Scientists can trigger OBEs in people

Moved to Lounge to allow full debate which would be unavailable in Beyond due to Beyond forum rules.

This caught my attention while I was on Digg. There might be a few useful applications of it as well. They took the Supernatural out of OBEs, and it seems better off without it.

Outstanding :smile: And the thought of future videogames using this technology would be so awesome :razz:

We already have something like those videogames. LD’s. :tongue:

I would argue that they didn’t actually test the phenomenon known as OBE, but they actually tested a related concept, of how people perceive themselves. More complex testing would be required to actually “take the supernatural out of OBE”

I agree with MovieMe though. Such technology would make an awesome videogame. Or at the very least, a sci-fi thriller movie based on the concept would be pretty sweet. It’d be like another Matrix, but a little different. On second thought, there already is a movie about this concept. It’s called eXistenZ. Maybe I should just watch that again.

Reading it … it sounds like a false “OBE” and not an actual one. It’s like comparing false LDs with real ones :meh:

Very interesting, thanks for posting :smile:

Sounds more like transposed sensation than anything remotely OBE to me.

removed from big OBE topic and moved into the lounge topic which is discussing the subject :moogle:
I believe this may be of interest to some: “Scientists Recreate OBE Experience”

Personally, it’s substantially better than sleep deprivation tanks… still… it does not explain other aspects of OBEs or NDEs.

Did anyone here really buy this? I can see people with no experience in deaming and the subconscious, but this is obviously no OBE, nothing remotley close to dreaming, but rather some sort of sensory illusion.

But OBEs could be a sensory illusion as well.

I must agree that this is not a true OBE. I find this to be a way of tricking your brain.
What they described were the feeling of being outside your body… Ofcourse! I could do the same thing if I’d have a pair of videogoggles attatched to a videocamera positioned behind me. The brain is being tricked to believe that you are outside of your body. So when their backs were being thouched by a pen and they felt it, the brain interpretated it as if they were the one holding the pen against someones back and not the opposite (I think).

I’d say that this is a technical version of an OBE, though not natural.

They could be. However, the actual study that was conducted didn’t test whether they were not sensory illusion, so there is no conclusive proof that there aren’t also OBEs which are not sensory illusion.

Also, the sample wasn’t random, so there is no scientific proof anyway. The study didn’t follow proper scientific selection and procedure. It was designed to be a lead study for further research. But, as always, the news media sensationalized it with grandiose claims about the nature of existence. Through newspapers, a miniscule lead study somehow became the next breakthrough in human existence.

Also, don’t forget this is actually quoted in the report:

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t even begin to address the HUNDREDS of people who claimed to have OBE’s while in the Emergency Room and could actually recall minutes to hours of details and events that transpired while they were “dead.” If it was all “sensory illusion” how did these people observe objective events? And we’re not talking about just hearing conversations, we’re talking about people who are also able to read signs and see objects that one could only see from being outside their body. Nor does it go anywhere near the fact that many people who experience a NDE or an OBE also have a tremendous more to tell about their experience.

I, personally, have had an OBE / astral projection and it was it nothing like what was described in the article. I saw my body, read the clock, moved my head around (I could still make my body do stuff but I was watching it from above) and saw the lights in my room. I decided to keep floating upwards until I hit the Earth’s atomosphere and decided I didn’t want to leave Earth yet (since my body would die without “me” in it) and I came back and woke up…only to see the clock 1 minute later than when I looked outside my body.

If my experience was “sensory illusion” and my brain merely re-created that entire scene, Science has the burden of proof to tell me exactly how it does that…

But of course, “Science” (known today as Materialism, sadly) cannot even tell me what Perception or Consciousness is to begin with! In fact, it can’t even properly explain what the stuff my Brain is made of (Matter) really is yet and here it is trying to draw conclusions on something as ambiguous as OBE’s? What close-minded arrogance, imo.

Silly Science, when will it learn that you are not supposed to take the Supernatural out of the Science and the Science out of the Supernatural.

Could you please get me a link about people who had NDEs and observed objective events? This has piqued my interest. Otherwise I’ll just consider it fluff for now.

Unfortunately, from Science’s point of view, this sort of evidence means nothing unless it can be reproduced. If SUPERnatural phenomena could be that easily recreated, then it wouldn’t be supernatural. xP This is where Science becomes absolutely useless and breaks down.

Of course we are trying to figure out the bigger picture, but in general, we as humans know NOTHING. I agree that Science could me misconstrued as arrogant, though. It really is mere Materialism. You cannot prove the supernatural when you can only use the relatively crude technology we have today.

Heh. I agree. They are two different things…

Though if they could be combined and we did have the tools to test this sort of thing, that would be great!

What would you consider fluff to begin with since we know “nothing” in the first place? A bit confusing there.

Anyway, read some NDE’s and find out for yourself:

Either they are all lying or there might be something to them (do remember many of these are from other countries and are translated as well).

Thats another gripe I have. Exactly how does one go to define “super” natural? Science can’t even state exactly that “Natural” is to begin with (as I said, they don’t even understand what Perception or Matter is…so technically, everything can be “super” natural). To regulate truth to something that has to be reproduced in a laboratory isn’t Science, it’s then just another belief as close minded to itself that Religion is. True Science is a process that took all things into consideration and never really arrived at any definite conclusions because new evidence could surface at anytime (evidence that would occur outside the experiments) and ruin any conclusions that were drawn. That’s why everything is called a “theory.” It’s when things are taken as Facts, that’s things become troublesome.

Take this as an example: When Einstein was asked how he figured out his landmark equation e=mc2, he replied “I ignored an Axiom.” An Axiom is something that is tested enough to be drawn as a fact that is self evident. So basically, Einstein decided to ignore a self evident truth (something the current Scientific community doesn’t tend to do) only to discover that, that truth wasn’t a truth at all. Why should we ignore people’s personal experience just because axioms that circulate the Scientific community? Luckily, there have been many Scientists and Doctors who have chosen to follow Einstein’s example and have researched OBE’s and NDE’s with the perspective that Consciousness MIGHT be something outside of the Brain. This didn’t make them Spiritual or Religious in any way, but merely Scientists trying to follow their true code of ethics: find the truth, no matter what.

A heard a quote that is fitting…“When a Scientist says something is possible, he is probably correct. When a Scientist says that something is impossible, he most assuredly, is wrong.”

Agreed entirely. But I do not feel that we know “nothing”, I feel we know everything. We are just trying to find an objective reality through subjective lenses. Which I do feel we’re all going to reach anyways. The trends show this. Religions are busting at the seams, a general belief in “spirituality” is growing. People are trying to find “God” in their personal lives and find meaning to their lives and existence more than ever (thank god the Internet has arrived to hurry this process). And now Science has been bent on finding the “Theory for Everything” which ironically is still a “theory” and yet is trying to connect everything together…much like God would do for people. Science is just looking for the same God/Source/All That Is energy that Religion and Spirituality is looking for. With movies like What The @#&@* Do We Know, I feel that bridge between the two classes of thought is being bridged fast. Thank God (pun), it’s about time. :wink:

They can and they will. Science is indirectly going to prove Religion (Spirituality) correct and Religion/Spirituality is indirectly going to see how the Scientific Process is the way to master our world (in a loving way). We’re on the borderline and things can’t be much more exciting than they are. It will be awesome to see the two sides meet and Mankind will truly have our next Paradigm Shift.

I bring you yet another interesting little snippet I ran across - it’s short, but it does raise some interesting questions and stimulates the imagination for future lucid dreaming endeavours :content: :

ABC News

[mod]merged with existing topic :moh:[/mod]

Great minds think alike, I suppose.

Interesting topic.

That is interesting.
I wonder what it means by touching them physically and virtually.

Virtually is where they perceive they are through the VR-camera which is aimed at their back. Physically is their really body.

Yes, but touching them virtually?
Maybe it is the phrasing but I don’t understand it.