Messages

Hello,

Some of you might remember me, I posted some article here before. Lately I have been writing another article, this time about consciousness. Since I know that this forum harbours a huge community of people interested in this topic, I thought it would be fun to post it here also, to see what discussion might possibly arise from this. Since it is somewhat philosophic, I thought it best to place it here. The purpose of the article is to show that materialism fails (curreltly, and possibly, always will fail) in explaining the origin of consciousness. The article is not meant to prove what consciousness is, just that science can't explain it (which I think is fun because materialists claim they can explain anything). Remember that this article is not meant to "convert" anyone (I suppose most people here will agree with at least some points in it anyway), it is just meant as a thesis into investigating consciousness, and as such can be proved false given the right proof. Besides that, I am always looking forward to comments or critique. So here it goes....


Consciousness

In this article I wish to explore what science can tell us about consciousness, and explore if science can really give a satisfactory answer to fully explain this phenomenon. Are materialists correct in their view that an answer has already been given, or, according to some others, that it will just be a matter of more research? Before I start this investigation, it is needed to define what I exactly mean by consciousness. First of all I will state that it is extremely hard to use language to define a phenomenon that itself falls outside of language. That said, I define consciousness as an intrinsic property in itself. To use a metaphor, it is the "space" in which we are aware, or, as others have called it, the objective observer, the witness of all (subjective) experiences. My definition here probably deviates somewhat from the usual definition of consciousness; it is not the subjective experience itself, or in other words, it is not that which we are conscious of. Also, it is not related to the functions of the brain.

Another term that might need definition is awareness, because in language this is often confused with consciousness. I would define awareness as being conscious of certain experiences. In this way, awareness points to the amount of experiences that we can be conscious of. Someone blind for example is of course conscious, but can never be aware of the experience of eye-sight. In this way we can also speak of "increasing awareness" when we are able to experience certain phenomena that we weren't able to before (for example when a blind person can see again).

To make these definitions more clear in an analogy, see consciousness as a mirror, and the reflection in the mirror as subjective experience, as that which we are aware of. The reflection is not consciousness itself. Consciousness itself is this mirror, in which all experience is reflected. This analogy isn't perfect however, since a real mirror just reflects, while consciousness instead of actually reflecting experience directly is the reflection of experience.

After these definitions, we must proof the people false that claim consciousness is an illusion. If it would be, then this article would be no use. My reasoning goes as follows: to know a fact, you have to be conscious of it. To know consciousness is an illusion, you have to be conscious of it. But if consciousness is an illusion, you could not be conscious of the fact that it is an illusion. Logically, you can not claim something to be an illusion using nothing but the illusion itself as proof. To do so, you would need external facts as proof. But we can only know these external facts through consciousness, through being conscious of them. Hence consciousness is not an illusion. This also means consciousness is not an illusion created by the brain. It might be created by it, or for that matter, by something else, but it definitely is not an illusion.

Next it is important to look at what properties consciousness has, or what properties someone has who is conscious. The most important property for the sake of my argument in this article is that consciousness is inherently self-aware, we are conscious of consciousness. Another property that we need to keep an eye on, is that it seems to be somehow connected to our brain (it seems to "go" where we go and it seems to be gone when someone dies), but this in itself does not necessarily mean it must be created by the brain. It is exactly that which I want to investigate further.

To continue, I want to know what science can tell us about consciousness, keeping a close eye on it's properties. First of all we have to consider the property of consciousness being self-aware, or the fact that consciousness can be conscious of itself. What does this mean? Most importantly it means that observer (consciousness) and observed (again consciousness) are merged into one, integrated into one phenomenon. Common sense logic would already indicate that if something made out of solid matter is to be conscious of itself, it would need the "help" of another, external piece of matter (a mirror, for example), to relay the information. Just think of our eyes, how do we know they are there? Because we see them in a mirror, using our eyes. In a hypothetical universe where only a lone eye exists, this eye could never observe itself, since it does not have the capacity to relay it's own image to itself. This means that to be self-conscious, any structure also must have the property of observer and observed merged into itself. If we extrapolate this to our physical brains, this would mean it has to be a structure in the brain where all the external signals (that which is experienced) and that which experiences, is one.

Because of this property, consciousness can only arise at a spot where all the signals of all that we experience come together as one. However, here we run into the first problem for science, because so far there does not seem to be any structure in the brain where all signals of all that we experience merge together. The brain has several different specific areas to deal with all the different kinds of signals (for example the area where sound is processed is a different area from where eyesight is processed). The neurons in the brain also can't be claimed to be the structure where all signals merge, because they are just switches to relay or block the signals. And although they contain all the info of the senses, all the millions of neurons hardly form one integrated structure where all the signals merge as one.

This means that consciousness is unlikely to be attributed to any single, separate structure of the physical brain. But what about the brain as a whole, because we also have to look at the bio-electric magnetic field, created by the sum of electric activity in our brain. Maybe this is where consciousness arises? At first inspection, this electric field seems to provide just the property we need to explain consciousness, since any electric field is also an integrated whole (different waves can overlap and be one). Many current scientists also have the idea that this might be indeed the origin of consciousness.

There are however several arguments against this idea. A very strong one would be that consciousness seems to be totally unaffected by any changes in the electric field of the brain, caused either internal or external. An example of an external change is being close to a powerful electric current (like a high voltage wire). This at least should have some noticeable effect on consciousness if the idea we are investigating here is correct, since the properties of the electric field in the brain change dramatically. But there seems to be no effect, even if this field is a thousand times stronger than the one in the brain! And this is not because the brain is shielded from these fields, otherwise we could never measure brainwaves.

An example of a huge change in the electric field of the brain caused by internal factors is provided by people who are advanced at meditation. They can shut down large parts of their brain activity, while still being as conscious as ever. Some can even "meditate" their brainwaves to a state of nearly pure delta-waves. This is comparable to deep sleep, a state where only the brainstem remains largely active. People able to meditate this deep report remaining conscious, which seems to be true because how else would they decide to stop meditating? Similarly, some advanced lucid dreamers also have reported being able to remain lucid during the full period that they are sleeping, which also means staying conscious during this delta-stage. These examples show the possibility of being conscious while the brain is almost or totally in pure delta-mode. If consciousness resides in the electric field of the brain, this means it has to be part of the electric field generated by the brainstem, because nearly all other activity in the rest of the brain ceases during the delta-stage (for example all cortex activity goes in deep rest). This is very strange and seems impossible, because all the signals of the senses do certainly not merge into one (as stated, a required property of consciousness), in the brainstem. This area is only responsible for autonomous functions of the body, like breathing. Also again we see here that large changes in the bio-electric field can happen without any change in consciousness.

Another argument is related to people with reduced brain size. Some people have been known to have 50% or even less brain matter*, and are still very conscious. They still have the same property of consciousness, and can be as conscious as any "normal" human being. If consciousness is indeed generated by the bio-electrical activity of the brain, that would be very weird, because a brain of that size will have a bio-electric field of totally different properties.

All these examples show that consciousness is independent on the physical properties of the bio-electric field, because fields with an extremely wide variety of properties can still yield consciousness. However, if consciousness origins in the electric field of the brain as most scientists would have us believe, but is clearly not dependant on the properties of this field, it would be true that any such field yields consciousness. This is obviously not true, and makes the bio-electric field of the brain as the true origin of consciousness highly suspect, if not an impossibility.

If I am correct so far in my assessment that consciousness does not originate in our brain, then what about the issue that the brain still seems to have a lot of influence on consciousness? For example what about brain damage and similar issues? I would explain this as follows; the brain affects only that which arises in consciousness, not consciousness itself. Or in other words, it affects our awareness. As I have shown, consciousness itself is not related to the abilities of any parts of the brain, and as such, damaging these abilities (brain damage) does not affect consciousness itself.

To me, the inability of science to come up with an explanation for consciousness is not so weird. This is because science itself is part of experience. Consciousness however is not part of experience, it is that which experiences. Hence, science can't make any definitive conclusions about consciousness, beyond the obvious observation that consciousness merely exists. It is not an object to be researched, it is merely that which experiences. It is not "made" out of matter or energy (the reason why Buddhists also call it formless). This also means that all statements science can make about consciousness, are not really about consciousness itself, but about the objects we most closely identify with consciousness. For example, the brain. Science can tell that consciousness most likely seems to be located in the brain. This seems to be true of course, but it only tells us of a location, nothing of consciousness itself nor its origin. Furthermore, science tells us that somehow consciousness should have it's origin in the brain. While this is theoretically perhaps not a bad idea, it has however up to these days never been explained how. And as I have tried to show, there are several reasons to think of why this idea is actually false.

It is also not a valid argument, as it is sometimes uttered, to claim that consciousness must be created by the brain because materialism would fail if it is not true. First of all, any claim needs proof. If there is proof that consciousness originates from the brain, then so be it, but it has still to be found. Second, claiming that consciousness is created by the brain does not mean that materialism is false. It only states that materialism is unable to make any claims about consciousness. Personally, I think this is because consciousness does not consist of any matter. It is only that which is aware of matter. To me, consciousness seems to be an independent fundamental property intrinsic to existence, that exists alongside matter.

______________________
* For example see http://www.metacafe.com/watch/205285/amazing_kid_with_only_half_a_brain and http://www.tvthrong.co.uk/extraordinary-people/extraordinary-people-living-with-half-a-brain-monday-october-1

Adrian thanks for the reply.

If there was a better way of doing this I would do it.

If you dont mind my humble opinion, I think there is a better way to do this. You could write on that info page exactly what you wrote in your last reply here (that the price will go up soon), so that people who want to buy the book know that they better buy it soon, since the price will go up, and extras will be dropped. This is a honest way of openly informing potential customers of the situation, something I know you would want to do. The script just looks weird and I have to say, does not very well fit the purpose you intent it to have.

Also, if I may say so, the fact that you refer so often to what people desire, a reference to the egoistic nature of the unenlightened human kind ("Do you wish you could have everything you could possibly desire?") seems somewhat odd to me. I wonder what the purpose of the book is, is it to enlighten people and set them on a selfless course of spiritual development, or to fulfill people's desires? In my opinion such a focus on desire, greed, etc, does not very well mix with spiritual development, since these qualities tend to block us from seeing our true inner Selves. Of course if one gets enlightened, there is no more suffering and in a sense this is infinite wealth, but desire and wealth in itself should not be the main reason to buy your book.

I dont wish to be a nuisance, these are just my honest ideas on your information page.

Anyway, thanks for your attention.

-Xetrov.

With some irony, I would say the book should contain an additional chapter to educate people unfamiliar with Internet Realities such as unfair tricks common on our Physical level ...  

Yeah well, i am familiar with it, I just think it's pretty weird to see a book on the meaning of life and spirituality and then see those "unfair tricks", this way it looks like making money is more important then educating people??  

At times wandering back to this forum, I stumbled upon this book. Very interesting, so I followed some links for more info. Now I do have a question.

I wonder why, at the page where they tell how good the book is (here), they use a script that changes the date above Adrian's letter. Its the thingy that starts with:

From:   Adrian Cooper

Date: August 11, 2005

However, yesterday it said Aug, 10, and tomorrow it will say, aug 12, etc.

ps: I read that it was available as ebook, but not anymore?

Hey Catmeow.

Ofcourse we agree that we can disagree! That's why im gonne respond to your critique with a small remark

You quoted me on saying that the spirit-consciousness system (or whatever it is and what you wanna call it) is not dividable. You omitted however the part that followed:

splitting consciousness (so, the mind, not the spirit) is possible, but when you do this all parts of consciousness stay linked together (it stays integrated as one whole), so what actually happens is that we are expanding our consciousness beyond its ordinary physical boundaries

You see, what you talk about, and what I talk about, is the splitting of consciousness, which is not the same as dividing our astral essence or spirit in 2 or more parts (which is what Bruce says). I stated that the copies of consciousness stay linked together, which I still hold is true, but it is possible however that we are not aware of this when we are experiencing it. The point still stands, consciousness can be expanded and split, but consciousness isnt the same as astral matter. So that's why I say that the experience where you seem to loose contact between the split parts is caused by distortion, caused by the fact that you are not in a normal state of being. I said this before but consider the fact that during dreams (also during trances), false memories, time distortion, etc are possible, also that certain chemicals could play a role in suppressing mental faculties, and this is a high probability. To quote you, of course I'm not sure about this, it's just a theory. But quite a good one too!

So, although splitting/expanding of consciousness seems possible to both of us (without going into too much detail how and what etc, that would be another new discussion), if OBE consciousness does not rely on visual cortex abilities as you claim, how do you explain:

Would it be coincidence that when people's visual center (visual cortex) in the brain is active, during RB-type OBE, they can influence the astral by thought? Like, just as what happens in dreams... ?

Add to that the fact  that it seems that in NDE (no visual cortex) people seem to be unable to influence the astral, at least not in the same way as during RB type-OBE.


Pretty much coincidentally isnt it? I don't think so, to me this is a clear correlation.


Well so far, perhaps someone would like to comment on this, however tomorrow I'm off for a vacation (3 weeks to Cuba), so I wont be here for some time. I'll check back in here when I get back though

Happy dreaming everyone.

Stopping the effort and relaxing to be an observer, enjoying what comes along no matter what it appears to be..  without expectations, will show you what IS there.

Effort means conscious thought in this case. But as we all know dreams can be largely attributed to an unconscious cause. So when we stop the effort and relax, who is to say that what we experience without effort does not derive from our (consciously or sub-conscious) mind?

The larger question behind this all is, is there something like a "reality" behind our subjective experiences, and if there is such "stuff" that is not created by ourselves (consciously or unconsciously), what can we know about it?

We create ALL our reality, physical or otherwise. The imagination plays a vital role in this.

Do you mean that according to you, all reality is a product of our imagination, and that nothing (even in physical reality as we call it) exists that we cannot imagine or have not imagined? Do you believe there is an objective reality (or "ding an sich" as German philosophers called it) behind all our experiences at all?

...it mostly doesn't matter at all whether it's "all in your head" or a genuine other-realms experience.

Why does it have to be either the one or the other, why can't it be both?

Hi AP'ers.

As some might know or might not know, I wrote a (pretty controversial and confusing) article a wile ago, with my alternative ideas on OBE/AP. After a lot of good discussion on this forum from which I learned a lot, and even more research (and even some more first hand experiences), I came to rewrite my initial article.

Any of you who might be still interested to read it, get it here:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/xetrov/obenew.doc


Its a total rewrite, I used terms and definitions that we all understand, and I included most if not all of the arguments we had in the previous thread.

Well if you do read it, let me know what you think of it and if it's any good

Hey Tombo.

Well indeed your conclusion, that these ideas are at least as plausible as Bruce's, is one I have tried to defend here from the start (might have taken a while for me to explain it in a decent way, but hey, that's what a forum is for, im glad i learned to state my ideas so others could understand!). I really hope that more people will be open minded and try to search themselves for possible answers to the questions raised here (including, hopefully, more scientists too in the future). And ofcourse, these answers could still include parts of Bruce's theories, yet I do hope that my ideas have made clear that you should not take it all for granted (as some do but luckily not all).

Anyway I'm also curious for a reply of Catmeow (I hope he will still give one, no hurry though).

Also, I will update my article by the way with any new information I recently obtained (not a lot, but still) and post it here soon.

A nice day to you all!
Xetrov.

Hello everyone,

Catmeow and Tombo, thanks for your replies. I hope we're not getting tired of this discussion yet (I'm not, but I am jobless for the moment, so I got plenty of time to write huge posts ). I'll see if I can make you understand better why some people seem so reluctant to go with some of Bruce's viewpoints.

catmeow wrote:
I don't understand your reluctance to accept OBE as a genuine experience. Given the fact that you accept human survival of bodily death, why do you refuse to accept the possibility of a person temporarily leaving the body whilst he is still alive?!

I'm still waiting for a comprehensible answer to this? What I'm trying to say  is, given the fact that you accept that "spirit can leave body", I can't understand your inisistance that this can't happen whilst the physical body is alive?

First of all I never said its not genuine. But I understand what you mean anyway.The answer lies, to start with, also in this:

Who says an OBE can't be initiated whilst the visual cortex is offline?

To continue, this also has to do with what Tombo wrote:

In my view this article does not in any way show evidence that a neuromatrix is more likely then a Astral body existing besides the physical body. All observed Phenomenon are explainable with both Theories.

Ok so we have 2 viewpoints here now, both of which show some possible inconsistencies. First of all in Bruce's theory. I have claimed that the fact that no OBE can be initiated in deep sleep whilst the visual cortex is offline argues against Bruce. I have asked people here to confirm or reject this statement by trying to do this (experience lucid sleep) themselves, however being lucid in deep sleep is very hard so it would be some time I guess before anyone here can or wants to experiment on this. However I and a few other people I know well have done so on several occasions. From our experience, all of us are able to go  into a RB type-OBE from sleep / trance but not from deep sleep. After some research we found that in this stage the visual cortex is offline, so this supported our conclusion that  RB style-OBE are like dreams and Dependant on certain brain functions  (visual cortex) that produce visual images. How can this be true if Bruce is correct?
To continue we also found some research that shows that people born blind could not see during RB type-OBE, but could during NDE. This could possibly point in the direction that, contrary to RB type-OBE, at NDE-OBE we do leave our body and can "see" with our astral senses. Add to this the several NDE experiences that a friend of my induced from really 0 brainwave activity. I have asked him to elaborate on  these experiences here so perhaps you will find a detailed description of it soon (i hope). These facts are also not explained by Bruce and seem to contradict his ideas.
Now this doesn't mean Bruce is totally insane and has no good ideas whatsoever, only that his notion of astral matter of the body (spirit) disconnecting from it and operating independently from it, thereby fully placed in the astral dimension during RB type-OBE, is not correct.
So now what are the deficiencies in the model of explanation that I have proposed?

We should apply in each case the simplest theory which fits the observed facts (Occam's Razor). For the cases I cited, I think that this is that "spirit leaves body" and not that "person has hallucination about leaving body coupled with ESP, coupled with self-body image, coupled with hallucination and ESP of second individual who thinks he saw first individual out of his body"

Occam absolutely says nothing at all about which viewpoint would be the more simple theory that fits the observed facts, just that you should pick the one that YOU think is more simple, which is purely subjective interpretation, depending on your experiences and knowledge. For you, it's Bruce's ideas. For me, it's not. I could easily sum up or invent some examples where someone doesnt know all the facts so that a certain viewpoint looks the more logical one while this was totally not the case. So, Occam is not going to help us at all here and says nothing about the validity of either of the viewpoints.
I have argued that OBE's are visual happenings induced by the brain, so if you want to call that hallucinations, ok. We have also seen that ESP is absolutely not a weird phenomenon to happen and could very well explain 99.99 or perhaps 100 percent of what happens. So then we are left with some odd examples like "she saw that person beside her body while that person had an OBE". You say, "aha! Occam! So Bruce is right!"... Well that just doesnt do it for me. I have been theorizing a bit on  his forum what can happen and the possibilities of ESP etc, this does not mean I know everything that is possible! Neither do you I assume, so we will always have some lack of information in our discussions (we just dont know everything). So while this example of yours might have happened, I think this is a far smaller discrepancy (and behold yet, for I will certainly try to explain it, just read on... ) then the ones I showed in Bruce's ideas.

You say a person needs to be NDE to OBE and I say they don't!

You know im not the only person who believes this don't you? Look at Bardon's work for example and the ancient tradition of Yogi's. Don't come with the same argument as Frank please that these are invalid and based  upon centuries of dogma and such because that's just not true. These people have been exploring consciousness on levels most of us cannot even imagine, for ages!

Doesn't this definition also include NDE-OBE where brainwave activity is reduced to zero?

No, I dont consider zero to be activity. Perhaps I should have made that more explicit.

From this article:
Quote:
But perhaps most important is that in no case so far did there seem to be a discrete state in which the OBE took place. There were no sudden changes in either EEG or autonomic functions to mark the beginning or end of the OBE. Any changes were gradual; unlike dreaming, the OBE does not seem to be associated with a discrete physiological state.

And again:
Quote:
The one other subject who has taken part in a large number of OBE experiments is Keith ('Blue') Harary. ... Here there were no changes in EEG. The amount and frequency of alpha were the same in OBE and 'cool down' periods and there were only slightly fewer eye movements in the OBE phases. These measurements alone show that Harary was awake and that his OBEs did not occur in a sleeping, dreaming or borderline state.

These results disagree with your view of LD/OBE as only occurring during alpha/theta EEG. For at least one subject (Keith Harary), OBE's take place during normal EEG. So his OBE's also do not fall within your definition of LD/OBE....
....EEG measurements have already been taken, which completely contradict your alpha/theta EEG theory. Can you explain this?

I never meant to say that RB type-OBE is exactly like dreaming, but that the fundamental principles behind  them are the same. These are 1) No spirit leaves the body and 2) Visions are internally created events, added with ESP. So this to me includes RB type-OBE's in any condition as well as LD's. This said, most likely my definitions did not yet cover all related phenomena and all possible aspects (as you try to show). Don't forget Im at times also still learning new facts here, and I try to incorporate them as good as I can into my viewpoint (there might be a limit to this, where there are facts that are so inconsistent with my ideas that I can't incorporate them, but I dont think this is the case just yet!). Also if I get stuck I could ask some other people with far more knowledge and experience than me (but who share my ideas) on their opinion. This is by the way what i'm doing now and then, and I also asked some of them to post their ideas here but alas, noone showed up yet so I'll have to defend the case alone, for now.
Now how could there be "no sudden changes in either EEG or autonomic functions to mark the beginning or end of the OBE"? Have you even considered for example the possibility that differences would show up on the EEG, between OBE's induced from waking life (like WILD) and OBE's started from within a LD, without the absolute necessity for those two kinds of OBE's to be very different? It merely seems to be a sign of sleep when EEG changes fast and a sign of wakefulness when it doesnt. Also about trances, I dont claim to be THE expert on this topic, but I know that meditation starts with alpha, then theta, and in alpha already you can have vivid visions. There is also no need for sudden EEG changes since during the experiment, it could very well be that, when they started to measure, the person was already relaxed and in alpha EEG. So this in itself doesnt say anything . Also remember the cases I called upon of people that could kind of "OBE" at any time of the day by "loosing themselves in their internal visions", for example if they have a photographic memory (but here could be other causes, like people who are extremely good at visualizing). These persons for sure also don't drop into theta trance.
You might say, well a minority of cases dont seem to fit entirely with your previous description of what according to you should be happening at a RB type-OBE. But I am covering  in this discussion some issues on which i definitely dont have all the knowledge (yet), so perhaps it's possible that even RB type-OBE's are in reality dividable in different categories, depending for example on brainwave activity. We could divide them into OBE's induced from sleep paralysis, from LD, from trance, from daily activity, etc. It would be hard now to exactly describe all of these phenomena in one description, but I still believe that they share in common as I have argued, 1) No spirit leaves the body and 2) Visions are internally created events, added with ESP.

Xetrov wrote:
If not, why are there differences in degrees of vision in different OBE accounts? Why does someone have it and someone else not? Should it not be that we all ought to have it, since I assume that you realize that if what you claim is true, and the astral body is set free, then the astral senses take over from the physical / internal ones. Why would the astral senses in such a scenario show 360 degree vision to one person (and perhaps not even always), and not to another person?

Don't know.  I assume that it's like "focussing" your physical eyes. If you concentrate on one spot whilst OBE you get normal vision. But if you focus on all of your surroundings, your astral senses open up and you get 360 deg vision. Seems perfectly sensible to me?

So when you are in the astral, your astral senses still need to open up? This seems weird to me and contradicted by people that experience NDE's. I can tell you though why I think this is true. There are two possibilities. One is that you watch your visions with a kind of fisheye – effect (if you know what I mean). Two is that you can perceive with your astral senses (ESP), but the differences in talent and experience determine to what extent you can do this (360 or less), because we are still connected to and limited by our physical bodies.

Nope, it's just that the the "parallel" argument is conveniently trotted out to explain the "self-body-image", but the "parallel" argument is then conveniently dropped and discounted (by yourself) when talking about point-consciousness and 360 deg vision. It seems that on the one hand it's a "good argument" and on the other hand it's "unnecessary". So which is it?

You dont understand what I mean. The self image model we have is the basic to which we always fall back to during many (mostly ordinary) situations. This doesnt mean we cannot experience different things, which are alien to this model.

The point I'm trying to make is that the LD/ESP model can be misused to disprove your position, just as well as it can be misused to disprove mine. What we should be using, in both cases, is the simplest theory which explains the observed facts (Occam's Razor again). This means that in NDE-OBE the spirit leaves the body, and also in normal OBE, the spirit leaves the body

If I would use Occam here, I would say  that your application of LD/ESP to NDE is extremely far fetched. It would mean that the LD takes place at the exact moment of revival where the brain becomes active again (so there needs to be a huge time compression), and also the knowledge of everything that happened must be obtained through an empathic link with the doctors present, which is extremely unlikely since unless you are godly talented most you can do is sense emotions. This also counts for obtaining the information trough "clairvoyantly from psychic imprints of the previous events in the "ether". ", which is furthermore an idea based upon a premise that you want to prove, so you cant use this argument because it's based upon itself(the ether or astral being prone to influence of thought, and that this is information reachable through  ESP or whatever means is what you need to prove in the 1st place).
So while we both agree that the LD/ESP model is RATHER plausible, we both  (I assume) kind of laugh  (as a joke ofcourse) at your idea to counter my valid use of the LD/ESP model. But who am I to use Occam, ofcourse

Oh and by the way, Im waiting for the postman to deliver your car as soon as I bring the people to post their 360 – LD stuff here!

And as a final note to Tombo: If you dont agree that we have a spirit / astral matter in the first place then how come you believe in Bruce's ideas anyway? And also yes, we are conscious, but if that is all there is, then consciousness  must be created and maintained purely by the brain/nervous system, and we have already argued that if you talk only about consciousness, we really never are "in" the body  in the first place, but "in" the place you are conscious of at a certain time (be it a dream or a thought or whatever). The argument was going about astral matter / spirit disconnecting from the body.

Hey catmeow, ill reply in length soon, but just one small remark now.

btw, how is the "360 deg vison during LD" experiment coming along?  Is my car safe?   catmeow

I have not yet had a significant high Lucid dream to test it. However I have been asking around to some people I know very closely (and trust at least as much as I trust you!), and they have said that they have 360 degree vision when they reach their highest state of lucidity (so yes, in a LD). I can paste the log or get you in contact with this person if you don't believe me

So eh, does that earn me a car yet?  

Tombo: I know what you mean. But separation of spirit without NDE or really dying isn't possible so yes, I would say that all these experiences share the same fundamental principle as the phenomenon of lucid dreaming, which is that they are "internal" (so not fully placed in the astral), mental events. Note however that the term "lucid dreaming" is just a label for a subset of these experiences.

I have by the way come across a very interesting article to show you some more scientific evidence that my viewpoint is no-nonsense. I would highly suggest for anyone to read the following:

http://www.geocities.com/franzbardon/virtuallimbs.html

It shows to me some interesting facts. First of all they agree with most of us here that we have (ofcourse) a mental model of our physical bodies. A mental model which, according to research, is even hard wired into our nervous system. To quote their findings on this issue:

The important point is, in my opinion, Melzacks assumption that this body scheme represented by the neuromatrix is working on its own but is constantly "updated" by the sensory inputs which come from the diverse parts of our body. Therefore, if we cut the input from the sensory apparatus down in some way then this neural network which processes these signals will take over and will create the impression of a separate body besides the "real, material" body. Therefore we can speak about two systems:
1. Our body and the sensory systems which connect us to the "real (=outside) world", and
2. The artificial body scheme generated in the brain by the neuromatrix = neurosignature. ..

As long as we live an "ordinary" life and nothing special happens, the difference between these two working systems gets by unnoticed. Only if the first system gets separated from the second one by any means, the autonomous working of the second one becomes apparent.

You see here what happens if in any way we lose contact with the physical bodily sensory information flow, the mind will automatically switch purely to this mental image of our bodies. This is what happens when we perform an exit procedure from trance/ sleep (remember i focused on the smooth transition which makes us really believe we go OBE), but if can also happen I think under certain circumstances during waking life (an issue to be explored further). Also this does not mean ofcourse we cannot experience other mental constructs (like as said here, be a flower or a bird), it just shows that as a standard, normally the mind will automatically switch to this internal model of our physical body.

As i have said before here on the forum, what you are doing when you enter an RB type-OBE is what Bardon calls "mental wandering". Ofcourse the argument will go like, "yeah but that's Bardon's words vs Bruce's", and I agree. It's up to us to explore the truths behind each of their claims. It's still interesting though that Bardon's mental wandering can now partly be explained by science. Also I reckon most people will not like the final remark of that article...

What we learn by Bardons method is not to reach the "astral plane" but to control our own body image neuronal network.

... yet I fully agree  

Why do they say astral is a higher vibration frequency? They say astral vibrates the same way physical places do but at a higher frequency. Frequency is not a vague word used to describe things you dont fully understand. It means 1 / wavelength. I and many others have felt "vibrations" OBE and other psychic things, but what we feel does not translate directly to a physics model. Where does this dogma come from that astral is vibrating that way?

Here we are confusing two different meanings of the phrase "higher frequency". The first meaning is: physical matter can move slow or fast and thus has a low or high frequency. The second covers the notion that the astral is in some way 'higher' then the physical, and this can very well be a dogma or else merely a notion that someone came up with and  the rest of us just stuck with it. However you can also see it in this way. If you want something, you can say it is something 'higher' for you to reach. In the case of spiritual development, we are talking about continuously broadening our awareness and increasing our positive / love emotions. So, metaphorically speaking, you can say that 'spiritual frequency' covers a classification of conscious and emotional levels from lower to higher. In this way there are different frequencies which range from low (to what we are now), to high (what we want to reach). Now, I also think it happens to be so that there are different layers in the astral that correspond to different levels (or dimensions) of awareness and emotion, so you can also speak of a higher frequency of certain astral levels. Ofcourse there is no such thing as universally 'good' or 'bad', so this is entirely a personal matter, it only is like this when you want to reach these other levels. But then, who wouldnt want to broaden his or her awareness (except those that prefer to stay narrow minded), and who wouldnt want to evolve their emotional states (except those that prefer their current condition)?

Hello freechille.

I assume we have a mind (and I think most of us do), because I seem to be/have a thinking, conscious self. What alternative would there be, that we have no mind? How would you propose that could be? Also, I assume I am conscious, how else could I think and be aware of myself, of my surroundings, of emotions etc?

Your question in 3 is a good one, and I have argued and I guess most people here would agree as far as I have heard their ideas on this forum, that the mind is not physically located anywhere. Only that the place where it is generated / maintained / sustained (and influenced) is located, a least partly in our nervous system (thanks for pointing that out, its ofcourse not 'just' the brain indeed). I will soon post my new article here in which i delve a little deeper into this issue. The location of the mind in this definition would be equal to whatever it is currently focused on (a dream, a thought etc). I also share your idea on the nervous system as a system that rewires and reconnects depending on our experiences.  

The experience you describe is a good example indeed of how our body, nervous system and conscious mind can interact to create the illusion of an OBE, where our spirit leaves the body. I think there are several possible situations during which this might happen, all of which can result in either a clear OBE situation to merely a feeling of being OBE (or anywhere in between). Examples are plenty and include OBE's induced from sleep (from LD), from trance, and your experience. It would be good to keep an open mind and to explore all brain/nervous system related phenomena before we conclude that such OBE's are really the result of our spiritual matter disconnecting from the body.

Perhaps those of you who OBE frequently could try that as an experiment to see how long it actually takes to OBE that way.

I think some people can do this very quickly, in a matter of seconds, either voluntarily or by accident. When it happens by accident, and if it is accompanied with an exit procedure (which is certainly a possibility we should take into account), it surely looks like a 'genuine' OBE.

Could this be the case also with meditation induced OBEs?

Yes, although  perhaps those are different in that during meditation, you are even more closely trying to reach the perfect situation for an OBE to occur, which is a super relaxed body, an aware mind and low (alpha/theta) brainwaves. In a trance like this, it is easy to visualize in great detail a sort of 'dream' where you float free of your physical body.

Catmeow, thanks for your elaborate reply!

Ill try to answer to a few of the points you raised, I must admit some of them are rather intriguing and make me think a lot about these issues. First of all let me briefly reply to what you wrote in the end of your reply; "why do you refuse to accept the possibility of a person temporarily leaving the body whilst he is still alive".

Well this is true and false. Yes I have been making myself rather clear here that I refuse to accept that during a RB type-OBE someone's spirit leaves their body, because sofar I have seen no evidence to definitely prove that this has to be true. However inclined I am to prove my own viewpoint, this does not exclude the possibility that given the right information I would change my ideas according to those of Bruce. However unsettling and incoherent my ideas might sound to the lot of you, I have come to a few points that are just not explained by Bruce and which contradict his ideas.

Why are there people born blind that can see during NDE-OBE, if those OBE's are the same as RB type-OBE?
Why does a RB type-OBE correlate exactly with the activation of the visual cortex, or To put it differently, why can't such an OBE be initiated from beyond deep sleep where the visual cortex is offline?
Nothing proves to me that, as Bruce claims, the astral is a fluid medium which is responsible for our dreams and which is prone to influence by thought. This can just as well be explained by the theory that dreams are only internal events.

So you see my ideas (they are not just my ideas alone, mind you) might have some 'gaps' to some of you (although I really do my best to explain any such gaps as I see them arrive, yet perhaps there will be some which I cannot explain, but that remains to be seen), this does for sure not mean that Bruce's ideas are perfectly sound and coherent. Indeed, to me they are absolutely not.

Also to come back to your claim, I have never said that a person cannot temporarily leave their body while alive, just that it is a lot more difficult then Bruce wants us all to believe because the only way this is possible is to initiate a NDE. Note that I seem to be supported in this notion by someone with a decent reputation and experience like  Clark and also by the knowledge of ancient tradition Yogi's. Ofcourse this doesnt prove anything to you but I thought i'd just mention it to show im not the only one ranting these ideas.

That said I'd also like to make clear what exactly I see as a lucid dream (since people have been asking for it and it would also help to clarify my viewpoint).

First of all we have the usual definition of a LD: Any dream in which the subject who dreams becomes aware of the fact that he or she is dreaming.
Yet this doesnt cover all phenomenon that are related to lucid dreaming. Therefore I also propose to define the phenomenon itself as: Any state of lowered brainwave activity resulting in either sleep or trance during which the subject retains his or her awareness. This awareness can range from 'only' knowing that one is dreaming / in trance to full inclusion of all daily conscious faculties, including but not limited to all memories and full consciousness.

Now this is clear, I want to say a final word about that article I linked. It is indeed totally incomplete and shows only a small picture of OBE related information,  I only wanted to make you read it because it states very clearly that although many OBE's from sleep and trance stages look a lot like someone genuinely leaving their body, this explanation doesnt hold in most cases. Just as in your case Catmeow, if I remember correctly you explained that most of your lucid dreams are initiated in such a way (through exit procedures). So you see I didnt necessarily put that article there to prove anything to you,  just to show that my point of view on this matter is not just something I have come up with overnight. And yes I agree this does absolutely not prove that a 'genuine' OBE is impossible from sleep/trance conditions, I totally agree on that. Yet many people on this forum claim that nearly every exit procedure from sleep/trance they initiate leads to a 'genuine' OBE. Perhaps this doesnt count for the more advanced OBE-ers here, Im not pointing at anyone, but it certainly counts for a lot of people (especially people new to all this).

Then something about all the additional features you would like to see included into the definition of OBE (and which I tried to counter with some arguments): I still believe it is all a matter of convincing yourself about what's what.

It has happened to me many times that I returned from an outstandingly vivid LD which seemed pretty convincing at the time, only to realize when I woke up that it was "just a dream". But for many people, when they return from OBE to PWC (physical waking consciousness) the experience is still just as real as the physical world. In some cases, PWC actually feels "dreamlike" in comparison with the OBE, and the OBE feels "more real" in comprison. This is NOT addressed by the article, and I think you have mis-understood my point here.

First of all I would like to inquire after the amount of daily consciousness you retain in your lucids. Also, what did you mean when you said "only to realize when I woke up that it was "just a dream""? Do you mean to say  that during the LD, you did not (perhaps not fully) realize it was a dream? What do you mean by "an outstandingly vivid LD which seemed pretty convincing at the time"? Of what were you convinced at the time? Do you mean that you only realize after you wake up that you had a lucid dream? Please elaborate as I am now confused about what your LD experiences are.

Well now about the argument. If someone has had a RB style-OBE and he/she wakes up, and still believes it was perfectly real as you say, then it had to be an OBE and not a LD. Well that's just a definition, it doesnt necessarily mean it is true. I mean also, these people are also already convinced it had to be a real OBE. However it could be very well a feature of a dream in which one remains fully conscious. What is your evidence that when such an experience seems real after wards it HAS to be a genuine OBE? Also let's not invoke that article again since I already know very well its limitations.

How many times have you experienced 360 deg vision during LD? Can you do this voluntarily during LD, let alone spontaneously, as OBE'rs report! If you can do this during LD I'll give you my car (it's not a very good one! )

Not yet, but start driving . Ill accept your challenge, and I will report on it as soon as I am able to get a decent LD again (which should be soon I hope). The fact that during an OBE people have reported to have spontaneous 360 degree vision is interesting however, are you sure these people had never read or heard anywhere about this before, so that it was 100% spontaneous? Could you show me where you got this information? Also, I wonder, is 360 degree vision per definition part of a 'genuine' OBE (meaning, without it, it isnt one?). If not, why are there differences in degrees of vision in different OBE accounts? Why does someone have it and someone else not? Should it not be that we all ought to have it, since I assume that you realize that if what you claim is true, and the astral body is set free, then the astral senses take over from the physical / internal ones. Why would the astral senses in such a scenario show 360 degree vision to one person (and perhaps not even always), and not to another person?

The accounts of LD/OBE I have read where 360 deg vision was present had other characteristics, which classified them (to me) as OBE, rather than LD. These characteristics would be for instance "sense of utter reality" which persisted into PWC, observing the physical world accurately without fantasy constructs, or else the experience occurred spontaneously whilst the individual was physically active.

Yes this might be so but we were arguing about 360 degree vision, but anyway your remarks do have relevance for the discussion. Let me however give you an analogy to show you my argument. A child goes to an illusionist with his parents, and he watches the illusionist as he makes objects fly through the building. He is so fascinated that he goes again and again to see the same show. Now the child might believe that what he sees is exactly what happens and that the illusionist really has magical powers to make objects fly through space.... Ok now I agree this is a rude analogy, but I wanted to say that if you have experienced RB type-OBE's a lot, and you had 360 degree vision and point-consciousness each time and also when you woke up, each time you 'knew' it was real, etc, then ofcourse you will define these experiences as 'genuine' OBE's.  To use another one metaphor, to me it's like saying, a house (LD) is a building (Dream) but a castle (RB type-OBE) is clearly not, because it has so many different characteristics.Also please dont think that I compare any of you to a child or that I say that your arguments dont make any sense, because that's not so I was merely trying to make my view more clear.

I think part of the problem might be a definition issue perhaps, since I have claimed that RB type-OBE's are similar to LD's. I didn't mean they are the same (as in, a castle is a house) but that the underlying phenomenon is the same; both are dream experiences, and dreams are caused by visual cortex activity (so a castle and a house are both buildings).

it cannot just be shrugged off with a simple explanation of "daydreaming". According to your classification of LD/OBE, the physical body is in some sort of REM sleep. It is not awake, singing in a choir, giving a sermon, walking, riding a motorbike, playing a piano, or taking a driving test!

Im not shrugging off anything! Im trying to explain certain phenomena from within my viewpoint, and when you can show me for 100% that Im not correct, I'll congratulate you and we all live happily ever after. But no kidding. I have heard of people that are able to visualize any situation during waking life, and at the same moment kind of "dream" that they are there (so at that point, they really are, mentally speaking). So this is not just some mere insane idea I came up with, also its not 'just' simply daydreaming as most of us won't be able to do this (since it involves a photographic memory). Also, uptill now we have indeed been arguing about RB type-OBE's from sleep and trance stages, and for these to happen you don't need to be in "some sort of REM sleep". As I explained (I think), your brainwave-activity has to drop significantly from beta to alpha and theta, which indicates relaxation of physical body and heightened internal activity in visual cortex by release of certain neurotransmitters. It is certainly not impossible that this can even happen for some people during normal daily activity and even when they don't expect it. Furthermore, you can fully immerse yourself in such an experience while continuing to perform very complex daily tasks without being (fully) aware of it! Hence the people that have OBE's during driving tests, or in churches etc. I found a nice example to show you in which direction this can go, an account of an OBE experience by Susan Blackmore, you can find it here:

http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00075&ss=1

The interesting thing in this account was that she was still able to keep talking during all the time she had the OBE, yet she had no control or feeling of her body. You see I am not dismissing anything and really trying to take any case of OBE into my explanations. It is just that I see so many 'holes' in Bruce's theory that I am inclined to try to explain these phenomena in a different way then most people here do. This does not mean however that Im not open to different explanations as I have said before, however I have seen no reason yet nor any full evidence that Bruce has to be right in his ideas. What I propose, even on these OBE's during waking life, can be true.

But why on earth would a person spontaneously experience 360 deg vision during OBE, when this has no parallel whatsoever in his normal physical life? Not only has it no parallel, but it's also pretty difficult to visualize. Now if this 360 deg vision thing was an isolated incident then I'd be willing to let it go. But it isn't. It's a common theme reported in OBE's all over the world and there is absolutely no reason for it.

Well ok back once more to the 360 discussion. Do you mean to say that everything we experience in a (lucid)dream needs to have parallels in physical waking life? Do you mean that, stuff that is difficult to visualize would be impossible to do in a LD? I can prove the contrary. And sure, it isnt an isolated incident, a common theme even. If you are aware of Susan blackmore's theory on 'memes', you could argue that this is for a large part why people are able to experience 360 degree vision in the 1st place.

these individuals are using sensory mechanisms native to the new realm they find themselves in

I think you meant here that they are using their astral senses, the use of which is native to the astral (new) realm they find themselves in. Well yes, perhaps this is true! But, does that mean they need to have their spirit disconnected from their bodies? I would argue not, because using our astral senses is already possible when we are awake or 'merely' in a LD (remember ESP). Use of astral senses just seems to be limited during physical life, but that doesnt mean its impossible to perceive in 360. So this doesnt prove nor disprove anything. It could very well be that in a RB type-OBE, we are really in an elaborate form of Lding, which allows some of us to visualize in 360, either because we can imagine it, or either because we can use our astral senses to allow such a way of viewing.

the LD/ESP model which you apply to normal OBE's applies equally to NDE-OBE's

Might be true (no way to disprove what you wrote here). But what does that prove? That my theory can be incoherent if you apply a certain way of reasoning about it? Ofcourse it can! There are still so many variables in my and in Bruce's theories too, variables that have to be researched and/or experienced before anyone can with certainty say anything about it. Yet in my viewpoint I can explain these things in a coherent way (you have to admit my view is coherent albeit perhaps not true, but that's another story), but in Bruce's theory there are loopholes which aren't explained yet.

So what I dont understand is all of your reluctance to explore possible different ways of explaining the OBE phenomenon.

Well anyway Catmeow, thanks for your reply and let's see what the future brings in this discussion, I hope we can still continue it for a while (and no need to hurry ofcourse, take your time!).

Greetings,
Xetrov.


PS: I will reply to FreeChile later since my time is also limited

Hey catmeow,

Take your time there's no rush from my side, ill check your reply after christmas.

And hey Tombo,

I will think of your question and reply in the next few days when I have time. If I wanted to go into detail however I could write a huge book on the phenomenon of lucid dreaming (but ill try to keep it short then and to the point).

Have a nice X-mas everyone

Hello catmeow,

Your comments on the article are in itself pretty much true, and certainly if you are of the opinion that an OBE isnt the same as a LD. However, why i found the article interesting and worth reading is because it does show us some insight into one 'subclass' of OBE's, namely those that are initiated from sleep stages (be it LD's or WILD's, this group contains about 85% of all OBE's reported). Also their definitions for LD and WILD are exactly how anyone would define them (there is no discussion as far as I know as what these definitions should be). Possible differences also dont really matter as the definitions only indicate how a person becomes or stays self aware in a dream, and because according to their findings, OBE's from any dream stage, be it WILD or DILD or whatever, are very close or exactly the same. But you are right, their definition of a OBE is indeed too narrow to capture all OBE related phenomena. However let me point out why I liked the article anyway.They write in some detail about the parallels between OBE's and LD's, because they have been researching a lot on those phenomenon (yes, albeit a limited version of OBE's, only from sleep). Their findings show that all the OBE's induced from a sleep stage are nearly indistinguishable from LD's, and they also show how according to them people may still claim that they are different. This is because the transition between the waking and sleeping stage (for example during sleep paralysis and/or WILD) is so subtle that it is not noticed, thus going into a OBE this way doesnt seem to be a dream (but it still is). You have probably experienced this a lot of times according to your way of inducing lucid dreams (if i read it correct, you wake up slightly and perform an exit procedure, a method I also use a lot). I am aware that you agree with me that those sleep-related OBE's aren't really OBE's after all but the huge majority on this forum probably still claims otherwise, which is also why I posted this article to support my viewpoint. To quote the (in my opinion) most interesting findings from their research (and these passages show exactly why I think their findings are interesting and why they should be considered with great care):

[dream related] OBEs occur when people lose input from their sense organs, as happens at the onset of sleep, while retaining consciousness. This combination of events is especially likely when a person passes directly from waking into REM sleep. In both states the mind is alert and active, but in waking it is processing sensory input from the outside world, while in dreaming it is creating a mental model independent of sensory input. This model includes a body. When dreaming, we generally experience ourselves in a body much like the "real" one, because that is what we are used to. However, our internal senses in the physical body, which when we are awake
inform us about our position in space and the movement of our limbs. This information is cut off in REM sleep. Therefore, we can dream of doing all kinds of things with our dream bodies -- flying, dancing, running from monsters, being dismembered -- all while our physical bodies lie safely in bed.

During a WILD, or sleep paralysis, the awake and alert mind keeps up its good work of showing us the world it expects is out there -- although it can no longer sense it. So, then we are in a mentalÐdreamÐworld. Possibly we feel the cessation of the sensation of gravity as that part of sensory input shuts down, and then feel that we are suddenly lighter and float up, rising from the place where we know our real body to be lying still. The room around us looks about the same, because that is our brain's best guess about where we are. If we did not know that we had just fallen asleep, we might well think that we were awake, still in touch with the physical world, and that something mighty strange was happening -- a departure of the mind from the physical body!

The unusual feeling of leaving the body is exciting and alarming. This, combined with the realistic imagery of the bedroom is enough to account for the conviction of many OBE experients' that "it was too real to be a dream." Dreams, too, can be astonishingly real, especially if you are attending to their realness . . . . Lucid dreamers often comment to themselves in dreams, "I know this is a dream, but it all seems so incredibly real!" All this goes to show that the feeling that an event is real does not mean that it is happening in the physical world that we all share when we are awake.

So this shows my point, OBE's from sleep stages are in essence the same phenomenon as lucid dreams, although people interpret them all differently according to their different viewpoints.

Now you come up with some interesting additional characteristics of what according to you should be included in a definition of an OBE.

On returning to the physical, an OBE is still perceived as "just as real" as physical reality. This is not true of LD's.

To start, the quote I gave from the lucidity institute shows that this is a false premise. It is only based on the distinction a person makes when he/she is having an OBE "it looks so real it cannot be a LD", thus it has to be an OBE, but this is not necessarily true at all. So, I would argue that you should broaden your definition of what a LD is to include such experiences if they do not fit your definition of a LD (and yes this comes from my own experience as well).

During OBE sometimes 360 deg vision is experienced

Same argument, if vision is 360 deg then it has to be an OBE? It's absolutely not impossible that we can imagine a 360 degree vision in a LD without the need for our spiritual essence or whatever to "float free of the body"

During OBE information about the physical world is sometimes obtained which cannot be perceived at the time with the physical senses .

I explained already in detail that this information can be obtained through ESP.

During OBE sometimes the individual is a "point of consciousness"

I can do this in a LD aswell, no big deal. Its a matter of exploring the possibilities of the mental world you are in while LD-ing, you would be amazed at what you (and your subconscious self) are able to imagine.

Some OBE's occur whilst the individual is physically active ie driving a car, playing an organ etc, ie whilst physically awake!

Ok now I agree this is really interesting information! Here we touch upon your initial critique of the lucidity institute, that their definition of OBE doesnt  include all forms of OBE, for example those described by Celia Green (by the way neither does their definition really include OBE's induced from trance). But I would like you to consider this situation, which probably has happened to any of us.

You drive home by bike or car, from work or school. All of a sudden you realize that the last few minutes you were sunk into thought and that the driving went on some kind of 'auto-pilot', and you cannot remember at all that you passed the lights for example, or a certain building or other feature you always see on this route.

Now what if some people (a minority for sure), can in such instances visualize their actual physical position from some distance? For sure for people with a photographic memory (these people are able to literally 'be' in any place they have ever visited or can imagine, by just thinking of it), this will look extremely like an OBE. In my view an OBE like this is not possible since for me OBE means NDE where the spirit leaves the body, and the body therefore isnt functioning anymore properly (for example no brain activity). The C. Green examples can ofcourse be defined as OBE's if you define OBE like "experience when someone sees/feels any place of reality from a different viewpoint then the physical body/senses, thereby also not being aware of the physical body/senses".To me this is not the essence of an OBE because this can all also be just as easily imagined. There is just no conclusive proof at all to support the notion that in such an OBE as Green describes you spirit is placed in the astral (same as OBE's from sleep stages, where this also doesnt happen).

Also i have read an article that explicitly states that the visual cortex is deactivated but i havent found it back yet, but if I do I will most certainly post the link here.

If anyone is still interested, I found it here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11969332&dopt=Abstract


Look where they state "during slow wave sleep we observed . . . a pronounced negative signal in the visual cortex" and "deactivation predominantly in the visual cortex". Just to illustrate my point ofcourse, anyway i've been pretty much bizzy and distracted lately so I might come back to this if people are still interested in this discussion.

[Edit] I just found another very interesting link to a reseach preformed on yogis in a deep trance (mostly theta, same brainwaves which occur during dream visualisation).

http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/bindu/bindu11/pictures.html


Read the comment "Why it is interesting" at the bottom too  

Hello all,

Im not gone yet , but doing more research on the subject of this post and also im going to rewrite my article with all the info i have gathered here (thanks to all the ppl in the discussion!).

I Just now came across a very interesting article published by a group of researchers, which up to a very high degree supports my viewpoint. Anyone interested should give this a quick read:

http://www.lucidity.com/NL32.OBEandLD.html

If you are pressed for time, scroll down and read the sections "WHAT DO WE KNOW NOW?" and "THE "IN-THE-BODY" EXPERIENCE". The only thing which they dont mention is the possibility of ESP from within a (lucid) dream...

Ill report back here if i find more interesting stuff and/or when i finish rewriting the cursed article  

A nice day to you all,
Xetrov.

Oh thanks tomb. for pointing this out. I do not really follow other parts of the forum so i didnt read that yet. Im glad it doesnt seem to be someone deleting stuff... (but the time that only 5 lines dissapeared from my post was weird anyway). I have not been around also for some time since i was away, but i will contribute to the discussion soon again probably, and Vincent will add his experiences here too soon I hope.

Hello everyone,

Something weird is going on. I asked a good friend of mine to post some of his experiences here because it is of relevance to this discussion in my opinion (his nick here is Vincent). Yesterday i saw that he posted a short message and now it has been removed (he told me it had already been removed once before but he re-posted it). There is no such thing as a forum where you post a message it will be coincidentally removed 2 times after each other (and no it didn't happen at the moment of submitting). This happened 4 times now and I'm starting to wonder what is going on.

If the person removing the messages is reading this (an admin most likely???) I would really like to ask why this is going on, thanks a lot for your explanation. I really hope my friend or I didn't break any forum rules

Have a nice day,
Xetrov.

Hi Xetrov

Well yes, if someone is deleting or editting your posts it would be nice to know.   I'm sure you haven't violated any rules.  Take a look at the Acceptable Use Policy.  You haven't done anything wrong as far as i can tell!

But like I say take a backup of every post.  Then if a post disappears you can re-post it until it sticks  

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/aup.html

catmeow

I checked that aup already and as far as I can tell I didnt break any rules (unless you count having a severely different opinion then others and sticking to it / defending it a crime). Also i do take backups of posts but uptill now only of the bigger ones. The one deleted was small so I didnt think it nececarry...

Catmeow,

I posted the stuff alright, and I even looked at it afterwards, and even a day after it was still there. A friend of mine has read it too. So it did not dissapear at the moment of posting. I posted it right after sampson's post of Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:49 pm, and before your reply to him.

This happened 1 time exactly the same before, when just a few lines of text had been lost (deleted???) from one of my posts. I dont want to be paranoid but this is really weird, and something I never had on any other forum. Its a shame either way, if the forum isnt working right and randomly deleting (parts) of posts, or if someone is deleting it on purpose (did I violate any rules? would be nice to get some message if I did).

Anyway, weird.

My most recent post here (I described a typical "OBE" in it as I experience them) somehow disappeared. I have noticed before that pieces of my post were gone. I hope noone is deleting anything deliberately? Perhaps the forum is lagging/glitching for more people and it was all coincidence? Well just very weird...  

Hello people,

Just a quick question

Bruce stated that "The only way to tell for sure is if there is no break in consciousness from start to finish. "

Does he mean here that to be sure it is an OBE, you have to be sure there is a continuous flow of consciousness? Or not? (im confused)