• 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

Rugby said:
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.
Click to expand...
Such as?
I'd there any evidence for such a medium?
 
Rugby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
PixyMisa said:
In fact, our knowledge of brain functions explains NDEs very well - so far as they are established to actually happen.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Pixel42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

PixyMisa said:
Not to mention popular culture. Funny how the aliens in abductions all look like movie aliens.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rugby said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Rugby said:
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?
Click to expand...
The question is meaningless.

Consider this possibility: what if there is actually some electromagnetic field present that departs the body.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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). Dr James Winnery wrote a technical report about them for the NIDS.

...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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, not by a long chalk.

Government programs have been created to take advantage of this capability (google Stargate Remote Viewing).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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

More interesting is the endangered Tree Octopus, discussed here.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
?? see your words highlighted above
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Anecdotal Anesthetist would be a good title for something.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Rugby said:
No, you are paying to measure a signal 10E-10 weaker than the noise floor of the less expensive instrument.
Click to expand...
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 above
Click to expand...
Yes, 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.
 
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.
 
How can an electrical field overhear conversations of nurses, or rise above the roof to take look at the surroundings?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom