• 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

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

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 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.
 
autumn1971 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Neither should your own experience be taken as the final word.
 
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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Whhere would the energy come from? What would be it's mechanism?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom