• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monroe Institute

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.
 
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?
 
Rugby said:
<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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Rugby said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Rugby said:
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.
Click to expand...

Could you please define the highlighted? Thanks.
 
Pixel42 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well-said! This is my position on skepticism as well.
 
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.
 
Resume said:
Could you please define the highlighted? Thanks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
jfish said:
.

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.
Click to expand...

You of course can provide a citation for the above, correct?
 
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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems then you are not looking for discovery but affirmation/conformation of your biases. I'm out.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jfish said:
Here's a thought. Purchase a couple of books, read them, then let's discuss the contents.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom