Monroe Institute

[marplots]

We often learn most about how things work from how they behave when they're not working properly, and a great deal has already been learned about how the brain functions by studying how that functioning is impaired by poisonous substances as well as by illness and injury. That certainly extends to learning about how consciousness is generated by the brain by studying how that generation is impaired when the brain is not functioning correctly. I just don't think that those impaired states of consciousness can tell us any deep truths about the nature of reality.

Good point. Holding a magnet up against my old TV would warp the images in interesting ways. That didn't really tell me much about the television programs displayed, but it did tell me something about how a television screen works.

So, messing with your brain isn't about external truths, but it does tell you something about messing with brains.

 

[steenkh]

I'm personally in favour of legalising all drugs, as I think it's entirely up to the individual what they choose to do their own bodies, as long as they are prepared to accept any consequences.

Society also has to accept the consequences of more traffic killings, violence, increased health bills, and so on.

 

[jfish]

Marplots, seeking experiences doesn't necessarily have to be strictly entertainment, does it? If one is of Irish decent, for example, is traveling to Ireland and meeting distant relatives to learn more about one's heritage strictly entertainment? Might it lead to a broader understanding about oneself? Are the only people who can benefit from sessions with a psychiatrist those whose behavior patterns are outside cultural norms? Can't a well adjusted individual also gain some insights from guided assistance? If you agree with this statement, then perhaps the concern is the method being used to obtain insights. I then ask who has the right to judge for another what the right method is? One can consider the methods I'm using as foolish but that is purely a belief not based on any scientific evidence that I'm aware of. Many might think rock climbing is a foolish risk taking endeavor that is strictly done for entertainment but people who actively climb would take likely take exception to that. While there is some entertainment value, they learn something about themselves and trusting others through their endeavors. I would characterize my efforts as working toward self-actualization as opposed to entertainment.

There is a potential for signifcant societal gain if more people invested energy in learning about themselves in the broadest sense. Studying near death experiences has diminished many peoples' fear of death. I think I read that the majority of lifetime health care expenditures happen in the 6 months preceeding one's death. Many strive so hard to avoid the natural conclusion to life that a massive amount of resources are wasted. If our fear of death were diminished, perhaps we might make different judgements in our final stages regarding the balance between the value of living longer vs. the cost of achieving that extra time.

 

[steenkh]

Studying near death experiences has diminished many peoples' fear of death.

Including mine, but that does not mean that I believe in anything supernatural. It just means that if NDEs are formed before the ND, and not right after the ND, then there is some evidence that it can be a positive experience. If at all possible, I intend to savour it, when my turn comes.

I think I read that the majority of lifetime health care expenditures happen in the 6 months preceeding one's death.

That could also be because that period is the one where it is most needed.

Many strive so hard to avoid the natural conclusion to life that a massive amount of resources are wasted.

What do you mean "wasted"? If I could prolong my life by a month by spending all the rest of my money, I would do it. If I died begore that time, it could perhaps be said that the money was wasted. Personally, i would regard the money as wasted if I suffered all through that extra month.

 

[marplots]

Marplots, seeking experiences doesn't necessarily have to be strictly entertainment, does it? If one is of Irish decent, for example, is traveling to Ireland and meeting distant relatives to learn more about one's heritage strictly entertainment? Might it lead to a broader understanding about oneself? Are the only people who can benefit from sessions with a psychiatrist those whose behavior patterns are outside cultural norms? Can't a well adjusted individual also gain some insights from guided assistance? If you agree with this statement, then perhaps the concern is the method being used to obtain insights.

That last sentence is what I was getting at, yes.

I then ask who has the right to judge for another what the right method is?

Is "right" what you meant there? Certainly you would judge the better method to be the one that gives you the best results on as many dimensions as possible, wouldn't you?

One can consider the methods I'm using as foolish but that is purely a belief not based on any scientific evidence that I'm aware of. Many might think rock climbing is a foolish risk taking endeavor that is strictly done for entertainment but people who actively climb would take likely take exception to that. While there is some entertainment value, they learn something about themselves and trusting others through their endeavors. I would characterize my efforts as working toward self-actualization as opposed to entertainment.

I think this argument would work better if you thought that self-actualization was some unique property relative to you personally. Is that what it is? Isn't it a more general concept, broadly applied in psychology for a large class of people?

There is a potential for signifcant societal gain if more people invested energy in learning about themselves in the broadest sense. Studying near death experiences has diminished many peoples' fear of death. I think I read that the majority of lifetime health care expenditures happen in the 6 months preceeding one's death. Many strive so hard to avoid the natural conclusion to life that a massive amount of resources are wasted. If our fear of death were diminished, perhaps we might make different judgements in our final stages regarding the balance between the value of living longer vs. the cost of achieving that extra time.

There's a kind of flipping thing going on in your argument. On the one hand, seeking an OBE is a personal experience of exploration -- like finding out whether or not you like brandy by trying brandy. But then, there is a shift to the general case, and that's where I have a problem. We have an excellent method to gather evidence in the general case, one we trust wholeheartedly, the scientific method. Granted, the scientific method cannot tell me whether I will enjoy brandy or not, but we are then back to the difference between exploration and a real attempt at understanding.

If you wanted to see how an OBE/NDE affected people as a class, you'd study the before and after. I don't think this is the status you really want though. My sense is that you want the experience for yourself, to see your own particular before and after. In other words, you are not really out for understanding OBEs as a phenomenon, but as a way to alter your own worldview.

I'm not against curiosity, but think about where you will be no matter how it plays out. You will be in the position of someone who has had an experience, for good or ill, that cannot communicate the meaning because there is no logical path from here to there. Without repeating the experience for themselves, you don't have a basis to connect with others, there is no understanding other than a claim of, "I know what it feels like."

All I meant with my use of "entertainment" was that the guy who climbs the mountain as a hobby is seeking the emotional boost he gets in a personal way. Contrast this with someone studying mountains and I hope you'll see that passion and an emotional connection is seen as a source of error. Certainly the geologist might love mountain climbing and crave it as much as the other gal, but dispassionate analysis would rule the day for the academic part.

You are in the position of someone about to try brandy for the first time. They may hate it and move on to the next thing. They may love it and decide it is the best thing ever and completes their life's journey. But neither has really learned much at all about brandy. They only know how it makes them feel.

 

[jfish]

If it is true that there is nothing beyond this life, then you are right. All the experiences I've been pursuing are just generating an emotion or feeling and isn't much more than entertainment. If there is something beyond this life and the experiences provide some greater understanding, that isn't diminished by the fact it can't be proven using existing scientific methods. It may be a waste of time, but it may not be.

 

[marplots]

If it is true that there is nothing beyond this life, then you are right. All the experiences I've been pursuing are just generating an emotion or feeling and isn't much more than entertainment. If there is something beyond this life and the experiences provide some greater understanding, that isn't diminished by the fact it can't be proven using existing scientific methods. It may be a waste of time, but it may not be.

Well, I heartily approve. I'm going to hold you to your promise to let me/us know how it turns out. I applaud your willingness to pursue your own star and not to shy away from self-discovery.

 

[Pixel42]

If it is true that there is nothing beyond this life, then you are right. All the experiences I've been pursuing are just generating an emotion or feeling and isn't much more than entertainment. If there is something beyond this life and the experiences provide some greater understanding, that isn't diminished by the fact it can't be proven using existing scientific methods. It may be a waste of time, but it may not be.

It certainly can't do any harm - well unless you do something dangerous, and you sound sensible enough to avoid that (and to avoid the more obvious con artists who are just after your money) - and you might well learn something about consciousness, so go for it. And, as marplots says, let us know how you get on.

 

[jfish]

While I expect to have some interesting experiences along the way, the real proof, if there is any, will come from some other source. Perhaps Dr. Parnia's Aware project will provide some evidence one way or another. He's being very guarded about his project and data that has been gathered to date. He seems to have an objective mind and is taking great effort to design a worthwhile study.

 

[jfish]

It has been a while since the last posting. Many interesting experiences and people that I've had the pleasure to meet. One presentation was from a Dr. Eben Alexander. He is a neuro surgeon who had an NDE. Prior to his NDE he was a strong proponent of "reductive materialism". Under this hypothesis consciousness would ultimately be found to have a physiologic basis. It would just be a matter of developing the technology to find smaller, as yet discovered components of our brains. During his NDE his neocortex shut down. In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week. I'm looking forward to reading his soon to be published book on the subject.

 

[Resume]

In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week.

His opinion in this matter is exactly worthless. Examine the data and see where it leads. So far, for NDEs, not very far.

 

[marplots]

It has been a while since the last posting. Many interesting experiences and people that I've had the pleasure to meet. One presentation was from a Dr. Eben Alexander. He is a neuro surgeon who had an NDE. Prior to his NDE he was a strong proponent of "reductive materialism". Under this hypothesis consciousness would ultimately be found to have a physiologic basis. It would just be a matter of developing the technology to find smaller, as yet discovered components of our brains. During his NDE his neocortex shut down. In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week. I'm looking forward to reading his soon to be published book on the subject.

That's interesting. Is it possible that the memory was formed afterwards? For example, as he was slipping into a coma or emerging from it?

Since I'm a reductive materialist, I think brain "events" can happen through physical means, regardless of conscious state. So, for example, I would hold that such things can be formed unconsciously or pre-consciously, as long as there is some change, chemical, electrical, structural or some combination. Not firing for awhile would be enough for the state to change, since we know that disuse doesn't provide the reinforcement that would otherwise happen.

 

[Marcus]

It has been a while since the last posting. Many interesting experiences and people that I've had the pleasure to meet. One presentation was from a Dr. Eben Alexander. He is a neuro surgeon who had an NDE. Prior to his NDE he was a strong proponent of "reductive materialism". Under this hypothesis consciousness would ultimately be found to have a physiologic basis. It would just be a matter of developing the technology to find smaller, as yet discovered components of our brains. During his NDE his neocortex shut down. In his opinion there was no way his brain could have produced the experiences he had while in a coma for a week. I'm looking forward to reading his soon to be published book on the subject.

It's a good lesson for all of us. No one is exempt from falling under the spell of supernatural beliefs given the right circumstances, even a neurosurgeon.

We don't need to discover any new parts of the brain, we just need to better understand the very, very, complex network of neurons that gives rise to conciousness.

 

[thebigm]

JFish - out of curiousity, how are you going with your own work/research on yourself in these matters?

I'm still absolutely intrigued by lucid dreaming and the concept of astral projection.

I've managed to do a lot of 'exploring' in the lucid dream state and try and 'see' things that would verify to me beyond reasonable doubt that this state is more than a mere dream.

So far it's been fruitless, I've floated up and mentally noted things on shelves in rooms that in waking consciousness aren't there.
In fact, more often than not the shelf isn't there. In this state I've opened a drawer on a cabinet that has contained objects I've remembered and when going to check, the cabinet doesn't even have a drawer.

I've also had conversations with 'beings' I guess, that I know in my waking conscious state who are still alive.
I asked someone who has been involved in the Monroe institute about this and she talked about multi dimensionality and how I should try and garner some information from the subject whilst in the lucid dream state that I couldn't know and then try and verify with the person when awake.

Again, what I took out of the state was nonsensical to the subject.

So, for me, I'm getting better control of my consciousness when not awake, however I've yet to find anything that proves to me that there's more to it.
I'll keep trying though as I enjoy it.

 

[jfish]

Saying that an expert's opinion is "worthless" on any topic seems a bit closed minded to me. When a hypothesis is offered to explain something, one should start from a neutral position rather than an outright rejection. A scientists approach would be to obtain more information to see whether or not it supports the hypothesis. Rejection shuts down any further exploration.

Consider that as early as 2,000 years ago there were some that believed an individual's health could be negatively affected by very small organisms. It took many more centuries before proof of this hypothesis could be generated. Something doesn't become true when it is proven to be true. The ability to prove something may lag the observation by a significant interval.

Here's a bit more from Dr. Alexander's presentation. He was adopted. Prior to his NDE he attempted to establish contact with his birth mother. He learned that she was still alive and had actually married his bioligical father and that they had additional children after marrying. When he asked if they would be willing to meet with him, they weren't willing because they had recently lost one of their daughters. During his NDE one of the experiences he had involved a beautiful woman telling him he was loved and that everything would be fine. After his NDE he recontacted his birth parents and this time they were willing to meet. Imagine his surprise when during that meeting his mother pulled out a picture of her deceased daughter (Dr. Alexander's sister) and the picture matched the woman who was with him in his NDE. I suppose you could speculate that Dr. Alexander was lying. ON the other hand, if true, Marplot's suggestion that Dr. Alexander's experience of seeing his sister in the near death state could not be explained by forming an unconscious or pre-conscious thought. He had no prior exposure to his sister.

I think it will be worth the wait to see what he has to say in his book but others may prefer to stick with their hypothesis that consciousness can't exist independently of the body. Of course there is no proof that consciousness can't exist without the body.

Regarding lucid dreaming - I haven't studied that aspect of experiences in much depth. I recently had a conversation with one of my nieces who is an undergraduate at Tufts. She says she lucid dreams at times. William Buhlman wrote a book on OBEs that may have some insight into lucid dreaming. He commented that what he sees in his OBE state does not always match what exists in the waking state. For example, a room in his house may appear to be the same room in his OBE state but sometimes there are subtle differences. The color of the paint might be different or a piece of furniture located in a different place. One hypothesis is that there are multiple dimensions that exist at the same time and that OBE/lucid dreams may allow an individual to move to another dimension that is very similar but not the same as the one of the waking state. I don't know much about string theory but I've read that it is dependent on more dimensions. If this is the case, then the suggestion of the person at the Monroe Institute may not necessarily produce anything.

ThebigM - you might consider reading a book titled Fringe Dweller. The Canadian writer talks about her experiences in the lucid dream state. (Her experiences are consistent with other people's experiences that I've met.) I'd be interested in your take on what she has to say if you get a chance to read her book.

 

[Nonpareil]

Saying that an expert's opinion is "worthless" on any topic seems a bit closed minded to me. When a hypothesis is offered to explain something, one should start from a neutral position rather than an outright rejection. A scientists approach would be to obtain more information to see whether or not it supports the hypothesis. Rejection shuts down any further exploration.

No. It's the responsibility of the person advancing the hypothesis to gather evidence to support it. If no evidence can be found, then it should be rejected.

Imagine his surprise when during that meeting his mother pulled out a picture of her deceased daughter (Dr. Alexander's sister) and the picture matched the woman who was with him in his NDE. I suppose you could speculate that Dr. Alexander was lying.

Or you could assert, with plenty of supporting evidence, that there is such a thing as confirmation bias and that memory is faulty.

ON the other hand, if true

But we have no reason to believe it to be true.

William Buhlman wrote a book on OBEs that may have some insight into lucid dreaming. He commented that what he sees in his OBE state does not always match what exists in the waking state. For example, a room in his house may appear to be the same room in his OBE state but sometimes there are subtle differences. The color of the paint might be different or a piece of furniture located in a different place. One hypothesis is that there are multiple dimensions that exist at the same time and that OBE/lucid dreams may allow an individual to move to another dimension that is very similar but not the same as the one of the waking state.

Or they could be, y'know, dreams.

 

[jfish]

There is a lot more evidence supporting the hypothesis that one's consciousness can exist independently of the body than there is evidence to the contrary. Dreams are not a viable explanation. People who have NDEs clearly differentiate their experiences from regular dreaming states. People who dream don't simulaneously dream about what is transpiring around them while they are dreaming. Lucid dreaming is a step closer to NDE experiences but I don't think lucid dreamers see what is happening in the waking world at the time they are lucid dreaming.


Perhaps there is a difference between a skeptic's perspective and a scientist's perspective. Might we say that a skeptic starts from the point of view that all hypotheses are not correct until proof is provided to move off that perspective while a scientist tries to be neutral about a hypothesis and moves in the direction that evidence takes him?

The notion of consciousness being capable of existing independently from the brain has been around for thousands of years as attested to by most religions. It has only been in the past 60 years or so that medical science has evolved to the point where a significant number of people can survive near death states such as cardiac arrest. Much more evidence is emerging that support the hypothesis. If someone can offer a better hypothesis (with supporting anecdotal evidence) as to why blind people in an NDE state can see what is transpiring around them or why a patient with eyes taped shut and ear canals sealed with high decible noise generators can accurately recall what happened during her operation, I'd like to hear it. Dreaming doesn't meet the standard of a logical explanation.

 

[rcfieldz]

Hmmm....

Glad to see the responses. Interested to hear reactions as I'm researching the subject for a book and appreciate any feedback or questions. I'd simply like to open up a dialog. I'm not here as you mentioned Doc to "rant" about skeptics - I actually followed the line you referenced with a statement about my own skepticism, and actually I consider myself skeptical by nature, preoccupied with logic and reason. And also you should invite such dialog - I'm sure neither you nor anyone else came to this forum to merely share in the collective disbelief and disapproval of spiritual phenomena. You all came here because there's a part of you that wants to believe, to see someone win that million dollars, to know that there's more to life than than mundane existence, to face your fears of the unknown.
As to the million dollar prize and testing these phenomena, I'm a big fan of testing. Doc, you again misrepresented my message when you asserted that I was just waving my hands when presented with a challenge and explaining that my, "own particular beliefs can't/shouldn't/won't be tested." As I earlier stated, "to ignore the limitless mountain of information and evidence on these subjects is naive." Testing OBE's and psychic phenomena has been ongoing for dozens of years at reputable establishments such as Stanford, Princeton, Duke University and I can personally introduce you to a cross section of individuals you're welcome to query. Unfortunately much of this laboratory testing and evidence has been stricken from the mainstream media and history books, for the same reason Nikola Tesla has been erased. You know, the guy you learned about in grade school who invented AC electricity, AM/FM radio, wireless communication, the motor engine, and the x-ray among many others. The Man Who Invented the 20th Century. Oh wait, maybe you didn't hear much about him because he invented a system of free unlimited wireless electricity (see Wardenclyffe Tower). Or was it because he acquired these inventions in perfect detail through trace induced psychic flashes of white light. That and he said some things that made him unpopular like how he was in contact with spirits.
Despite all that there's still a great abundance of evidence out there. I'm not a big fan of Uri Geller because of some of his conduct and tendency towards theatrics, but look up "SRI Uri Geller" on google video and explain how he fooled those reputable Stanford Phd's. Statistically you've got at least one in a billion odds of matching the images in the sealed envelopes. How does he get so many? After seeing this and many other tests I still didn't believe so I had to go out around LA psychic shops till I found a few people that would do a blind reading with a question asking for a description of an certain thing, written on a folded paper inside a sealed opaque envelope. One woman nailed 2 out of 3. Know anything about math? There are over a billion objects/things in the world. Was it a clever cold reading that she knew one was the moon, and the other the Space Needle? Statistically impossible.
So am I just a sucker Sez and Sean? And if all of my lucid dreams, shared dreams, out of bodies, all the beings I've met, and all of the amazing information and guidance I've been given are just hallucinations, then I'm just stumped and equally astounded at the incomprehensible power of the human mind.
As to the Randi Challenge and your question Kitten, as far as I'm aware it's not as simple as remote viewing a few colors, numbers, or images. The Official Rules seem a little ambiguous - maybe someone could post a link explaining what kind of example protocol he would use. If he or anyone else wants to meet someone who is psychic, can communicate with spirits, or wants to learn to go out of body, feel free to contact me.

I'm personally not interested in jumping thru hoops.

 

[Pixel42]

If someone can offer a better hypothesis (with supporting anecdotal evidence) as to why blind people in an NDE state can see what is transpiring around them or why a patient with eyes taped shut and ear canals sealed with high decible noise generators can accurately recall what happened during her operation, I'd like to hear it.

No such hypothesis is required until evidence is produced that either of these things have actually happened. And by evidence I mean peer reviewed scientific papers, not stories in a book.

 

[Resume]

There is a lot more evidence supporting the hypothesis that one's consciousness can exist independently of the body than there is evidence to the contrary. Dreams are not a viable explanation.

Holy crap, I must've missed something! Was this published in Lancet? Nature? Jama?