Is astral projection (OBE) real? ...and other questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xetrov

Of course the whole brain cant be 100% dead yet at the moment of NDE, however certain parts of it for sure have totally shut down (mostly the upper "higher" evolved regions). This is not so weird as it may seem, because it even happens in deep sleep (where your visual cortex just shuts down for a while).

---

Ahem, wait, I was talking only of brain cells dying. As far as I know death is technically when brain cells die due to lack of oxygen, any state before that is not death, brain still survives and you're aware. If some brain parts shut down like in sleep, it's not death...

Quote:

---

The link i showed in above post is pretty good in explaining this, if you have some time please read it if you are interested:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page23.htm

It's maybe quite a read but very interesting. I would post more links to people who actually did the reasearch but I have to go to work now, I could investigate it later and see what I can come up with. That article I posted should already link to most of it though.

---

I didn't find the link convincing to be honest. The points it makes are weak, and I understand why they don't work with scientists :D

If you really know interesting links on the topic, then please look for information on some kind of comparison between what happens to brain during dreams and during a NDE. The discrepancy must be very impressive in order to be sure that you couldn't be seeing lucid visions like in sleep.

Arutad

Watch from half of the clip



to about half of the next clip


If that is interesting watch the whole documentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucidspark64

Out of bodies haven't been proven to the public at this point. Although I was convinced that I had an OBE like a month ago, I still want to be skeptical. It could have just been a very vivid lucid dream the mimic me and the room really well.

---

Wouldn't even have to mimic it all that well. Just enough to fool ya.
Bits of your brain are shut down when you dream. So your inclinded to accept what you see.
An FA may give a loose approximation of your room, but as far as your thinking goes, when you wake up you will be convinced it was the real deal.

I've done it myself. Sat in my bedroom wondering if I was actually dreaming or not, sneaking out of the room so as not to disturb my sleeping wife,
and then gradually finding the dream becoming more and more unreal.
Like in the lounge I notices that the TV was where the radiator was.
And that I apparently had a nice big garden (I live in an appartment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

Ahem, wait, I was talking only of brain cells dying. As far as I know death is technically when brain cells die due to lack of oxygen, any state before that is not death, brain still survives and you're aware. If some brain parts shut down like in sleep, it's not death...

---

True, but while a dying brain is indeed not technically dead yet, it is nevertheless not active. Maybe a metaphor would help, if you turn your pc off, it's not destroyed either. Turn the electricity on again and it will function again. Offcourse a brain without electricity in it for more than, let's say, 15 minutes or so, cant be turned on again. But you get the idea. In those 15 minutes, the NDE happens. And while this happens, scientist were not able to measure any brain activity with their EEG recorders (no brainwaves detected at all). So, unlike you claim, the brain does survive, but you can not possibly be aware. To be aware, there must be brain activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

I didn't find the link convincing to be honest. The points it makes are weak, and I understand why they don't work with scientists :D

---

Please give me an example of what weak arguments you think they make (I'd have to agree not all are as strong, but some for sure are). Besides this, they do work with scientists. If you would have read all that info properly you would have seen it. There are several scientists who are actually researching or have researched the phenomenon. In the link I posted there are several mentionned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

... please look for information on some kind of comparison between what happens to brain during dreams and during a NDE. The discrepancy must be very impressive in order to be sure that you couldn't be seeing lucid visions like in sleep.

---

The discrepancy is thus: during NDE, there is no brain activity at all. During any other state, including LD's, there is. Is that impressive enough?

Btw Specialis Sapientia, nice docu, didnt see that one yet.

Quote:

---

Bits of your brain are shut down when you dream. So your inclinded to accept what you see.

---

Yup :D Actually the whole "logical center" of the brain is shut down. Actually that's supposed to be the only actual area that shuts down. The rest of the brain is very active. I always wondered how we actually accepted our dream worlds :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xetrov

True, but while a dying brain is indeed not technically dead yet, it is nevertheless not active.

---

Yes, but it's not dead, so there can be no 100% certainty about what happens after its death. So far it's all about what happens when there's no detectable consciousness, but the brain is still alive. Don't take this as stubborn position, I'd be glad to learn that we don't die after death and that consciousness is in no way connected to our physical body. But unless it's very convincing, it's impossible to believe in it, it feels like wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

Please give me an example of what weak arguments you think they make (I'd have to agree not all are as strong, but some for sure are). Besides this, they do work with scientists.

---

Sure, why some scientists would be interested in investigating NDEs?
Ok then, look at the four points at that link. First one is about evidence. They state that people dismiss it wrongly, not believing. I can't see why it's wrong to not believe it, if you haven't seen it or if it wasn't good enough. To give an example, Xetrov posted a link to the video of a woman's story that I can't find completely convincing. She's supposed to have heard bits of conversation correctly, however she could use her ears to do that, as far as I understood. The doctors even spoke about it, but I didn't caught whether clicking in her ears was loud enough or not to prevent her from hearing. They weren't so sure about it, so I have to dismiss this bit of evidence as possibly heard by physical ears. After that all that's left is her account is a toothbrush-looking thing that the doctor held. While it did look a bit like such a thing in reality, the problem is that in the very beginning the woman heard a sound that reminded her of a dentist, so it's not surprising at all that she'd envision such a thing in the doctor's hand. If you've been to the dentists, then you saw what thing they put in your mouth, it looks exactly like she described. Another possibility is that she saw in the movie how people get operated that way and imagined both the sound and that thing. So unfortunately there are too many questions to consider such an evidence 100% convincing.
Second is about life-changing influence. That's not a weak point, it's a zero point...
The third is no EEG. That's very interesting, but it depends on evidence, to be sure that all visions happen during that state and not earlier or later. I wish they found evidence that was completely convincing, then the "no EEG" point would work.
The fourth is that some people have NDE’s even when they were not in danger of death. I'm not sure what it must prove, because in this case their brain wasn't shut down enough.

Quote:

---

The discrepancy is thus: during NDE, there is no brain activity at all. During any other state, including LD's, there is. Is that impressive enough?

---

It is, once there's enough evidence that it's absolutely true that all those visions were seen during no brain activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xetrov

Ok I understand your view. I see it differently, though. The body as hardware, there I agree. But the sofware, to me, would be the mind, the thoughts and ideas and memories we posess. I see consciousness as the witness of the interaction between hard-and software.

---

Well, if we are to compare mind to computer, thoughts, ideas and memories will be data. Thinking will be software, not sure about consciousness, why not it is software too? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

Yes, but it's not dead, so there can be no 100% certainty about what happens after its death. So far it's all about what happens when there's no detectable consciousness, but the brain is still alive. Don't take this as stubborn position, I'd be glad to learn that we don't die after death and that consciousness is in no way connected to our physical body. But unless it's very convincing, it's impossible to believe in it, it feels like wishful thinking...

It is [impressive], once there's enough evidence that it's absolutely true that all those visions were seen during no brain activity.

---

As far as science can tell, during these NDE's, the brain is dead. The fact that later on it can be reactivated again, does not negate this. A dead brain can be reactivated again and meanwhile survive for several minutes to one hour. Scientists also say, "there is no neuronal activity at all" (to see one who claims this, watch that video documentary again, you will see that they say exactly what I quote here). No neuronal activity means there is absolutely no activity in the brain whatsoever. There is no possibility that, if the experiences really happened during the time there is no neuronal activity, these experiences are processed by the brain. Also, it is not like you state, about detecting consciousness, it is about detecting brain activity. It is also not said that consciousness (and in this case, the mind) is in no way connected to our physical body. Evidence so far only suggests that it very well could be possible that it is able to survive the body. Thus I dont take your position as stubborn, merely as slightly misinformed (we all suffer from that now and then so this is not a personal attack mind you). This is not about believing or whisfull thinking, it is about science and personal experiences and how to best interpret this all. There are of course several possible ways to do this, but none of them should dismiss the evidence that is gathered so far.

By the way, if you watched that docu, you should have noticed that there are several notable scientist working on solving the riddle. If forgot his name but there was a doctor working together with one of the world's leading physics scientist, Penrose. They came up with an interesting theory as how it could possibly be that the mind can operate without a body, using quantum physics to explain it. Besides them there is a whole host of serious scientists working in this field. Thus your earlier remark "I understand why they don't work with scientists" is probably pretty much due to your lack of information on the subject.

Quote:

---

...the video of a woman's story that I can't find completely convincing. She's supposed to have heard bits of conversation correctly, however she could use her ears to do that, as far as I understood. The doctors even spoke about it, but I didn't caught whether clicking in her ears was loud enough or not to prevent her from hearing. They weren't so sure about it, so I have to dismiss this bit of evidence as possibly heard by physical ears.

---

No, they merely said that, even if it were true that there was brain activity (which evidence suggests there isnt), it would be very hard for her to hear things while having her ears plugged. So while there was no brain activity and her ears were plugged, she reported quite some detailed information about the surgery, the tools and the conversations.

By the way I agree that points 2 and 4 are not really arguments at all. But this does not dismiss the fact that there is other quite strong evidence suggestive of the mind surviving the body. And the case of this lady is by far not the only case. I could show you some more research but that will have to wait for now since I'm off to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeDreamer

Yup :D Actually the whole "logical center" of the brain is shut down. Actually that's supposed to be the only actual area that shuts down. The rest of the brain is very active. I always wondered how we actually accepted our dream worlds :P

---

Indeed. This is very important.
It tells us that regardless of how much we believed something which occured within a dream, we simply weren't in our right minds.

This single, salient, scientific fact explains so much of the mythology which has sprung up around dreaming. Because no matter what earthshattering event we beleived we experienced, or witnessed, the simple truth is we did not have the capabilities to assess it in a rational way. Without any kind of callibration or filters its highly probable we have a mistaken/flawed estimation of the "reality" of what occoured.

People would do well to reflect on this before they report what they "know".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xetrov

No neuronal activity means there is absolutely no activity in the brain whatsoever. There is no possibility that, if the experiences really happened during the time there is no neuronal activity, these experiences are processed by the brain.

---

No neuronal activity means only no neuronal activity. In that docu they said that the brain was still active, that it was making the body of that woman breathe, etc. That was a reason why one of the doctors in the docu surmised that probably it's possible for consciousness to exist at a very low level in the brain, so low that it's undetectable by modern machinery.

Quote:

---

Also, it is not like you state, about detecting consciousness, it is about detecting brain activity.

---

I don't know about other cases, but I'm talking of that docu. And in it they were talking as if brain waves were equal to consciousness most of the time. I don't possess enough memory to quote, but near the end of Pam's story they directly said it.

But opinions differ, otherwise that guy (Hameroff?) wouldn't speculate about his quantum theory.

Quote:

---

By the way, if you watched that docu, you should have noticed that there are several notable scientist working on solving the riddle. If forgot his name but there was a doctor working together with one of the world's leading physics scientist, Penrose. They came up with an interesting theory as how it could possibly be that the mind can operate without a body, using quantum physics to explain it. Besides them there is a whole host of serious scientists working in this field. Thus your earlier remark "I understand why they don't work with scientists" is probably pretty much due to your lack of information on the subject.

---

Please don't distort the meaning of my words to your liking, ok? ;) Of course when I said that such evidence isn't convincing for scientists I didn't mean ALL scientists. Only the majority. I can't know if there are scientists who found convincing evidence, only that the majority hadn't. Usually such things are self-evident enough not to mention words like "almost" :)

Quote:

---

I could show you some more research but that will have to wait for now since I'm off to work.

---

Well, if there is something really interesting I'd look at it for sure :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

No neuronal activity means only no neuronal activity. In that docu they said that the brain was still active, that it was making the body of that woman breathe, etc. That was a reason why one of the doctors in the docu surmised that probably it's possible for consciousness to exist at a very low level in the brain, so low that it's undetectable by modern machinery.

---

No, they drained her body of blood and her brain was fully shut down. No neuronal activity also means, no breathing. It means, quite literally, nothing is happening, since anything that happens in the brain is linked to these neurons. The case of people still breathing was about sedation at normal surgeries (remember where they showed that guy with the gas mask going under). It was not related to the case of that woman who had an NDE. They only showed it to explain that during normal surgeries, the brain keeps its autonomous functions like breathing and letting the heart beat. They then continued to explain that this was not the case with the lady having the NDE (and by the way this also counts for many other NDE experiences that have been monitored and documented). They also did not surmise that for this lady, her consciousness was at a low level in her brain. They said it was completely shut down (the brain).

Quote:

---

...they were talking as if brain waves were equal to consciousness

---

Not equal, just that we know for sure that when there are brain waves, there can be consciousness. But perhaps this is more of a semantic issue, since the point is not what we call it, just that some of the evidence seems to suggest consciousness is not dependant on an active brain to survive.

Quote:

---

Please don't distort the meaning of my words to your liking, ok? ;) Of course when I said that such evidence isn't convincing for scientists I didn't mean ALL scientists. Only the majority. I can't know if there are scientists who found convincing evidence, only that the majority hadn't. Usually such things are self-evident enough not to mention words like "almost" :)

---

I am sorry for misinterpreting you then. Be assured I do not try to bend your words to anyting that I like more. But you are right, most scientists are probably not convinced that consciousness can exist without a brain. But quite some scientists have chosen to study this subject with an open mind and see what the results are. So far, there of course does not seem to be extreme hard scientific evidence to support a notion of consciousness without a brain (since science is coming up with multiple alternative theories), but suggestive evidence is slowly building up, and who knows where it will end up. This is a branch of research that´s pretty new, more conclusive discoveries (to prove or disprove the idea) will probably be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantasos

Well, if we are to compare mind to computer, thoughts, ideas and memories will be data. Thinking will be software, not sure about consciousness, why not it is software too? :)

---

Because, consciousness is not a thing. It is that which is conscious of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

Well, if there is something really interesting I'd look at it for sure :D

---

Start here, it's an oversight of pretty much all of the current research into NDE, categorised by agrument:

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Other than that I personally found Pim van Lommel's research to be very decent:

Pim van Lommel’s original research:
http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/pub...n%20Lommel.pdf

His reply to critique on his study and short summary of most important facts:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o.../vanLommel.htm

New scientist article on his study (shows he’s not “merely some obscure researcher”):
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...periences.html


Should keep anyone really interested and open minded busy for a while.

Ok thank you for the links, I'll be sure to check them today :)

Also check here.

http://www.horizonresearch.org/

Hi Lucidflanders,

That is a very interesting website. I found one of the most compelling peer reviewed scientific articles on NDE there, which I would suggest to anyone interested:

http://www.horizonresearch.org/resusrv.pdf

Start reading from "7. Interpreting NDE in cardiac arrest" and on, since its a bit dry before that chapter. It´s main conclusion is that several reported NDE experiences are currently impossible to explain by purely physiological explanations (the brain is just inactive during NDE). But read it in the article since they explain it very well there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xetrov

Hi Lucidflanders,

That is a very interesting website. I found one of the most compelling peer reviewed scientific articles on NDE there, which I would suggest to anyone interested:

http://www.horizonresearch.org/resusrv.pdf

Start reading from "7. Interpreting NDE in cardiac arrest" and on, since its a bit dry before that chapter. It´s main conclusion is that several reported NDE experiences are currently impossible to explain by purely physiological explanations (the brain is just inactive during NDE). But read it in the article since they explain it very well there.

---

Great article on NDE!

I look forward to more research in this area.

In support of the "new" science, the measurement problem can be quite relevant to the nature of consciousness.

The collapse of a wavefuction by a conscious observer is still today a riddle for science.

Spirituality is real. Mystics have known about consciousness for years,mainstream science is now JUST starting to prove it. Science, spirituality, religion...it's all coming together now. And it's the best time for this to happen, especially with the way things are going in the world.

If anyone is interested in the study of science and spirituality, look into kabbalah. Illuminati has known this for years. They've used this to manipulate the masses. I can post more on this, and how it's used.

Here is some Near death experience articles. Plenty of them, with scientific evidence.

http://www.near-death.com/

And here are some great articles that will really make you question your reality.
http://www.davidicke.com/content/category/8/29/46/30/0/

I wish i could believe in NDE's, afterlife, etc....i just can't seem to believe in them. If i could, losing family could be so much easier to cope with knowing i will see them again. There is a skeptic within me, keeping me from believing this...as much as i wanna believe, and always have wanted to...the skeptic within me prevents it from happening.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I wish i could believe in NDE's, afterlife, etc....i just can't seem to believe in them. If i could, losing family could be so much easier to cope with knowing i will see them again. There is a skeptic within me, keeping me from believing this...as much as i wanna believe, and always have wanted to...the skeptic within me prevents it from happening.:(

---

Even with convincing scientific evidence?...wow..

I think deep down it's because you don't WANT to believe in them. Not trying to be insulting here but If you want to live out your existence in your physical body with boxes and limitations, then that's exactly what you're going to experience. I think you're afraid. You're afraid that you don't have a grasp on the world you live in, let alone the grand design of the universe, and so you try and limit it to give yourself the illusion of control. Like many others, you over rationalize things and place strict rules and boxes on things because you don't like the idea that you don't have dominance over your mortality. You openly accept the idea of gravity and cosmic forces, but for some reason can't except the notion of a soul when they aren't so different in design. You can't see or touch either of those. You don't accept the notion of a soul because you can't explain it. That idea of no control scares people, because people naturally fear the unknown. There are some things which are beyond the scope of Science and can't be mathematically plotted or recreated in a lab. Science limits acceptable thought process and understanding.

Well, it also helps to be smart of this subject, which i am not and know pretty much nothing at all. I used to go by blind faith, but then coming to this place changed that, and what people say about body functions, and what i read/ etc it all makes sense with the body.

I used to be "OH i believe that", then "Oh, that looks better IMO, so i believe that instead", now i question things instead of believing in everything i read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Well, it also helps to be smart of this subject, which i am not and know pretty much nothing at all. I used to go by blind faith, but then coming to this place changed that, and what people say about body functions, and what i read/ etc it all makes sense with the body.

I used to be "OH i believe that", then "Oh, that looks better IMO, so i believe that instead", now i question things instead of believing in everything i read.

---

yes question everything. Actually to quote buddha "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it myself, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The interesting thing is that only some percentrage of clinically dead people happen to have NDEs. If NDEs are a proof of afterlife, then what does failure to have them mean for others, do they have no chance for afterlife?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arutad

The interesting thing is that only some percentrage of clinically dead people happen to have NDEs. If NDEs are a proof of afterlife, then what does failure to have them mean for others, do they have no chance for afterlife?

---

I think we should notice the word clinically, even though they are clinically dead don't mean that they are brain dead.

The tolerence for the consciousness to go out of body may very well vary from person to person.

The clinically dead person could have forgotten, or simply be unconscious for the time.

There are so many factors when it comes to most things, not reason to think that the transition should be any different.

Take notice of the percentage in this article:
http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/pub...n%20Lommel.pdf

Here is a quotation:

Quote:

---

Methods: In a prospective study, we included 344 consecutive cardiac patients who were successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest in ten Dutch hospitals. We compared demographic, medical, pharmacological, and psychological data between patients who reported NDE and patients who did not (controls) after resuscitation. In a longitudinal study of life changes after NDE, we compared the groups 2 and 8 years later.
Findings: 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience.

---

18% isn't a very high percentage, it leaves many questions.

Quote:

---

The tolerence for the consciousness to go out of body may very well vary from person to person.

The clinically dead person could have forgotten, or simply be unconscious for the time.

---

If they "died" and their consciousness still existed, they couldn't be unconscious or fail to go out of body, that would mean that their consciousness died. So the reason can only be failure to remember, but it's not clear why some would remember and some would forget.