".
That's the problem again. This is completely wrong - but in a subtle way - and leads you up the garden path into the realms of quantum quackery.

There is nothing spooky, mystical, or weird about quantum mechanics. It's just the way the Universe works. It has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-tester

It's impossible according to classical mechanics. It's also real, and works - it's not a thought experiment, it's actually been built. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.