NDES and OBES: dreams are the key

#61
Ok, but sometimes we have to lean towards some explanation. You seem to insist on the idea that the veridical content of NDEs is a result of acquiring the perception of others rather than an own extrasensory perception.
Yep, your right, I do lean strongly towards the idea of information going into the patient (rather than something going out of the patient) in the verifiable OBE portion of the NDE during cardiac arrest. I'm the first to accept that there are some issues with that, like explaining why (what I consider to be fairly solid) verifiable OBE locations, seem to be more prevalent around the patients actual location, becoming less and less common the further away you move.
It's very attractive to explain this by simply saying something is actually leaving the body.
 
C

chuck.drake

#62
I'd have to disagree. The whole point about the candle anecdote is...here we have a famous "projector" whose data is sometimes used by people as evidence that OBEs exist in a real-world sense...unable to distinguish that this wasn't an OBE until he reawakened and discovered that he had NOT in fact blown out the candle. All other cues to the experience bluffed him that he was having a genuine OBE. And therein lies the problem. IF an "OBE" can only be distinguished by "veridical information" then this is a conclusion about the acquisition of information, not about the real-world literality of an "out of body" condition. This information could be acquired without the person being "out of a body" at all. Even Harary has said that he is not at all convinced that these experiences were ever really and *literally* out of body. For something to be out of a body, there must first of all be something that was in a body. But if that whole way of thinking is false (and it is very problematic...what do we mean by "in" a body?...your heart, lungs, and brain are in your body. Other meanings are highly debatable, except as metaphor. But even waiving all of that, if an OBE cannot be distinguished from certain categories of lucid dream, then it is doubtful that they have their own unique phenomenology, and I suspect that is the case. By the way, popular authors are not quality sources in my opinion, especially when said authors could hardly be described as having volunteered themselves to proper study.
I think sometimes you are stuck on the name Out of Body Experience. What if you simply called it phasing as Raduga does?

Who said that an OBE can only be distinguished by "veridical information?" All the OBE writers accept the fact that when in the "the state" that the reality you are presented with may look like your bedroom, but may not be the actual physical bedroom. As well, I don't think when pressed many skeptical practitioners would say for certain that they "literally" go "out of body." Who could know that from this physical perspective? We simply can't. We can surmise and we can formulate ideas, but until we die and cross the veil, as it were, we must remain mostly in the dark. Most would say it is better to maintain an open mind about the whole subject and continue to process anecdotal experiences as they arise without preconceptions, rather than constantly saying it can't be this, and this isn't possible. It seems you are truly fascinated with the phenomena, but you insist on shoving it into a pigeon hole where it simply doesn't fit. Let us live with the mystery of the experience and bring all the ideas into the room so as to not miss connections as they may arise. Your way of thinking seems to be constantly shutting doors. My idea is to keep opening them.
 
#63
I already wrote the reasons for concluding that some apparitions are physical presences. In empirical science there is always a subjective judgment. I also wrote that the most parsimonious is that some apparitions of livings may be the other side of the OBEs when the projector is perceived by someone in the place where he/she is projected.

Right. But then I already answered you as to why I had problems with that argument.
 
#64
I think sometimes you are stuck on the name Out of Body Experience. What if you simply called it phasing as Raduga does?

Who said that an OBE can only be distinguished by "veridical information?" All the OBE writers accept the fact that when in the "the state" that the reality you are presented with may look like your bedroom, but may not be the actual physical bedroom. As well, I don't think when pressed many skeptical practitioners would say for certain that they "literally" go "out of body." Who could know that from this physical perspective? We simply can't. We can surmise and we can formulate ideas, but until we die and cross the veil, as it were, we must remain mostly in the dark. Most would say it is better to maintain an open mind about the whole subject and continue to process anecdotal experiences as they arise without preconceptions, rather than constantly saying it can't be this, and this isn't possible. It seems you are truly fascinated with the phenomena, but you insist on shoving it into a pigeon hole where it simply doesn't fit. Let us live with the mystery of the experience and bring all the ideas into the room so as to not miss connections as they may arise. Your way of thinking seems to be constantly shutting doors. My idea is to keep opening them.
Not really. I just try to look at the phenomena to see what we actually have. I compare this too with four years solid of trying this myself almost every day. In the long view, the best description of the experiences that I had, a few of which are almost identical to what people call "OBEs" in astral projection books, were dreams of varying levels of lucidity. I don't see that anything useful is added by calling them "out of body experiences." There is no evidence that this description actually makes much sense, unless as a subjective perception of such. Some of the phenomena described are exactly the same as I experiences. However, as I indicated in another message, they could not literally have been true. I would pass through the window into the chill night air...only to awaken and realize that I was actually having a nap in the afternoon. Etc. It's a question at the end of the day for what the simplest explanation is. Personally, I think that the historical occult notion that people literally go "out" of their bodies is preventing or obstructing a more sophisticated modern understanding of what is happening in the construction of waking reality, dreams, and perceptions.
 
#65
And in there somewhere, if you look for it carefully, I'm sure you'll find an explanation for why science (and most of the rest of the world too) doesn't care much about OBEs either.
Depends on your definition of "world" because in mine, my OBE workshops are full to the brim. :D Most of the rest of the world doesn't like haggis either and it's delightful.
 
#66
I'd have to disagree. The whole point about the candle anecdote is...here we have a famous "projector" whose data is sometimes used by people as evidence that OBEs exist in a real-world sense...unable to distinguish that this wasn't an OBE until he reawakened and discovered that he had NOT in fact blown out the candle. All other cues to the experience bluffed him that he was having a genuine OBE. And therein lies the problem. IF an "OBE" can only be distinguished by "veridical information" then this is a conclusion about the acquisition of information, not about the real-world literality of an "out of body" condition. This information could be acquired without the person being "out of a body" at all. Even Harary has said that he is not at all convinced that these experiences were ever really and *literally* out of body. For something to be out of a body, there must first of all be something that was in a body. But if that whole way of thinking is false (and it is very problematic...what do we mean by "in" a body?...your heart, lungs, and brain are in your body. Other meanings are highly debatable, except as metaphor. But even waiving all of that, if an OBE cannot be distinguished from certain categories of lucid dream, then it is doubtful that they have their own unique phenomenology, and I suspect that is the case. By the way, popular authors are not quality sources in my opinion, especially when said authors could hardly be described as having volunteered themselves to proper study.
Anyone who takes "accounts" as de facto regardless of the author is dealing in OBE belief not OBE knowledge. Considering that it takes only a modicum of effort and that most people who seriously desire to have an OBE can, why not give it a try?

I don't understand your inability to commit to an OBE experience where you can find out for yourself. Fear? Really not that interested in the subject? What is it, pray tell!
 
#67
Well then, they aren't properly defined if they are "in the eye of the user." For there to be a phenomenal diagnostic for OBEs as a real-world phenomenon there has to be stable, empirical material that separates an "OBE" from a lucid dream. And I don't think that there is. All the phneomena of an OBE can occur in a lucid dream, including (if one accepts its existence) telepathic information.
Again, this sounds like the Descartes demon argument. I can dream about purely mundane events too, so how do I know that I am not writing this post in my sleep? If a dream can simulate anything to any degree of lucidity, then there is no way to definitively know that I'm not dreaming right now.
 
#68
Kai, I think sometimes you are stuck on the name Out of Body Experience. What if you simply called it phasing as Raduga does
Media generated language, it's a poor terminology imo especially since the OBE is within a body albeit an energy/astral one. Were stuck with it like the NDE which all too often is not near-death or cannot be determined if there is any death-related component involved.

Who said that an OBE can only be distinguished by "veridical information?" All the OBE writers accept the fact that when in the "the state" that the reality you are presented with may look like your bedroom, but may not be the actual physical bedroom. As well, I don't think when pressed many skeptical practitioners would say for certain that they "literally" go "out of body." Who could know that from this physical perspective? We simply can't. We can surmise and we can formulate ideas, but until we die and cross the veil, as it were, we must remain mostly in the dark. Most would say it is better to maintain an open mind about the whole subject and continue to process anecdotal experiences as they arise without preconceptions, rather than constantly saying it can't be this, and this isn't possible. It seems you are truly fascinated with the phenomena, but you insist on shoving it into a pigeon hole where it simply doesn't fit. Let us live with the mystery of the experience and bring all the ideas into the room so as to not miss connections as they may arise. Your way of thinking seems to be constantly shutting doors. My idea is to keep opening them.
My personal experience with the mid-astral dimensions positively resolves to "Good God, the possibilities of and within the planes and dimensions are limitless". I don't think I have anything close to a clue, the more I 'know', the less I am certain I know of the afterlife geography and life style.

Except that one exists.
 
Last edited:
#69
Anyone who takes "accounts" as de facto regardless of the author is dealing in OBE belief not OBE knowledge. Considering that it takes only a modicum of effort and that most people who seriously desire to have an OBE can, why not give it a try?

I don't understand your inability to commit to an OBE experience where you can find out for yourself. Fear? Really not that interested in the subject? What is it, pray tell!
But are you actually reading the thread??
 
#70
Again, this sounds like the Descartes demon argument. I can dream about purely mundane events too, so how do I know that I am not writing this post in my sleep? If a dream can simulate anything to any degree of lucidity, then there is no way to definitively know that I'm not dreaming right now.
But the problem domain is not to determine the waking state from lucid dreams. A skilled lucid dreamer can do that...at least some of the time. The problem domain is to ask whether there is really any phenomenal difference between a lucid dream of an OBE and an OBE, or whether these are in fact simply both descriptions of the same essential event.
 
#71
But the problem domain is not to determine the waking state from lucid dreams. A skilled lucid dreamer can do that...at least some of the time. The problem domain is to ask whether there is really any phenomenal difference between a lucid dream of an OBE and an OBE, or whether these are in fact simply both descriptions of the same essential event.
But are you actually reading the thread??

I have made the point with multiple references that the differentiation between any dream state and OBE is as wide a chasm as the Grand Canyon.

Again, I reiterate, for a third time, you can experience this OBE 'phenomena' for yourself. Why do you refuse to make the effort to do so? :(
 
#72
I think that in the paranormal we have a problem which we, frankly, do not even fully understand (as a race) that we have. This problem, condensed to its essence, is that there is a strong relation between the paranormal and storytelling. This relation is clearly visible to anyone who is willing to look without prejudice. It belongs unmistakably to that order of human events which can be called “the attempt – strenuous or playful – to build structures of life-enhancing meaning in a difficult (and sometimes outright hostile) world”…in other words, in earlier days what was called myth.

For the greatest part of our history we have not been concerned with the problem that myths are not “literally” true. They served their purpose precisely *because* they were stories. No one cared whether they were literally true or not…and this same disdain carries on today with our ambivalent attitude towards “science” when it confronts our stories. On the one hand we still have that inner desire to protect story from the searing light of discovery…should that discovery turn out to be anything other than affirmation. Thus…when the Parnia style studies show signs of not producing, we have defensive reasons for this…but if at any point they should *actually* produce, these same processes would be fawned over and Parnia himself hailed as a new Newton and savior of story.

But it conceals a deeper problem. Science is our modern myth. At some point we tipped over from science as pragmatism to science as disclosed Truth. But all “Truths” like that are mythic structures. We have no tools for the discerning of any such thing. We only have tools for the discerning of pragmatic truths (with a small t) and which we call the empirical methods of science. The trouble is that those methods *are* powerful enough to disclose whether or not many of our stories designed to give our lives meaning…are in fact false at the pragmatic level. And this is a crisis that systems of myth have never had to face in such an open way before. You can see the conflict actually waged on a day to day basis on forums like this and many others, because (imo) the issue is not understood in terms of what is really happening at a psychological and socio-cultural level. Our mythic way of addressing the world, which has been our staple for tens of thousands of years, faces extinction if this conflict process is forced to the wall. Something must give. Either the mythic mode. Or science as a disclosure of anything beyond pragmatic truth.

Is there any “pragmatic” as opposed to “mythic” truth to the paranormal? Well before you rush in with a ready answer, try to understand that this is not straightforward. The domain of “pragmatic” truth has certain rules to it that qualify something to occupy that domain. Something that consistently steps around those rules or pleads special exceptions to them cannot really be said to occupy it. On the other hand, mythic space is characterized by story, by story-sharing, by manifestations ancient and modern of the “fireside tale.” I am agnostic on the pragmatic truth of the paranormal. I have been, in the past, so sure of its existence from a distance, only to see it vanish perversely as I draw closer, like a kind of mirage on a wet road. And one wonders if in fact it isn’t going to turn out, always, like this.

I don’t think we can have it both ways. I don’t think that the crisis can resolve like that. And we’ve been putting off the cusp of that crisis for over a century now. The attempt to “sciencify” myths (society of psychical research etc) was always potentially a grave mistake. We are at risk of cutting off the oxygen that gives most of the race a sense of meaning. Science is too peculiar, too precocious, and too recent a child of the mind to be able to substitute for it at all. Maybe in tens of thousands of years that might be possible, but not in tens of years.

On the other hand, we are kind of trapped. We have checkmated ourselves with this, because we cannot pretend, any more, that the *pragmatic* truth-discerning abilities of science are an illusion. And if the pragmatic verdict of science turns out to be that paranormal is an illusion, then the only defense of the mythic mode against this is to retreat into story. But even this is not satisfactory, for while it may retain a sense of the erstwhile mythic mode and its power, that power will be reduced and borne with a sense of doubt.

And this is what I mean when I say that H. sapiens faces a crisis of its myths the like of which it has never faced before. This question is much much more important than whether people see a teapot or not when they are apparently out of body. Really that is just a microcosmic face of the much larger problem.
 
#73
But are you actually reading the thread??

I have made the point with multiple references that the differentiation between any dream state and OBE is as wide a chasm as the Grand Canyon.

Again, I reiterate, for a third time, you can experience this OBE 'phenomena' for yourself. Why do you refuse to make the effort to do so? :(
So apparently you haven't read the thread, where I have mentioned several times that I did those experiments FOR YEARS!
 
#74
So apparently you haven't read the thread, where I have mentioned several times that I did those experiments FOR YEARS!
You experimented in having OBE for years? Years?

You expect this experienced OBEr who teaches others the ins and outs of OBE to buy into your acclaimed history of YEARS of attempting to have one successfully self-initiated OBE? That you spent YEARS in an elusive pursuit of the OBE that you do not believe is factual?

OK, I'll buy in. I trust you and I am sorry if I came off petulant.

Now the only question remains is why you didn't have one. All those wasted years :mad::(, don't you feel the inner demand to determine those years as useful by rectifying your OBE-less life? Let's work through this together.

The number one priority is that you really, truly, honest-to-Yahweh have to want to have an OBE. Do you qualify?
 
#75
You experimented in having OBE for years? Years?

You expect this experienced OBEr who teaches others the ins and outs of OBE to buy into your acclaimed history of YEARS of attempting to have one successfully self-initiated OBE? That you spent YEARS in an elusive pursuit of the OBE that you do not believe is factual?

OK, I'll buy in. I trust you and I am sorry if I came off petulant.

Now the only question remains is why you didn't have one. All those wasted years :mad::(, don't you feel the inner demand to determine those years as useful by rectifying your OBE-less life? Let's work through this together.

The number one priority is that you really, truly, honest-to-Yahweh have to want to have an OBE. Do you qualify?
I really don't care whether you "buy in" or not. That's your problem. I know it to be the truth. And no..at the time, I fully believed they were factual. I did all this convinced that people really were able to do this. It's the results over a long period, and also a close reading much later of what others had really achieved (where there was any actual evidence attached, that is) that convinced me that the story is not quite the same as its popular description. But, imo, if OBEs are lucid dreams this doesn't make them less interesting necessarily, as lucid dreams are themselves an extremely interesting phenomenon. However, I no longer believe that anyone actually "leaves their body." I put that down to..youthful indiscretion. But if you are saying you can do it on a regular basis...how about you read a target I arrange for you?
 
#77
But if you are saying you can do it on a regular basis...how about you read a target I arrange for you?
That would not prove that he left his body, actually. It would be anomalous cognition, or a million to one guess, but it would not prove what you want it to. Remote viewers don't claim to leave the body and would still do that test, as would a "super-psi" telepath.
 
#78
I think that in the paranormal we have a problem which we, frankly, do not even fully understand (as a race) that we have. This problem, condensed to its essence, is that there is a strong relation between the paranormal and storytelling. This relation is clearly visible to anyone who is willing to look without prejudice. It belongs unmistakably to that order of human events which can be called “the attempt – strenuous or playful – to build structures of life-enhancing meaning in a difficult (and sometimes outright hostile) world”…in other words, in earlier days what was called myth.

For the greatest part of our history we have not been concerned with the problem that myths are not “literally” true. They served their purpose precisely *because* they were stories. No one cared whether they were literally true or not…and this same disdain carries on today with our ambivalent attitude towards “science” when it confronts our stories. On the one hand we still have that inner desire to protect story from the searing light of discovery…should that discovery turn out to be anything other than affirmation. Thus…when the Parnia style studies show signs of not producing, we have defensive reasons for this…but if at any point they should *actually* produce, these same processes would be fawned over and Parnia himself hailed as a new Newton and savior of story.

But it conceals a deeper problem. Science is our modern myth. At some point we tipped over from science as pragmatism to science as disclosed Truth. But all “Truths” like that are mythic structures. We have no tools for the discerning of any such thing. We only have tools for the discerning of pragmatic truths (with a small t) and which we call the empirical methods of science. The trouble is that those methods *are* powerful enough to disclose whether or not many of our stories designed to give our lives meaning…are in fact false at the pragmatic level. And this is a crisis that systems of myth have never had to face in such an open way before. You can see the conflict actually waged on a day to day basis on forums like this and many others, because (imo) the issue is not understood in terms of what is really happening at a psychological and socio-cultural level. Our mythic way of addressing the world, which has been our staple for tens of thousands of years, faces extinction if this conflict process is forced to the wall. Something must give. Either the mythic mode. Or science as a disclosure of anything beyond pragmatic truth.

Is there any “pragmatic” as opposed to “mythic” truth to the paranormal? Well before you rush in with a ready answer, try to understand that this is not straightforward. The domain of “pragmatic” truth has certain rules to it that qualify something to occupy that domain. Something that consistently steps around those rules or pleads special exceptions to them cannot really be said to occupy it. On the other hand, mythic space is characterized by story, by story-sharing, by manifestations ancient and modern of the “fireside tale.” I am agnostic on the pragmatic truth of the paranormal. I have been, in the past, so sure of its existence from a distance, only to see it vanish perversely as I draw closer, like a kind of mirage on a wet road. And one wonders if in fact it isn’t going to turn out, always, like this.

I don’t think we can have it both ways. I don’t think that the crisis can resolve like that. And we’ve been putting off the cusp of that crisis for over a century now. The attempt to “sciencify” myths (society of psychical research etc) was always potentially a grave mistake. We are at risk of cutting off the oxygen that gives most of the race a sense of meaning. Science is too peculiar, too precocious, and too recent a child of the mind to be able to substitute for it at all. Maybe in tens of thousands of years that might be possible, but not in tens of years.

On the other hand, we are kind of trapped. We have checkmated ourselves with this, because we cannot pretend, any more, that the *pragmatic* truth-discerning abilities of science are an illusion. And if the pragmatic verdict of science turns out to be that paranormal is an illusion, then the only defense of the mythic mode against this is to retreat into story. But even this is not satisfactory, for while it may retain a sense of the erstwhile mythic mode and its power, that power will be reduced and borne with a sense of doubt.

And this is what I mean when I say that H. sapiens faces a crisis of its myths the like of which it has never faced before. This question is much much more important than whether people see a teapot or not when they are apparently out of body. Really that is just a microcosmic face of the much larger problem.
Osis experiments, Durville experiments, reciprocal apparitions, etc., seem nothing mythical, but pragmatic facts that are difficult to reproduce at will and that we have not a theory.
 
#79
I've also tried to have an OBE and I don't think it is something "anyone" can do. I've been on courses and done guided meditation to no avail. I don't know if it is related but I have also been to hypnotists - mostly professionals but one stage entertainer - and none of them were able to hypnotise me. I wanted them to but it just didn't work.

But something one experiencer told me has always seemed relevant. He said that in his group they have joint OBEs ... they arrange to meet "out there". Then they compare notes afterwards, describing the location and surroundings, etc. I guess this could be telepathy, I don't really know. But they all say that the experience is as real as the way I feel sitting and typing this post is real to me at this moment.
 
C

chuck.drake

#80
I really don't care whether you "buy in" or not. That's your problem. I know it to be the truth. And no..at the time, I fully believed they were factual. I did all this convinced that people really were able to do this. It's the results over a long period, and also a close reading much later of what others had really achieved (where there was any actual evidence attached, that is) that convinced me that the story is not quite the same as its popular description. But, imo, if OBEs are lucid dreams this doesn't make them less interesting necessarily, as lucid dreams are themselves an extremely interesting phenomenon. However, I no longer believe that anyone actually "leaves their body." I put that down to..youthful indiscretion. But if you are saying you can do it on a regular basis...how about you read a target I arrange for you?
Kai.

Who here has claimed that anything "leaves the body" in an OBE? Does anything "leave the body" in remote viewing? Does anything "leave the body" in clairvoyance? Why does something have to "leave the body?"
 
Top