• 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

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

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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Foolmewunz said:
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!
Click to expand...


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.
 
jfish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I want to see a mechanism.

Where does the 'energy' come from?

It's like Astrology, no viable mechanism.
 
blue sock monkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Foolmewunz said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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!
 
FuzzyQuark said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nihilanth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom