Rosemary Altea

[thaiboxerken]

EM, I thinks that we need an explanation now even though science has done this. the problem is he doesn't like the scientific explanation because it's not mysterious. it is not a spiritual.

 

[Moochie]

There are some things I want to comment on here.



Right, this is well-documented. And yes, if you don't know what it is then words cannot describe the horror of what you end up going through in some cases.

If you know what's going on, and are able to rationalize that panicking isn't going to help, you have an incredible opportunity to experiment. Depending on your mental state during paralysis you can have some incredible experiences. One of the theories is that it comes about in order to prevent us from causing ourselves physical harm by enacting our dreams.

An early experiment I did involved consciously asking to hear a "disturbing alien noise" (I loved getting a rush) and, sure enough, it came on almost immediately and would have scared the living crap out of me had I not known it was me creating it. It came on my right ear, very close and utterly surreal. I'd never heard anything like it, it was like experiencing a new colour for the first time. But, as I knew it was because of my request, I couldn't help but grin to myself. Paralysis broke almost immediately after my positive reaction to it.

I admit some fear though. During sleep paralysis I tend to keep my eyes shut as I have a tendency to fear the worst case scenario (my subconscious running away with manifestations). Well, "good stuff" happens too but I have trouble staying positive while in that state.

One time there was an entity standing next to my bed. He kept telling me about my faults and I was furious at being unable to react to him. I lashed out with a mental verbalization (which actually became audible in this instance) accusing him of not being who he said he was and that he wasn't "real". I then tried to scare him away by shouting but due to the paralysis all I could get out were pathetic wheezing noises. Then he had the nerve to kiss my forehead after which I was so angry he just vanished and I was able to sit up. Um, on my part that was an immature reaction to have had but I dislike being in a vunerable position.

Your experience is interesting to me because I've never suffered paralysis for longer than what seems like a few minutes. I started getting regular sleep paralysis around the time I was playing with exit techniques.

The projected double however (what I was talking about in regards to my first OOBE) is difficult to control sometimes. Quite often I've just had to go along for the ride so to speak. Sometimes I even find myself forced into a specific position while it floats around. It can be quite spooky.



I'll keep people updated but it's going to take time to seperate things. I have a mystery box set up in someone else's room (not done by me) and I'm eager for an opportunity to examine it (no, not physically).

A lot of verbiage that reads like a comic book. How about getting to the nitty gritty?

M.

 

[Expression_man]

Apologies, I just find it really exciting.

 

[Mercutio]

Olaf Blanke is supposedly having very limited success. As a result of that his conclusions fall short of what he has yet to discover, but that's obvious. The only thing in question is what the big picture looks like. Current science has no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. To assume that the "truth" has already been reached after poking around in the brain and getting a reaction is just wishful thinking. It's also supremely arrogant (like me maybe).

Excuse me--what do you base this on? You said earlier that you had only read a bit of what Blanke had written. And "what he has yet to discover"... can only be conjecture. Right now, Blanke's work is the stuff that has had controls against experimenter and subject bias. You have had some suggestions here as to how to control your own observations.

Remember, as important as it is for disbelievers to be open to the possibility that the evidence will show something real, it is also important that you be open to the possibility that your amazing experience is nothing more than a vivid dream.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Probably not, I think the same way about a lot of people here too. I can certainly understand your thinking well enough.



I'm not "a Jesus Christ", but I know what you mean by the idea. What I'm trying to convey is that anyone can do this. People want to feel secure by the notion that everything is explainable, to an extent, by current science.

Unfortunately, a lot of people get carried away with their thinking. I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty of that. The first time I had an OOBE I thought that I'd been posessed by a demon. I was suspended in the air above my bed whilst trying to scream for help and unable to control my limbs. Being a christian, at that time, I had an entirely different way of thinking.

Olaf Blanke is supposedly having very limited success. As a result of that his conclusions fall short of what he has yet to discover, but that's obvious. The only thing in question is what the big picture looks like. Current science has no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. To assume that the "truth" has already been reached after poking around in the brain and getting a reaction is just wishful thinking. It's also supremely arrogant (like me maybe).

Current science might not prove the existence of an energy body any time soon, or ever, but that's only a problem if you actually wait for it to catch up. At the very least we need an explanation of NDE/OBE occurrences (are they even the same thing) and I mean all of them.

In the same way that many of you take it upon yourselves to educate others, I am just bringing something to your attention. How much consideration you give it is up to you. It only depends on how much of a taboo the concept has become in your worlds.

I have my own reality, I dislike being the focus of everyone else's. In that sense I am definitely not a "Jesus Christ".

Perhaps with practice we all can have the experience of having an OBE. But that does not make it real. It just means that's what it feels like.

Where is the objective evidence? You said earlier that you visisted a friend's apartment and got some details right. Without a detailed statistical analysis ,neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can say how "impossible" this really is. The human brain is a great pattern matching computer. There could be very mundane explanations.

Please understand that I am not trying to be dismissive but there has to be some intersection with the objective world to get any acceptance. Otherwise, you are just "a Jesus Christ:" without a miracle.

You think you live in your own reality and thus I disagree with you at a very basic philosophical level. There is no point in continuing, is there?

My favourite "Jesus Christ" lives in his own reality too.

 

[Expression_man]

Please understand that I am not trying to be dismissive but there has to be some intersection with the objective world to get any acceptance. Otherwise, you are just "a Jesus Christ:" without a miracle.

I understand that now you're not trying to be negative. I may be wrong about everything, that's also possible. My life might be a lie. My subconscious may have built up a picture of these external environments by listening to sound waves / delayed sound waves (that would explain some redundant information instead of the blend of past and present theory).

You think you live in your own reality and thus I disagree with you at a very basic philosophical level. There is no point in continuing, is there?

Ah, I think you misunderstand me. By living in my own reality I simply mean that everyone's thought processes are subjective. That doesn't mean that they can't be influenced, that's what this converstation is getting at. I've had to invest a lot of emotion just to get people to consider something new for instance.

Excuse me--what do you base this on? You said earlier that you had only read a bit of what Blanke had written. And "what he has yet to discover"... can only be conjecture.

Hmm, point taken. My stance is this...

I have a lot of confidence in my own validation experiences and, in my world, that would make anyone biased to an extent. I'm willing to self test, it's not like I haven't done it (to a lesser extent) before. I'm doing this out of interest and I understand the need to be certain. In expressing that, I may have gone a step too far, you're right.

"There is nothing mystical about these ghostly experiences", said Peter Brugger, a neuroscientist at University Hospital in Zurich, who was not involved in the experiments but is an expert on phantom limbs, the sensation of still feeling a limb that has been amputated, and other mind-bending phenomena.
“The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence,” Dr Brugger said.

Hehe, it's those kinds of comments which have influenced me to react in the way I have. If there's one thing I've learned about people in general, myself included, it's that we jump at the chance to criticize that which seems to go against all we know. Very rarely does anyone celebrate any sort of mystery these days. In the same way that I think there's more to discover, Dr Brugger might think he already has the context validated and that nothing lies beyond it. He may even associate himself with Olaf to give himself more credibility. Of course, that doesn't excuse the conjecture on my part. If everyone were to experience a fully immersive projection and be shown that which lies beyond their sensory range there'd still be contention, I understand that. It's similar to intelligent design vs darwinism. Not many people are willing to suspend their disbelief and consider the unthinkable. That life is meaningless or that it has meaning. If life is meaningless then you create a meaning by defining its meaningless. The moment another meaning comes into it the alarm bells start to go off, the same applies vice versa.

I've been wrong about things in the past. I'm open-minded enough to know that there will always be learning experiences in my future. I was once a christian fundamentalist after all. Anyone who claims to know everything there is about life is not to be trusted, that's a definite lesson.

Although, if being a skeptic means doubting everything, hmm. That's a hard life indeed. Very few people would be true skeptics in that case. Unless being a skeptic means questioning everything. In that case I'd say many people are confused.


This is Gord's quote.

Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

That's interesting. I take it to mean something else though...

When your bias reaches the other end of the spectrum, there is no going back.

That's how I understand it. Evidence, first hand experience and the like, all interesting stuff. So let's work in terms of belief. Knowing something is 10/10 on the belief scale.

You stand on solid ground?

That's arguable, it depends on how much information you have to verify it. Are we actually coming into contact with the floor or is it a force which needs more explaining. Also, until very recently the earth was known to be flat etc...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This is Gord's quote.

Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

That's interesting. I take it to mean something else though...

When your bias reaches the other end of the spectrum, there is no going back.

Of course there is a possibility of going back. But I don't think there is much possibility of reviving my belief in Santa Claus.

The Earth has been known to be more or less round for something like 2500 years. No matter what you believe.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I think BillyJoe's point is the one that needs focus, currently. EM, do you currently have any ideas for a test protocol to demonstrate OOBE?

 

[Expression_man]

I think BillyJoe's point is the one that needs focus, currently. EM, do you currently have any ideas for a test protocol to demonstrate OOBE?

In a professional research environment?

Some place I can experience immediate sensory deprivation would be good. I live by a dual carriageway and it's not easy to find peace and quiet during the day. I sometimes use my bathroom whilst wearing ear plugs. I also try to ensure no light is able to get in and if I can still hear the traffic I tend to run the tap on a trickle just to create some white noise.

I suppose that having some sort of exhibit in a nearby room would be a good point of interest. The key theme here is exploring unknown content.

What I've managed to arrange, so far, is a box in another room which contains some items to identify. It was put there by a friend. As far as double blinding goes, if this first experiment is successful then I'll up the stakes accordingly.

There are quite a few ways to get an exit to come about. Sensory deprivation works best for me whilst some people, not many though, use sensory overload (listening to loud music is a common method amongst them [the type of music/sound varies]). I think the Monroe Institute used special rooms at one point, I may be wrong about that though. If I were going to go all out then I would deprive myself of sleep for a while but that's somewhat dangerous. The idea is that the constant effort to stay awake trains you to retain conscious awareness while your body relaxes completely (if only temporarily for the sake of experimenting).

The only variable which may cause problems is the amount of time it takes and how skilled the test subject is. There are some really "talented" people out there who have been getting spontaneous experiences since childhood.

Edit: Ah, one other thing. Some people can have an experience and feel great afterwards. I'm not one of them. After the session is over (if it was fully immersive) I tend to feel extremely drained. I've actually had hallucinations while fully conscious after the most complete experiences (something I really wasn't ready for the first time it happened)!

 

[Jackalgirl]

What I've managed to arrange, so far, is a box in another room which contains some items to identify. It was put there by a friend. As far as double blinding goes, if this first experiment is successful then I'll up the stakes accordingly.

This is a really good start -- exactly where you should be going. What I'd recommend for a more formal protocol, when you get to the point at which you feel ready, is something like this:

Equipment:
Two rooms, sufficiently distant from one another that audio communication isn't possible (tapping, etc).
Ten items, numbered 1-10
One ten-sided die
A facilitator (the person who will set up the room you will be remotely viewing)
Two observers (one for you, one for the facilitator).
Plenty of videocameras.
A means of communication (i.e., walkie-talkies, cellphones, etc).
Pads of paper and pens.

Protocol:
The facilitator rolls the die. The indicated item is placed in the facilitator's room and recorded on a pad of paper. A signal is sent from the facilitator's observer to yours, so that you know that the setup is good to go. You then enter your trance state and identify the object. Your observer writes down the answer you give (or you can, whatever you prefer). Your observer signals the facilitator's observer to let them know that you have completed your viewing. The item is retrieved and placed back in the pool. The process is then repeated, for a total of 20 times.

For the first 10 runs, you are told what the item is. This allows you to determine that everything is working as it should -- i.e., there is no interference, you're able to enter the trance state with no problems, and you're seeing what you should see. For the second set of 10 runs, the only communications permitted are the setup/complete signals.

At the end of the second set, the two lists are compared. A successful demonstration consists of one in which you correctly identify 8 out of 10 items.

(The observers may seem unnecessary, but I've included them to make sure that no hanky-panky is going on -- fudging of numbers, for example, or any coded form of signalling. The videocameras also serve this purpose, as backup if there should be any argument.)

Obviously, you have some more experimentation as to the method to do (i.e., you've been talking about experimenting with sleep deprivation, etc -- working out the actual methodology of obtaining consistent OOBEs). When you've completed all that, have tried some blinded tests (like that I describe above), and are ready to go for the Challenge, please let us know, and let us know what protocol you've worked out. I'm very interested to see how this turns out.

 

[Burner]

A signal is sent from the facilitator's observer to yours, so that you know that the setup is good to go. You then enter your trance state and identify the object. Your observer writes down the answer you give (or you can, whatever you prefer). Your observer signals the facilitator's observer to let them know that you have completed your viewing. The item is retrieved and placed back in the pool. The process is then repeated, for a total of 20 times.

Why complicate things? He already said he can't go into OOB state at the snap of the fingers, and your protocol suggests getting in and out of state no less than 20 times. Why not just put 5 random objects in a room and let him write them down after he finishes with his OOB. If he gets only one right, I'd say that's pretty bloody amazing. Also, having a bunch of people around you while you're trying to achieve certain state of mind won't do any good. Videocams should be preffered.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Why complicate things? He already said he can't go into OOB state at the snap of the fingers, and your protocol suggests getting in and out of state no less than 20 times. Why not just put 5 random objects in a room and let him write them down after he finishes with his OOB. If he gets only one right, I'd say that's pretty bloody amazing. Also, having a bunch of people around you while you're trying to achieve certain state of mind won't do any good. Videocams should be preffered.

I'd agree (that even getting one right would be amazing), but I don't think that a one-chance-in-five is going to be good enough for any kind of test the JREF would be interested. They're going to want to see the demonstration repeated a couple of times just to make sure the first (presumed) success wasn't a fluke. I don't know how many times will satisfy the need for improbable odds -- I have no facility with numbers -- I just throw out "10" because that seems to be pretty standard.

I don't know whether JREF would accept videocams only, but again, that'd be a question EM to ask them during protocol negotiation. As long as there was decent coverage (and, if EM requires that it be dark, some kind of night-vision or IR coverage), I personally would be okay with that. In fact, now that you mention it, I think it'd be preferable too. Less chance of EM being distracted, definitely.

As for the time: well, I imagine that an actual (JREF) test can't take a hideous amount of time, but I'm sure that some kind of lattitude can be made for time. For example, five attempts could be made per week, for four weeks. At least for the preliminary, since it will (presumably) be local to EM. Hopefully, though, with all of the experimentation and self-training that EM is doing, he'll be able to enter the state in some reasonable amount of time, if not "at the snap of a finger."

 

[Burner]

For this kind of case? Anything other than a big fat zero would be a surprise. Presuming that the applicant doens't know which object are to be used.

 

[BillyJoe]

For this kind of case? Anything other than a big fat zero would be a surprise. Presuming that the applicant doens't know which object are to be used.

I'm getting the feeling that OOB experiences are fairly vague things. Em has said as much also. It's not like me getting up now and walking into the next room and writing down everything that I see whether it be one, ten, or fifty items in that room. I could obviously list them all.

But it seems the eyes and brain of the shadow don't work any where near as well as that. Or perhaps it's because it's difficult for the subject to get completely into the shadow so as to use it's eyes and brain properly. As a result what you see isn't at all very distinct. Objects cannot be made out clearly. Is that correct? Is that why it is surprising when you get even one object right?

 

[Expression_man]

But it seems the eyes and brain of the shadow don't work any where near as well as that. Or perhaps it's because it's difficult for the subject to get completely into the shadow so as to use it's eyes and brain properly. As a result what you see isn't at all very distinct. Objects cannot be made out clearly. Is that correct? Is that why it is surprising when you get even one object right?

I confess my ignorance here. I don't even know if the double actually has "real eyes" or a "brain". Sure, the form is dynamic and can sometimes change shape but I think that's due to the person's self-image.

Although, it can sometimes seem to exhibit intelligence of it's own. There's no way of telling if that's just your subconscious controlling it though.

You can certainly see from it but you don't breathe, at least I haven't needed to. In that sense you can't assume it works like a normal body at all. It even has free movement in all directions, the context just went out the window as far as comparing it to a physical body is concerned.

I think it's all about the point of reference and what it's being derived from. As I said, some people experience regular 360 vision, as confusing as it is to understand.

You can sometimes get perfect sight (which is a real treat and mind-blowing experience). The first time I induced it consciously my sight was bad. The room was pitch black but all objects had a strange white outline. I could make out where everything was but not being able to see the textures was slightly confusing.

The longer you focus on a particular object, the stranger it gets. It's difficult to describe with words though. The most reliable sense for me (reliable meaning the sense that is the easiest to understand) is touch.

Edit: I want to elaborate. When we focus on something, we tend to give it a visual interpretation. It's possible to overlay mental images on a scene while in this state but not 100% of the time. The key is to keep things objective which is why I say touch is more reliable for me. Sight is best for navigation provided that you don't get the other sense I mentioned earlier (the feeling of knowing where and what everything is).

 

[Burner]

You can sometimes get perfect sight (which is a real treat and mind-blowing experience). The first time I induced it consciously my sight was bad. The room was pitch black but all objects had a strange white outline. I could make out where everything was but not being able to see the textures was slightly confusing.

I don't get it. How is that perfect sight?

And btw, when you want to go somewhere in your OOB, do you have to float to that place like you'd do in real life, room-by-room, street by street or do you just imagine being somewhere and instantly teleport yourself?

 

[MadOverlord]

I may be wrong about everything, that's also possible. My life might be a lie.

Just because you may be mistaken about the nature of these experiences does not make your life a lie. It simply means that you were mistaken. Human beings make mistakes -- and sometimes, the reasons WHY we make particular mistakes are themselves very interesting. I personally think that making mistakes is a good thing, as long as you learn from them -- I'd love to spend more of my life making INTERESTING mistakes, instead of being boringly perfect in all things, as I usually am.

Science and Skepticism are merely methods for mitigating the inherent biases human beings tend to have - they let us quickly eliminate the dumb mistakes and focus our attention on the interesting ones.

I have a lot of confidence in my own validation experiences and, in my world, that would make anyone biased to an extent. I'm willing to self test, it's not like I haven't done it (to a lesser extent) before.

The problem here is, without a really good protocol (to get rid of that pesky human error problem), it's hard to determine if you're seeing a real effect.

Not many people are willing to suspend their disbelief and consider the unthinkable.

While this is a natural human characteristic, a good skeptic IS willing to do this, if you can provide reasonable evidence in favor of the unthinkable. In that respect, if you have good data and good protocols, skeptics are your best friends.

Although, if being a skeptic means doubting everything, hmm. That's a hard life indeed. Very few people would be true skeptics in that case.

Few skeptics are that way. We merely, as Carl Sagan so famously put it (but more eloquently), require "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims."

If you come back and report that you can OOB and view whats in the box in your friend's room, repeatedly and with some reliabillity, then you will find that there are skeptics out there who will be happy to help you refine your technique, search for errors in your protocol, and try and figure out what's going on. Because at that point, even if it turns out you are mistaken and there is no effect, it would be an interesting mistake.

 

[Cuddles]

Do you think I lack the ability to critique my own experiences?

Yes. One of the main reasons there is so much woo around is precisely because people don't realise or don't believe that they are so easy to fool. The arguments are always the same "I'm not stupid, I could see it was real", "I can spot frauds but this wasn't", "A person might fool me if they were trying, but this was just nature and it couldn't happen by accident". The simple fact is that people are very often fooled, whether it is by someone else or by themselves. We think you lack the ability to critique your own experience because everyone lacks this ability.

This is the whole point of science. While it is possible for a person to be fooled, it is also possible to set up experiments that can't be fooled. In your case it is very simple, you think that you are leaving your body and seeing things. This has a variety of mundane explanations, relying either on memory or on your brain making things up. It is very likely you are simply fooling yourself. If you see your room for the ceiling, simply put a card with unknown writing on top of a cupboard. If you read the writing then it could not have been memory or hallucination. The experiment can't be fooled in the same way that your brain can by itself (although there are of course other ways to fool it). The reason people here do not believe you are really experiencing anything paranormal is because you have not provided any evidence to discount the mundane explanations. The fact is that until you prove you are not being fooled, any sensible person will assume you are.

 

[Expression_man]

I don't get it. How is that perfect sight?

It's not, it's just an example of one of the different ways of seeing things.

And btw, when you want to go somewhere in your OOB, do you have to float to that place like you'd do in real life, room-by-room, street by street or do you just imagine being somewhere and instantly teleport yourself?

You don't walk as such, it's floating. If you were to have an experience for the first time you might try to walk across the room because it's what you're familiar with doing. To that end, you might be able to emulate the the feeling of walking but the moment you start thinking outside the box more options become available to you. You can move pretty damn fast which makes an area transition redundant if you know how to naviagte your way to the location in question. Sometimes you can "trip up" and instead of being upright you find yourself at an angle. That can be difficult to recover from if you get agitated.

As for teleporting (if that's even the right word), you can get an area transition by changing your focus to something else but it's not always going to be what you had in mind.

If you want to move to a remote location then you have to question if such a place exists objectively (even if you are familiar with it) and then wait to see what happens (hence the difficulty I'm having with Jonnyfive's location). The moment you start thinking of what the place might look like (painting an imaginary picture) you begin to lose conscious awareness and your mental critique begins to fade. That may be because subconsciously you're asking to be fooled, I'm not sure. You can also think "show me something interesting" and then remain receptive to what follows.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you think I lack the ability to critique my own experiences?

And thus, you hit upon one of the main reasons why people believe in the supernatural.

I congratulate you on asking the pertinent question. Time will tell if you have the courage to accept the answer.

Indulge me for a moment. Take your time, and read about Rene Blondlot.

Great scientist. Made major contributions, at a time where a lot of discoveries were made. Yet, he managed to not only fool himself, but also a lot of other people.

For one reason only: All of them lacked the ability to critique their own experiences.

Read the link. Tell me what you think. Specifically, tell me why you think you are better at critiqueing your own experiences better than Blondlot.

What makes you someone I should believe in, more than I should believe in Blondlot?