Monroe Institute

[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?

 

[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?

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.