Monroe Institute

[jfish]

Here is some additional content from Mindsight regarding dreams of the blind. There has been a great deal of research devoted to the dreams of the blind. As a result of all these investigations, certain generalizations about the presence of visual imagery in dreams appear to stand up quite well . Among these empirical cornerstones (as summarized in Kirtley [1975] are the following: (1) There are no visual images in the dreams of the congenitally blind, (2) Individuals blinded before the age of 5 also tend not to have visual imagery, (3) Those who become sightless between the age of 5 to 7 may or may not retain visual imagery.

In the Mindsight interviews the researchers routinely asked respondents about the nature of their dreams. What they found accords with the generalizations just described. In addition respondents often said their NDEs stood out as radically different from dreams precisely because they contained visual imagery whereas their dreams had always lacked this element. Here's a segment of Vicki Umipeg's interview:
Interviewer: How would you compare your dreams to your NDE?
Vicki: No similarity, no similarity at all.
Interviewer: Do you have any kind of visual perception in your dreams?
Vicki: Nothing. No color, no sight of any sort, no shadows, no light, no nothing.

Other survey participants express similar views - absence of visual imagery in dreams. This suggests that the visual part of NDEs whether a person is blind or not should probably not be called a dream. It seems to me that it is something different.

 

[jfish]

Rugby - Some thing have transpired since my TMI experience that on the surface may not seem particularly noteworthy. When I related them to the TMI CEO recently, he expessed some excitement for my progression. If I relay them here, I think the more useful discussion of Mindsight will be displaced by dismissal of my experiences by the majority of the participants in this thread. My experiences would be better shared with an explorer community than with a skeptic community. If you are still interested, let me know and I'll send you a private message.

 

[PixyMisa]

My experiences would be better shared with an explorer community than with a skeptic community.

Well, no.

A skeptical community will ask questions, compare your experiences with relevant scientific knowledge, and of course, seek evidence.

If this "explorer community" doesn't do these things, then they're not doing anything useful at all.

 

[steenkh]

Interviewer: Do you have any kind of visual perception in your dreams?
Vicki: Nothing. No color, no sight of any sort, no shadows, no light, no nothing.

I wonder how she knows what colours, light, and shadows are - if she has always been blind. I could just as easily think that she imagines what they are, but that it would not be the same as what people with normal vision experiences.

I would also like to point out that souls or ghost similarly have no eyes - they certainly do not block light - and that they should therefore not experience the world with light and shadows as seeing people do.

In short, I do not trust these descriptions very much. If the blind people really had a soul that temporarily left their bodies, they should not describe their experiences exactly as if they had suddenly gained sight.

But I acknowledge that the dreams experienced as NDEs can be much different from dreams one normally remembers. It will be interesting to find out why. My first guess would be that a lack of oxygen to the brain gives a profoundly different experience than sleep.

 

[tsig]

Rugby - Some thing have transpired since my TMI experience that on the surface may not seem particularly noteworthy. When I related them to the TMI CEO recently, he expessed some excitement for my progression. If I relay them here, I think the more useful discussion of Mindsight will be displaced by dismissal of my experiences by the majority of the participants in this thread. My experiences would be better shared with an explorer community than with a skeptic community. If you are still interested, let me know and I'll send you a private message.

If by explorer community you mean credulous fools then you're right.

 

[Rugby]

While I can certainly qualify as a credulous fool in many regards, I am interested in the technique, or "sensation" of leaving my body and visiting possibly with deceased persons. I frankly am less interested in the causation of the experience. I think jfish has a valid point in wanting not to redirect the current line of discussion. If the latest experience did not seem "particularly noteworthy", then it may be worthwhile to wait until there is something more tangible to share here.

The topic of the OBEs of the blind is interesting, both the descriptions of the experiences and the skeptical discussion offered. The questions raised are valid. jfish is there a link to read more detail of these interviews?

Also jfish I am open to a private message if you have the time.

 

[jfish]

As I've said in the past we all have different standards we apply when we individually consider whether observations/studies point to a new hypothesis. Given the diversity of things I've read and the first and second person NDEs/ADCs/OBEs I've heard, I've come to the conclusion that there is something to the notion that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies. I can't possibly enumerate in this forum all the information I've absorbed over the years that has brought me to that conclusion. I could continue to bring new information to this thread but my time is better spent continuing my exploratory activities.

It is unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to make judgements about others. What is to be gained by calling people who don't agree with you a fool? You may think that I and others are fools, but why articulate such a confrontational thought? It certainly doesn't encourage discussion from which new information might emerge. Since you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you judge? I might suggest some thought be given to your motivations, tsig. I suspect there might be issues that need resolution.

 

[PixyMisa]

As I've said in the past we all have different standards we apply when we individually consider whether observations/studies point to a new hypothesis. Given the diversity of things I've read and the first and second person NDEs/ADCs/OBEs I've heard, I've come to the conclusion that there is something to the notion that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies.

If those claims were substantiated by evidence, then that would be a reasonable position.

However, they aren't.

Therefore, it's not.

I can't possibly enumerate in this forum all the information I've absorbed over the years that has brought me to that conclusion. I could continue to bring new information to this thread but my time is better spent continuing my exploratory activities.

As I said before, no, it's not. If you care about the truth - and I'm assuming you do - your time is best spent here, examining whether there is any reason to believe any of these claims.

So far, no.

It is unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to make judgements about others. What is to be gained by calling people who don't agree with you a fool?

No-one here would call someone a fool because they disagreed with them.

You may think that I and others are fools, but why articulate such a confrontational thought?

This is a skeptics' forum, not a diplomats' one. If you say something foolish, that fact will be noted.

It certainly doesn't encourage discussion from which new information might emerge.

Yes, actually, it does. This is how science works, and science WORKS.

Since you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you judge?

We judge based on the evidence.

I might suggest some thought be given to your motivations, tsig. I suspect there might be issues that need resolution.

Appeal to motive. It's a logical fallacy.

 

[jfish]

Judge based on evidence - so until there is evidence, anyone studying a hypothesis is a fool? It's ok to say something is foolish until hard evidence can be presented? Isn't that a catch 22? If everyone thought that way, then no one would seek evidence because it would be a foolish endeavor.

The intial post to this thread was what prompted me to participate. I was willing to share my TMI experience under the belief many might have an open minded interest. It seems as though a minority of participants have that interest but not the majority.

I don't have the level of proof that most seem to require to warrant considering the implications. That doesn't mean definitive proof won't be forthcoming. I've seen enough evidence to believe that proof will surface at some point in the future. I chose to start working toward the benefits that will come if the hypothesis is correct.

 

[tsig]

As I've said in the past we all have different standards we apply when we individually consider whether observations/studies point to a new hypothesis. Given the diversity of things I've read and the first and second person NDEs/ADCs/OBEs I've heard, I've come to the conclusion that there is something to the notion that our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies. I can't possibly enumerate in this forum all the information I've absorbed over the years that has brought me to that conclusion. I could continue to bring new information to this thread but my time is better spent continuing my exploratory activities.

It is unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to make judgements about others. What is to be gained by calling people who don't agree with you a fool? You may think that I and others are fools, but why articulate such a confrontational thought? It certainly doesn't encourage discussion from which new information might emerge. Since you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you judge? I might suggest some thought be given to your motivations, tsig. I suspect there might be issues that need resolution.

Yes it is unfortunate.

 

[tsig]

Judge based on evidence - so until there is evidence, anyone studying a hypothesis is a fool? It's ok to say something is foolish until hard evidence can be presented? Isn't that a catch 22? If everyone thought that way, then no one would seek evidence because it would be a foolish endeavor.

The intial post to this thread was what prompted me to participate. I was willing to share my TMI experience under the belief many might have an open minded interest. It seems as though a minority of participants have that interest but not the majority.

I don't have the level of proof that most seem to require to warrant considering the implications. That doesn't mean definitive proof won't be forthcoming. I've seen enough evidence to believe that proof will surface at some point in the future. I chose to start working toward the benefits that will come if the hypothesis is correct.

What would you call someone who insisted on studying a hypothesis for which there is no evidence and all previous studies have found no evidence and that if you grant the hypothesis no evidence can be found?

 

[PixyMisa]

Judge based on evidence - so until there is evidence, anyone studying a hypothesis is a fool?

That depends on how you study it. If you are looking for hard evidence, that's good. If you're simply collecting more stories which are no better supported than any of the stories you already have, then at some point - at some point that is now long past - that becomes a worthless pursuit.

It's ok to say something is foolish until hard evidence can be presented?

No.

Isn't that a catch 22?

No.

If everyone thought that way, then no one would seek evidence because it would be a foolish endeavor.

Not at all.

Seeking evidence is not the same as collecting stories - unless you're an anthropologist studying folklore or something.

What you need is some objective corroboration, not just stories piled upon stories.

What you also need at some point is a falsifiable hypothesis. You can use the stories to form that hypothesis, then seek objective evidence to test it; that's fine. You said as much in your first post in this thread.

But that's not what you're doing. Stories by themselves are just stories. And people lie. We lie to other people, we lie to ourselves, we don't even know we're lying much of the time. Our memories and our minds are simply unreliable, so believing that a story - and doubly so a story told a long time after the event - is necessarily an accurate representation of what actually happened is folly.

The intial post to this thread was what prompted me to participate. I was willing to share my TMI experience under the belief many might have an open minded interest. It seems as though a minority of participants have that interest but not the majority.

We're very interested in how the brain works.

However, we know damn well that there's no magic involved in NDEs or OBEs, because there's no magic.

I don't have the level of proof that most seem to require to warrant considering the implications.

You don't have any evidence.

That doesn't mean definitive proof won't be forthcoming.

Actually, yes, that's what it does mean. The complete failure of paranormal research to produce a single repeatable experimental success in eighty years tells us that there is nothing there. Real scientists do this every single day. Parapsychologists? Not one single thing, ever.

I've seen enough evidence to believe that proof will surface at some point in the future.

You haven't seen any evidence at all.

I chose to start working toward the benefits that will come if the hypothesis is correct.

Wrong order. First you establish the hypothesis, then you apply it to the benefit of all mankind.

The other way 'round never works.

 

[jfish]

Guess we just have opposing viewpoints. No need to spend more time if you don't see any value in considering the information I've provided.

 

[dlorde]

Guess we just have opposing viewpoints. No need to spend more time if you don't see any value in considering the information I've provided.

I think the point is that the information provided has been considered, and the consensus is that, interesting though it is, it's not any more useful as evidence than what is already available, and what is already available is not convincing evidence of anything unusual or unexpected. It's no more useful than fisherman's stories - any number of "It was this big" stories will be unconvincing without good corroborating evidence, such as a photograph, or the bones.

 

[PixyMisa]

Or the fish.

If all we had was fishermen's stories, and not a single actual fish, in all of human history - who would believe in fish?

That's what the difference is, jfish. You've believed the fishermen's tales. We're waiting to see a fish first. It doesn't even need to be this big; it just needs to be appopriately fishy.

 

[jfish]

Again, we just don't see things the same way. I think the NDEs of blind people have a strong "fishyness" to them. The research shows these blind NDE experiences are not traditional dreams. I suspect if we delved into lucid dreaming, we would find considerable differences between blind NDE experiences and lucid dreams as well. For example, does a lucid dreamer experience the dream from a perspective separate from his body - can he see his body apart from his the point of his visual reference? When he becomes aware of his lucid dreaming is he located in the exact place his physical body is located while in the dream state? Does he travel through physical objects and observe external environments that match the physical environment that exists at that point in time? Does he see the activity of others that can be corroborated independently by those people he observed in his lucid dream state? There is more in the book Mindsight - one case in particular that has some independent 3rd party verification of what a blind person saw. For readers/participants who are interested in knowing more read the book.

 

[ExMinister]

Again, we just don't see things the same way. I think the NDEs of blind people have a strong "fishyness" to them. The research shows these blind NDE experiences are not traditional dreams. I suspect if we delved into lucid dreaming, we would find considerable differences between blind NDE experiences and lucid dreams as well. For example, does a lucid dreamer experience the dream from a perspective separate from his body - can he see his body apart from his the point of his visual reference? When he becomes aware of his lucid dreaming is he located in the exact place his physical body is located while in the dream state? Does he travel through physical objects and observe external environments that match the physical environment that exists at that point in time? Does he see the activity of others that can be corroborated independently by those people he observed in his lucid dream state? There is more in the book Mindsight - one case in particular that has some independent 3rd party verification of what a blind person saw. For readers/participants who are interested in knowing more read the book.

My 2 cents as an extremely frequent lucid dreamer (several times a week at times) who used to believe many of them were OOBEs.

- Yes, sometimes it is possible to view the body apart from the point of visual reference. It is possible to look down from the ceiling as you feel yourself floating upward and see your body. I believe this is a function of memory. It is easy enough for the brain to come up with an image of what you might look like from the ceiling.

- When you become aware of lucid dreaming, occasionally it is during a dream in a dream setting. Other times it feels as though you have awakened "in your body" in the exact position you recall having fallen asleep in. It is also possible to have this happen while falling asleep, for example, lying on my back one morning and feeling as though I never actually fell asleep but instead, quite awake, left my body from the top of my head, went through the wall, and travelled through a dark tunnel backwards, emerging into a lucid dream scene. Even stranger, I was able to awaken and repeat the same process 3 times.

- Yes, it's possible to travel through physical objects - ceilings, bedroom walls - and sometimes the scenery looks quite realistic.

Other times it is clearly a fantasy realm, or one thing will be out of sync (for example, awakening to find snow on the ground in real life, absent in the lucid dream, also absent the night before so unexpected).

- Interestingly, I have correctly observed the activity of other people in my household, who at the time were sleeping. I have awakened to find them in the exact same position I saw them in while dreaming. I believe, again, that it is fairly easy for the brain to guess this, especially when it involves someone who tends to sleep in the same one or two positions. Other times I have awakened to find them in different positions, contradicting what I saw just before waking up.

I have even felt myself re-enter my physical body lying on my back, and awakened to find that I was in fact on my side!

- Again, it is even possible to experience a tunnel type of event in a lucid dream. One of my most vivid involved traveling at breakneck speed through a tunnel that was like being inside a kaleidoscope, it felt to be in outer space, and emerging into a lighted area that turned out to be a cave.

Weird stuff.

Having experienced so much of this type of activity, I find it much easier to believe NDEs will turn out to be similar to lucid dreaming, though I don't think the phenomenon is identical.

One thing the NDE reports tend to lack is the fantastical element. Occasionally it is there, as in chariots moving across the sky, or children who see living friends and relatives, or talking chickens. But for the most part NDE reports tend to lack the fantastical elements of dreams, even lucid dreams. Granted, some accounts may deliberately omit the stranger details for the sake of credibility.

I do wonder, also, how many NDEs we DON'T hear about because they DID include fanstastical or otherwise inaccurate elements that clued the person into the fact that it was a dream. These types of experiences would obviously tend to be dismissed as unreal and not shared.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[PixyMisa]

Again, we just don't see things the same way. I think the NDEs of blind people have a strong "fishyness" to them.

No, you've just accepted a story, and one told second hand and after a signifcant delay. There's not even a sign of a fish.

The research shows these blind NDE experiences are not traditional dreams.

No, no it doesn't.

I suspect if we delved into lucid dreaming, we would find considerable differences between blind NDE experiences and lucid dreams as well. For example, does a lucid dreamer experience the dream from a perspective separate from his body - can he see his body apart from his the point of his visual reference?

As already noted, that sort of dream is very common.

When he becomes aware of his lucid dreaming is he located in the exact place his physical body is located while in the dream state?

Not necessarily, but that's certainly not true of NDEs either. You're cherry-picking.

Does he travel through physical objects and observe external environments that match the physical environment that exists at that point in time?

You mean, dream that he does so? Sure.

Does he see the activity of others that can be corroborated independently by those people he observed in his lucid dream state?

There is no evidence of any such thing happening with NDEs. That's the point. There's a story, collected years after the fact. And?

There is more in the book Mindsight - one case in particular that has some independent 3rd party verification of what a blind person saw. For readers/participants who are interested in knowing more read the book.

Okay, let's discuss that case. What are the exact details?

 

[dlorde]

...
Just my 2 cents.

Good value, thanks.

My lucid dreams generally haven't involved passing through physical objects - they pretty much keep to standard physics, except I can often levitate or fly. When I levitate or fly in a lucid dream, I have a clear recollection of having done this many times in previous dreams, and sometimes find it hard to believe I can't do it in the real world. One odd and consistent feature for me is that nobody in the dream takes much notice of levitation - even if you float around at head height.

I found I can smell in a dream - I tried smelling what looked like a rose in a vase, which turned out to be a pink fabric carnation when I got closer. It had an artificial scent, like air-freshener.

Reading doesn't seem to work - whenever I focus on text on a sign or poster, it blurs or changes to nonsense.

 

[PixyMisa]

One thing the NDE reports tend to lack is the fantastical element. Occasionally it is there, as in chariots moving across the sky, or children who see living friends and relatives, or talking chickens. But for the most part NDE reports tend to lack the fantastical elements of dreams, even lucid dreams. Granted, some accounts may deliberately omit the stranger details for the sake of credibility.

I do wonder, also, how many NDEs we DON'T hear about because they DID include fanstastical or otherwise inaccurate elements that clued the person into the fact that it was a dream. These types of experiences would obviously tend to be dismissed as unreal and not shared.

Hard to say, but selective reporting is a huge problem in this sort of study.