Monroe Institute

[thebigm]

By controlled environment I mean people that weren't on it that I trust would be able to keep me calm if I freaked out.

 

[jfish]

I use the term reality because I'm not convinced that there is only one reality. If we say there is only one reality, then are we rejecting the notion that there is something to experience after death? People who have near death experiences generally believe there is a clear distinction between dreaming and their NDEs. They often report that what they experienced in the NDE state is more real than what they experience in their every day lives. If there is an existence of sorts after death, then isn't that a separate reality?

 

[steenkh]

I use the term reality because I'm not convinced that there is only one reality.

You may well think there is more than one reality, but the question is how do you know when you are dealing with a reality or with an illusion? Because, surely, you accept that illusions do exist?

 

[jfish]

I agree that we can experience illusions and may consider that reality. That is why NDEs are of interest to me. The ability to create/experience illusions would seem to be diminished or nonexistent. In some cases the brain has shut down so if illusions are being experienced, what would be the source? Again, check out www.reconciliationlife.com for a perspective from a neurologist on his NDE.

thebigm - Buhlman's investigations into others' OBEs indicates OBEs can be startling and sometimes frightening. He also offers suggestions as to how to control the NDE through expressed commands. For people actively pursuing an OBE, I think it makes sense to read materials on the subject to help prepare oneself. About 2 years ago I woke up paralized. I had no knowledge of OBEs at the time and was freaked out by the experience. I fought desparately to regain control of my body. I tried calling out but couldn't utter a word. After having read some books on the subject, I think it would be a different experience were I to have one today. I would try to relax, repeat the phrase "now I am out of body" and use some other techniques to foster an OBE.

 

[Pixel42]

About 2 years ago I woke up paralized. I had no knowledge of OBEs at the time and was freaked out by the experience. I fought desparately to regain control of my body. I tried calling out but couldn't utter a word. After having read some books on the subject, I think it would be a different experience were I to have one today. I would try to relax, repeat the phrase "now I am out of body" and use some other techniques to foster an OBE.

You should have tried reading a book about sleep paralysis instead, because that's what it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

 

[steenkh]

About 2 years ago I woke up paralized. I had no knowledge of OBEs at the time and was freaked out by the experience. I fought desparately to regain control of my body. I tried calling out but couldn't utter a word. After having read some books on the subject, I think it would be a different experience were I to have one today. I would try to relax, repeat the phrase "now I am out of body" and use some other techniques to foster an OBE.

As Pixel42 said, it is sleep paralysis. I had it all through my youth, and I agree that it can be rather frightening. When fighting for control of the body, I sometimes managed to gain control of an arm or a leg, but it still did not lead to general control. It invariably ended with me relaxing and falling asleep (I only ever experienced it when I was tired and going to sleep; I have never experienced it in the morning). After a few times, I realised that it was no big problem, and when it happened I just relaxed and tried to sleep. I guess I could also have mumbled the magic words "now I am out of my body", but it was not necessary.

Actually, I cannot see how this could in any way be mistaken for an OBE, because with sleep paralysis it is quite clear that one is inside the body, trapped, just not in control. My only OBE was quite different, and was more akin to being "high", and I do not think that this similarity is a coincidence. But then my OBE was puny, and although I was hovering above the bed, I never saw my sleeping body. In fact, I never doubted that it was a dream like all other OBEs.

 

[dlorde]

If we say there is only one reality, then are we rejecting the notion that there is something to experience after death?

Yup, that's pretty much it.

People who have near death experiences generally believe there is a clear distinction between dreaming and their NDEs. They often report that what they experienced in the NDE state is more real than what they experience in their every day lives.

If their NDEs are anything like my lucid dreams, they will definitely seem far more real than everyday life. I still clearly remember lucid dreams I had over 40 years ago. They seem exceptionally real, but they're just a different state of consciousness.

If there is an existence of sorts after death, then isn't that a separate reality?

There isn't any existence for you after you die. That's what death means - the end of life. You can use your imagination all you like to create imaginary alternate or additional realities, but when you die you cease to exist as an individual. Parts of you may live on, e.g. your gut bacteria, and your scattered molecules and atoms continue to exist, but apart from the memories of people who knew you, that's it. Whether you can accept it or not makes no difference.

 

[thebigm]

There isn't any existence for you after you die. That's what death means - the end of life. You can use your imagination all you like to create imaginary alternate or additional realities, but when you die you cease to exist as an individual. Parts of you may live on, e.g. your gut bacteria, and your scattered molecules and atoms continue to exist, but apart from the memories of people who knew you, that's it. Whether you can accept it or not makes no difference.

Surely that's just an opinion?

 

[Nonpareil]

Surely that's just an opinion?

No.

"There is no you after you die" is "just an opinion" in the same way that "there is no invisible immaterial undetectable leprechaun dancing on my head" is "just an opinion". There is absolutely no evidence supporting either assertion. The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth.

Of course, this is a provisional statement. All you have to do to render it false is to produce an example of a situation where the universe doesn't act as though there is no you after you die.

 

[thebigm]

No.

"There is no you after you die" is "just an opinion" in the same way that "there is no invisible immaterial undetectable leprechaun dancing on my head" is "just an opinion". There is absolutely no evidence supporting either assertion. The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth.

Of course, this is a provisional statement. All you have to do to render it false is to produce an example of a situation where the universe doesn't act as though there is no you after you die.

Surely this is one that's impossible to prove either way, so there is no point in discussing?

"The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth" is an interesting thing to say. Can you elaborate please?

Agreed that lack of evidence is no reason to believe in something, but it doesn't render it's exploration useless. I mean your making your assertions as a being with 5 senses in a world that nobody has been able to fully understand to this date anyway.

I am not saying I believe in some form of existence after death, but based on what I know at the moment I'm not discounting it completely.

 

[Nonpareil]

Surely this is one that's impossible to prove either way, so there is no point in discussing?

Prove one hundred percent? No, we can't. Can we prove it well beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, we can, and we have.

There is no evidence of life after death. Every single investigation into life after death has turned up squat. The universe acts exactly as though there is no life after death. Thus there is no life after death.

"The universe behaves in all ways exactly as though "there is no you after you die" is true. Thus, it is true. That's the definition of truth" is an interesting thing to say. Can you elaborate please?

Sure.

"True", in this context, means "an accurate description of the universe". This isn't exactly controversial. It's just what "true" means: that a statement is factual.

To exist, an entity must have an effect on the universe, even if this effect is miniscule. If an entity has absolutely no effect on the universe, it does not exist, because it never interacts with anything else in any situation and causes nothing to happen. That is the definition of non-existence.

The universe we observe behaves in all situations exactly as though there is no afterlife, because it has no effect on our universe. Thus, it does not exist. Saying that it exists "in some other way" doesn't work either; it's the same thing as saying that the Trix rabbit exists, but he's invisible, immaterial, and undetectable by any means.

Agreed that lack of evidence is no reason to believe in something, but it doesn't render it's exploration useless.

I didn't say that the exploration was useless. I said otherwise, actually. If you explore the evidence and find an effect that the afterlife has on our universe, then you can prove that the afterlife exists.

I mean your making your assertions as a being with 5 senses in a world that nobody has been able to fully understand to this date anyway.

Hence the reason that we can never absolutely prove anything. Asking for absolute proof is pointless, because it can never happen. Asking for reasonable proof is all we can do.

I am not saying I believe in some form of existence after death, but based on what I know at the moment I'm not discounting it completely.

No one else is, either. We simply say that, before you can say that there is any reason at all to even consider the notion, you have to have some evidence. So far, there is none, so we discard the possibility until the evidence becomes available. And, at this point, it's been shown to be beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence will not be forthcoming. Barring some reality-shaking alteration in our understanding of the universe and the way the world functions, there is no way for the afterlife to exist.

 

[jfish]

Differences of opinion on the existence of evidence leads to different conclusions regarding the merit of ongoing exploration. There is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are dreams/lucid dreams and there is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are real experiences of an afterlife. We are left with making a personal judgement as to the merit of the evidence.

 

[Resume]

Differences of opinion on the existence of evidence leads to different conclusions regarding the merit of ongoing exploration. There is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are dreams/lucid dreams and there is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are real experiences of an afterlife. We are left with making a personal judgement as to the merit of the evidence.

Observed phenonmena such as dreams or hallucinations explain OBEs perfectly without adding unnecessary nonsense.

 

[thebigm]

Good post, thanks for the response.

Prove one hundred percent? No, we can't. Can we prove it well beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, we can, and we have.

There is no evidence of life after death. Every single investigation into life after death has turned up squat. The universe acts exactly as though there is no life after death. Thus there is no life after death.

I'm probably just being ignorant here but what studies have been carried out and what results have been found? Feel free to post a link to a resource here instead of spelling it out for me

"True", in this context, means "an accurate description of the universe". This isn't exactly controversial. It's just what "true" means: that a statement is factual.

To exist, an entity must have an effect on the universe, even if this effect is miniscule. If an entity has absolutely no effect on the universe, it does not exist, because it never interacts with anything else in any situation and causes nothing to happen. That is the definition of non-existence.

The universe we observe behaves in all situations exactly as though there is no afterlife, because it has no effect on our universe. Thus, it does not exist. Saying that it exists "in some other way" doesn't work either; it's the same thing as saying that the Trix rabbit exists, but he's invisible, immaterial, and undetectable by any means.

Firstly, I just want to point out that I agree 100% with the principle that no evidence against is not grounds to believe as then it is faith and not belief based on any rational principle - which is why I am merely interested in this and not a firm believer as yet.

So as you've stated, to exist, physically, in our physical universe then yes and entity must somehow effect our universe. It appears so far that there is no cast iron proof of this concept - just anecdotal evidence from the observer which is hard to replicate or prove. For example, reading one of Monroe's books where he discusses, whilst in a state of OBE, pinching a woman in her home that he knew and she remembered the following week when asked and had a mark on her sweater where this had taken place. Now obviously, to believe that without experiencing first hand is like believing that the bible is real, so we can discount these notions for the moment.

So that just leaves your Trix Rabbit example. Which is where I think that we can't discount something entirely. I just feel that we don't know nearly enough about our own consciousness, what is this consciousness? Are there other types of consciousness and if so, how do we explain them? Do they even need to have an impact on this universe? In normal waking consciouness they are all bascially the opinion of the observer. Different experiences lead to different opinions.

As jfish mentioned, there is no proof to everyone's satisfaction, because the examples seem to occur as a phenomena and are hard to recreate.

Again, purely anecdotal, but there are some examples in a book I am reading on Lucid Dreaming by a guy called Robert Waggoner that are interesting. I wanted to get a book on these states that is a different perspective from Monroe. Once in control of the dream state and 'lucid', interacting with the dream characters has apparently revealed things that the dreamer didn't consciously know. Which is interesting, if true. Obviously there are other possibilities, like subliminally hearing something and not realising and it coming out in this unconscious state.

IF (big IF) there is more to this than picking something up subliminally then, to me, it's well worth investigating (and I'm not doing much else when I'm asleep anyway).

I've rattled on too long there and probably typed a lot of pish, but I'd like to think that my approach to this is skeptical. Just not enough to say, "Not enough evidence, not worth pursuing".

I didn't say that the exploration was useless. I said otherwise, actually. If you explore the evidence and find an effect that the afterlife has on our universe, then you can prove that the afterlife exists.

I am glad you have this opinion, but looking through previous comments on the thread, it would appear on a skeptic forum that a large number disagree with you that there is any point in experimenting any further with this.

No one else is, either. We simply say that, before you can say that there is any reason at all to even consider the notion, you have to have some evidence. So far, there is none, so we discard the possibility until the evidence becomes available. And, at this point, it's been shown to be beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence will not be forthcoming. Barring some reality-shaking alteration in our understanding of the universe and the way the world functions, there is no way for the afterlife to exist.

Kind of summarised in my previous response, but, I don't feel there is enough evidence against pursuing this further, trying to become lucid in my dreams regularly (which I find enjoyable anyway) and attempting to replicate this OBE phenomena.

For what it's worth, I think and OBE and a Lucid Dream are the same thing, however, when inducing an OBE you basically are aware of the full experience of falling asleep, when usually you are unconscious when you drop into this state. However, when becoming lucid in a dream, things have already happened in the dream and are happening so it's more confusing as to what's going on.

 

[PixyMisa]

Differences of opinion on the existence of evidence leads to different conclusions regarding the merit of ongoing exploration. There is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are dreams/lucid dreams and there is no proof to everyones' satisfaction that NDEs are real experiences of an afterlife. We are left with making a personal judgement as to the merit of the evidence.

Wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are experiences of an afterlife. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any sort of afterlife. Indeed, all available evidence says that this is impossible.

It doesn't matter how hard you wish for it, it doesn't change reality.

 

[Marcus]

Wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are experiences of an afterlife. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any sort of afterlife. Indeed, all available evidence says that this is impossible.

It doesn't matter how hard you wish for it, it doesn't change reality.

I agree. Just because two options exist (afterlife, no afterlife) doesn't mean they enjoy equal weight. It's early in the morning here, and I'm not giving the two options (sunrise, no sunrise) the same consideration.

 

[dlorde]

Surely that's just an opinion?

No, in my opinion, it isn't

Further to the complete lack of evidence mentioned by Pure Argent, there is the total lack of any remotely plausible hypothesis or mechanism to explain how some kind of essence of self can persist after death. There is no 'spiritual entity'-(or whatever you want to call it)-shaped hole in physics. Such an entity would have to contain or be information of some sort. Information requires a substrate to exist - matter, or energy. Both can be detected in manifold ways and with incredible subtlety, but neither have been detected in that context (although a dying/dead body does provide some information by radiating thermal energy and leaking matter, it's not the afterlife as we know it, Jim).

We know about different forms of energy and how they can be used to store information, and we know that energy and any information it encodes will degrade over time unless it is refreshed. The whole fancy, messy concoction we call life is the prime exemplar of this - it's all there just to maintain and reproduce patterns of information, to convert energy to structure, hold entropy at bay, and reproduce that information. When life stops, the substrate degrades and the information is lost - hence reproduction and sex (woo-hoo!). If that information could exist on it's own in some way, the messy complexity of life simply wouldn't be necessary, and sex would be redundant (boo!). More importantly, there is no suitable substrate for that information outside the living body, there are no forces that can support it, there is no way to maintain it over time, and no way it could have any physical effect - and if there were such ways, it would be detectable. What we know for sure about the universe, which allows us to do all the clever technological things we can do, simply precludes that possibility. If there was 'life' after death, the universe would be very different because physics would be very different - ironically, there probably wouldn't be life...

Then there's the evolutionary argument... but enough.

The same lack of hypothesis/mechanism applies to NDE/OBE dislocate viewing: to see or interact (e.g. pinching a sweater so hard you leave a lasting mark - have you tried that?) requires physical interaction, the expenditure of energy - from where? To see 'as if you were really there' requires imaging optics, something to intercept the photons and interpret their patterns, not to mention travel from A to B. You can imagine what is somewhere else, but you can't see it without a camera or eyes. There is no remotely (ha!) plausible hypothesis for how NDE/OBE dislocate viewing could occur.

 

[thebigm]

Wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that NDEs are experiences of an afterlife. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any sort of afterlife. Indeed, all available evidence says that this is impossible.

It doesn't matter how hard you wish for it, it doesn't change reality.

I don't think anyone is wishing for it. Just exploring the possibility and exploring one's own consciousness.

Whether there is any merit in doing this is completely up to the individual.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't think anyone is wishing for it.

You don't think that someone who responds to something as mundane as an episode of sleep paralysis by researching OBEs instead of researching sleep paralysis is wishing for something?

I'm prepared to admit that my own interest in such topics was fueled more by a hope of finding evidence that my consciousness would survive death than by pure scientific enquiry, though I would probably have denied it at the time. Accepting that no such evidence exists was hard.

 

[Sunstar]

Pixel42, i would be interested to read your experiences with exploring OBEs and sleep paralysis. Is there any particular thread where you discuss this on the forums?

I have another theory which is linked to all this. That is that if you wake earlier than usual and meditate you should enter a REM state of some kind and get sexually aroused which could cause orgasmic sensations to shoot up into the brain and this is what people mean by "kundalini".

What do you make of the phenomenon called "vibrations" which occur just before the so called astral body seperates from the physical? And does that have any link to auditory phenomena?