OBE's vs lucid dreams

I'm curious to know of people's views here of OBE's in comparison to lucid dreams from people who have experienced both. Some people seem to view them as a form of lucid dream, some people view all dreams, lucid dreams and OBE's as a form of out of body experience, and some people consider OBE's as something distinct from lucid dreams. Others view one's conscious awareness on a continuum, so non lucid dreaming, followed by lucid dreaming, followed by OBE like states, with various experiences of lucidity and clarity on this sliding scale between states. I think the latter perspective makes the most logical sense to me, based on my own experiences.

I've had many more lucid dreams than OBE's, but my OBE's certainly felt different to me from all my lucid dreams. Very much more vivid and incredible feelings of falling, acceleration and electrocution type feelings (minus the pain) at the start of the experiences. Distinct from any lucid dream I've ever had were how incredibly tangible and life like these feelings were...in fact the sensations have been so real and so powerful at times they have derailed my attempts at projection. Still though they might be lucid dreams, and it is just my conscious awareness of the experience is heightened more than it has been in previous experiences which is why it has a different feel to it.

Lucid dreamer Charlie Morley compares lucid dreams and OBE's in being like water and ice...same essence, but different properties. Two experienced OBE explorers and authors weigh in with what they consider as the main differences between the two experiences in the links below.

Graham Nicholls:

http://www.grahamnicholls.com/2015/03/are-obes-a-form-of-lucid-dream/

Robert Peterson:

http://www.robertpeterson.org/obe-vs-lucid.html

Any thoughts y'all??

had this discussion on another site and I think they are the same but it seems common that a lucid that get very real and deep is more likely called and OBE. I cant pick the difference and so dont make any in dream quality. In dream entry if I go directly into the dream I call it lucid and If I choose instead to use a body exit to a dream I call it OBE

As I have stressed before that, as far as I'm aware, they are both distinctions we make for experiences that arise with the manifestation of hybrid brain activity which conflates dreaming with wakefulness. This hybrid cerebral condition has been aptly labelled by Michael Raduga's school of out-of-body travel as 'the phase' or the 'phase state'. In both OBEs and lucid dreams, waking consciousness is experienced. In the former, the subject is focused on the fact that it feels like one is somewhere other than where the sleeping body is (and may even believe this is really happening). In the latter, the subject recognises the experience to be nothing more than a dream. Both can give you the sensation of being out of body if you remember that your body is really lying in bed. In fact, even ordinary dreams can give you the sensation of being out-of-body. The 'OBE' acronym almost loses meaning ... :mrgreen:

Elsewhere I said:

'Regions of the brain such as the thalamus are thought to sometimes provoke distortions in proprioception during the phase state--hence the perceived separations from the sleeping body into usually inaccurate (yet familiar) replicas of real world, i.e. mental bedroom representations based on memory and sprinkled with distortions and additions from the subconscious mind.

So, yeah, once you apparently leave your body, you can do whatever you like. (It is best to have an action plan ready, though, in order to avoid hesitation which could cause a premature awakening.) Make no mistake about it: the dream world can closely emulate--and even outdo--the real world in quality. So if you recognise the phase state surroundings to be an illusion, you are lucid dreaming. You can always, of course, be sceptic of the sceptic and, if in doubt, try to read the pages of a book during an OBE to see if they remain fixed and if they match that of the real world.

Consciousness, in my opinion, is a phenomenon which is somehow generated by a physical gestalt. (The details of its emergence are still unknown.) If I were to define it, though, I'd say it is merely what it is like to be something--and perception cannot exist without it. What perceives? Not a soul--as endorsers of the orphic and supernatural would have you believe. The physical system somehow perceives and we are yet to suss out how the human brain works.'

Hi Summerlander,

Interesting stuff, I hear what you're saying. So it seems that you take an entirely reductionist materialist view of these experiences, which is interesting, as it seems the majority of people I encounter with experience in this arena seem to come to quite different conclusions, including some people with scientific and engineering backgrounds (who tend to be highly rational and sceptical people, as demographics go). What do you make of veridical reports, or experiences where people report encountering others in their experience, and these people relay the details of the experience without being prompted? I appreciate such reports are anecdotal and rare, but they happen enough to be a source of intrigue.

I like to take a rational and scientific approach, but I've had some quite bizarre experiences myself, involving the deceased, precognition and deep intuition. So in a sense I guess my position on the consciousness/brain side of things is maybe a little more agnostic than yours.

As an aside, have you looked deeply into the research on near death experiences (NDE's)? If one looks deeply into the research findings across the board, the materialist reductionist position with regard to the brain/consciousness begins to look a tad precarious. NDE researcher Dr's Raymond Moody, Phyllis M. H. Atwater, Elisabeth Kubler Ross, Bruce Greyson, Jeffrey Long, Kenneth Ring, Peter Fenwick, Pim van Lommel, Michael Sabom, Melvin Morse, Barbara Rommer, Penny Sartori and Sam Parnia have all abandoned the materialist/reductionist explanation of consciousness as being an emergent property of brain function, after initially adhering to it, based on their findings.

My personal view is that I don't believe in anything "supernatural"...it's ALL natural. However in principle at least I am open to the possibility that some phenomena considered supernatural now may one day be found to be natural phenomena if and when science elucidates an explanatory mechanism.

Samwise wrote: Interesting stuff, I hear what you're saying. So it seems that you take an entirely reductionist materialist view of these experiences, which is interesting, as it seems the majority of people I encounter with experience in this arena seem to come to quite different conclusions...

Hi, Samwise! I prefer the label 'physicalism' instead of 'materialism'. I think the former is more accurate in that it doesn't just address materials as the latter seems to do. The physical universe is much more as it displays types of matter and forces that we are familiar and unfamiliar with, the properties and illusions begotten by elementary interactions (such as the stillness of a rainbow despite the rapidly-falling raindrops that project spectral colours), and the vast unknowns yet to be probed by science. ;)

Samwise wrote: What do you make of veridical reports, or experiences where people report encountering others in their experience, and these people relay the details of the experience without being prompted? I appreciate such reports are anecdotal and rare, but they happen enough to be a source of intrigue.

I've also experienced a few uncanny occurrences of my own which could only be said to suggest--but never solely imply--out-of-body travel, precognition, and visual telepathy (whereby I appeared to see things that were ostensibly existent in the minds of others. But I had to beware of confirmation bias both on my part and my friends'. We must also consider that we are pattern-seeking animals who will assign great significance to apparent hits and completely ignore the misses that outnumber them. Considering how many dreams we've had so far, and how many dreams 7 billion people experience as the world turns, it can be said that weird would be if the odd or coincidental ones never occurred. Imagine if everyone played the lottery and nobody ever won! :D

I'd like to see someone winning the James Randi prize by proving, in an experiment, that OBEs can be the reality of an individual awareness acquiring an objective perspective instead of the experience being completely subjective and thus dreamed by the mind. 8-)

Samwise wrote: I like to take a rational and scientific approach, but I've had some quite bizarre experiences myself, involving the deceased, precognition and deep intuition. So in a sense I guess my position on the consciousness/brain side of things is maybe a little more agnostic than yours.

Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic about many things, too. But we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. It doesn't look promising when nearly two centuries of neuroscience show us that everything about the mind can be expunged through brain damage or malfunction--even consciousness can be interrupted in the living. Given that we are well aware of aphasia, prosopagnosia, and many other cognitive impairments, how can we expect to see and hear things and even recognise deceased loved ones when our brains are completely destroyed? :|

Samwise wrote: As an aside, have you looked deeply into the research on near death experiences (NDE's)? If one looks deeply into the research findings across the board, the materialist reductionist position with regard to the brain/consciousness begins to look a tad precarious.

I have researched this in depth years ago. NDEs don't prove anything for a number of reasons besides being anecdotal, sensationalised by the media or otherwise. First and foremost, near-death experiences are not death experiences--they are brought on by physical trauma and victims live to tell the tale. Secondly, 'no measurable brain activity' does not mean 'no brain activity'. As Michael Persinger once pointed out, there are cerebral reverberations that can only be detected in laboratories as hospitals don't have--and don't require--the appropriate equipment to dig that deep.

Finally, even if an individual was comatosed with minimal and insufficient brain activity to warrant a vividly conscious experience, how can we be sure that the reported experience happened during the cerebrally inert period and not as the patient was coming to and therefore precisely at the time when the brain was simultaneously reactivating? :ugeek:

Samwise wrote: NDE researcher Dr's Raymond Moody, Bruce Greyson, Jeffrey Long, Phyllis M. H. Atwater, Pim van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Kenneth Ring, Peter Fenwick, and Penny Sartori have all abandoned the materialist/reductionist explanation of consciousness as being an emergent property of brain function, after initially adhering to it, based on their findings.

I'm familiar with some of the names you have mentioned and they have been criticised and shamed by the scientific community. It's very simple: if you are doing bad science, or pseudo-science, you will get caught once your work is peer-reviewed. Nobody in the scientific community is trying to suppress a possible afterlife scenario. Science doesn't work like this. Everybody competes for recognition or a Nobel Prize and we all want to know the answers. But some people seem to want fantasies passed off as truisms no matter how scant the evidence. :D

Scientists have investigated many claims. They have given many beliefs in gods, spirits, and the paranormal the benefit of the doubt. And guess what: they found absolutely nothing... Did you know that Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was one of the first to test the efficacy of praying? He even used believers and Church devotees in a double-blind experiment. Praying was found to be ineffective. And yet, people still believe ...

The rumoured link between autism and vaccines comes from a study by Andrew Wakefield which was published in the Lancet. His study was found to be a hoax and his licence was revoked. Exposed by the scientific community. And still some people still think vaccines are bad in this sense and dangerously deprived their children of them ... Pseudo-scientists and sophists are getting more sophisticated these days but only enough to dupe the layman. Long gone are the precarious days of Duncan McDougal, whose 23 grams were found to have a mundane explanation ... not the weight of the human soul as he claimed. :mrgreen:

Samwise wrote: My personal view is that I don't believe in anything "supernatural"...it's ALL natural. However in principle at least I am open to the possibility that some phenomena considered supernatural now may one day be found to be natural phenomena if and when science elucidates an explanatory mechanism.

This is a reasonable statement to make and if there is one thing a good scientist does is to admit that he does not know everything. Not knowing is an incentive to explore. The answers usually bring more awe and more questions. (And solid conclusions are usually things that we couldn't have possibly imagined before.) Someone once told Richard Feynman that a scientist misses the beauty of a flower by studying it. Feynman replied:

'The beauty that is there for you is also available for me, too. But I see a deeper beauty that isn't so readily available to others. I can see the complicated interactions of the flower. The colour of the flower is red. Does the fact that the plant has colour mean that it evolved to attract insects? This adds a further question. Can insects see colour? Do they have an aesthetic sense? And so on. I don't see how studying a flower ever detracts from its beauty. It only adds.'

The feasibility that all mental phenomena--including consciousness--are generated by electrochemical interactions in a highly integrated gestalt such as the brain, does not take away the beauty and wonder of the lucid dream in any way. If OBEs are nothing but subjective illusions, how remarkable are they? How remarkable is the biological hardware which so far appears to genarate that elusive software that is the phenomenal mind? 8-)

And what if the self is nothing but a user illusion? I think you will find this topic quite interesting: (Read all of it, it's quite rich!) :)

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16533

Hey Summerlander,

Thanks for taking the time to reply, all interesting stuff! I totally hear where you're coming from, and think the world would be a better place if more viewed things from your kind of perspective, really I do, so nice one! It's clear you know your stuff on these issues, and it is refreshing conversing someone who isn't just an arm chair sceptic just mouthing off (these people irritate me), you've explored this terrain yourself and this is very important I think.

It is good to hear that you are open when it comes to these experiences, while being rational and grounded. I'm all for scepticism in its truest sense...I think some people get confused over its definition...but to be a true sceptic is to look at and consider all the evidence before making up one's mind, not looking at all the evidence and making up your mind anyway is simply ignorance. I get your points about confirmation bias, and how we are evolutionarily hardwired to be pattern seeking animals, so we often find meaning in things and join dots where there is no meaning or connection to be found. So this bias our brains have is always something to keep in mind.

It would be amazing if someone took on the James Randi challenge...I think Randi has done some good work in debunking frauds, but he is a known liar, and I do question his agenda, beyond his admirable actions. I also feel strongly the Randi prize is a very rigged game, and one would have very little hope of seeing that money, even if one yielded genuine results. I'm not sure whether you saw the proposed OBE research my friend wishes to conduct, but if conducted well (which I believe he would), and if positive findings were reported, then this could be a contender for Randi's prize.

Regarding OBE's and an objective perspective...let's just say hypothetically for a second that OBE's aren't entirely an internal subjective illusion, which they may well be...I'm not sure it is simple as being a purely objective experience either...I don't believe one actually "leaves" their body, and I think even if one if perceiving or tuning into "objective" information, there is likely going to be a fair amount of subjective projection or overlay over possible objective terrain. Does this make sense? I guess I'm saying, does the OBE have to be either a 100% subjective illusion, or 100% objective reality, could it not also be an experience in a grey area somewhere in between these extremes, and this may even vary from person to person, and even experience to experience?

I get what you're saying about brain damage and the levels of consciousness. Some people (and the majority of scientists) take the view that the brain is the generator of consciousness, while other people and a minority of scientists take the view that the brain is a receiver/tuner of consciousness, or both generates and receives at the same time...they would hold the view that damaging the brain is akin to damaging the radio, and it is obviously going to affect the quality of the transmission.

I think the evidence for NDE's is more compelling than you make out. If anything, the media downplays NDE's overall, and I'm only considering what the scientists themselves are saying, not the opinions of the media. A lot of these people are leaders in their respective fields, they all took a materialist reductionist view of the brain and consciousness, but their research findings into NDE's changed their views...as scientists, they are simply going where they think the evidence is leading them, and having the courage to do that, while going against the majority scientific consensus. And yes NDE type experiences can occur with physical but also mental trauma, and as we know OBE's can occur spontaneously in people. I get what you’re saying about the timing of NDE's and the reactivation of the brain, but I believe there have been enough veridical reports now...of people deeply unconsciousness or lacking pulse or measurable brain activity....reporting events that have been corroborated and confirmed to be accurate by doctors and nurses for a case to be made that this brain reactivation is not explaining all cases of NDE's, by any stretch. Cardiologist Pim van Lommel had a paper published on NDE's in the early 2000's in the highly prestigious medical journal The Lancet, and the bulk of more recent NDE research has been conducted with cardiac arrest patients. Apparently, according to Dr Lommel, after 1-2 seconds of no pulse, you fall unconscious. After 15-20 seconds, an EEG will flat line.

I totally agree with your and Persinger's view that just because an EEG is picking up no activity, doesn't mean there is not activity occurring deeper in the brain. If anything, NDE research hints that brain activity and the dying process is not like an on/off switch, but more of a process. However, with this in mind, based on what modern neuroscience thinks it knows about the brain, it should be impossible for people to have a full conscious...or even hyper conscious experience...of thoughts and feeling and higher thinking...when deeply unconscious or with a flat line EEG. From what we think we know of the brain, it acts like a highly sophisticated bioelectrical computer, and if the brain = consciousness, take away the brain's power supply, then consciousness should also go. And in some cases, it doesn't seem to.

Interestingly, there are around 20 or so hypotheses on the mechanisms behind NDE's stated by the sceptical crowd, which is a little telling, in that there is not really any majority consensus. One of the more interesting hypothesis is that the NDE is some kind of REM intrusion, a hybrid state of dreaming and waking consciousness, very similar to how you described (and what appears to be) the experience of the lucid dreaming/OBE state...this seems to resonate a lot with Michael Raduga's idea of the phase state. However, there are still issues with this hypothesis with regard to how it links to NDE's. It does not explain the veridical perceptions sometimes reported, or the lasting effects of NDE's on the individual, which actually increase, and not fade with time. There have also been reported cases of people blind from birth reporting visual perception (the research of Dr Kenneth Ring is notable in this regard). A Belgium scientist and NDE sceptic Dr Steven Laureys, found, much to his surprise, that memories of NDE's were much more vivid than imagined events (such as dreams) but also of real life events. This itself is a mystery, and lacks a sound explanation.

As I'm sure you can appreciate, being such deeply personal and subjective experiences, NDE's are a hard thing to study with scientific method, which makes things tricky for scientists attempting to do so. But I think this important personally and I applaud their attempts at doing so.

Remember that total abrupt turns in science can and do happen. It wasn't until 1975 that lucid dreaming was confirmed in the University of Hull sleep labs...despite hundreds of years of anecdotal reports, and it's employment in Tibetan Buddhism, scientists dismissed lucid dreaming as a " paradoxical and impossible" state of consciousness. It wasn't until the mid 1980's when science acknowledged that the human brain contains neural stem cells, and from these, new neurons sprout and grow and are incorporated into the brain...prior to this, and despite abundant evidence from different species, it was considered that after adulthood was attained, no new human brain cells would grow. So here we can see an example of two interesting scientific examples involving the brain where there were two abrupt (and profoundly interesting) about turns. Given that science has yet to provide a viable explanatory mechanism for how brain tissue produces this experience of consciousness...the same consciousness that is behind this whole scientific process...there is always chance that in the future we could see an interesting change in how we view the brain and how it relates to consciousness. Whatever the case, I get the feeling we both agree there is much more work to be done and lots of amazing terrain that remains unexplored.

I really like that Richard Feynman quote, and I totally resonate with your position. Thanks for the interesting discussion, and also for that link, I shall be sure to check it out. :)

The reason Lucid Dreams are called lucid dreams is because they feel more like a dream and the experience is more dreamlike.

OBEs feel like a full conscious exit from the body, thus it is called Out-of-Body experience.

From what I see and hear from hundreds of OBE stories is that the vast majority of OBEs degrade into something more like a lucid dream very quickly. This is probably why so many people claim they are basically the same experience... because for most people it essentially is.

For those who experience deeper realms repeatedly a more complicated cosmology develops.

I think they are the same and the view can depend on the type of exit to the dreamspace. Either by obe and in the place that you are sleeping in or into a dream scene from the onset. Most of my lucid dreams are WILD and can be either depending on my focus for entry. Awareness on my body leads to an OBE exit in the sleeping room and awareness away from the body leads to direct dream entry. After a lot of years either is very vivid and real with times where it is near impossible to tell if I choose to avoid a reality check. I can be there knowing I am dreaming and admiring the reality of it. This is still the playground level of dreaming and deeper and more abstract states are to be had if you can gain the control and get there. Really interesting thread and a good debate

It would be amazing if someone took on the James Randi challenge...I think Randi has done some good work in debunking frauds, but he is a known liar, and I do question his agenda, beyond his admirable actions. I also feel strongly the Randi prize is a very rigged game, and one would have very little hope of seeing that money, even if one yielded genuine results. I'm not sure whether you saw the proposed OBE research my friend wishes to conduct, but if conducted well (which I believe he would), and if positive findings were reported, then this could be a contender for Randi's prize.

James Randi is a known liar? Please explain. Have I missed something? :shock:

Randi was called out by Rupert Sheldrake for making false claims about research into animal telepathy (dogs sensing their owners coming home). While one may not believe in such research or its findings, the true sceptic and scientist would examine the research in detail, or conduct their own sound research to either refute or corroborate the findings...Randi did neither of the latter.

http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/james-randi-a-conjurer-attempts-to-debunk-research-on-animals

"The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

See also:

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/james-randi/

"Of his current work, Randi writes, “We at the JREF are skilled in two directions: we know how people are fooled by others and we know how people fool themselves. We deal with hard, basic facts.” Yet in a review of his book The Supernatural A-Z: The Truth and the Lies his fellow skeptic Susan Blackmore commented that the book “has too many errors to be recommended.""

&

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11270453/James-Randi-debunking-the-king-of-the-debunkers.html

I checked everything out and I'm shocked and extremely disappointed in Randi. He should know better than to tell a lazy lie--even if it was a complacent move. Scientists and sceptics cannot afford to lie in their respective fields and when one does it, it makes us all look bad. In a similar vein, if individuals with ESP exist, their claims will be immediately discredited because fraudsters displayed similar feats. Your agnosticism is duly justified, Sam Wise, and if any scientist can demonstrate, using honesty and scientific methodology, that it's misplaced, you can always point the finger at the likes of Randi and retort, 'It's their fault!'

Nevertheless, morphic resonance remains only a hypothesis--something Sheldrake can't coherently deny. I feel he also committed career suicide with his anti-science rant at TedTalks. (It's baffling how some religious scientists can refuse evidence about the world which contradicts the sacred text, but I guess some convince themselves that the Devil can be very persuasive and their faith should guide them back to the 'good book'.)

Thanks for sharing, buddy! :-)

Hi Enra,

My pleasure happy to share, and I totally resonate with your position. Random, but one of my friends is quite a high level parapsychologist. Due to the flak from sceptics, much of parapsychological research is conducted to a higher level of scientific rigorousness than other areas of research, and much effort is made to disprove otherwise supernatural/paranormal claims. But despite this, compared to other areas of research, it receives very little funding due to the stigma it carries.

I am a scientist, and I'm passionately pro science, and while my research focus is in ecological science, I research consciousness related topics in my own time. It really seems quite clear to me, that the individual biases, and ego's and agenda's of scientists in this area...be they "believers" or materialist reductionist sceptics, does colour and influence how data from such research is interpreted, and also what kind of research is considered worthwhile. Science is about objectivity at it's heart, it isn't in any way shape or form a belief system, but a method of finding out things about the natural world. But humans conducting scientific research are individual beings who experience everything through a subjective lens, and so human subjectivity can and is imposed onto science at times, particularly when it comes to matters of consciousness.

Yes, there is much disagreement about consciousness you wonder if scientists will ever reach a consensus. Some ignore the problem, others say it's only and illusion, and the more sensible approach is to say that it's poorly defined and still needs work.

Just one question: Shouldn't a parapsychologist's conclusions stand up to scrutiny and be immune to the materialist's interpretation? It seems like the parapsychologist still doesn't have enough to make other mundane possibilities go away. Why isn't the parapsychologist making a good case for why the materialist's interpretation isn't tenable? Here is a sceptical review with Susan Blackmore on OBEs which illustrates why we still haven't got enough to say that they are real in the sense that they tell us something accurate about the objective world because it is this one that is viewed during such state: http://www.near-death.com/science/skepticism/the-only-real-proof-is-obe-veridical-perception.html

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Hi Enra, yes they should, and in some instances do. In recent years, awareness of and interest in parapsychological research seems to be growing, but there is still a materialist bias against it in the scientific community, it is still considered somewhat a scientific taboo and this affects what research is published, and what is funded. This is a little out of my area though to be honest, but google should yield some interesting stuff.

If you are interested, for starer's you may wish to investigate past psi research using ganzfeld experimental set ups, Dr Michael Persinger's research looking at the brain, psi phenomena and rotating magnetic fields (a paper linked below) and Russel Targ's research into remote viewing, which produced some mixed but highly compelling findings. You may also want to look into the PEAR lab's research at Princeton with people and random event generators.

http://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/279/307

Below is a meta-analysis conducted on ganzfeld experimental set ups that may be of interest.

"In response, we believe had addressed these issues, and argue for a shift in mind-set: Instead of parapsychologists’ giving the null hypothesis a chance (Alcock, 2003), skeptics should give the alternative hypothesis a chance. In spite of the relatively limited pool of literature, we argue that consistency has been demonstrated in the data and that there is good evidence of replication by a range of investigators. We maintain that parapsychology is a struggling discipline despite its age, and we can only imagine where science might be if parapsychology had been given the same due attention that other disciplines have received over the same period."

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2010MetaFreeResp.pdf

The work of late psychiatrist Ian Stevenson is well worth looking into, I highly recommend this fascinating Scientific American article on his work.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

I like Susan Blackmore, but in a way it makes me smile when she chimes in her views on OBE's and NDE's...she has done some interesting research on these in the past, but hasn't done any in the last 20 years or so she is definitely a bit out of the loop...science moves fast (well some areas much faster than others), and if you've been out of the loop for that length of time, you very likely aren't at the forefront of knowledge on the issue. Blackmore attempts to explain away NDE's as hallucinations, without having fully considered the compelling evidence that suggests they are something else...the veridical elements reported, the profound and permanent effects they have on people, the way they are remembered much more vividly than imagined events such as dreams, or actual waking life memories...these all hint NDE's at being something more complex than simple hallucinatory phenomena (which tend to be negative or distressing phenomena, associated with mental illness). So, to me, it just seems like she has already made up her mind, based on what I consider an incomplete overview of the area.

It is also worth remembering how difficult it is to study NDE's with the scientific method, and just because the AWARE study on NDE's reported that people didn't manage to read the card placed high on the shelf in which they were experiencing cardiac arrest/NDE's, I don't think we should close the file on OBE's yet, I suspect people may have different priorities in an NDE compared to waking life, and who knows how much control they have during the experience? These are deeply personal and subjective experiences so they are always going to be tricky to study with the objective approach of science but I still think it is worth the effort. I think research with seasoned, experienced OBE projectors would actually be a better approach when seeking objective evidence for projections, as I feel these people may have more control over the experience. If these experiences are "real" however I do feel they are likely to be blend of the objective and subjective though so it will still likely be hard to generate the objective "hits" demanded by the objective scientific approach.

@Samwise:

It is estimated that only 20% of people who have endured traumatic experiences reported NDEs. Does this mean that there is no afterlife for the majority? Or is it more likely that the 20% stumbled upon an unusual brain state conducive to a hallucinatory experience which can easily be interpreted by some as a glimpse of an afterlife?

I am familiar with the Michael Persinger research and his 'No More Secrets' seminar. Other scientists reviewed his work and claimed he did not have enough to conclude that geomagnetic fields can allow telepathy.

I get what you're saying about brain damage and the levels of consciousness. Some people (and the majority of scientists) take the view that the brain is the generator of consciousness, while other people and a minority of scientists take the view that the brain is a receiver/tuner of consciousness, or both generates and receives at the same time...they would hold the view that damaging the brain is akin to damaging the radio, and it is obviously going to affect the quality of the transmission.

This hypothesis has a few problems. The first is the fact that no frequency has been detected which identifies with consciousness inside or outside the brain. (And yet the CERN folks have detected the Higgs boson which bestows mass to other particles.) Secondly, if consciousness is something that the brain tunes into, why is it that we become unconscious? Doesn't this imply that we are not consciousness but merely the physical body which cannot be aware of itself without it? So, even this would not support any afterlife or even OBEs as real exits from the body. And then we have split-brain patients who are experimented on. Both hemispheres are shown different things and told to draw what 'they' have seen. If the right side sees eggs and draws them but they ask the left side why eggs were drawn, the patient will come up with an irrelevant confabulation, such as, 'I had them for breakfast!' when it may not even be true. This is one of the many examples of how brains try to make sense of any situation and any 'explanation' will do.

Finally, nobody has definitively demonstrated that NDEs happen when the patient's brain has no measurable brain activity. Awareness of time can be distorted as the person is slowly coming to and the brain is thus regaining its tremendous default activity. It has been suggested that such subjects experience bursts of REM as they are regaining consciousness and then whatever dreams they happen to have are mistakenly interpreted to be the 'other side' or to have happened while they were completely out.

I totally agree with your and Persinger's view that just because an EEG is picking up no activity, doesn't mean there is not activity occurring deeper in the brain. If anything, NDE research hints that brain activity and the dying process is not like an on/off switch, but more of a process. However, with this in mind, based on what modern neuroscience thinks it knows about the brain, it should be impossible for people to have a full conscious...or even hyper conscious experience...of thoughts and feeling and higher thinking...when deeply unconscious or with a flat line EEG. From what we think we know of the brain, it acts like a highly sophisticated bioelectrical computer, and if the brain = consciousness, take away the brain's power supply, then consciousness should also go. And in some cases, it doesn't seem to.

Note that you are presupposing how consciousness comes about in the brain and even equating it with bioelectrical power when this isn't necessarily true. First, you need to take into account that the presence of consciousness seems to depend on a highly integrated information system. (This is why peopke with Alzheimer's have so many problems once their cerebral connections deteriorate: loss of memory; mood swings; identity loss; personality change; spaced out etc.)

Secondly, low voltage but high-frequency waves beget more awareness than high voltage but low-frequency ones. Hence beta and delta waves. Consciousness here has nothing to do with electrical power but what seems to be relevant is a balanced dose of vibrations within a complex physical organ such as the brain. What you stated above is a fallacy.

Another reason many able OBE'ers do not play Randi's game is that the terms of his phony challenge are ridiculously one sided and thoroughly biased. Once the participants read the small print they lose interest fast. They report that Randi controls all cameras, audio recordings, etc. He controls the proceedings start to finish. He has the sole ownership of the entire process, also the publication and broadcast rights to all aspects of the phony "test".

It is not just an insult to those who might accept his "challenge"... it is a joke.

Who should control everything then, Robert? The person being tested who could potentially be a charlatan? How many claimed they couldn't do it because all of a sudden they lost their powers due to something as trivial as 'static' from a studio light shining directly above or some such nonsense--only to confess later that they had been frauds all along? :-D

If you want to believe without real evidence, Robert, you might as well entertain the idea that the Cottingham fairies were real.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

If you want to believe without real evidence, Robert, you might as well entertain the idea that the Cottingham fairies were real.

Another total, complete non sequitur from Enra/Summer... I said nothing about believing anything -- especially fairies... [where the heck did that come from?!]

Unlike you, Enra/Summer, I actually know what real evidence is (your lack in this field has already been demonstrated). I spent a couple decades working in the hard sciences -- it was a job that I got paid to do in private industry... where competence and real results actually count for something.

Randi is an entertainer. There is nothing "scientific" about the huge bias in his protocol designed to fatten his wallet. Not that I got anything against that... only, please stop pretending he is "scientific".

edit; No one can "control everything" I would think that if Randi were even half honest he would make reasonable accommodations for those who accept the challenge. But he doesn't. Which I think is a poor decision on his part. Even under the most optimum circumstances it is a pretty iffy proposition -- trying to read numbers in a locked safe or some such thing.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I made my own personal investigation in this type of experiment trying to read playing cards placed in a remote location. I found reading numbers on a playing card to be quite the challenge. My hit rate went way up on King, Queen, Jack, suit color... but even discerning clubs from spades became a point of blurring vision while "OBE". I eventually gave up on this investigation. I may come back to it but at present, I have other OBE interests to pursue.

What is a non-sequitur is your reply to my post as you seem to think I said you believe in something. If you could actually read properly, you would notice that I said, 'If you want to believe ...' which is based on the fact that your post seems to favour less control on the host's part. Given that Randi has exposed several frauds, your suggestion is counterintuitive and seems to me a little biased--it's almost as if you want those who are tested to remain a mystery or to be proclaimed genuine.

And I think your lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence is what has been exposed in previous posts ... as well as your reasoning. :-)

The only person pretending to be scientific here is you, mate. Never mind Randi! :-D

By the way, judging from your posts, you would call a pair of little girs claiming to have seen fairies and providing photographs as strong evidence that such beings exist and more readily dismiss the most probable explanation: children with a vivid imagination who decided to get creative by drawing fairies and making photographic montages. It's an example of how your reasoning would probably work--or fail to work--if this case were being discussed. I'm not necessarily saying that you said you believe in fairies! You understand this, yeah? Or do I have to reiterate it in nursery gobbledegook? :mrgreen:

I used to quote 'Pam Reynolds' and 'Miss Zs'.

I never said I was quoting the “Miss Z” case as evidence, I was just asking if you were aware of it. I will give that thread a read, I’m just limited with my internet connectivity here. Reading about consciousness is all well and good, as is being up to date with the current research on consciousness, but the direct experience of consciousness in all its different forms is important to, and this direct experience may transcend all the words there are attempting to explain consciousness, especially as science has yet to produce anything close to a water tight explanation of consciousness. Sure, one day it may well do, but we’re not there yet.

…insisting that there is more to OBEs and NDEs than meets the eye…

I don’t need to insist there is more to NDE’s than “meets the eye”…the research conducted on NDE’s and their effects on people by many independent researchers paints a very clear picture of this. You stated before this is wish fulfillment on the experiencers part, but why then are the personality changes so particular, and why do they transcend one’s age, gender, race, culture, religion etc?

If you really take into account all that parapsychological information in a perspicacious manner, you will realised that everything those slyboots have done is suspect---from their evaluation of probabilities and conclusive corollaries to their questionable methods and subjects.

This may apply in some cases but to say be default it occurs in ALL cases without question seems more than a trifle opinionated and biased to me. Of course we should also be aware of the some of the sceptical crowd, as if this applies one way then it is bound to go both ways, all scientists being human and havning their own subjective biases and agendas which can certainly come into play.

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

I recommend this very interesting Scientific American blog post article on the research of psychiatrist Dr Ian Stevenson.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

Quoting from the article:

“Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them first hand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means. Much of this is due to Stevenson’s own exhaustive efforts to disconfirm the paranormal account. “We can strive toward objectivity by exposing as fully as possible all observations that tend to weaken our preferred interpretation of the data,” he wrote. “If adversaries fire at us, let them use ammunition that we have given them.” And if truth be told, he excelled at debunking the debunkers.”

Does this sound like the approach adopted by a charlatan?

This article from The Atlantic may be of interest on the consciousness side of things.

Most Popular Theories of Consciousness Are Worse Than Wrong

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/phlegm-theories-of-consciousness/472812/

Like I said before, NDErs taking their experiences to be real is redolent of dreamers erroneously mistaking ordinary dream scenarios for reality.

A very key difference though you’ve overlooked is that people wake up from their dreams and know they weren’t real. This is NOT the case with the vast majority of NDE’s, and they have substantial long term effects on the people that experience them, and these effects can actually grow over time…this is well documented in the research literature and inarguable. Dreams do not have this effect. Why the difference if they are essentially the same thing? (This is not even considering all the other various effects that occur with NDE’s which are not explained by the dream/hallucination hypothesis of course).

Like I said before, NDErs taking their experiences to be real is redolent of dreamers erroneously mistaking ordinary dream scenarios for reality.

Well we seem to be running around in circles here, but the “hallucinatory delusion” hypothesis completely and utterly fails to explain the healing events associated with NDE’s (these were well documented even if you choose to ignore them), the veridical elements of the NDE, or the long term specific changes in personality that result from them.

My stance is that if you have something to prove, prove it! I am waiting for it.

Why do you think proving OBE’s as being objective occurrences is by default easy?? Take the existence of gravity waves, or the Higgs Boson. Both were hypothesised to exist many decades before they were actually discovered, and they required extremely sophisticated technology at the cutting edge of Man’s knowledge of physics and engineering to make the detection. Just because something is true and valid does not by default make it easy to prove. Again, we seem to running around in circles here, but you take the view that if physical proof of OBE’s cannot be obtained, then therefore they are not real. Is this not a limiting assumption? Many seasoned projectors with science and engineering backgrounds don’t view OBE’s as occurring in physical reality either. But they still view the experience as objective and valid, it just doesn’t occur in this physical reality. So attempting to obtain physical proof of what essentially could be a non-physical experience is doomed to fail. But as I’ve said before, with this in mind, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do definitely agree with you though that there were limitations to the Miss Z study. But I also view there being major limitations to the current lab research on induction of distorted body awareness, which these scientists are mistaking with OBE’s. Furthermore, all the seasoned projectors I know of were highly sceptical of the validity of the OBE or of any concept of afterlife, until they experienced OBE’s. They did not go into these experiences wanting to believe, they didn’t believe such things from the outset, and yet the experiences they had changed their views on these matters.

I am also speaking from the experience of taking drugs, practising meditation and having had an NDE myself---which I never believed, even at the time, was anything other than a traumatically induced subjective experience.

I respect your own take on your own experiences of course (I'm experienced in all those things to bar the NDE). But why is an experience lesser because it is subjective? Is not ALL of one’s entire experience of life subjective? That doesn’t mean it isn’t real and valid.

Lucid dreaming was discovered, investigated and demonstrated to be real because ... guess what ... it's real. The same cannot be said for conscious perspectives existing outside bodies.

While I find some of the NDE case reports compelling, you may be surprised to hear I am sceptical of consciousness existing outside bodies, particularly when it comes to OBE’s. OBE’s are much more likely a journey into consciousness than out of body, in my view, that seems like a much more logical explanation for what is going on. It’s worth remembering though that “soul flights” or projections/OBE’s (whatever label one wishes to apply) have, like lucid dreams, been reported by pretty much all cultures and religions in different parts of the world going very far back in time. And science has spent much less time investigating them as thoroughly as it has lucid dreams.

Consider yourself annihilated.

I’m afraid not dear sir. I am as indestructible as the energy from which I borrow to sustain myself! :mrgreen: I like you Summerlander, and have enjoyed this debate, I wanted that to be clear. You might be surprised to find that if we were to have a face to face chat I think we would likely agree on a lot more matters than we would disagree on. And I don’t think there is a whole lot we do disagree on, I guess my position is that my mind isn’t made up on some issues, whereas yours seems to be. But I don’t consider myself annihilated I’m afraid. It seems to me that anybody or any scientists whose experiences or findings do not align with your model are automatically and by default labelled as deluded, or as a fraud, quack or liar. I think this smacks of a little arrogance and ignorance on your part in some respects. I think you have failed to acknowledge or deliberately ignored some evidence that I some respects goes against your model, and at the same time you acknowledge evidence from research that has obvious holes in with respect to OBE research, while failing to acknowledge said holes.

Anywho, it has been fun, I will check out that consciousness thread when I get the chance. 8-)

Well, I'll let you have the last word here. It's been interesting. I'm not saying that an afterlife is out of the question, I'm just saying that so far it seems highly unlikely. You should adopt the same attitude towards the view that death really means death and OBEs/ NDEs are just illusory.

By the way, my own mother believes dreams happen in a spirit realm. Also, many lucid dreamers believe they are 'astral projecting' and some of their experiences do influence their behaviour and they also lose a fear of death. In fact, one can argue that those who think they have left their bodies and travel to mystical realms are not even lucid dreaming as they fail to recognise the totally subjective nature of their experiences. (To be even more relevant to the topic, this is the reason why I view lucid dreams as being superior in terms of mental acuity than OBEs as experiences literally interpreted as such.) So I'll leave you to ponder: What's so special about NDEs? :-)

You may say everything is subjective but I would be careful with this black and white view in its extremes lest you fall into a solipsistic trap reductio ad absurdum. Some truths are epistemologically objective and thus verifiable by a plurality of sentient beings; for example, both humans and bats perceive a mountain in their respective ways---therefore, the mountain has an objective reality. And then you get ontologically subjective truths such as the one conveyed in the statement, 'To me, Vincent Van Gogh was the greatest painter who ever lived.' Failing to make such distinctions is a gross disregard for reality.

Good luck in your search for the truth. I only have this piece of advice from experience: parapsychology is a dead end apart from not having an explanation for consciousness either. :geek:

Let me leave you with an interesting excerpt from Unweaving The Rainbow by Richard Dawkins:

'A brain that is good at simulating models in imagination is also, almost inevitably, in danger of self-delusion. How many of us as children have lain in bed, terrified because we thought we saw a ghost or a monstrous face staring in at the bedroom window, only to discover that it was a trick of the light? I've already discussed how eagerly our brain's simulation software will construct a solid face where the reality is a hollow face. It will just as eagerly make a ghostly face where the reality is a collection of moonlit folds in a white net curtain.

'Every night of our lives we dream. Our simulation software sets up worlds that do not exist; people, animals and places that never existed, perhaps never could exist. At the time, we experience these simulations as though they were reality. Why should we not, given that we habitually experience reality in the same way---as simulation models? The simulation software can delude us when we are awake, too. Illusions like the hollow face are in themselves harmless, and we understand how they work. But our simulation software can also, if we are drugged, or feverish, or fasting, produce hallucinations. Throughout history, people have seen visions of angels, saints and gods; and these have seemed very real to them. Well, of course they WOULD seem real. They are models, put together, by the normal simulation software. The simulation software is using the same modelling techniques as it uses ordinarily when it presents its continuously updated edition of reality. No wonder these visions have been so influential. No wonder they have changed people's lives. So if ever we hear a story that somebody has seen a vision, been visited by an archangel, or heard voices in the head, we should immediately be suspicious of taking it at face value.'

Me, being the hard-nosed, atheistic sceptic that I am, also possess the same kind of brain capable of producing ultra-realistic simulations. I'm not immune to brain porkies either. I can experience sleep paralysis and feel the presence of ghostly intruders. And I know what it's like to have an irrational fear even though the voice of reason reminds me that it's all a mental simulation.

Anyway, nice debating you. ;-)

Summerlander wrote:

Consider yourself annihilated. :mrgreen:

This statement got me laughing. Has Samwise had any other thread activity, or was he really annihilated?

Edited to add: I am not laughing at Samwise. I believe in the supernatural even more than he does. The sound of the quote is why I can't stop laughing.

He's been annihilated. :mrgreen:

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine... :mrgreen:

He's back! There is an afterlife after all ... :mrgreen:

http://www.robertpeterson.org/obe-vs-lucid.html gives the detailed difference between them.

Well, first of all, the tabular array of comparative information regarding lucid dreams and OBEs in the link you provide, metalclay, is incorrect ...

Lucid dreams, like OBEs, do provide the impression that one is elsewhere other than the sleeping body. The difference is in interpretation. The lucid dreamer recognises that it's only a dissociative illusion aided by the brain's power to place proprioception in elaborate three-dimensional fabrications. The OBEr---who on the other hand is convinced he or she is truly out-of-body---suffers from delusion.

So of course lucid dreamers can program and control their mental experiences with ease---or at least possess a higher degree of control---because they acknowlege the fact that they are only dreams (virtual realities created by their minds). OBErs think they experience things beyond their minds and, for that reason, miss out.

Hence why I argue that lucid dreaming is not only more advanced, it is also applying the correct logic to lucid mental experiences. As for waking consciousness during sleep, lucid dreams can possess that too. It is the hallmark of strong lucidity.

But labels and semantics aside, the brain only reflects a spectral array of the same hybrid phase state, which is characterised by Gamma waves of activity. This phase state is what compounds waking consciousness and dreaming. How you interpret the experiences you have in that state is what makes a difference, but one which isn't necessarily based on truisms.

If you experience an OBE in the waking state, it is more likely that your thalamus, or some other brain region, played a dissociative trick on you. Nothing leaves the body. Consciousness is not tangible nor is it a thing apart from bodies. Consciousness is merely phenomenal because of the impact environments have on physical systems which have the ability to process information.