Evidence for Astral Realm/Body/Experience

[Beyonder]

-Note: Ignore the ? in the below article-
Going to Sleep

Using electroencephalogram (EEG) machines, which measure levels of brain activity, it has been seen that certain brainwave rhythms correspond to different modes of thought and activity.

Beta rhythms indicate that the mind is in an active state ?this is our brainwave up until we decide to go to sleep. This mind state assesses and makes decisions.

On settling down to sleep, you gradually enter the alpha state. This is characterized by greater receptivity and fluidity in mental functioning. It is in this state that hypnagogic images can appear ?those chaotic, often very vivid images that appear in such a half-conscious condition. It is also the state activated by Brion Gysin's Dreamachine[1] and other similar vision-inducing strobe/flicker devices.

Entering the Sleep State

As your brainwaves slow, together with your physiological functions (slower heart rate & breathing, lower blood pressure), the first stage of sleep you enter is NREM ?Non-Rapid Eye Movement ?sleep. Dreaming does happen in NREM sleep, but flittingly and not in depth. Brainwaves will eventually sink to delta, deep sleep.

The first appearance of the second stage of sleep, REM sleep, is usually after about 90 minutes of sleep. REM sleep gives similar EEG readings to those of subjects who are awake; there is increased brain activity, the blood pressure and heart rate rise, with quicker, shorter breaths. It is during REM sleep that most dreams occur. It is accompanied in men by an erection and in women by increased vaginal blood flow.

REM sleep alternates with NREM sleep at intervals of approximately 90 minutes. You normally spend 20% of your sleep in dreams.

Re-Arranging Sleep

A few good techniques make use of these facts. One is to set your alarm to wake you up either 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, etc. hours after going to sleep, so that you are woken up during a dream, to aid recall. Another is sleeping longer. About half of dreams occur in the last quarter of the sleeping period ?and lucid dreams are more likely to happen in this final stage. By prolonging sleep, you obviously increase this final stage and increase your dreams and your chances of having lucid dreams.

Many may have had the experience of awaking in the morning from a dream, then drifting off back to sleep, usually dreaming more intensely, sometimes re-entering the same dream. A lot of great dreams are to be had in this way, and it is possible to re-arrange sleep to make use of the processes involved and increase dreaming if you haven't got time to lie around in bed all morning. Simply...

Set you alarm to wake you up about 2-3 hours earlier than usual.
Get up when the alarm goes off! Don't switch it off and have "five minutes" extra in bed. Get up and do all the things you need to do when you normally get up ?breakfast, clearing up, reading mail/newspapers, etc. Stay awake for about 2 hours.
Go back to sleep, and set the alarm for about 2 hours ahead. Dream.
This is actually a good technique even if you have got spare time when you wake up ?I had my first lucid dream by doing this. You can play around with the timings to fit your own schedule. Instead of the usual 90 minutes between going to sleep and the first REM period, going to sleep soon after waking up only involves a few minutes in the transition phase ?so you may get some good results from going back to sleep for as little as half an hour.

Sleep Paralysis

During REM sleep, all muscles are paralyzed, except for respiratory functions and eyes. There may be slight muscle movements or twitches ?these have been shown to correspond with movements made in the dream. Eye movements also correspond with movements made in the dream. Eye movements also correspond to the direction of sight in dreams (using this as a signal was how Stephen LaBerge objectively validated that a person could function in a conscious way in the dream state, dream lucidly).

The fact of sleep paralysis sometimes leads to terrifying episodes when the mind awakens but the body remains paralyzed. Whether the continuation of paralysis and waking is arbitrary and causes the terror, or the terror expressed in the dream causes the continued paralyzed state is a question whose answer will depend on the perspective you approach dreams from. The fact remains that the paralysis itself is quite natural and harmless, even if the consciousness of it is unusual and distressing. If you do awaken and find yourself paralyzed, just try to remember that no harm is being done and it will pass in a couple of minutes. Alternatively, you could utilize this state:

Sleep paralysis is not only nothing to be frightened of, it can be something to be sought after and cultivated. Whenever you experience sleep paralysis you are on the threshold of REM sleep. You have, as it were, one foot in the dream state and one in the waking state. Just step over and you're in the world of lucid dreaming.

Stephen LaBerge states:

"When you awaken from a dream, relax yourself completely ?an easy way of doing this is to progressively tense and relax each muscle group (feet, calves, thighs, etc.). Each time, feel the tension as you breath in, then imagine and feel its release as you breath out. As you fall back to sleep, affirm to yourself that you will re-enter the dream state consciously. Mentally observe body as it enters REM paralysis (remember it only takes the brain a few minutes to enter REM sleep after waking up for a while). Signs of the onset of REM sleep are: strange vibrations in the body, feelings of electrical currents passing through parts of the body, distortions in body image. When you feel the body to be completely paralyzed, attempt to release the dream body from the physical body. Move your dream body out of the bed, roll out of your physical body, try flying... Each person will find their own 'knack'. You are then in the dream, lucid."

So now understanding the phases the Brain goes through during sleep, I now ask the person who claims the experience, how real did this experience feel? What objects did you see in this Astral World that correspond to the Physical World?

[BurningAngel]

its rare to view things that correspond to the physical because will and intent shape the experiance.

[gravy]

I think it's hard to produce scientific evidence when you're dealing with two different planes. Lets face it, if you could provide solid evidence, AP would be taught in schools and collages.

There isn't enough conclusive evidence and I doubt that current technology will allow any further proof.

[Selski]

The proof is in the pudding.

You need to eat your own pudding.

Sarah

[manuel]

How can you have yer pudding when you dont eat yer meat!!!??

[gravy]

Simple, feed the meat to RB's dog.

[Beyonder]

I thought you would all be more serious about this, but I guess not. Science will one day perhaps have the answers we all seek. For now I just have my opinion and so far evidence suggests that this experience is all in the mind.

[Sinestro]

Indeed Beyonder, Science one day will.

[Veccolo]

Well, there is indeed more evidence which speaks for the brain than against it, but that doesn't completely disprove OBEs as experiences outside the body, which means it remains a believe thing.

I've come to the conclusion it doesn't really matter anyway if it's a mind thing or not. The experiences are unique in both cases, and that's what counts, imo.

Just don't let these experiences dictate your life. Many cults are created this way.

[Logic]

quote:Originally posted by Selski

The proof is in the pudding.

You need to eat your own pudding.

Sarah

That was refreshingly meaningful, and funny []

But I think one of Beavis' more recent posts has well developed into this subject, and I think a lot of "answers" can be found there.

[mactombs]

quote:I thought you would all be more serious about this, but I guess not. Science will one day perhaps have the answers we all seek. For now I just have my opinion and so far evidence suggests that this experience is all in the mind.

Which evidence? Your personal experience or what someone else has reported?

And what do you mean by science? There are many different meanings for different people. I would suggest you earnestly learn more about the very large meaning of science in modern society before putting blind faith in it.

Sure, the scientific method is useful for finding out things in the physical world. That doesn't mean that it is the looking glass that any may peer through and see the untainted Truth behind all facets of the Universe.

I used to put more belief in science than anything else, but now I understand it a little bit better.

[Beyonder]

quote:Originally posted by mactombs

quote:I thought you would all be more serious about this, but I guess not. Science will one day perhaps have the answers we all seek. For now I just have my opinion and so far evidence suggests that this experience is all in the mind.

Which evidence? Your personal experience or what someone else has reported?

And what do you mean by science? There are many different meanings for different people. I would suggest you earnestly learn more about the very large meaning of science in modern society before putting blind faith in it.

Sure, the scientific method is useful for finding out things in the physical world. That doesn't mean that it is the looking glass that any may peer through and see the untainted Truth behind all facets of the Universe.

I used to put more belief in science than anything else, but now I understand it a little bit better.

LOL, faith. Please don't bore me with such excuses. I try never to use the word belief when speaking about what I understand to be true.  To myself, an Empirical Rationalist, the word belief implies acceptance without evidence (sometimes in spite of evidence to the contrary).  The word belief is often equated with the word faith. With this definition, I can confidently say that I have no beliefs. I have understandings about things, based upon the information I have. I do not accept things for which there is no evidence, or in cases where the evidence is insufficient. In such cases, my acceptance of a claim is withheld. I maintain a very high standard of evidence.  In cases of extraordinary or unusual claims, such as alien abductions, ESP, and biblical miracles, the amount and quality of evidence must be higher than when considering more mundane topics.

People of faith should understand something about the way scientifically-minded people come to accept an idea as true. We accept things as true, based not on an automatic assumption of truth, but after careful consideration of all evidence, weighing all sides of an issue, after skeptical criticism and asking a lot of questions of all positions. This acceptance is a tentative acceptance, not a religious belief. Like a fickle spouse that is ready to sign the divorce papers at the first sign of imperfection, the relationship between scientific thinking and the acceptance of ideas is not a faithful relationship.

[Veccolo]

Maybe a bit offtopic, but:

Belief/Faith is a form of self-deception based on the lack of knowledge and/or on ignorance.

I often see this phrase on pages with stuff related to the occult and paranormal:

"Everyone can do it. But you need to belief!"

BS. You don't need "belief" to do anything, so don't bother with it. If something is real, then it will work (or "be there") without belief. Period.

[mactombs]

quote:LOL, faith. Please don't bore me with such excuses.

Ah yes, the tone of the intellectual so certain of his own mental prowess that those of differing views or diction are beneath his contempt.

quote: I try never to use the word belief when speaking about what I understand to be true.

What you understand to be true after it has passed through your personal filter - in this case, a filter conforming to the "Empirical Rationalist" blueprint.

quote:In cases of extraordinary or unusual claims, such as alien abductions, ESP, and biblical miracles, the amount and quality of evidence must be higher than when considering more mundane topics.

Yes, Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Sounds sensible enough.

quote:People of faith should understand something about the way scientifically-minded people come to accept an idea as true.

I'm already well aware of how scientifically-minded people come to accept an idea as "true" (although there never really can be absolute certainty from this mindset). After all, I used to adopt this dogma as my own.

quote:We accept things as true, based not on an automatic assumption of truth, but after careful consideration of all evidence, weighing all sides of an issue, after skeptical criticism and asking a lot of questions of all positions.

You mean you ideally do this. This, unfortunately, is rarely the case.

quote:the relationship between scientific thinking and the acceptance of ideas is not a faithful relationship.

Again, ideally, but rarely the case.

Don't get me wrong, science is great (I love it), it's very useful, but it's also extraordinarily difficult for humans to apply properly. Even then, no human is capable of interpreting the results without some level of bias.

But to ask proof be handed to you about things like OBEs? Consider this from Michael Shermer (Editor of the Skeptic magazine):

quote:Mystical "truths," by their nature, must be solely personal, and they can have no possible external validation.

This also brings up another issue I find troubling: the constant need for external validation, this obsession with the fantasy of pure objectivity. For us, there can be no such thing.

You want evidence for OBEs? Good. You doubt they are real? Good. It's better you provide yourself with understanding through your own personal experience anyway - far more useful than asking someone who has experienced it to provide you with evidence of the mystical using rules designed to test the material.

[Giselle]

Hmmmmm....I wonder if the bumble bee flies because it believes it can...or if it believes it can fly because it does.

Just thinking out loud.

Giselle

[Beyonder]

quote:Originally posted by Giselle

Hmmmmm....I wonder if the bumble bee flies because it believes it can...or if it believes it can fly because it does.

Just thinking out loud.

Giselle

Does a Dog walk because it believes it can or does it believe it can walk because it does? That is the dumbest question I have ever heard of. It is a natural instinct. No thought process involved.

[Sinestro]

Giselle Said:

"I wonder if the bumble bee flies because it believes it can...or if it believes it can fly because it does."

Well Giselle I wonder if a frog had wings would it bump its a** every timed it hopped? If a worm had a machine gun do you think birds would F***with it? I say that I agree with Beyonder[^].

[BurningAngel]

as an "empirical rationalist" how about you shut the h*** up whining, and do it yourself? we all do astral projection already, so either get some experiance or shut your hole and listen.

[Giselle]

Beyonder, I used this analogy based on the well-known folklore about the bumble bee not being able to fly.  It was merely an attempt at a little humor.  I realize that bumble bees actually can fly.  Now I'm wondering if maybe you are too young to have heard the story of the bumble bee.  So I'm posting a synopsis for anyone who has not heard this often quoted piece of unscientific trivia:

Flight of the Bumblebee
"Like the bumblebee, they said it could never fly."

This statement appears in a recent issue of Popular Science, starting off an article about drag racing.

Indeed, the venerable line about scientists having proved that a bumblebee can't fly appears regularly in magazine and newspaper stories. It's also the kind of item that's bound to come up in a cocktail party conversation when the subject turns to science or technology.

Often, the statement is made in a distinctly disparaging tone aimed at putting down those know-it-all scientists and engineers who are so smart yet can't manage to understand something that's apparent to everyone else.

Obviously, bumblebees can fly. On the average, a bumblebee travels at a rate of 3 meters per second, beating its wings 130 times per second. Quite respectable for the insect world.

So, how did this business of proving that a bumblebee can't fly originate? Who started the story?

It apparently first surfaced in Germany in the 1930s, and the story was about a prominent Swiss aerodynamicist. One evening at dinner, the researcher happened to be talking to a biologist, who asked about the flight of bees. To answer the biologist's query, the Swiss engineer did a quick "back-of-the-napkin" calculation.

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift. That was about all he could do at a dinner party. The detailed calculations had to wait.

To the biologist, however, the aerodynamicist's initial failure was sufficient evidence of the superiority of nature to mere engineering. The story spread, told from the biologist's point of view, and it wasn't long before it started to appear in magazine and newspaper articles.

Unfortunately, the wrong lesson emerged from the story. The real issue is not that scientists are wrong but that there's a crucial difference between a thing and a mathematical model of the thing.

The distinction between mathematics and the application of mathematics often isn't made as clearly as it ought to be. In the mathematics classroom, it's important to distinguish between getting the mathematics right and getting the problem right. It's quite possible, for instance, to calculate correctly the area of a rectangular piece of property just by multiplying the length times the width. Yet one can get the "wrong answer" because the measurements of the length and width were inaccurate or there was some ambiguity about the boundaries.

The word problems typically found in textbooks also serve as rudimentary models of reality. Their applicability, however, depends on the validity of the assumptions that underlie the mathematics.

So no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee. Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change.

Yet the myth persists that science says a bumblebee can't fly. This tale has taken on a life of its own as a piece of "urban folklore" on the Internet, passed on from one browser to another.

Copyright © 1997 by Ivars Peterson.

_____

Life is too short to take it too seriously.  (Also not scientific)

Giselle

[Beyonder]

quote:Originally posted by BurningAngel

as an "empirical rationalist" how about you shut the h*** up whining, and do it yourself? we all do astral projection already, so either get some experiance or shut your hole and listen.

What evidence do you have of such an event? NONE! Why does it happen, is it because you say it does or what? You fail to provide evidence. You are just one of those religious nuts that need to be silenced. He who makes the claim must also provide evidence.

[manuel]

hey beyonder, your sig is a lil to long dont you think?

[Veccolo]

quote:Originally posted by Beyonder

What evidence do you have of such an event?

Beyonder, OBEs are real, even Stephen LaBerge admits that. The "problem" is, there is NO evidence that the experience takes place outside the body.

If you read the experiences posted on this forum, you will see that most (if not all) of them can be explained as a form of WILDs or regular LDs, which is nothing paranormal.

[epoq]

Beyonder,

i'm just wondering how well your 'empirical rationalism' deals with new areas of science such as quantum physics and more specifically 'string theory' (www.mkaku.org)? string theory attempts to summarize all physical reality with an equation which is about one inch long. the idea of finding such an equation goes back to einstein, who was unsuccessful. string theory is currently the only working solution to the famous 'cat problem' (also known as 'many worlds' theory). although string theory has nothing to do with the out of body experience and in no way validates it, its multi-dimensional approach to the universe certainly makes ideas about OOBE seem more approachable.

it might also be helpful if you define what exactly you are disputing about the out of body experience? are you disputing whether people have such experiences, or the meaning that people assign them? i wouldn't think there could be too much doubt that people have these experiences, even susan blackmore well known skeptic accepts that they happen (she has induced them herself). she simply disputes that a person is actually 'leaving' their body in any useful sense. i'd like to know what you think the function of such an experience could be, since you obviously disagree with the meaning people have assigned to the experience on this board. surely there must be a reasonable explanation for this experience which does involve some kind of 'random neurons firing' theory. i'm yet to experience the human body doing anything truly 'random' and think this is a weak explanation.

in my own research i've not found anything truly concrete as evidence for the out of body experience. there are a few papers in academia which come close, yielding results of interest (just not the results they were looking for). thanks to string theory and those involved in high level physics one day there might be an expansion of our currently limited scientific method which is able to explain or account for the out of body experience.

[Sam]

Beyonder, I have come accross nuts like you before, and in fact have been one myself.  You'll get over it eventually.

One thing I notice about your signature is the massive amounts of references to the bible.  Are you confusing metaphysics with organised religion?

[Beyonder]

quote:Originally posted by manuel

hey beyonder, your sig is a lil to long dont you think?

Yeah it is, I am thinking of slimming it down...