Monroe Institute

[blue sock monkey]

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.

Dying to Live, by Susan J. Blackmore. Her book on consciousness and memes, The Meme Machine, is also useful.

 

[dlorde]

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.

Many specific brain areas have been identified that appear to deal with specific aspects consciousness. I'm curious to know how you square this predilection with all the evidence from brain injuries and surgery that when particular parts of the brain are damaged or stimulated, various aspects of consciousness are also damaged or stimulated. For example, damage in various areas can cause inability to recognise faces, or inability to recognise objects, or inability to name objects, or failure in categorising objects, or Capgras syndrome (seeing friends or loved ones as strange imposters), or inability to form new memories, or loss of prior memories, or confusion of different objects, or mystical/religious experiences (temporal lobe), or hallucinations, or inability to recognise parts of the body as self, or total loss of emotion, or inability to plan ahead, or blind-sight (where the subject is not aware that they can see, but clearly can), or believing they can see when truly blind, or pathological emotion, or change in personality, or - in the case of split-brain subjects - two separate consciousnesses in a single brain.

I've only scratched the surface of all the weird and interesting known ways consciousness can be damaged or changed, but, of course, it can also be altered in interesting ways by drugs.

To me, this kind of evidence very strongly suggests that consciousness is a function of the brain, and I'd need to see very convincing evidence, preferably including an hypothesised mechanism, before entertaining the idea that it isn't. So far, I've seen no convincing evidence or hypotheses at all.

How do you reconcile this kind of evidence with your predilection that consciousness may not be solely a function of the brain?

 

[jfish]

One possibility is that the brain is a tool for consciousness. Damage the tool and consciousness cannot express itself in the physical world. Separate consciousness from the tool and all kinds of interesting things get reported.

Here's one study that may be of interest. Mindsight: Near Death and Out of Body Experiences in the Blind. It is a small paperback book that can be read in a short period of time. (Remember, I've never claimed there is any one study that proves anything. From my vanatage point one has to read many studies going at the issue from a variety of perspectives to start believing there may be something to this.) This particular study is interesting because some of the congenitally blind subjects report seeing activities around them while in a near death state. I recall one subject reported seeing activities that were not located in the immediate vicinity of her body. If true, this supports the notion that the brain might be a useful but not necessary tool for consciousness.

 

[jfish]

Regarding Dying to Live - I haven't read the book but I came across a critique on the IANDs web site. The person writing the critique claims to have spoken to the author. Ms. Blackmore "confirmed ... that the work was primarily that of conjecture and speculation". In the critique it was noted that Ms. Blackmore's preface makes a statement that 'science tells us that death is the end'. I don't think science makes such a statement. That is an opinion that probably isn't proved by any science.

I haven't read the book so I can't comment first hand. Blue sock - please provide some specific information on the research that is mentioned in the book. I'd be interested in hearing about the methodology employed, the data that was obtained and the linkage between the data and the conclusions reached.

 

[dlorde]

One possibility is that the brain is a tool for consciousness. Damage the tool and consciousness cannot express itself in the physical world. Separate consciousness from the tool and all kinds of interesting things get reported.

If you can provide some coherent hypothesis for how all of the mental difficulties I mentioned could be simply aspects of damage to a tool, or alternatively, provide some coherent description of what this consciousness might consist of, I'd be interested. I assume it must be part of the physical world to use the brain as a tool - so how do you suppose it might do that? what do you suppose it's made of? how do you suppose it maintains itself apart from the brain? where does the energy come from to keep it going?

I recall one subject reported seeing activities that were not located in the immediate vicinity of her body. If true, this supports the notion that the brain might be a useful but not necessary tool for consciousness.

I've had dreams where I've dreamed I visited all kinds of places - it doesn't support the notion that my consciousness can really travel when I'm dreaming.

Give me a reasonable hypothesis of how consciousness can be separate from the brain and use the brain as a tool. Not anecdotes, just some plausible mechanism - anything at all.

 

[jfish]

I don't believe there is currently an explanation based on known physical properties for how consciousness might be capable of existing on its own (without a brain). My point is that there is a lot of general evidence that points to the possibility that consciousness can be separated from the body. These experiences fall into the realm of a broader reality that can't be measured very easily with traditional means.

Many years ago the notion of there being unseen animals that could negatively affect one's health was considered preposterous. Once technology advanced to the point we could see bacteria and viruses, sterile hospital environments became the norm. People could observe the affects of unsterile operations but had no logical explanation for why deaths occurred so frequently after operations were performed. Perhaps there is a similarity with NDEs. We can observe the effects after the fact but have not developed the means to measure or replicate them. (Although some people who have attended the Monroe Institute courses might say the out-of-body portion of NDEs can be replicated if one is willing to work at it and has an open mind.)

In the case of the blind person - I suppose one somewhat implausible explanation for seeing things in a near death state is the subjects dreamt the activities going on around them. However, it doesn't seem likely that someone would dream something that actually transpired in this physical reality. The author, Kenneth Ring, notes that his interviews happened quite some time after the experiences. It is possible the participants (the NDErs and those at the scene when the NDEs happened) conspired to construct these remarkable reports.

 

[marplots]

jfish, I think the problem is that there are conflicting theories without much in the way of good experiments to decide between them. I do not mind interesting theorizing, after all, I am a fan of strange physics. But without any clear methodology, it remains a kind of armchair philosophizing or a sort of chatting over beers.

To make an impact, there has to be theory and demonstration that any schlump can put their hands on. You need something like the levitating magnet for superconducting. Now that's a solid demo that grabs people by the throat. What I see in the "field" is more of a love for the mysterious and the outre -- as if simply pinning things down would damage the beauty of the ideas.

As long as the Monroe Institute remains elitist and arcane, they will never attain the credibility of, say, Harvard Medical school. I suppose this is fine if one wishes to be a guru on a mountain top, but keeping things esoteric only invites doubt.

 

[Pixel42]

There's an interesting profile of leading neurologist V.S. Ramachandran in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jan/30/observer-profile-vs-ramachandran

I was particularly struck by this:

What they [recent discoveries about neurons] appear to tell us is that humans are first and foremost mimics. We make ourselves up as we go along by improvising from what we see. This model also suggests the self is in dynamic interaction with otherness, both copying behaviour and projecting its emotions on to others, which is the basis for the vital human quality of empathy. (Ramachandran speculated in 2000 that autism was caused by deficient mirror neurons and medical research is now going in this direction.)

It's Ramachandran's contention that self-reflection was formed somewhere in this process of self-projection. The mirror-neuron system enables us to see another person's point of view, what's known as an allocentric view, as opposed to an egocentric one. Ramachandran suggests that "at some point in evolution, this system turned back and allowed you to create an allocentric view of yourself. This is, I claim, the dawn of self-awareness".

 

[dlorde]

I don't believe there is currently an explanation based on known physical properties for how consciousness might be capable of existing on its own (without a brain).

Indeed. There doesn't even appear to be any plausible speculation. One wonders why it's even suggested...

My point is that there is a lot of general evidence that points to the possibility that consciousness can be separated from the body.

A lot of uncorroborated anecdotes, but nothing more - unless you know of some other evidence?

These experiences fall into the realm of a broader reality that can't be measured very easily with traditional means.

What do you mean by 'broader reality'? Reality is the sum of real things, anything else is not real, by definition. If this unattached consciousness can affect the physical brain, then it must be physical and real. If it's physical and real and can affect the brain's operation - the functional neurophysiology of which we understand well - then we should easily be able to detect/measure it or it's effects, because complex and subtle though the brain is, neuronal operation is well understood and well within the scope of our instruments. Odd then, that no external influence of this kind has been detected with the 'traditional means' that can so easily detect and measure neuronal function. I'm guessing, but you don't have the foggiest idea of what other means might detect this control mechanism, right?

In the case of the blind person - I suppose one somewhat implausible explanation for seeing things in a near death state is the subjects dreamt the activities going on around them. However, it doesn't seem likely that someone would dream something that actually transpired in this physical reality.

Well quite - if their brains were active enough to dream, they'd be active enough to perceive their environment, though not necessarily consciously aware of that. So, as an explanation, dreaming would be redundant as well as, as you say, somewhat implausible. My point was that anecdotal evidence without corroboration is no more reliable a guide to reality than my dream report.

It is possible the participants (the NDErs and those at the scene when the NDEs happened) conspired to construct these remarkable reports.

A conspiracy theory? That's almost facetiously implausible - surely it's more likely that the author faked the reports. But there's a far more plausible explanation - people have broadly similar internal (imaginary) experiences, because their brains and they way they are wired are broadly the same. Stimulate the brain in the right place (e.g. temporal lobe) and you'll get a similar experience to reported NDEs and OBEs. People are subject to broadly similar illusions, delusions, hallucinations, perceptual errors, memory distortions & failings, etc., etc. And you want to believe, on anecdotes alone, that these particular reports are different - unlike all others, they're real; there's no known or even hypothetical mechanism for how this could be possible, and no evidence to support it, but you want it to be real.

It seems to me you might make more progress by examining why you want consciousness independent of the brain to be a reality...

 

[dlorde]

There's an interesting profile of leading neurologist V.S. Ramachandran in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jan/30/observer-profile-vs-ramachandran

I was particularly struck by this:

Quote:
What they [recent discoveries about neurons] appear to tell us is that humans are first and foremost mimics. We make ourselves up as we go along by improvising from what we see. This model also suggests the self is in dynamic interaction with otherness, both copying behaviour and projecting its emotions on to others, which is the basis for the vital human quality of empathy. (Ramachandran speculated in 2000 that autism was caused by deficient mirror neurons and medical research is now going in this direction.)

It's Ramachandran's contention that self-reflection was formed somewhere in this process of self-projection. The mirror-neuron system enables us to see another person's point of view, what's known as an allocentric view, as opposed to an egocentric one. Ramachandran suggests that "at some point in evolution, this system turned back and allowed you to create an allocentric view of yourself. This is, I claim, the dawn of self-awareness".

Yup, it all fits very well; and the modelling and projection of another's point of view seems likely to provide a selective advantage in the development of complex societies.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't believe there is currently an explanation based on known physical properties for how consciousness might be capable of existing on its own (without a brain). My point is that there is a lot of general evidence that points to the possibility that consciousness can be separated from the body.

And our point is no there isn't.

There are stories. These stories are not supported by evidence, and when evidence is available, the stories are often flatly contradicted.

These experiences fall into the realm of a broader reality that can't be measured very easily with traditional means.

Same problem. There are stories of experiences that could be interpreted as invoking a "broader reality".

There is no evidence at all.

Many years ago the notion of there being unseen animals that could negatively affect one's health was considered preposterous. Once technology advanced to the point we could see bacteria and viruses, sterile hospital environments became the norm.

Piffle.

People imagined spirits and demons, not microbiology.

Perhaps there is a similarity with NDEs. We can observe the effects after the fact but have not developed the means to measure or replicate them.

Double piffle.

The thing about diseases is that people actually catch them. It's an observable physical replicatable fact.

The thing about NDEs is that they are indistinguishable from dreams.

(Although some people who have attended the Monroe Institute courses might say the out-of-body portion of NDEs can be replicated if one is willing to work at it and has an open mind.)

Why would an open mind matter?

You have to be honest, sure, and rigorous in your research protocols. But if I mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, I get an exothermic reaction and water whether my mind is open or not.

In the case of the blind person - I suppose one somewhat implausible explanation for seeing things in a near death state is the subjects dreamt the activities going on around them. However, it doesn't seem likely that someone would dream something that actually transpired in this physical reality. The author, Kenneth Ring, notes that his interviews happened quite some time after the experiences. It is possible the participants (the NDErs and those at the scene when the NDEs happened) conspired to construct these remarkable reports.

Not deliberately, but memory is malleable, and what people remember of their experience will change after talking to others. Collecting interviews long after the event is a good way to guarantee that the reports won't be accurate.

 

[PixyMisa]

A conspiracy theory? That's almost facetiously implausible - surely it's more likely that the author faked the reports. But there's a far more plausible explanation - people have broadly similar internal (imaginary) experiences, because their brains and they way they are wired are broadly the same. Stimulate the brain in the right place (e.g. temporal lobe) and you'll get a similar experience to reported NDEs and OBEs. People are subject to broadly similar illusions, delusions, hallucinations, perceptual errors, memory distortions & failings, etc., etc. And you want to believe, on anecdotes alone, that these particular reports are different - unlike all others, they're real; there's no known or even hypothetical mechanism for how this could be possible, and no evidence to support it, but you want it to be real.

It needn't be a conspiracy, unless you take the view that it's our brains conspiring against us.

If what is remarkable about these reports is that the Nearly Deaders are able to report things they couldn't have known at the time because they were, well, Nearly Dead, then collecting interviews at a much later date after the ND has had time to talk to other people about the events of the day.... Well.

jfish, take a look at these lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

These are all ways in which our brains play tricks on us. This is why we're not impressed by anecdotes - even if the person is as honest as the day is long, our minds and memories are not reliable.

 

[jfish]

Good commentary. Before providing some specific cases from Mindsight, I'd like to offer some general thoughts. As I indicated before skeptics and explorers/hypothesizers need each other. If it weren't for the later, the pace of discovery would be much slower. If it weren't for the former keeping things grounded, there would be a lot of unfounded hype tossed out to all the people who are willing to blindly accept a lot of 'snake oil salesmen'.

I'll share at least one case study in Mindsight but before I do, let me share my thoughts on why we should respect the work of the authors. Some of this should be apparent to anyone connected with a university but perhaps it should be stated. Kenneth Ring taught psychology at the University of Conn. and is one of the more prolific NDE researchers. A professor at a large public university would put his position at risk if he attempted to falsely present his findings. That doesn't mean people haven't done that before but it is not the norm.

Most of what I present here is either a quote or a paraphrase from the book. The researchers contacted 11 American organizations for the blind and enlisted their help in locating potential participants for the NDE/OBE study. Information about the research goals was sent out in the respective publications of those organizations. Of the 46 people who responded there were 31 who qualified for inclusion and were interviewed - 20 females and 11 males ranging in age from 20 to 70. All were Caucasian and overwhelmingly Christian with respect to their original religious background. Of the NDEs 13 had their experience through an illness or surgical procedure, 6 were the result of an accident, 2 were mugged, 1 was nearly killed in a rape, 1 almost perished in combat and 1 survived a suicide attempt. 14 of the 31 subjects were blind from birth, 11 became blind after birth and 6 were severely visually impared. Of the 14 blind from birth, only 3 were full term deliveries. The remaining 11 were born prematurely from 1946 to 1958 and all were placed in incubators where they received excessive concentrations of oxygen resulting in retrolental fibropasia.

The blind persons in the sample recount experiences that clearly conform to the familiar prototype of the beatific NDE first popularized in Raymond Moody's book, Life After Life. Their narratives tend to be indistinguishable from those of sighted persons with respect to the elements that serve to define the classic NDE pattern.

One subject was Vicki Umipeg. Vicki was in the womb only 22 weeks at delivery weighing 3 pounds. She was placed in an incubator and received too high a concentration of oxygen suffering such optic nerve damage as to leave her completely blind. In her interview she stated that she never saw anything in her life - "no light, no shadows, no nothing, ever." At the age of 22 she was working as an occasional singer in a night club in Seattle. One night she was unable to get a ride home in a taxi and accepted transportation from a couple of patrons who were inebriated. A serious car accident occurred in which she was thrown from the vehicle and suffered extensive and life threatening injuries. She had no recollection of how she got to the hospital emergency room but once there she regained awareness and found herself up on the ceiling watching hospital personnel working on her. She could hear their conversations. She tried to communicate with them to say she was fine but drew no response. She was also aware of seeing her body below her which she recognized by certain establishing identity features. She then found herself going up through the ceilings of the hospital until she was above the roof of the building. There was much more to her NDE but it isn't necessary to go into that level of detail.

This account doesn't prove anything but it is interesting that a congenitally blind individual can report very specific details about what she "saw" while in a near death state.

Brad Barrows was another subject who had been blind from birth and who had an NDE at the age of 8. While at the Boston Center for Blind Children Brad had a particularly difficult night (ever and breathing problems). At one point Brad remembers his breathing virtually stopped. At that moment his NDE began. He recalled floating up close to the ceiling and seeing his apparently lifeless body on the bed. He also saw his blind roommate get up from his bed and leave the room to get help. Next he found he was able to penetrate the 2nd floor ceiling and soon found he was "going straight up toward the roof of the building, actually up and over it." He reported what he saw. When asked if he "knew or saw" these things, he said "I clearly visualized them. I could suddenly notice and see them ... I remember ..being able to see quite clearly."

That's enough for tonight. Perhaps later this week I'll post some other portions of the book that might add some additional dimensions to the ones I've mentioned above.

 

[steenkh]

This account doesn't prove anything but it is interesting that a congenitally blind individual can report very specific details about what she "saw" while in a near death state.

Why would blind people have no concept of what is outside their own bodies? Could a blind person not dream about outside their own bodies, or being above the roof of a house? Can blind people not dream about seeing?

How would we know that this was an experience different from what their imagination could produce? Are there any features that would be impossible for a blind person to imagine, or that a blind person could not possibly have heard of?

When asked if he "knew or saw" these things, he said "I clearly visualized them. I could suddenly notice and see them ... I remember ..being able to see quite clearly."

And that is evidence that he actually visualized it, or could it be that he fantasized about what he thought seeing would be like?

to me it would be more impressive if he had seen something that could only be a result of actually seeing, such as a dead pigeon on the roof that cannot be seen by people on the ground, or a special car in the parking lot that nobody had found reason to mention.

 

[jfish]

It had snowed the day before Brad Barrows NDE. After he went throught the roof, he reported he could see snow everywhere except for the streets that had been plowed. I think there were more details for other subjects that I'll have to cull out another night.

I sent an email to a blind friend asking if he would be willing to share some specifics regarding what he dreams. If he choses to share that information, I'll pass it along.

A thought occurred to me today. Using the word "dream" as a possible explanation for an NDE probably isn't appropriate. I assume my dreams are like most peoples' in that my dreams never involve looking at myself from a position outside my body. I don't get a chance to exercise choice within my dreams. I don't recall in fine detail all that transpired in a dream and I couldn't recount specific dreams after a period of weeks have gone by. I don't have another word to use but I submit calling these experiences dreams is probably not an appropriate choice of words. Calling them hallucinations probably is inaccurate also. LSD trips are surreal - users have a warped sense of reality. Things that are seen during NDEs that are of this physical reality are not warped. That's not to say that as NDEs progress the experiencers don't have other worldy experiences.

 

[Rugby]

So while no conclusive test report has been been presented in this forum to prove that one can extract one's being from their physical body, this phenomenon does have some very consistent characteristics that have been documented in thousands of cases. I am interested in one's ability to control and remember these events, be they true OBE occurrences or brain chemistry events (ah, a new term- BCEs). So jfish how is your personal progress with the Monroe technique?

I would also be interested to know if blind folks are blind in their dreams or if they can see in their dreams. Does anyone know the answer to this?

 

[steenkh]

It had snowed the day before Brad Barrows NDE. After he went throught the roof, he reported he could see snow everywhere except for the streets that had been plowed.

I hope you can understand why such information is not very impressive. I believe every blind person knows that after a snowfall there is snow everywhere except where it has been plowed. Now, if he had said, the parking lot has not yet been plowed, or there is snowplow working outside the building right now, and this could have been corroborated by witnesses, then you might be on to something.

 

[Pixel42]

I assume my dreams are like most peoples' in that my dreams never involve looking at myself from a position outside my body. I don't get a chance to exercise choice within my dreams. I don't recall in fine detail all that transpired in a dream and I couldn't recount specific dreams after a period of weeks have gone by.

Certainly not true of everybody. For example I've had a few lucid dreams where I realised I was dreaming and was able to "take control" of the dream, and there are people who claim to be able to do this whenever they like. My recall of those dreams is particularly vivid, and though most of my dreams fade away quickly there have been a few which stayed with me, especially if I made a special effort to recall them as soon as I woke up. I also think I remember a few dreams where I watched myself as though I was watching someone on TV, though I'm less sure of that.

 

[Arouet]

It had snowed the day before Brad Barrows NDE. After he went throught the roof, he reported he could see snow everywhere except for the streets that had been plowed. I think there were more details for other subjects that I'll have to cull out another night.

The problem with the reported cases of veridical OOBEs during NDEs is that I don't believe any of them were controlled.

The AWARE study is seeking to change that. I eagerly await the results.

 

[PixyMisa]

A thought occurred to me today. Using the word "dream" as a possible explanation for an NDE probably isn't appropriate.

Why?

I assume my dreams are like most peoples' in that my dreams never involve looking at myself from a position outside my body.

I certainly have dreams like that, and it's not at all uncommon.

I don't get a chance to exercise choice within my dreams.

I do. There's something known as lucid dreaming which has many similarities with NDEs and OBEs.

I don't recall in fine detail all that transpired in a dream and I couldn't recount specific dreams after a period of weeks have gone by.

It depends on how and when you wake up. If you get woken up abruptly during a vivid dream, you are more likely to remember it than if you wake at the end of a normal sleep cycle.

I don't have another word to use but I submit calling these experiences dreams is probably not an appropriate choice of words.

I don't think any of your reasons are valid.

Calling them hallucinations probably is inaccurate also.

Hallucinations generally refer to false or grossly inaccurate sensory data received when the subject is fully consicous, so yes, hallucination is probably not the best word.

LSD trips are surreal - users have a warped sense of reality. Things that are seen during NDEs that are of this physical reality are not warped.

Begging the question.