I was tired and noticed a floaty feeling, so I said I might be near an OOBE, so I just floated out of my body. I saw myself laying there in my bed. I went around my room flying and into my parents room, then back to my room and I hit my body and sunk back into my body. When I woke up I had a big pain on my knee 
(Where I hit)
Well, from the evidence I’ve seen, OOBE’s are most likely a type of LD that takes place during nREM.
None the less… cool 
.
^ I’ve never seen any evidence supporting that. They’ve done research in laboratories to prove that the people actually DID leave the body. I’ll see if I can pull up the link but it’s legit research. And unless you know exactly what Dreams are, it doesn’t really say much for that idea either way.
There are a number of threads on this forum alone that has pretty much proved otherwise…
The evidence as far as i know, is based upon retrieving remote information while a person is in OBE (information this person could not have known otherwise). Yet this is no evidence at all since you can do this aswell with ESP (extra sensory perception), and for that you dont need to leave your body at all (as in, spirit disconnects from it). But if you can pull up some other evidence that would be interesting. Btw, Freecube, what did you mean with ‘hitting your knee’?
I was floating around, and I had essentially a body that could go through anything I wanted, but I chose to “hit my knee” with my “OOBE Body” hand.
According to Robert Monroe’s classical book, all attempts were unsuccessful.
How can threads on this forum be conclusive to a subjective experience?
Guess again.
And
near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
Until Consciousness is actually proved to stem from the Physical Brain, then all supporting evidence that OBE’s are a result of the brain are faulty logic. If you do not have a foundation, you do not have a structure.
Hi Ego,
I agree we didnt conclude anything as being a ‘hard fact’ in previous threats lately, but this does not mean that perhaps it is possible to come to some conclusions about the process which creates the subjective experience. I think this is what we should try, and also what scientists are trying. By the way, what point did you want to make by referring to those 2 articles?
Indeed. Measurements at NDE of brain activity (totally flat, zero) suggest total deactivation of the cortex (visual abilities etc are gone), and yet a lot of people claim that they saw or otherwise experienced events during their NDE. Events that in a lot of cases really happened. I dont think science can explain this by purely adhering to their dogma that consciousness is only a ‘physical body issue’, so to speak. Yet, in my opinion these NDE-OBE’s are totally diffetent from ‘ordinary’ OBE’s (like, induced from trance, sleep) for several reasons, for example the fact that LD+ ESP may explain a lot of what happens (+ many other arguments, i can link an article I wrote about it if you like).
I would like to read your article. Cheers
About your discussion : in 1967 and 1969, there were two experiment with Robert Monroe in Charles Tart’s sleep laboratory. Most of his OBE’s were done in NREM sleep. During his OBE’s, he couldn’t read a five-digit target number.
Full article online there :
https://www.paradigm-sys.com/display/ctt_articles2.cfm?ID=4
Good articles:
First thing that came to mind here is a hint of a physiological cause for the NDE.
That ought to clear up the myth of proof. I also think the final paragraph is important for some people here, particularly the suggestion that “the brain does not generate consciousness.” French and Van Lommel do not go on to suggest that NDE’s prove an afterlife - it just does not follow logically that the proof of NDE’s is proof of an afterlife, yet so many people seem to make this mistake.
And here is another interesting article on OBEs.
This is from the article in the New Scientiest:
That is a poor comment on the study - just because all did not remember a NDE does not mean it never happened. Like dreams, people have them every night - yet there are people who claim they have never had a dream - truth is they have never recalled a dream.
I’m glad you pointed that out. Also, just because it didn’t happen to everyone doesn’t mean there isn’t a physiological cause.
My sentiments exactly!!
When I have OBEs, My astral body cant move from the position my physical body is in, if im lying on my side in bed, thats the way my astral body will fly around, and it is very hard to talk while Im projecting. Anyone else have this problem?
Negative. Because it’s still up to the Scientists to also state how we don’t remember dreams either. If they are reducing these Experiences to mere physical Brain Chemistry, since we’re all wired the same way, they should be able to encounter these more than less.
Problem is Science is the one carrying the burden of proof now.
We can’t talk to dead people. So we can talk to the next best thing: people who “almost” died. And these people don’t come back with tales of nothingness or lack of experience, they come back saying their experience was ‘more real than real.’ But the Scientific community refuses to concede on this, so they still persist it’s all Brain, Brain, Brian.
My problem is: we know nothing about the very device which supposedly is the basis for our existance. We don’t know how it works and why it works the way it does, we just have really good guesses. We’ve still, to this day, have come NOWHERE closer to showing Consciousness = Brain. If anything, we’ve gotten FURTHER away from that idea, not closer.
We need a revolution in Modern Science. To finally do away with this narrow materialistic view on Life, realizing our own ignorance, and accept the idea that we are not physical beings. I think our probes into the Quantum World are proof enough for that.
Wrong. If Consciousness is more than likely not a result of Brain Chemistry or the existance of a Brain for that matter, then the logic says the existance of the “Self” (you) was there before and will be there after. If the Brain does not need to be functioning and people still are experiencing, then even Occam’s Rayzor would support the simplest idea in this case: Because the Brain is not Consciousness. If the Brain doesn’t need to be here for me to exist, that is the essence of “eternity” as you cannot destroy energy, only change it. And since it’s apparent we’re all going to die, then an afterlife is also, a logical conclusion.
Like I said, these are first hand experiences from people who by Science’s own admittance, we’re dead. We can sit back and say “Oh, well, the Brain must function on a level we can’t detect.”
That’s a cop out. If you can’t detect it, then it might not be there to begin with and until they can prove it does, the logical conclusion would be “Well, then I guess the Brain wasn’t functioning, so perception must lie ‘elsewhere.’ I can say the Earth is held up by strings SO thin, they are impossible to detect through conventional means and technology.” So does that mean we should base ALL our Theories off the idea of the Earth being held up by a million invisible, undetectable strings, or just assume and accept those strings simply aren’t there?
My point being: we don’t even have the foundation for all these ‘concrete’ ideas about the Brain producing consciousness, like for example, knowing entirely how the Brain works to begin with, so everything subsequent is just as unsubstantial.