Are OBEs actually lucid dreams?

[Frank]

Yes, dreaming, lucid dreaming, near-death experiences, etc., etc. are all collectively known as "out of body" experiences. In the sense that you perceive your conscious awareness is somewhere other than your physical body. But such experiences can *so very easily* be coloured by all manner of reality fluctuations of the like that is described in the report.

Yours,
Frank

[Tisha]

I wish we'd get over the distinction between OBE and ludid dreaming!  I think Big Egoes are at work when people emphatically say that one has little to do with the other.   The "difference" between the two states has more to do with how much your mind creates what you "see" when your consciousness is "separate" from your body.

Then again your consciousness might not actually be "separate" from your body at all - - - but does that mattter so much?  Can we get over this?  Out of the Box, everyone, OUT! OUT! OUT!  http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_big.gif" border=0>

The whole point is that you are aware while your body is asleep.  What you SEE in this state is entirely up to you.  Literally!   The trick is to cut off the monkey chatter in your head, and your emotions too, so that you don't create a picture show for yourself.  Once you get control (no mean feat) then you can see what IS.

What IS important is the experience of being aware.  These moments can cause you some radical, incredible, beautiful personal and spiritual development.  Or they can just freak you out.   So what then, is your INTENT?

Kind of like real life!  As above, so below.

tisha

[Jeff_Mash]

I pretty much agree with you, Tisha.  THe way I differentiate my experiences is as follows.

When I am having an OBE, I am in full control of everything.  If I want to turn left, I turn left.  If I want to fly on top og my neighbors roof, I do so.  

However, sometimes, I have been in mid-OBE when I have felt my control wither away.  The best way I can describe this is like I go in "auto-pilot" mode.  I still experience a high degree of lucidity, but the experience begins to take on a dream-like quality in which I can't control.  

For example, after one OBE where I got out in front of my house, I ended up losing control of my actions and then I watched as the scene continued without me making conscious choices.  I continued on talking to people, etc. but I wasn't initiaiting anything.  It was as if my "subconscious" was on autopilot and my awareness was along for the ride.  I always considered those types of lucid experiences as LD's.

I hope that makes sense, and I feel it still proves that your theory is correct.




Keep smiling,

Jeff Mash, Founder and Editor
MyJokeMail.com - Jokes and Humor
http://myjokemail.com

[Patty]

quote:Wherever else they
may differ, for instance whether the "two bodies" are or are
not connected by a "silver cord," persons who have had out-
of-the-body experiences are quite unanimous in being
'absolutely certain' that they are not dreams.

This is just plain wrong. I am an experiencer. I am not certain that they are not dreams.  I have tremendous respect for the ability of our subconscious to create very elaborate and convincing scenes for us that may well be entirely internal.

As everyone else says - what does it ultimately matter? Tisha's got it right.

on the other hand, I really really really really really really hope that Robert is able to do his demonstration that he has mentioned on Art Bell.

My OBE's, I try to verify. I don't make it hard, because of the fluctuations. I'd like to see the study that they did. I might try to dig that up. I have had considerably more success than what you expect by chance, in verifying my experiences. The results I have gotten to date - you expect to get by chance like 2% of the time.  So possibly I'm not really 'out' but doubtful. more likely I'm 'out' and encountering reality fluctuations.

Patty

[Frank]

I think the major problem with the kind of work brought forward by the originator of this thread, is that it is orchestrated by researchers who tend to have no idea of Astral basics. I call it Astral Anthropomorphism: where researchers either base their work, or compare the results of their work on, or against, Physical-plane knowns.

Yours,
Frank

[alfa_33au]

Maybe until we come to the understanding that to research an out of physical area with physical tools and rules, needs revising,  then we may find more.
The most outstanding obe i experienced, was one, where i came back conscious and spoke to my partner, i didnt wake first.  Blew me apart.
Explain that one!
Happy travels
Paola

[ralphm]

I have been thinking about this since Patty's post about trying to verify the obe experience. Basically the problem is that we are tresspassing into a realm where we are not trained to be aware in and need the mind discipline of jedi master to tell  fact from fantasy. What if person a projects into person b's dream realm, with b being able to manifest  worlds that a thinks are real? Isn't our  physical world the dream world of god?
That said i think an experienced real time projector could verify the experience.

[Patty]

Intuitively it seems to me that it should be learnable ---- to tell what is generated ('not real' if that means anything) and to tell what exists independant of the experiencer ('real' if that means anything.)

"Astral anthropomorphism" is a great expression. Although the writer that was quoted (S. LaBerge) is something of a believer, I wonder if the study that LaBerge mentioned was asking the projectors to read a note in the dark, or something equally unrealistic for most projectors.

The naive expectation is that one can identify what is on the nonphysical planes as easily as one can identify physical items.  (Due to hype, some believe that it should be even easier to identify items while 'out' because of occasional claims of 'hyperrealism.') So people often set experiments with long odds - like they write a note or have a six digit number somewhere or something.

But - any one particular six-digit number has an awful lot in common with any other six-digit number. And when you project, there could be all sorts of things coloring the experience - so the number might come across in any number of ways. But only an exact match counts as a hit.  If the number is 131313 and you report 313131 --- That's not a hit any more than 111333 or 286574 is.

Even when someone DOES get the 1 in a million hit - it has to be reproduced.

If you set smaller odds, like ask whether the target is a doughnut or a screwdriver, odds of success is 1 in 2, the projector can hopefully work through some of the confusing elements to at least distinguish a doughnut from a screwdriver. then a hit isn't as spectacular, but you can slowly address whether something beyond chance is going on.

I'm really going off on a tangent. I hope that we can learn to distinguish what is 'real' from what is 'not real.'  It's my pet hobby for the foreseeable future.

See ya in the real time zone!

And I'm glad that some contributors here don't go there, because I love hearing about the *astral* levels, and I don't have plans to go there personally for some time. So I can project vicariously through Frank, Tisha, et al.



Patty

[Tisha]

Ralphm . . . Jedi Master . . . I forgot about that movie !!!!!!!!   HA HA HA!!!!!!!!   My boyfriend loves that movie, now I have a way to explain to him what I am trying to do to my head.  I'm trying to be a Jedi Master.  Thanks.

Force Be With You All!


Tisha

"As Above, So Below"

[astralspinner]

If you succeed, can I borrow your lightsaber?

There are 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[ralphm]

Ground control to major tom-(sorry could not resist) what and when do you set a goal for an obe? I also have spent too much times in the void and nothing much has worked for me yet.

[Tisha]

Major Tom,

I've never experienced (to the best of my knowledge) what you are experiencing, so to give you advice I'd have to make something up.  Beware advice from people who make things up!

So here I am making things up anyway.  Ihave a theory . . . based upon something I'm reading now (Castaneda) and something I feel.  The Void is there, for sure.  In fact I bet the Void is most of what IS.  So, as Frank suggested,  if you OBE with a clear mind without any expectations, I think the Void is what you're gonna get!  Casteneda's teacher called it  . . . oh, phooey, I've forgotten.  I'll have to go home and look it up.  In the mean time, it's good that you've cleared your mind enough to witness the Void.  Next time, as Frank suggested, go in with an open mind and broad expectation . . . whatever it may be, whether to meet a Guide, visit a relative, whatever.  Then let us know what happens.

stay tuned



Tisha

"As Above, So Below"

[Leyla]

These scientists start with a false assumption when they think reality and dream are different. Because you can create your own reality. All of us can. Modern Quantum physics tells us that. Electrons are just waves of energy, it's not until we look at them that they collapse into particles. This is the Hiesenburg uncertainty principal. Our reality is all just a shared dream. All of it. Everything you can see and touch and feel. Illusion. Dream.
An even better explanation is the multiple worlds theory- you may think you are in real time, but in fact you may well have stepped into an alternate reality. The show "Sliders" was based on it. Also "Quantum Leap." The young man may have stepped into an alternate reality where his mother was still alive.
I have switched back and forth from dreams/lucid dreams/and out of body experiences many many times.
Not only that I have experienced them AT THE SAME TIME.
Sometimes my conscious mind observes my dreams. My dreaming mind does not know my conscious mind is observing it.
I have been out of body in a completly different plane of existance talking to astral beings while my consious mind listens to my husband getting ready for work in the bathroom.
How is this possible? Ever catch your mind wandering off when you're supposed to be concentrating on something else-and snap back to attention? This is because one part of your mind was awake and conscious to observe your daydreaming mind wander off track.
And man those remote viewing tests are tough. If you are not 100% on target it's wrong.  I took one of those "remote viewing" tests before. I got "Space Mountain-Disney Land" The correct target was "Mount. Fuji"
I got it WRONG. Both mountains, both tourist attractions. But not 100% on target.

[Atlas]

Hi guys. Two things here

Leyla - that is not the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle has to do with the fact that at quantum levels, you can't determine speed and location at the same time. The more you know the speed, the less you know the location of the particle, and vice versa.

>>These scientists start with a false assumption when they think reality and dream are different.<<

Can you tell me why this is a false assumption, and how you know this?

>>Because you can create your own reality. All of us can.<<

I just tried to take the reality where my monitor is a monitor, and create a reality where my monitor was an apple. It didn't work.

>>Electrons are just waves of energy, it's not until we look at them that they collapse into particles.<<

I don't think this really qualifies as "proof" that we make our reality. An unconcious photon detecting machine will also cause quantum decoherence I think.

>>Our reality is all just a shared dream. All of it. Everything you can see and touch and feel. Illusion. Dream.<<

Can you offer any evidence or logic for this view?

Now, to the original purpose for this post:

Patty - I heard Robert on Art Bell. I don't recall him mentioning any kind of demonstration? Can you elaborate on this a little for me? thanks

Atlas

[Leyla]

>>that is not the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle has to do with the fact that at quantum levels, you can't determine speed and location at the same time. The more you know the speed, the less you know the location of the particle, and vice versa.<<

The Heisenberg uncertainty principal means that just by observing something you have changed it. You are influencing the electron. Measure the position and you change the momentum. Measure momentum and you have changed the position. The measurement changes the state of the electron. Therefore you are always "uncertain" having been a participator and not a detached observer.

These scientists start with a false assumption when they think reality and dream are different. Because you can create your own reality. All of us can. Electrons are just waves of energy, it's not until we look at them that they collapse into particles. Our reality is all just a shared dream. All of it. Everything you can see and touch and feel. Illusion. Dream.

>>Can you tell me why this is a false assumption, and how you know this?
I just tried to take the reality where my monitor is a monitor, and create a reality where my monitor was an apple. It didn't work. I don't think this really qualifies as "proof" that we make our reality. An unconscious photon detecting machine will also cause quantum decoherence I think. Can you offer any evidence or logic for this view?<<

My, aren't you witty.  Everything we are and everything we see is made up of particles and electrons. To observe something is to change it.  When you are not looking at them- they exist only as pure energy. Atoms are not tiny little building blocks. Hard-and-fast-reality dissolves into "probabilities" and "tendencies" ghosts and shadows. Reality is dependent on the observer.
       Many physicists became spooked and quit, including Einstein who complained of the "metaphysical overtones."
      Ex.  Schrodinger, a famous physicist invented this paradox. Schrodinger has a cat in a box. Is the cat alive or dead? You have to open the box to find out. This means that the cat is in a state of flux until you open the box. It is neither alive nor dead, until you have observed it.
      Ex.  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear does it make a sound? Answer: If no one is there to observe it the tree didn't fall. The tree is in a state of flux until someone or something comes into the forest to observe it.
 We can never say that a particle exists at a particular place. (It has only a "probability pattern.") Nor can we say that it does not exist. It manifests itself in a strange but very physical reality between existence and nonexistence. It is not present at a definite place. Nor is it absent.

Please explain to my why you are on this metaphysical board- if you are only here to sneer? I promise you, "logic" means nothing on the subatomic level.

[Adrian]

Greetings,

The problem with most scientists is that they start and end their research on the basis of the material world. Their education and life's work does not allow, for the most part, for the possibility of other dimensions of reality beyond the three they are accustomed to. In fact, I think that probably their minds revolt at the prospect, because the mental turmoil would be so great, it is much simpler to stick with what they have always known, and make everything fit as if it were fact.

An excellent example of this is of the direct voice medium, Leslie Flint, who over a great many years was subject to every possible test from every possible sort of so called scientific researcher.  I have included an extract below, but before anyone thinks that I have a problem with scientists, I would like to point out that I used to be one at the start of my working life and for quite some years - and organic chemist.

Extract follows:

Flint gives some examples of the ludicrous theories put forward by these psychic researchers. One was that the voices were not real but produced by a combination of hypnotic power on his part coupled with mass auditory hallucinations on the part of the sitters. This was disproved when the voices were recorded (Flint 1971: 167). Another theory was that Flint was a ventriloquist. This was disproved when a throat microphone was attached to his throat so that the slightest sound made through his larynx would be magnified enormously while observers watched him through an infrared telescope (Flint 1971: 168). When they could come up with no further explanations one of the psychic researchers put forward the idea that Flint could talk through his stomach (Flint 1971: 163).

For those who, being unable to think of any other explanation, allege fraud Flint had this to say:

It has been hinted that I might have a two-way voice channel to another room where accomplices mimic the voices of the departed or that I might conceal tape-recorders which play prepared messages from the dead. There is no end to the ingenious tricks which have been thought up by those determined not to believe and who more often than not have never even had a sitting with me...I could also ask these stubborn cynics how these supposed accomplices of mine however skilled their mimicry contrive to produce the recognizable voice of a wife or a husband or other dead relative of a sitter who is as likely as not newly arrived from Australia, India or Timbuktu. I do not however waste my precious energies bandying words with skeptics who are as ill-informed as they are prejudiced.(Flint 1971: 170).

One expert who did investigate Leslie Flint and thoroughly vouched for his authenticity was Professor William R Bennett, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Colombia University in New York City. As engineers are highly practical people, not usually given to over-active imaginations, his testimony has high credibility:

My experience with Mr Flint is first hand; I have heard the independent voices. Furthermore, modern investigation techniques not available in earlier tests corroborate previous conclusions by indicating that the voices are not his. But to be thorough, one should consider the possibility of live accomplices... This suggestion became untenable for me during his visit to New York in September 1970, when, in an impromptu seance in my apartment, the same voices not only appeared but took part in conversations with the guests (Flint 1971: 220).

Extract ends.

Regards,

Adrian.

[Atlas]

Leyla

My point was that your quote "Electrons are just waves of energy, it's not until we look at them that they collapse into particles. This is the Hiesenburg uncertainty principal."" is not the uncertainty principle. Quantum decoherence is not the same as the uncertainty principle.

>>Because you can create your own reality.<<

Ok then, can you please tell me how to do this. Do you mean within the frame of physical laws? No matter how much I will myself to fly up to the moon, it isn't going to happen. The quantum effects you are talking about don't hold up on the macroscopic level. Otherwise couches would be disappearing here and there, and I wouldn't be able to measure the position and momentum of my car at the same time.

>>These scientists start with a false assumption when they think reality and dream are different.<<

Well, scientists do things like "experiments" and "replication" to "prove" their assertions. What you state would be pretty groundbreaking. Do you have anything to back it up besides a hunch? Quantum effects do not magically equate dreams with reality, and even the effects observation has on the quantum level are, according to present knowledge, unaffected by my will.

Has the unconscious photon detector created its reality?

The implications you draw from quantum effects are not applicable macroscopically.

>>Please explain to my why you are on this metaphysical board- if you are only here to sneer? I promise you, "logic" means nothing on the subatomic level.<<

I'm here because I am interested. There is more to metaphysics than wishy-washy new age speak and bad science. That's why I like RB. But when I see statements that are very arrogant(eg the entire scientific community has made a fundamental error that *I* have figured out without experiments,proof, or logic), and obviously have no backing, I say something.

Atlas

[clandestino]

hello folks - i'm going to throw my tuppence worth in here and try to stop this "tiff"....

Science is our current generally accepted view of things, real or unreal.

metaphysics / new age wishy washy speak / whatever - is an attempt to understand things that science doesn't yet understand, real or unreal.

It follows that there are probably lots of "metaphysical" things that will in future become "science". Also, there are lots of things that won't become "science"....My point is that Leyla and Adrian can debate all they like, with no conclusion.

[michael]

Stephen laberge is an excellent writer and researcher and I value his work but having experienced an awful lot of lucid dreasm, false awakwnings and out of body projections I do not agree with him at allthat lucid dreams are OBE's..totally differnt ultimately altough similar in many respects....I find I usually have a lucid dream prior to or subsequent to an out of body 100% conscious projection..I do not think La berge has ever had a fully cosncious "etheric plane" type projection..if he had he would acknowledge the difference i am sure...

[Leyla]

Axis:  I'll explain to you, but _only_ because you so adamantly claim you are interested in knowing. I doubt the sincerity of this however, and suspect you are only interested in defending a wounded ego.

Your main question seems to be:
"Oh yeah? Why can't I make a million dollars appear in front of me just by willing it? Huh? Huh? ::kicking sand at me:::"

If everything is so shifty on the atomic level, and we are all made up of atoms, then why do things appear less shifty way up here? Good question.
This is where enters the "shared" part of our shared dream.
The unity of all things.
Niels Bohr put it this way "Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."
The nature of the universe is a complex web- a unified whole, not independently existing objects. Particles are not dead. They are interacting with us.

Ex. When two particles are separated they begin to mimic one another in their pattern. This astounded the scientists. Were the two particles communicating with each other? The answer was no. They were still connected. This is how we figured out distance is just an illusion of time. Take this a step further. Everything in the entire universe could once fit on the head of a pin (pre-big bang). We, and our particles, were once all touching- and therefore we still are.

You have to cooperate with the universe to get what you want. It's not all about you.

Some people find "positive visualization" helpful in this process. Others use prayer, or cast spells. Personally, I think it all works the same.

[James S]

Leyla and Atlas -
Please don't stop, this is fascinating!  How much more are you two learning about these subject through debating your own interpretations of these theories? Similar to how much we all learn when debating subjects like lucid dreams & OBEs.

How much is metaphysics similar to quantum physics in this respect?
Quantum physics is still for the most part theoretical, with some elements of observed effects.  Entangled pairs and more recently entangled EM emissions from entangled photons hitting gold sheets have been proven.
Physicist Hugh Everet back in 1957 provided proof of his multiverse theory. Scientists still scoff at him for that one, but as yet nobody can disprove it.

You've both been talking about Heisenbergs uncertainty principal. Did you know how this principal relates to the Zero Point Field theory? The subatomic "noise" that seems to be the very foundation that everything in the universe "rests" on. Can't see it! Can't directly prove its there, but there seems to be a lot of proof of its existence. How much like this are OBEs?

Tisha made a good point early on when she talked about the Big Ego's at work. Whenever you look at major theories or findings of the scientific community remember that there are big egos at work here, not to mention big grabs for big research grants. This will always distort the facts, because no scientist wants to be laughed out of his profession by his peers.

Isn't it interesting though, that the more physicists, astronomers & mathematicians learn, the closer they get to finding out that the universe IS sentient,  it HAS been designed, and we ARE all linked to it on many levels.
They're just not quite ready yet  to risk throwing away their professional careers by admiting it.

I'd like to leave you all with a couple of thoughts:

Schrodinger's cat WAS dead - he forgot to put air holes in the box,
and if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, do the other trees laugh ?

James S

- You don't choose the belief, the belief chooses you!

[Atlas]

>>Axis: I'll explain to you, but _only_ because you so adamantly claim you are interested in knowing. I doubt the sincerity of this however, and suspect you are only interested in defending a wounded ego. <<

I am interested. I want to see what you mean.

>>If everything is so shifty on the atomic level, and we are all made up of atoms, then why do things appear less shifty way up here? Good question.
This is where enters the "shared" part of our shared dream. <<

I still say the evidence shows that it's actually because the forces are too weak to hold up.

What qualities make this a dream? If we all share it, what is the point of calling it a dream, because for all purposes, it is reality then.

>>Take this a step further. Everything in the entire universe could once fit on the head of a pin (pre-big bang). We, and our particles, were once all touching- and therefore we still are. <<

But I don't see how this MEANS anything. You seem to equate entanglement and such with some kind of hidden path to creating realities and spiritual interconnectedness that seem like big stretches. I don't see any evidence for this. I don't see how this allows our WILL to enter the equation anywhere. How is visualization affecting particles and changing realities? What is the mechanism?

>>You have to cooperate with the universe to get what you want. It's not all about you.<<

Well, in the sense that if I want to be a doctor, I "create" my reality by going to school, then med school, then interning etc. Action is different from visualization.

Atlas

[Tisha]

Energy has habits, kind of like people do.  That's why the chair you are sitting on dosn't turn into a bowl of jello while you type.  Frankly I am grateful for this apparent universal "law" because without it, I would never get on a plane.

We in our "consensus reality" have created the illusion of a very solid universe.  This is a very good thing.  All you need to do is "leave" consensus reality - - - just a few seconds is all it takes  - - - to want to kiss the ground you walk on and thank the Universe for it's apparent solidity and its laws of (Newtonian) physics.  Our faith in this "solid" universe is so powerful, most people won't even acknowledge anything that lies outside it's boundary. All their rational thinking keeps them inside the consensus reality belief system, because reason does not allow the existence of anything outside of consensus reality . . . meaning, rationality and reason BELONG there.  

Even those of us who DO see the alternatives keep coming back to consensus reality . . . and this is a good thing too, otherwise we would be most distressed, diagnosed as "psychotic" and eventually locked up.

Folks, most "normal" people WANT to stay in consensus reality.  Trying to convince them to leave its boundaries is as inadvisable as trying to convince them to bungee jump when they dislike heights or the sense of  falling .


Tisha

"As Above, So Below"

[Mobius]

Greetings all

Yes, please don't stop this discussion, it's very entertaining & I love it when I experience de ja vu. I liked the old topics "Search for Osama Bin liner" & "$1,000,000 reward for proof of OBE's", paid in metaphysical dollars by the unamazing Randi, hehe, but this ones going good too!.

Atlas you bad manhttp://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_blackeye.gif" border=0> , somehow you joined the triangle of evil & became "Axis", hehe.

Good journeys all

Mobius

[Atlas]

>>Physicist Hugh Everet back in 1957 provided proof of his multiverse theory. Scientists still scoff at him for that one, but as yet nobody can disprove it.<<

Again, it's the job of scientists not to disprove assertions, but to PROVE things. I cannot disprove that God is a monkey or that the sun actually has a baseball at its center. Things are considered not true until proven, not true until not proven.

>>Did you know how this principal relates to the Zero Point Field theory? The subatomic "noise" that seems to be the very foundation that everything in the universe "rests" on. Can't see it! Can't directly prove its there, but there seems to be a lot of proof of its existence. How much like this are OBEs?<<

I don't see how the uncertainty principle relates to the zero point field. Although I think there does seem to be some mysterious force or underlying energy in "space" itself, I don't think that it's some metaphysical energy that is strong and we just can't detect it, but that it is so weak it cannot be detected, and only over the vast distances of the universe does it become powerful enough to cause observable effects. I don't see how this relates to OBEs though.

>>Tisha made a good point early on when she talked about the Big Ego's at work. Whenever you look at major theories or findings of the scientific community remember that there are big egos at work here, not to mention big grabs for big research grants. This will always distort the facts, because no scientist wants to be laughed out of his profession by his peers.<<

True, but theories don't get by on ego alone. Ego doesn't affect the right or wrong of a theory, only testing it out does. Relativity didn't get by on Einstein's ego, but because PREDICTIONS he made using his theory were true, and experiments have been done which prove its assertions.

Atlas