How would yo feel if...

[rapidlearner]

OBE's were scientifically proven to be hallucinations of the brain. Would it bother you?

I know I'm being hyperthetical and the subjectiveness of it all makes it difficult to assume but let's just say... what if!

I'll be honest I want them to be real. But I don't like selling myself short by just believing... One day I'm convinced, the next, I think it's just some sort of brain loop hole especially given "mind awake, body asleep" state that is occuring.

I know the reasons why I want them to be real - there are psychological terms but lets just say it's my little link to the afterlife and for me once they're proved, I'll take comfort from it. (Lol I would normally label someone else with that kind of psychology but again I think I'm just being honest)

If they were scientifically proven to be hallucinations, it would be another dent in evidence in the paranormall field and I'd feel gutted.

[CFTraveler]

I don't. I feel that knowing yourself is the most important thing you can learn, because self-knowledge is the key to successful interactions with others. And if the astral proved to be objectified subconscious, it still would be a great way to find out what's beneath the mind, the basic mover, so to speak. So I think it's very valuable, regardless.

[wstein]

I have seriously considered that many metaphysical/religious experiences are not hallucinations or 'real' but rather altered perceptions created by modifying the function of the brain. OK, it would be more satisfying if these things are external rather than internal. But still, it would be exciting to know that the functions of the brain can be changed under our control.

[White Wolf]

I frequently contemplate whether or not that experiences I've had so far were real or not. I often come to the same conclusion. My scientific mind tells me its most probably a hallucination of some sort and my intuition tells me that it is real. Despite the conflicts though, the have the same end point. The experiences, effects of the functional welness of my body, and the mind expanding nature of the work, all tell me that its a very positive occupation. The net result, whether real or not, still has the same beneficial effects.

I choose to believe that it is real, because it is the simplest explaination for a great many of the phenomenon that I've observed. Sure, I can make broad generalization, without equal scientific backing that would attempt to dsiprove it, but that would just undermine one of the basic process that I hold dear, the scientific method. I can't use science to prove or disprove these experiences. Not in any self consistant method that I know. I don't know of a way to disprove a subjective experience with objective methods without running into deep philosophical conflicts with the basic assumptions taht make science work in the first place.

There's lots of science that we know is incorrect, they are called theories. I view much of the knowledge in the arcane and mystic realms to be theories. One of the basic functions of a theory is that it models behavior, explains phenomenon, and makes predictions. Science hasn't been able to explain a lot of the experiences that I've had so far, and I'm just beginning.

Whereas, careful selection of the occult ideas that I've had experience with has lead to a much deeper understanding, as well as a guidebook of how to proceed further. It explains and makes predictions with only a sacrifice of objectivity to subjectivity. I can handle that, and will continue to do so, until science, via my own or someone elses research, is able to give me a more powerful theory, if that day comes.

[Beekeeper]

I wouldn't be bothered if they were hallucinations and I'd still try to induce them because, basically, I'd still enjoy marvelling at what my own brain can do.

Why I do not believe they are merely hallucinations is because of the few things I've been able to verify in the RTZ after a RTZ OBE and because I feel they're on a continuum with dreaming and I have had numerous predictive dreams.

[ButterflyWoman]

I don't think science can "prove" anything of the sort. My faith in science is fairly limited. I have nothing against science, but there's a great deal in the realms of human experience that science can't begin to measure, let alone prove or disprove.

But, hey, that's just me. ;)

[Three_Nails]

In this sort of thing, I see both sides of the OBE argument, however, what I have read from men I trust such as Robert Bruce and what I have experienced with OBE bring me to feel that all of it is real. I was looking for answers and got sent me on my way to becoming and introvert. The Lord wouldn't stray me on this path if it wouldn't help me get closer to him.

Thats all the "Proof" I need. Faith, people.

[Aunt Clair]

I completely reject any empiral "Proofs " that the energy body does not project from the physical self . We are so far past that as a race .

If you sit in a circle and develop your clairvoyance , you will see yourself and your peers lift up from the body and you will have no reason to doubt it anymore .

This is not a new age fluffball . This is ancient wisdom that is the legacy of the human race .

[Blue Mage]

Scientists would have about as much luck disproving gravity. :lol: I'm with aunt clair here, we should be past this "is it real" stuff.

But playing along, I would find it a relief, in a way. OBE means there is so much to see and experience and explore out there, it means there is so much work to do.

[White Wolf]

I completely reject any empiral "Proofs " that the energy body does not project from the physical self . We are so far past that as a race .

Which is great because I don't any method by which to disprove a subjective experience. You can disprove objective theories, but not subjective ones. Disproving a subjective experience is like using double negatives; its doesn't make sense. As an operand, a double negation may bu useful as a stepwise simplification, but when you try to generalize it less abstractly, the meaning is many time lost.

Science fundamentally makes one assumption that makes analyzing subjective experience nonsense. It assumes that there is an objective "center" by which observations can be made. Using the rules of science, in the early part of the century, physicists discovered that there is no such thing as a observer. The very act of observation changes the experiment (see double slit experiements like the Aspect experiements, position/momentum exclusivity).

It is ironic that subjective experience was abandoned, for good reason I think, only to later find out that was there all along. That subjective experience is the fundamental foundation of the philosophy that denies (science) it is endless humorous to me.

Its not all bad though. Just look at all the mouths that science has fed compared to spirituality...so you can't knock people for wanting to understand through processes that are familiar.

I really don't think we are "past that as a race". The vast majority of people are asleep and others are just looking for an escape from thier troubles. Escapism is religion and dogma. I'd rather more people stayed alseep before that becomes more prevalent.

The double negative that is science is going to bring the vast majority into understanding, even if goes around the moon to do it. Technology will free peope from the shackles of thier 9-5 prision towards more leasurely persuits and with that comes time for introspection and the realization of truth.

It'll take a bit longer, but I think we are on the cusp of a great curve in our abilities as a race. We've given our technology enough momentum to carry us to a singularity beyond which we can not see, except that it will no doubt be profound. The next 50 years is going to be very exciting I think.

Well, I suppose I've rambled enough.

[rapidlearner]

Hi, Thanks for all the replies... It's given me a lot to think about!


You can disprove objective theories, but not subjective ones.

I'm going to try and tackle this one becuase its been bugging me. I am no scientist, so bare with me if this sounds insane...

It is scientifically proven that a drug can change the chemical composition in the brain and make someone feel happy/sad/tired/create illusions... It is also known that the placebo effect has a response to people that are open to suggestion and or social compliance.

I would like to think that drugs (such as LCD) have no place in the field of spiritual development due to their potential risk to the physical body and emotional state... I believe (key word) that the drug creates a chemical reaction that creates the illusion of OBE's in this state. I would also bet my bottom dollar that the same chemicals are being released when someone induces Astral Projection without a drug.

That doesn't prove anything, I know.

Back to the placebo: Expectations and or social compliance can make people happy, sad, sick etc... Some would say it's their belief that produces the chemicals which make them feel a certain way. Since the above emotions are mainly illusions, OBE's should be placed in the same category, no?

Still doesn't prove anything... aaarrrghhh! :D This is very hard! I'm trying to make a connection to the placebo effect and people that believe they're having an OBE. I'll come back to it!

Let me try another angle...

I read an interesting post on another site that said, OBE's were related to a similar phenomenon of Alien Abduction... e.g. They wake up paralysed, feel a strong presence in the room and feel their body float up and out, they're taken to other planets etc... Yet there is hardly any evidence to support Alien Abduction or UFO's (trust me I've searched) The vast majority of evidence can be explained away or is a hoax. The point I'm trying to make is that Alien Abduciton reports and OBE's have very similar symptoms... Paralysis, bright lights, strange noises, feeling of a presence, flying/defying gravity... Maybe people that experience either have an experience that shapes their expectations? E.g one person might think the presence is an Alien the other might think its the "old Hag."

Now since the proof of Alien exsistence bares with the believer, it's fair to say that there is no evidence of Aliens or UFO's (especially in this day and age where Camera Phones and technology are so common.) Until there is proof, it is easy for scientists or psychotherapists to say that Abductions are in the mind and it was just some sort of dream where they felt conscious at the time. Since OBE's have similar symptoms, wouldn't it be understandable if they were placed in the same category?

The only thing that can prove OBE's are validations and lets be honest, there are not many people that would be prepared to undergo such testing, either becuase it would be to difficult or they feel they don't need to prove it to anyone... Which is a shame if they really do have the ability. Skeptisism in this field wouldn't exsist if someone was able to validate a RTZ OBE under lab conditions.

And believe me, I'm not talking about the ♥♥♥♥♥ test. If someone could prove and validate OBE's even with a television company, they'd earn much more than a million dollars. With so many people on this planet, I'm surprised someone with the ability hasn't bothered. I can see the skeptics wondering why someone would spend time promoting books when they could easily get a television deal that would be in the millions.


I really don't think we are "past that as a race".

I'd have to completely agree. Hell, I've been researching and practicing for quite some time now, I think I'm quite open and honest and I'm still having trouble believing in them. If we were past it as a race, there'd be millions of people on this forum. I would say most of society would write OBE's off as dreams -

Until someone steps up and is willing to really validate their experience, then society is'nt even close, I'd say 50 years is still way out.

[White Wolf]

I'm going to try and tackle this one becuase its been bugging me. I am no scientist, so bare with me if this sounds insane...

It is scientifically proven that a drug can change the chemical composition in the brain and make someone feel happy/sad/tired/create illusions... It is also known that the placebo effect has a response to people that are open to suggestion and or social compliance.

You seem to hovering around the basic issue that is the cause of your conflicts.

The medical community and pyscologists would have you believe that what they do is science. While it s based on the scientific method, it would be unethical to treat a human as an experiemental apparatus as would be required.

Medicine is what is called a soft science. It relys on statistical instead mechanistic view for most problems. Science uses statistics to simplify redundant data, it is a tool to be used only when it leads to, or simplifies a solution.

Another issue you seem to be wrestling with is the objectiviy of proof. Just like most things, there are varying quality to proof. Not all proofs are made equal so some are more convincing than others. Generally the more repeatable, the more the theory explains about the how/why of it, and the more unbiased it is to observers, the better proof is.

A simple rule is that easier it is to explain away your "proof" using alternative methods the less useful it is as proof.

Let me explin further why science can't prove/disprove subject experience. At the root of science is an assumption that there are other conscious beings besides yourself, who's inner thoughts are not accessible, with which you might want to share knowledge. By "disproving" the subjective experience of another, you have negated that very assumption. So all that is left is you proving to yourself. Kinda removes the point doesn't it?

Disproving someone's subjective experience a lot like calling someone a liar/funny looking/untrustworthy in an arguement/debate. It is a logical fallacy (error). Its an attack on someones character instead of thier arguements. Logic is what science is built on, so errors in your logic result in errors in you conclusions.

Science is supposed to help us understand objective experience. The things that we are all capable of observing in the exact same conidtions when all the paremeters are known. Repeatability is the hallmark of understanding in science.

[CFTraveler]

Whitewolf wrote:
Science is supposed to help us understand objective experience. The things that we are all capable of observing in the exact same conidtions when all the paremeters are known. Repeatability is the hallmark of understanding in science. I'd like to expand on this point: Science is about objective experience, OBE is subjective experience.
I hear the word 'validation' in testing, but let me ask you this: (rapidlearner, not WW, lol)
If you had an OBE that meets the criteria (separation, going to another room) and saw someone that was there (without your previous knowledge) and then got up, went outside and saw this person, dressed as you saw them, would you consider this a reasonable validation? Now bear in mind this is not repeatable, or even planned.
IMO that's the closest you can get to validation in OBE-so the scientific method just can't apply.

[White Wolf]

There are several scenarios that are concievable where you could objective atleast the output of projection experience. RB lists one in his book, Astral Dynamics, I believe.

The experiment is to place a card in a location not visible to yourself, but visible to a moveable projected double. The projector would then project to the cards location and identify it, and wake back up to verify the observation; either to yourself or to a person administrating the experiment.

This works because the input and output of the experiemnt is known, and observable by anyone. You don't have to project or see into the mind of the projector to verify the accuracy.

There's a reason why this experiement isn't used as definitive proof for OBE though.

This is blackbox type scenario. While we can verify the accuracy of the experiement and quanitfy repeatability, we can't say anything about what goes on inside the box (in this case, what happens to give the subject the ability to know the correct card).

So while I say repeatability is the hallmark of science, I must correct myself by stating that only if the results are consistant with your theory (explaination) and only that one. Usualy it is the case that there are several plausible theories, the fewer competing theories, the better we say that we understand something.

Figuring out which theory is the most correct is where variables are introduces to the experiement to test hypothisi against results and finding difference which tell you which one is the most correct and accurate.

For instance, it could be that there is a highly probability that a person or even a machine could just guess the right card, because there aren't enough possible cards. You could increase the number of different cards and using statistics, determine how likely it is to guess which card vs how accurate the results have been. This is fairly good evidence.

In the case of the card scenario, because there is so little published scientific research on the topic, and so little objective understanding, just getting positive results means that you've opened a whole new can of worms. There's a zoo of competing metaphysical theories that could explain this phenomenon. Maybe its just psycic ability. Maybe its spirits telling the subject which card it is. Maybe its a projection of consciousness. Maybe its sensitivity to normally undetectible variations of electromagnetic fields coming off of the card? Who knows.

Now you got to figure out to eliminate which explaination you want to test, and setup your experiement to determine if this explaination fits.

You could hide card to test psycic ability, turn it face down to test projection, put it in a faraday cage to black EM fields. In the process ou undertsnad the phenomenon more as you collect more variations.

Then there's error. Every experiement has some. Maybe the card was misread by the observer testing the subject. Maybe the projector is tired and can't produce 100% results. You find and define your error thorugh many experiements. You can't do an experiement once and say it is proof. You do it many many times and see if there some self consistancy vs the probability. The smaller you error, generally the more convincing your explaination is to others.

[rapidlearner]

MO that's the closest you can get to validation in OBE-so the scientific method just can't apply.
Forgive me if I'm mising something, but why would this be the only way to prove a RTZ OBE?

A simple test would be to blind fold someone, take them to a unknown location and get them to describe the objects in a room while they're physical body lay in say a room next door. This can be repeated in several locations unknown to the projector. It wouldn't be too long until word spread and the media got hold of it. Like I said, they would rake in a fortune from a TV Deal... Just look at David Blaine, he got $6million just for sitting in a box in London for 40 days, and he's just a street magician! And imagine, someone that can actually leave his body and describe things that he would be unaware of. It would be the scientific boggle of the century. I'd rather see Scientists dumbfounded by the ability then being able to explain it away with Hallucinations. There would be an infintie number of tests e.g. describe a drawing, a six figure number etc...


Repeatability is the hallmark of understanding in science.
I understand and agree with this completely.

Trying to decipher what you said previous to that seems like your saying that proving an illusion is impossible. The way I see it is we can't even prove happiness or depression but we can see if someone is releasing the amount of hormones that cause that person to feel a certain way. Drugs are used to correct the imbalance and the person feels different. Does that mean we can't assume depression due to its subjectiveness?

I did start the post off by saying it's difficult to prove OBE's due to their subjective nature but using the Alien Abduction analogy is kind of the same way as prescribing depression... The symptoms lead one to make a conclusion. If certain drugs cause hallucinations by changing the chemical composition in the brain, then why is it so wrong to assume someone is hallucinating if the same chemical reaction is apparent during an OBE?

Anyway, I'm surprised I didn't get any comments on the Alien Abduciton theory. The symptoms are so similar, yet the evidence does not exsist to support UFO's or Aliens. The experience sounds too close to OBE symptoms to be disregarded. What do you think?

[White Wolf]

That's kind of what meant by saying that medicine is not science. So many people have been mislead into the belief that it is.

Thess are very weak examples, but I'll use it for illustration.

Can you go to the doctor and be tested for depression? Do the take a blood sample and send it to the lab to measure seratonin levels? No, they don't. They ask you how you feel. This is subjective.

When they say they've identified the areas active in an MRI that correspond with happiness, can they tell that person he is happy? Or is the subject the only one that can determine that? Again, subjective.

You can statisitcly correlate subjective with objective data, but you start getting into areas of how much correlation is enough? Can you ever say someone is happy because an MRI says they are? No, you can't. You can say someone is likely to be happy, which is not the same thing.

What I'm saying is that you can't prove or disprove the internal state that is subjectivity. If ever there comes a day when we've reverse engineered the whole of the human body and understand it in explcit detail to where we think we can measure the whole of human experience, then you got issues with free will, and the deep philosophical problems that a deterministic world brings.

And that's a can of worms I won't touch with a ten foot pole. (I'm gonna run out of southern cliche's before its over with.)

[rapidlearner]

Can you go to the doctor and be tested for depression? Do the take a blood sample and send it to the lab to measure seratonin levels? No, they don't. They ask you how you feel. This is subjective.

When they say they've identified the areas active in an MRI that correspond with happiness, can they tell that person he is happy? Or is the subject the only one that can determine that? Again, subjective.

You can statisitcly correlate subjective with objective data, but you start getting into areas of how much correlation is enough? Can you ever say someone is happy because an MRI says they are? No, you can't. You can say someone is likely to be happy, which is not the same thing.

Haha I just said all that, I said that it can lead to assumptions. If you measure the serotinin levels, you can assume that someone is feeling a certain way... Of course you can't tell someone how they're feeling.

Symptoms can only lead to assumptions. If someone says they were feeling down in the dumps because a relative died and they felt dejected then a doctor can assume it's depression, the same way that a doctor can assume that someone is experiencing hallucinations if they describe leaving their body during a sleepy state.

Can I tempt anyone in to talking about the similarities in symptoms that people have when they describe Alien Abduction compared to OBE's ?

[CFTraveler]

MO that's the closest you can get to validation in OBE-so the scientific method just can't apply.
Forgive me if I'm mising something, but why would this be the only way to prove a RTZ OBE?
Because repeatability would be an issue. My question was whether you thought that the above scenario would satisfy you personally if you had the experience as described, not if it were scientifically proven. If the answer is no, then I don't think anything would convince you, because any test can be faked, something mentalists have been proving for years.

[rapidlearner]

Because repeatability would be an issue. My question was whether you thought that the above scenario would satisfy you personally if you had the experience as described, not if it were scientifically proven. If the answer is no, then I don't think anything would convince you, because any test can be faked, something mentalists have been proving for years.

If the experience happened to me, I would be much more convinced than I am now. If it happened again, I would be significally convinced, If it happened three times in a row... I would beleive it was "real" beyond any doubt. That's just my nature. :D

If repeatability is an issue, it's obvious it's the reason why OBE's are not taken seriously in the scientific community and aren't as wide spread or popular as they would be if someone would be prepared to validate an experience in a controlled environment.

[CFTraveler]

Well, let me tell you I've had three or four validations in my 40-something years, and they were not in a row. And I still wonder.

[Pneumaphor]

As per the original question/title of this post:

If OBEs were proven to be hallucinations in the brain then I would once again be totally convinced that science is nothing more than a convenient hallucination in the brain!!! :D (All the greatest scientific minds alive today admit to constant, inevitable paradigm shifts in so-called science.)

You see, some of us have experienced Greater reality through OBEs. Some of us have Seen... I have experienced a reality with a reality quotient of over a million times the reality quotient exhibited by daily earth reality. Therefore, most concepts of men have all been proven to me to be more like hallucinations than clinically documented hallucinatory phenomena.

For example think of the term/concept, "Psyche." In English, "Psyche" simply means, "Mind." In German it means both "Mind" and "Soul." Therefore, from an abstract, objective and rational (scientific) viewpoint, one of these two definitions is partially delusory, i.e. hallucinatory because they incorporate different meanings for the same word. In this 'black and white' scenario one must be labeled correct (real) and the other deluded (hallucinatory). Which one was labeled real would probably depend upon whether you were in Germany or America at the time of labeling. Is it a bush or a bonsai tree or a redwood tree...or is it just a tree? Well, you must sense the tree with your own discernment and forget about the words and signs that people would place in the way of your actual scenery, as their meanings will change, as they always do, and are indeed doing right now (Wikipedia). Develop Discernment! You can even change your I.Q. if you just study for the test this time!!! :lol: The map is NEVER the territory.

Never forget, the scientific method depends upon the experiment. Say this with me, "Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment, Experience, Experiment....................................

.....Experienciment! Aha! :x Ow, my brain!

Ahhh, the wisdom of Jimi Hendrix! 8)

[Zante]

If they were hallucinations, which is highly unlikely but within the realm of possibility, they would be no less amazing. The day science is able to understand this phenomenon is when we'll be finding all sorts of uses for it.

Part of it is subjective, that can certainly be used to imply that hallucinations are involved but it's far from the current truth of things. It's important to listen to personal accounts, not what some 'researchers' trying to make a name for themselves would have other people believe.

[ommidikra]

1 of my friend has the ability 2 predict lottery numbers ......
He drives a Hayabusa....... Lives the life of a royal KIng......
Now this cant be just hallucinations..LOL