Thread: OOBE's proved wrong

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

I too thought about this the first time I read LaBerge's book.

I came to the conclusion that that experiment proved nothing.
So maybe it is very unlikely that one would remember a sequence of eye movements in a dreamstate. So what? That doesn't prove that its impossible in any way.


I'd have to say that if I were a skeptic and had never had a lucid experience this "evidence" would crumble pretty much instantly before my logical mind's methods of deduction.
Its actually a pretty shoddy excuse for proof if ever I've seen one.

You can't really prove or disprove lucid dreaming though, its just impossible (with todays scientific instruments)
Much like OOBEs.

He must have done it somehow. I mean you're probably not the first person to question it, and I'm sure people questioned him when he did these experiments, but I mean he was allowed to do a PhD on this. Hmm I really don't know, but I should find out more about this.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

He must have done it somehow. I mean you're probably not the first person to question it, and I'm sure people questioned him when he did these experiments, but I mean he was allowed to do a PhD on this. Hmm I really don't know, but I should find out more about this.

I just thought about it a bit more in-depth.
it would be a little harder to disregard the eye movements as random if they corresponded precisely with a radical change in brainwave patterns (lucidity)

I never read this exactly, although I believe he said in the book that the subjects were to make the eye movements the moment they got lucid.


That still wouldn't "prove" anything though. Like I said earlier: its impossible to prove (completely and totally) anything to do with the mind at this point...

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

I just thought about it a bit more in-depth.
it would be a little harder to disregard the eye movements as random if they corresponded precisely with a radical change in brainwave patterns (lucidity)

I never read this exactly, although I believe he said in the book that the subjects were to make the eye movements the moment they got lucid.


That still wouldn't "prove" anything though. Like I said earlier: its impossible to prove (completely and totally) anything to do with the mind at this point...

That's true. So then I guess all we can do is focus on what can and can't be shown.

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

We all have to find our own ways to cope with death. Lets all just let one another believe whatever the hell we want.
Of course, that shouldn't stop you from telling other WHY you believe what you believe. Just remember that these belief systems are what keep us from commiting suicide on a daily basis. They're pretty much completely ingrained into the core of our mind.

I would be perfectly fine with innocent, happifying theories which did nothing more than keep people from defenestration. The problem arises when these theories are jeopardized by the tireless advance of scientific knowledge. You're certainly right about them being ingrained in the core of our minds. This sort of thing becomes a big problem when people begin to grasp at straws, trying to twist the world every which way in order to maintain their fairy tale happy endings. Granted, we are at a point right now where very little can conclusively be said about the mind, but this brand of stubborn, faith-based reasoning has done nothing but harm in the past. I, for one, will continue to endeavor to keep people from becoming too convinced of their happifying theories, no matter what they may be. So long as an element of doubt is maintained, all is well. But one can't help but talk, talk, talk when people run around claiming to know the unknowable - for sure.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I would be perfectly fine with innocent, happifying theories which did nothing more than keep people from defenestration. The problem arises when these theories are jeopardized by the tireless advance of scientific knowledge. You're certainly right about them being ingrained in the core of our minds. This sort of thing becomes a big problem when people begin to grasp at straws, trying to twist the world every which way in order to maintain their fairy tale happy endings. Granted, we are at a point right now where very little can conclusively be said about the mind, but this brand of stubborn, faith-based reasoning has done nothing but harm in the past. I, for one, will continue to endeavor to keep people from becoming too convinced of their happifying theories, no matter what they may be. So long as an element of doubt is maintained, all is well. But one can't help but talk, talk, talk when people run around claiming to know the unknowable - for sure.

But are you really helping once you get into the area of flame wars?

Its perfectly fine to state your hypothesis on why you personally feel your view is the correct one and what you find to be faults of logic in their judgment of "the truth"
The problem is when it gets into name calling and telling the other person that he or she is a moron just because so far what they've witnessed in their reality hasn't yet shown them the truth that you've personally found (maybe it never will).


Your never going change someones opinion of whats true and whats not by laughing at them and telling them they're stupid just because they believe what they do.
You change opinions by politely stating every possible morsel of obvious logical truth and letting them go over it themselves and figure it out on their own.

Maybe they don't figure it out even after you tell them everything... You've planted a seed that may or may not blossom in the future when they hear this argument again.
People don't change they're views of reality very easily or quickly. Chances are I'm not going to read a post (no matter how flawlessly intelligent and obvious it makes it that I'm an idiot for believing what I do) and suddenly completely change my outlook on reality. It just doesn't happen.
(Just like I bet you were scoffing the whole time you were reading this )

Come on guys, LDs have been proven.

The brainwave machines showed Laberge's brain when in REM sleep and he carried out a select few eye movements that he and the scientists agreed on. That basically means it's proven. He'd have to have a conscious grip in his dreams to even remember to do that.

I've had LDs and I know without a doubt that they are real. They're FAR different from normal dreams, and far more intense. I'd say they're more intense than real life itself.

Originally Posted by BillyBob_001

Your never going change someones opinion of whats true and whats not by laughing at them and telling them they're stupid just because they believe what they do.
You change opinions by politely stating every possible morsel of obvious logical truth and letting them go over it themselves and figure it out on their own.

I completely agree, mindless ad hominem arguments are useless (though sometimes fun) in the long run. I'm just saying that I don't think we should stop discussing the issue at any point, or let people think they've found the ultimate answer without at least challenging them a bit.

Originally Posted by lvlindless

Anything's possible until proven right or wrong.

That was a very good point you made about lucid dreaming vlindless, and the same can be said about oobe's.

It is best to keep an open mind about something if possible, as it will make it more achievable if it turns out to be true.

As far as the video goes, I think it did more to prove oobe's than to disprove them, as I think that it is more likely the near death experiences the people experienced were probably caused by oobe's due to the movement they were experiencing rather than just a lack of blood or oxygen to the brain.

The reason I say that is that people pass out all the time without having near death experiences. But take a ride in a very topsy turvy carnival ride similar to the thing used in the experiement and you can feel like a part of you gets left behind.

So that ride is probably very conducive to producing an oobe. And if it doesn't do that it could certainly make a person feel like they left part of themselves like their astral body, back on the ride.

It just makes sense that if people have spirits which live on in a different dimension after their physical body dies, and I've had enough experiences with people who have passed on to believe this myself, that it might be possible for those same spirits to sometimes escape their physical body before they die, or in cases where they maybe do die for a short time and then come back to life.

I've been able to prove to myself that oobe's exist because I've visited people who were later able to verify that I visited them, and that's all I care about.

Originally Posted by lvlindless

They have to pay the bills too

Penn and Teller? They don't need any more money. Not that they don't have a right or anything.

They are just major hypocrites.

Originally Posted by iadr

It just makes sense that if people have spirits which live on in a different dimension after their physical body dies, and I've had enough experiences with people who have passed on to believe this myself, that it might be possible for those same spirits to sometimes escape their physical body before they die, or in cases where they maybe do die for a short time and then come back to life.

Yes, but that's a HUGE 'if'. Souls and spirits and other such notions arise from complete ignorance of the processes which go on in the human brain. Once one delves into any amount of detail of the inner workings of the human brain, and the ways in which they can malfunction, it becomes painfully clear that we are naught but biological machines, like all other forms of life.

Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf

all i can say is im a believer in God and in Jesus Christ.. There is going to be a place where we go after we die.. and about near death experiences.. I know a guy (family friend) and he is in the record books at some Chicago hospital because he was clinically dead (there were priests and family members by his bed side) and he came back alive.. now if that isnt near death, then i dont know what is....

spiritofthewolf

Clinically Dead :
The cease of breathing and bloodflow to vital organs.

Umm... Wtf?

If he was "Clinically Dead" then he didn't die. This is like the difference between a tKO and a KO, one, you don't get up before the referee gets to ten, the second, you are literally unconcious. See the difference?

Clinical death can be remedied by a sudden consentration of synapses throughout the body, these synapses act as alternators, and re-start sensory organs. These synapses can be so powerful, they cause hallucenations (e.g "tunnel of light", and "Old friends & family long gone"). So, you didn't die, you went into sleep mode. If you had died, there would be no more brain synapses. So, your friend didn't die, he merely shut off for a second .

Originally Posted by jamous

These guys make athiests look really bad.

Actually, they make athEIsts look good. No religion ever had such a strong message of love.


Being clinically dead doesn't mean you're actually dead. Clinical death was just a "line" doctors made in order to make thinsg easier.

Theoretically, during a heart transplant, you go clinically dead for a few moments (you lose your heart after all) and then bam you're alive again.



And finally, shared dreaming is all ignorance imho. It's easy to meet a DC in a dream and believe you did actually share your dreams with someone. I dare you to prove this scientifically, by telling the other dreaming something and then asking him/her what you told him/her.

Do that (which of course has already been tried by many people, and yet we see no positive result so far) and you'll have proven shared dreaming true. Or maybe just an extreme coincidence, we never know.

Here's what I don't understand.

The film shows quite clearly that an occurrence that is completely non-mystical/spiritual in nature can give the experience that has been labeled a "near-death" experience. Nobody on this thread has attempted to dispute this; it is quite clear the study participants had similar experiences.

Even if this is not iron-clad evidence that NDEs do not exist, it quite adequately demonstrates that any experience thought to be a NDE might not be spiritual in nature, but could have a much more mundane explanation. In other words, it proves that the spiritual interpretation of NDEs cannot be proven true.

So why is it that no one has come into this thread believing in NDEs and said "Gee... that's revealing! I guess there could be another explanation."? Where are the pro-NDE open minds?

my theory is, our spirit or lifeforce or whatever it is, is locked inside us, and when we die it is released, the door opens. when they do those experiments,the door becomes unlocked,hence the nde, or obe. i believe this because ive had a obe which actually seemed like a nde. i wasnt dying at the time hopefully.i was in bed, and fully aware what was happening to me, so why did i have an obe? why did my brain unlock? i dunno! i wasnt being spun round in one of those astronaught chairs, or have electrodes put on me, i was just knackered from a days graft..so why did i float outa my bod and see the white light, ive been buzzing ever since, im 100% not religious. even after that.

I still say it's a dream transtate. Personal beliefs; I'm not trying to argue.

Originally Posted by transtate

my theory is, our spirit or lifeforce or whatever it is, is locked inside us, and when we die it is released, the door opens.

Doesn't that seem a bit... pagan? To you?

Why should we have a spirit or life force? It seems clear to me that 'theories' like this are born of ignorance of the mechanics of the human brain. There is no evidence for these claims, and they're grossly unscientific.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Doesn't that seem a bit... pagan? To you?

Why should we have a spirit or life force? It seems clear to me that 'theories' like this are born of ignorance of the mechanics of the human brain. There is no evidence for these claims, and they're grossly unscientific.

What if he is a (semi)pagan? You never know.. But your prejudice seems to make things hard to understand


And philosophical theories also exist, don't forget that.

you know what..
those stupid scientists are wrong cause when are in an OBE you see things that are actually happening, and that could never happen even if it is the most vivid dream in the world.

they can say whatever they want but OBEs are still real

Originally Posted by viking-45

you know what..
those stupid scientifics are wrong cause when are in an OBE you see things that are actually happening, and that could never happen even if it is the most vivid dream in the world

How are you so sure? One person seeign something that happened doesn't prove anything. Behind him/her there are 1,000,000 other people who had an OBE and didn't see what happened.

Ever heard the word "coincidence"?


Finally, you can still hear or maybe even see things while dreaming. That again makes me suspiscious about OBEs.

Originally Posted by viking-45

...those stupid scientifics...

I don't think scientists are stupid at all

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html. There's 53 articles on that site that provide evidence for near-death experiences, some of which occured while the person was brain dead. For those who say near-death experiences are just dreams, could you please explain how that's possible?

again, brain death it just a medical category. There are cases of being clinically dead (which is not REALLY dead) and then coming back to life.


The only way to make sure the person's brain was really dead is after a period of time. And coma is not brain death for you to know


If the person's brain really was dead, they could never be alive now.



And about seeing the surgeons and stuff: you can actually see things while clinically brain dead. If your eyes open, the information will be stored, unconsciously. The pacient can also hear things and record them.


Again the "blind people seeing" thing. All bullshit. Blind people do see colours and lights in their dreams. And the section of the article you mentioned is too raw. Explains nothing nor gives scientifical views. Misinformation is a weapon you know.



Finally, the only way to prove consciousness remains after death is to die. To be COMPLETELY dead, not clinically dead (clinical death: the point at which doctors cannot save a patient anymore. Doesn't mean real death)



Finally, read about HI for thinsg similar to the famous "tunnel effect"

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What if he is a (semi)pagan? You never know.. But your prejudice seems to make things hard to understand


And philosophical theories also exist, don't forget that.

I was counting on him having a prejudice against pagan ideals for my point to hit home. Myself, I have a prejudice against all religious concepts, because I see no good come from faith and the rejection of rational thought processes involved in true science.

Also, philosophical theories are nothing without supporting evidence. Any theory which involves a non-physical component to human beings is still baseless. There is simply no reason to believe such a thing save human fear of mortality and human superiority complexes.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Explains nothing nor gives scientifical views. Misinformation is a weapon you know.

Why does everything NEED a scientific view? science is not god and the only way to prove everything.

Finally, the only way to prove consciousness remains after death is to die. To be COMPLETELY dead, not clinically dead (clinical death: the point at which doctors cannot save a patient anymore. Doesn't mean real death)



Finally, read about HI for thinsg similar to the famous "tunnel effect"

Amen! In the meantime this is a never ending debate.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Why does everything NEED a scientific view? science is not god and the only way to prove everything.

For 2 reasons:

1) I'm skeptical.

2) God doesn't exist.

You can also try to prove things by other means than science, but science is the closest thing from truth we have.