Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences

qbeac, you and your ollagues over at the Spanish forums are the true scientists, and Dinosaur and those herewho are giving you a hard time ar the ones who are devotees of sciencism as is thier chief guru Carl Sagan
i dont know who Dinosaur thinks he is. ARE you the moderator of tis thread Dinosuar?....If not, and qbeaks very interesting contributions here haven't been flung out of scineceism heaven to the infernal cesspit--why do you take it upon yourself to dictate what we can explore as science, by constantly feakin out about this??
as qbeak has already toled you. your science is completely un-hip. sooooo, get hip, and learn to get a open mind again. i find your constant hysterical arrogance about what is 'true scinc' to be embarassing. and i would if i was forum owner as well, for the pople in Spain seem much more on the ball

now i do not want to derail this thread wit bickerings about what is real science or not. i just had to say my bit about your sorry attitude being pushed over the proceedings

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Dinosaur, in my opinion, the above articles (“Blanke O, Arzy S.” and “Progress in Brain Research”) both say similar things. Let’s take sentences from the second one (they would also apply to the first one):

“…The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to…”

And “a suggestion” is not “a proof.”

The second article also says:

“...We argue that... (etc.)… might further our understanding of…”

And "to argue that" something (Ex: brain research) “might further their understanding of” something else (Ex: real nature of OBE), is not the same as to say that “they are totally sure of” the real nature of that something else (OBE). On the contrary, they openly admit that they do not know everything about this subject, because otherwise they would not need to “further their understanding of….”

The truth of the matter is that the scientific community does not have (or has not shown us) a conclusive proof of the real nature of these experiences.

Please, show us articles (from prestigious scientific journals) “clearly stating” that they have already obtained “conclusive proofs” indicating that these experiences are imaginary (simply a product of the mind). If you find them, we will debate them here from a scientific perspective.

Chao. qbeac.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science is about applying the scientific method. Can you falisfy it or failing that produce the results of someone that has? If not stop your bitching.

Of course only one experiment was ever needed to prove E=mc²

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why? Because their research supports you own pre-concieved notion that OBEs are not real?

No you don't. You have a problem with people that believe OBEs are real. Many a scientist has started research in the hopes it would prove some idea of theirs often enough proving themselves wrong. Do you poo-poo all researchers or just those researching questions of which you've decided you already know the answer?
I can't say I believe people can consciously leave their bodies but who am I to piss on someones genuine attempt at learning more about our consciousness regardless of how amatuer the research may or may not be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Qbeac: Quoting out of context is the intellectual equivalent of lying. You posted the following.

• . . .The reviewed data suggest that OBEs . . .[/b]

The above without any context and your supporting remarks imply that the researchers have little to say against OBE’s being real.

Some additional context surely implies that they consider the phenomenon to be illusionary, somewhat analogous to the phantom limb phenomenon

• Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. . . .much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.

In the above, I have emphasized your quote out of context. Note the last part of the above which references phantom limbs.

The above surely implies that some legitimate researchers consider OBE & related concepts to be illusions, rather than real phenomena.

Note the following from your post.

• The truth of the matter is that the scientific community does not have (or has not shown us) a conclusive proof of the real nature of these experiences.

Believers in pseudo science and parapsychology (I am being redundant here) are very prone to requesting a disproof of their nonsensical concepts. This is a ridiculous point of view. The burden of proof is on those proposing a concept contrary to (or currently unaccepted by) mainstream science.

There are several clues which can be used to identity pseudo scientific nonsense. One such clue is talk about the lack of a disproof.

Furthermore, in any soft science (pseudo or not), asking for a proof or disproof is far too stringent a requirement. You do not get anything remotely like what logicians call a proof, only strong arguments supported by experimental evidence.

The OBE, astral projection, remote viewing concepts have been discussed by the lunatic fringe for well over 100 years. Prior to the 20th century, it might have been too harsh to use the term lunatic fringe. After 100 years without anything remotely suggestive of supporting evidence or a cogent description of a mechanism, the concepts should be laid to rest.

BTW: You are correct, I am not a moderator of this or any other forum. If I were, this thread would have been moved to the parapsychology forum

 

Hi Dinosaur, it wasn’t my intention to take those sentences out of context. I am sorry. If you believe this subject is pseudo-science, I respect your opinion. I am not saying that I agree with it, but I accept it and respect it. But considering that it may be difficult for us to agree on this point, since you look at it one way and I look at it a different way, I propose that we put it aside for a moment, (we may come back to it later if you want), and we take a look at other issues.

For instance, there are persons around the world (I know several of them) who say they can read a random number while in the OBE state. Let’s see some of their testimonies:

- Post #1. AmericanIdiot has read a 4 digits number while in the OBE state:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=178717#178717

Two other testimonies of the same type, but in Spanish:
(Note: if someone needs a good free translator: http://www.freetranslation.com/)

- Post #36. Testimonio de caritobb. She applied with success a rudimentary Agnostic Method: she saw the time in her clock:
http://www.viajesastrales.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=2;action=display;num=1122913832;start=30

- Post #195 y #200, pag. 20. Testimonio de dhhalah. She saw what there was on top of her wardrobe while in the OBE state.
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=20&pp=10

Chao. qbeac.

 

That says it all. You are not a scientist but a pseudoscientist. Because you think only experiments that would confirm your current worldview (OBE= Nonsense) should be considered science. This is an oafish and biased viewpoint which would prevent science to evolve. I asked you for a logical argument why this thread should not be considered science but you failed to give that as well.

 

Tombo: Are you aware that OBE, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, et cetera have been talked about for hundreds of years? In all that time none of the believers have come up with anything but anecdotal evidence.

Have you ever read anything about the subject? If so, what have you read? You seem to be a believer in the reality of it.

How long should a mind be kept open to the possibility that some experiment will provide supporting evidence? After well over 100 years of no evidence, I feel justified in stating that I do not expect future experiments to find evidence. Note the intent of the legitimate researchers as suggested by the following.

• OBEs have fascinated mankind from time immemorial and are abundant in folklore, mythology, and spiritual experiences of most ancient and modern societies.
  
  Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.
  
  We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.

When real scientists write articles including statements such as the above, It makes me consider OBE to be a malfunction of the human brain rather than a real phenomenon.

BTW: I am not claiming that experiments not be done or discussed. I am stating that after 100 years without evidence, the subject belongs in a pseudo science or parapsychology forum, not a science forum. There is ample reason to classify it as pseudo science.

 

Nice to see that you seem to take a more neutral viewpoint. I certainly see were you are coming form and I also think that your viewpoint is legitimate I must say though, that there are good reasons to believe in the possiblity that OBE's are not mere fantasies (in my opinion)

If there is only "anecdotal evidence". Is a debatable viewpoint, For example there are plenty of reports of People experiencing OBE like states while being in a state of Braindeath (NDE). I'm sure qbeac can provide some Studies concerning this if not I will search for them later if you are interessted.


Then we can discuss if they open up the possiblity of OBE's beeing real.

So I wait for qbeac to give some data cause I believe he mentioned that he had them at hand.

 

'tis funny this, because they [ scientists ] now believe that every spacetime co-ordinate point is the center of the universe...ha...sorry I couldn't resist the irony. The earth is now considered to be the center of the universe.

Seriously though this thread should be in the pseudo science forums if anything to avoid confusing the naive reader into believing that this is actually proven science. I do accept that you are attempting to use the desire for credibile testing as a way of soliciting support for your ideas but this still is an issue for pseudo science and not a mainstream forum like this one. IMO So I agree with Dinasaur.

 

no...mate. YOU belong in your 'bin' pseudoscience

and speaking to others who have created this thread, the really (underlined) scientific people in Spainish forum. i find it incredibly intersting and will follow it wherever it goes. thanks

 

Well we shouldn't get too nasty here :m:

I certainly understand were you guys (the critics) are coming from "physics" I'm myself are a physic student and will get my master in 10 months so i really understand your viewpoint BUT:

Isn't this Human Science here?

There is enough evidence to proof that OBE's do really happen as such it belongs certainly to Psychology and to brain science as a fact. It might not belong to physics because of lack of evidence that something outside the brain is taking place but it sure belongs to human science.Now, the "obvious" Theorie would be that OBE's are indeed created by the brain BUT there are some anomalys to this theorie which we could discuss further if you guys are interested. So we have people that reaserch that anamoly and come up with theories that try to explain that anomaly. Isn't that pretty similar to some things that are happening in Physics right now? Just think about all the unproven theories that people talk about in quantuum science, would you put these into parascience as well?

 

i wasn't nasty. i am chllenging the superiority of pseudoscience masquearading as science. The former has not qualms at all labelling someone as 'mentally malfuncioning' if they share about their 'OBE' experience, thus stigmatizing them; as is done to many people who are claimed by the same mindset that they have 'mental illness' which they mean is a biological disease. Even thought there is not one shred of scientific evidence!!

My pointing this out is important because that mindset is the one that is exceptionally cold and nasty and far from harmless!!

 

Tombo: Some examples of the following?

What unproven theories are you referring to?

 

Hi duendy, your are totally right. Take a look at this article by Debbie James, from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. It is very recent, from the year 2004:

What Emergency Department Staff Need to Know About Near-Death Experiences
Debbie James. Topics in Emergency Medicine.
Jan-Mar 2004.Vol.26, Iss. 1; pg. 29, 6 pgs
- Nursing Center [Centro de Enfermería]:
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684
- Blog de Tom Coburn [complete text of the article]:
http://tomcoburnisabigfatjerk.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_tomcoburnisabigfatjerk_archive.html

Excerpt:

SUMMARY

The NDE is not uncommon, but is so profound and personal that often the experiencer desires to disclose the event immediately after it occurs. This desire frequently results in an attempt to share the event with those responsible for the care of the experiencer. Health care professionals are often in a position to promote a path of physical and spiritual health and well-being. Therefore, their increased awareness and sensitivity of the needs of the NDEer are essential.

The need to create a healing environment was first documented by Florence Nightingale12 in I860 in her Notes on Nursing. In many cases, the NDE occurs in a health care setting, such as a hospital, ambulance, or clinic, wherein the nurses and physicians, and sometimes clergy and family, are immediately available to the NDEer. Health care professionals play a key role in the promotion of an environment of healing.

The decision as to which individual(s) the experiencer will select for disclosure depends primarily on the demonstration of specific caring behaviors of the caregiver. The NDEer must recognize the promotion of a safe environment before sharing is possible. The response to the first attempt at disclosure will have a serious impact on future disclosure decisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Possible interventions for ED staff caring for patients who have had an NDE might include but are not limited to the following:

* Actively listen to verbal and nonverbal communication. The patient may desire to share very personal data and may be searching for permission to proceed. Remain alert to phrases like "I had a strange dream," or "a weird thing happened."

* Foster a caring environment. Use positive language and pleasant tones of voice. Promote a healing atmosphere in every aspect of patient care. Realize that even in resuscitation efforts patients may be aware of certain behaviors.

* Listen. Allow the patient to describe what is on his mind and do not interrupt with explanations about drugs and hypoxia. Remain nonjudgmental.

(……….)

* Inform colleagues. Assist other health care providers in understanding the significance of the NDE and the support the experiencer needs.

* Utilize available resources. For further information, such as frightening NDEs, NDEs in children, and additional aftereffects, contact the International Association for Near-Death Studies at www.IANDS.org.

* Share the story. Share NDEer's stories with those who survive close brushes with death. Listen.​

Additional info about that article:

- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Topics in Emergency Medicine:
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tme/to...v9ZZinePhpYKGBH!-365670234!-949856145!9001!-1

URL del MD Anderson CC: http://www.mdanderson.org/
URL de la University of Texas: http://www.utexas.edu

 

And take also a look at the SAMPLE of the previous article extracted from the Nursing Center:

http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684

SAMPLE:

Caring for patients in the emergency department is more challenging today than at any time in the past. Healthcare providers must stay abreast of constant changes in technology and therapy, as well as new developments in resuscitation. They must also possess strong interpersonal skills to help them work with different family dynamics and crisis situations. But there is MORE! Researchers report that 1 in 3 patients who encounter a close brush with death will have a near-death experience (NDE). This article will provide the reader with a foundation of knowledge regarding the NDE which will promote the establishment of a caring environment and encourage disclosure. A review of the literature will reflect the most current research in this area. Factors that influence disclosure and nondisclosure will be included. This article concludes with suggested interventions for care of the emergency department patient who has had an NDE.​

So, even if these experiences were only imaginary (a product of the mind), they would still be of interest for Human Science.

Now the big question is this one:

Are these experiences real or imaginary?

Well, let's apply the "Agnostic Method" and find out.

 

Hi everybody, regarding Table 1 of the Agnostic Method (see pag. 1 of this thread for more details), the following is a review of the mathematical calculations in the Table made in a specialized Spanish Science Forum (foro MIGUI) by a professional mathematician. His nick is Leach, so let’s thank him for his effort:

IMPORTANT: Review of the mathematical calculations in Table 1 of the Agnostic Method.
Content of Table 1: probability of guessing by chance different types of random numbers:
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119


This is quite simple:

Question: How difficult is it to “guess” by chance two words taken at random from a dictionary?

Answer: According to Table 1, that’s much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number (Ex: such as the Spanish Cupon de la ONCE, which is a five digits number. Ex: 78154)

Question: What happens if you “guess” those words several times in a role?

Answer: The reliability of the Agnostic Method goes up EXPONENTIALLY!

And scientists know that mathematical calculations do not lie!

So, I insist, let’s apply the Agnostic Method and find out whether these experiences are real or imaginary.

Un saludo. qbeac.

 

Hi duendy, the following article points out some of the reasons why people don’t usually talk openly about their strange experiences. Let’s put it this way: according to the way the world works right now (21st century), these types of experiences may be one of the best kept “secrets” in human history. Nobody usually hears about them simply because nobody told them about them because nobody asked them about them… do you get it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This article has been extracted from MEDLINE (Pubmed), which is one of the best medicine data bases in the world:

Near death experience: a concept analysis as applied to nursing.
J Adv Nurs. 2001 Nov;36(4):520-6.
Simpson SM. Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805, USA. suzanne.simpson@parkview.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11703546

BACKGROUND: A concept is a thought or complicated mental illustration of a phenomenon. Concepts are essential in research development as they are described as the building blocks of theory. The occurrence of near death experiences (NDEs) is not an innovative subject. Parallels have existed as early as the Bible and Plato's Republic. The NDE was given further consideration in 1975 by Dr Raymond Moody who initiated an interest from the general public and researchers alike, with his book Life after Life. METHOD: This paper will use the strategy of concept analysis to find a working definition for the concept of the NDE and the implications it has for nursing. CONCLUSION: This paper will attest that the number of people who have claimed to have a NDE is phenomenal and overwhelming. In addition, it claims that the numbers of those who have experienced this phenomenon may be underestimated because of the persons' feeling of insecurity in talking with others about their paranormal incident. Therefore, it is vital that nurses become aware of the NDE and how to support the client who has had the experience. The following paper will summarize the different stages of a NDE, the consequences that one experiences, both positive and negative, and nursing implications.

PMID: 11703546 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

​

 

Maybe I should have said Physics not Quantuum Physics .

So I was thinking about theories like:

-Particles are vibrating strings
-The universe has more than 4 dimensions
-Tachyons (Don't know if spelled correct....)
-Particles are probability functions
-M-theorie
-The universe was created by the collision of 2 higherdim. membrans

etc. Basically every theory is unproven otherwise we wouldn't call it theory would we?! But lets not get into this.

BTW: I have OBE's from time to time, you can label my mental ill though, I don't care.

 

Hi everybody, if you would like to get further information about the way to obtain conclusive proof about these experiences, we have been delving on the specifics of the scientific principles behind the Agnostic Method in this link:

Whats Your Proof?
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=179236#179236

Bye, qbeac.

 

As I expected after reading the initial post to this thread, we now have a discussion of OBE in a science thread. The posts have started digressing from a discussion of experimental design to implications that OBE phenomenon have been shown to have some validity.

I repeat my opinion that this thread should be moved to the Parapsychology or the Pseudo Science forum.

I further think there is obfuscation going on due to the claim that translation from Spanish is too time consuimg or diffficult to do correctly. Is the vocabulary and syntax of Spanish so fundamentallly different from English that there is some difficulty? Bull**t.

BTW: A translation problem due to Hofstader: This English sentence is difficult to translate into French.