I knew this guy years ago. Seems pretty level headed, informed and honest. He was a dream expert in those days, look at his new expertise.....enjoy. http://www.near-death.com/tart.html

He is the Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences just down the road from me. I follow his blog off and on.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/

http://www.noetic.org/

If you have references to current, real science on OBEs, we would be glad to read them. We mean, refereed/peer reviewed, accredited publications on research in OBE.

List the references here. I'll get started right away.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 11:28AM by Jesus Smith.

well i dont imagine that 1968 is "current" but unless he faked all of that study...it sounds pretty wild to me. interesting stuff to be sure.!

Even those who spend all their time researching this field do not have a concensuss opinion, for example Dr Susan Blackmore, http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ who started as a TBP (true believing paranormalist) - with a special interest in NDE's and OBE's - and has come to the conclusion that it is just so much guff.

Personally, I have just finished reading 'Paranormality' by Richard Wiseman..... I would consider myself someone with an interest in "the paranormal" (in general), but I dont have the time or energy to check out all of the latest research by researchers.

There are many, many stories of OBE's which have a simple prosaic answer..... unverified stories get exaggerated, mis-remembered and are suddenly produced as gospel... Richard Wiseman quotes the 'sneaker on a hospital windowledge case' as an example of a story which is oft quoted and cited as a major piece of evidence.... although, when someone actually went and checked the facts, the explanation was very mundane.

so.... no, I don't read all the current 'science' on OBE's
But I feel justified in using occams razor.... OBE's do not exist outside of someones imagination.
To accept that they do exist would mean a complete rewrite of physics as we know it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:02PM by EssexExMo.

. . . was produced and induced by experimental drug use on her part:

"Susan Blackmore, a former parapsychologist with heavy skeptical leanings, is considered one of the world's leading authorities on OBEs and NDEs. She herself had a NDE while attending Oxford University during the early 1970s. By her own admission she "spent much of the time stoned, experimenting with different drugs."

"During her first year at Oxford she had a NDE after several hours on the Ouija board while stoned on marijuana. The experience also occurred during a period of her life when sleep deprivation was common for her. She describes herself as having been in 'a fairly peculiar state of mind' when she had the NDE.

"During her NDE, Blackmore went down a tunnel of trees toward a light, floated on the ceiling and observed her body below, saw a silver cord connecting her floating astral body, floated out of the building around Oxford and then over England, and finally across the Atlantic to New York.

"After hovering around New York, Blackmore floated back to her room in Oxford where she became very small and entered her body's toes. Then she grew very big, as big as a planet at first, and then she filled the solar system and finally she became as large as the universe."

("The NDE and the Silver Cord: Kevin Williams' Research Conclusions," at: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research12.html)


These "NDE" nutters just don't get it: Blackmore's supposed "near-death experience" wasn't near death at all--and was precipitated by neurological changes inside her cranium brought on by her use of hallucinogenic drugs.

Earth to "NDE-ers": It was a physiological-generated situation. Nothing less--and certainly nothing more.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:21PM by steve benson.

unless it was spiked with lsd or something akin......i dont really know what these people experience(nde'ers and ode'ers) but it seems real to them..... but it would be nice to know what these experiences actually represent. perhaps we will make strides in that regard soon, until then lets keep an open "mind" some of the studies seem to show some remarkable things, but i am not subscribing to them proving an afterlife...... yet.....maybe never....but i take a wait and lets see view, and also to explore this very interesting phenomenon in more detail.

"What is Marijuana?

"Call it pot, grass, weed, or any one of nearly 200 other names, marijuana is, by far, the world’s most commonly used illicit drug—and far more dangerous than most users realize. . . .

"Marijuana has been around for a long while. Its source, the hemp plant (cannabis sativa), was being cultivated for psychoactive properties more than 2,000 years ago.Although cannabis contains at least 400 different chemicals, its main mind-altering ingredient is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). . . .

"How Does it Affect You?

"A mild hallucinogen, marijuana has some of alcohol’s depressant and disinhibiting properties. User reaction, however, is heavily influenced by expectations and past experience . . .

"Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that encourages fantasies, renders some users highly suggestible, and distorts perception (making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat or ride a bicycle). Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations. . . .

"The Impact on the Mind

" . . . [S]tudies have shown marijuana-induced structural damage to portions of the brain essential to memory and learning. . . .

"Marijuana Dangers

"Impaired perception
. . .

"Hallucinations . . .

"Psychological dependency"

("BASIC FACTS ABOUT DRUGS: MARIJUANA," from American Council for Drug Education, at; http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm)
_____


P.S.--For hallucinators, their mind-altering experiences often appear "real" to them.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:45PM by steve benson.

i wonder what a mild hallucination is??? i have know/know many who smoke..... never have i heard of any kind of hallucinations going on....and if there were...that would be a real popular strain! maybe dreams are more intense but cause for OBE's and NDE's??? that is a huge stretch! i dont think you could produce any scientific studies that link weed with those two things!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hallucination



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:49PM by steve benson.

As someone who puffs daily, weed alone wont do that. It sounds to me like she got herself into some sort of trance state as well (which weed CAN help with).

Just guessing here but could it be that there really isn't too much of that refereed/peer reviewed accredited stuff around? I mean, is it possible that once the concensus opinion becomes "it's all in their heads" then scientists move on to other more important things? Could it be that the only people doing "research" anymore are the theists and woo-meisters?

Just asking!

or woo-meister? (i know what a meister is) :)

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU DONT KNOW THAT THERE IS EVEN A "SKEPTIC" DICTIONARY!!
FROM : MERRIAM WEBSTER!
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:54PM by bignevermo.

thanks again Steve!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:54PM by bignevermo.

1 oz. Schnapps, peach
1 oz. Vodka
3 oz. Cranberry Juice
sounds good!!

redacted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 03:59PM by bignevermo.

Are they publish their claims in scientific journals to be reviewed by their peers or are they publishing books to make money by capitalizing one people's fascinations with this subject.

I think this would be a fair way to get an idea of the motives of the writer and how much they believe their studies are legitimate science.

not always for good either! being a skeptic is prolly good for the most part.

Or to dismiss claims that that an explanation with no scientific evidence to show how it would be possible is the most likely expiation.

I have read the science, have you? If you have read the science, where exactly, does science show a mechanism that allows for the consciousness to function without a brain?

Until science discovers a mechanism for the consciousness to exist and function without a brain, I see no reason to accept the idea that OBEs are even possible as a truth.

That is NOT dismissing OBE, that is simply saying that there is no reason to believe in them UNTIL there is some verifiable evidence that a consciousness can function without a brain.

I think alot of (well maybe 50-75%) the people here need to take a deep breath. Hold it...now exhale. Step back. Close your eyes, open them up and LOOK around you.

I doubt very seriously that many of us here are scientists. I am an engineer and am no expert on consciousness, psychology, physiology, religion, physics, etc. I have never "published" in these fields, and I never will. I, like many of you, have a field of expertise, and then everything else is just fun. Look, take a critical examination, accept or reject it, maybe even put it in the "maybe" category.

If we want to talk about subjects, in depth enough, for which the proof will likely never be good enough for "peer review", then we will be mostly silent.

Many of the things discussed about OBE's and NDE's are interesting, sometimes compelling, and ultimately not provable like many things in other scientific fields. But I definitely want to learn as much as I can about them, and I know it won't be good enough for many of you.

Lighten up. If you want to learn things you have to be a bit more open minded.

I'm saying this to myself also, btw.

I think the people that need to take a breath are the people that start thread after thread pimping ideas that have no real scientifically verifiable evidence to support them.

Does something have to have "scientific proof" to be interesting to some of us?

I'll say it again. Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously. You'll be happier and live longer!

You don't need to accept anything said by any of us. We're talking. We enjoy exchanging ideas. You can read and be as skeptical as you want.

Peace.

That would be like saying that those here who aren't LDS General Authorities have no standing when it comes to examining GA claims of the Mormon Church.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2011 04:30PM by steve benson.

But when that interest becomes an obsession and becomes a truth that has no real scientific evidence to back it up, then there is a problem.

Clearly there are a few people here trying to push the idea that NDEs and OBEs are real, so what is wrong with people saying "no, there is no real evidence to support your obsessive pushing the idea that they are real on us"?

Don't take yourself so seriously..... i work around some people like this(take themselves too seriously) and they are pretty arrogant. but it takes all kinds~!

To be honest, I enjoy debating magical thinkers. I get many laughs at some of the absurd things they say to back up their claims.

Anyone that claims that I am being too serious in the debate about OBEs or NDEs is clearly being arrogant and is completely wrong. Nothing will get me laughing more than someone claiming to have a lot of advanced degrees spewing logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try to convince others of an idea that has no explanation as to how it could even be possible much less probable.