meditation

[Casparov]

This experiment CANNOT PROVE that OBEs are only imagined. It can only prove that they are real. This is because a test of the hypothesis that OBE's are real is possible as the one above, while there is no test possible that can prove that they are only imagined. (hint; same reason why you can't prove god is only  imagined)

Casparov, do you understand why there is no way to test a claim that something is only imagined and (briefly) explain why this is?
If you disagree, then give please give me an example of evidence that would prove to someone that they were only imagining the OBE.

The experiment you describe has been done several times. First by Charles Tart, then by Karlis Osis, then Robert Morris, then Robert Monroe who was not a scientist just a wealthy and curious individual who employed scientists. I assume it has been done countless other times more recently. The results are not 100% but are statistically significant.

Perception is always representative according to the interface theory of perception, what we see is not a direct representation of an objective reality but a subjective representation of interpreted data. What we perceive is not necessarily what is actually there. How perception works during an OBE is anyone's guess, but I don't think it should be surprising that the experiences can be subjective and different depending on the person experiencing them. What someone perceives and how someone interprets data has a lot to do with a person's state of mind. If I am in an extremely fearful state of mind I might see a shadow and interpret it as a demon, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical demon in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the experience. If on the other hand I am in an extremely cheerful state of mind I might see that exact same shadow and interpret it as a friend, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical representation of a person who I think of as a friend in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the perception, but it is the exact same data in both cases. Consciousness produces the interface by interpreting data and the subjective interpretation produces what we perceive. This process is much more pronounced in dreams and obe's. I think more important is if these experiences are meaningful and informative.

I do agree that research on this phenomena is lacking, however personal independent research is always possible. There is no superior proof than direct personal experience.

[Berati]

The experiment you describe has been done several times. First by Charles Tart, then by Karlis Osis, then Robert Morris, then Robert Monroe who was not a scientist just a wealthy and curious individual who employed scientists. I assume it has been done countless other times more recently. The results are not 100% but are statistically significant.

They are not statistically significant. You just made that up.
The fact that a very easy test has produced no results would convince someone who is not biased. It will always leave doubt in those who are biased.

Perception is always representative according to the interface theory of perception, what we see is not a direct representation of an objective reality but a subjective representation of interpreted data. What we perceive is not necessarily what is actually there. How perception works during an OBE is anyone's guess, but I don't think it should be surprising that the experiences can be subjective and different depending on the person experiencing them. What someone perceives and how someone interprets data has a lot to do with a person's state of mind. If I am in an extremely fearful state of mind I might see a shadow and interpret it as a demon, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical demon in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the experience. If on the other hand I am in an extremely cheerful state of mind I might see that exact same shadow and interpret it as a friend, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical representation of a person who I think of as a friend in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the perception, but it is the exact same data in both cases. Consciousness produces the interface by interpreting data and the subjective interpretation produces what we perceive. This process is much more pronounced in dreams and obe's. I think more important is if these experiences are meaningful and informative.

I do agree that research on this phenomena is lacking, however personal independent research is always possible. There is no superior proof than direct personal experience.

You did not answer my question. Why is it possible to prove OBEs are real, but not possible to prove they are not real? I'll give you a hint: why is the statement "there are no black swans" not provable? Can you attempt an answer?

Research is not lacking. It has been performed and the results do not support your conclusion.
The problem is always the same. You start with an assumption that your belief is true and dismiss evidence to the contrary because you fail to grasp the significance of the question posed above.

[Casparov]

They are not statistically significant. You just made that up.
The fact that a very easy test has produced no results would convince someone who is not biased. It will always leave doubt in those who are biased.

I am not necessarily interested in arguing that out of body experiences are real, but you accuse me of just making up the fact that the experiment you describe has actually been done and produces statistically significant results is quite insulting. I did not just make it up, the exact experiment you suggested was completed by Charles Tart with results 100,000 to 1 against chance. The experimenter correctly reporting random 5 digit numbers obtained via out of body experiences was indeed statistically significant: http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html

You can just go to the wikipedia page on out of body experiences and see a list of experiments and studies that have been done, the paragraph about the experiments completed by Michael Persinger for instance states that: "Individuals with no knowledge of the nature of the study rated Swann's comments and drawings as congruent with the remotely viewed stimulus at better than chance levels."

There have been several studies conducted by the CIA that have been released to the public and all report statistic significance.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf

Regardless of one's a priori position, however, an unimpassioned observer cannot help but attest to the following fact: Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood. My years of involvement as a research manager in these programs have left me with the conviction that this fact must be taken into account in any attempt to develop an unbiased picture of the structure of reality.

And subsiquent studies that cooberate the CIA studies:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_1_vallee.pdf

Our results tend to validate Puthoff and Targ's experiments and strongly indicate that remote viewing techniques are deserving of further scientific attention.

Again, I don't have any interest in arguing with you about whether or not OBE's are real. I'd instead urge you to find out for yourself via direct experience if you are truly interested. But please do not accuse me of making things up without at least first doing a quick google search.

You did not answer my question. Why is it possible to prove OBEs are real, but not possible to prove they are not real? I'll give you a hint: why is the statement "there are no black swans" not provable? Can you attempt an answer?

What is this? Why are you insisting I jump through your hoops? I will answer it once but I will not repeat myself: A positive assertion is subject to the burden of proof, and a negative claim is not. "Materialism is false" is not a provable claim, because it is a negative claim, and therefore is not subject to the burden of proof. "Materialism is true" is a provable claim, because it is a positive claim, and therefore is subject to the burden of proof.

Positive proof of a negative claim is impossible. Consider your hoop jumped through, now please speak to me like an adult from here on out.

Research is not lacking. It has been performed and the results do not support your conclusion.

You make a bold statement and provide no sources. Am I supposed to just take you at your word? Where is this research that has been performed and what are the results?

The problem is always the same. You start with an assumption that your belief is true and dismiss evidence to the contrary because you fail to grasp the significance of the question posed above.

lol I am constantly being accused of dismissing evidence that has never been presented. What evidence did you provide that I have dismissed? Did I miss it?? You sound suspiciously like you are projecting your own flaws onto me....

[DunkleSeele]

I did not just make it up, the exact experiment you suggested was completed by Charles Tart with results 100,000 to 1 against chance. The experimenter correctly reporting random 5 digit numbers obtained via out of body experiences was indeed statistically significant: http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html

LOL What's that crap?
From the link you posted:

Laboratory Procedure
I was able to observe Miss Z in my sleep laboratory for four non-consecutive nights, over a period of approximately two months. The procedure was essentially the same on all nights, and will be described here.

Only four nights? Does the author really think it's a statistically significative sample?

Description of EEG, REM, BSR and other recording equipment

OK, no particular remarks here.

The sleep laboratory consisted of two rooms, each lined with acoustic tile for sound attenuation. A large window was between the rooms for viewing, but in this experiment it was covered with a Venetian blind in order that the subject's room could be reasonably dark for sleeping. This blind allowed enough light to come through so that the subject's room was dimly illuminated, but not enough to disturb sleep. The polygraphs were located in the second room, and the door was kept closed.

And here we're already in amateur land. No direct visual observation of the subject? No filming? LOL

An intercom system allowed hearing anything the subject said. I monitored the recording equipment throughout the night while the subject slept and kept notes of anything she said or did. Occasionally I dozed during the night, beside the equipment, so possible instances of sleep talking might have been missed.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA No audio recording, just taking notes except when the bozo dozed.

The subject slept on a comfortable bed just below the observation window. The leads from all electrodes were bound into a common cable running off the top of her head, and terminating in an electrode box on the head of the bed. This arrangement allowed her enough slack wire so that she could turn over in bed and otherwise be comfortable, but did not allow her to sit up more than two feet without disconnecting the wires from the box, an event which would show up on the recording equipment as a tremendous amount of sixty cycle artifact. Thus her movements were well controlled.

Well controlled my backside. The subject could have well used a mirror and a small lamp mounted on a telescopic rod to read the number. Did I say the "researcher" was a bozo? Scratch that, he was at best a complete imbecile.

Immediately above the observation window (about five and a half feet above the level of the subject's head) was a small shelf (about ten inches by five inches). Immediately above this shelf was a large clock, mounted on the wall. Each laboratory night, after the subject was lying in bed, the physiological recordings were running satisfactorily, and she was ready to go to sleep, I went into my office down the hall, opened a table of random numbers at random, threw a coin onto the table as a means of random entry into the page, and copied off the first five digits immediately above where the coin landed. These were copied with a black marking pen, in figures approximately two inches high, onto a small piece of paper. Thus they were quite discrete visually. This five-digit random number constituted the parapsychological target for the evening. I then slipped it into an opaque folder, entered the subject's room, and slipped the piece of paper onto the shelf without at any time exposing it to the subject. This now provided a target which would be clearly visible to anyone whose eyes were located approximately six and a half feet off the floor or higher, but was otherwise not visible to the subject.

So the subject was in the same room when the idiot was putting the target in place? Did I say he was a complete imbecile? Scratch that, a tomato has a higher IQ then him.

The subject was instructed to sleep well, to try and have an OOB experience, and if she did so to try to wake up immediately afterwards and tell me about it, so I could note on the polygraph records when it had occurred. She was also told that if she floated high enough to read the five-digit number she should memorize it and wake up immediately afterwards to tell me what it was. My conversation with Miss Z after I had prepared the target was, of course, minimal and could not have given her any clue as to the target number. In future experiments, however, it would be preferable for a second experimenter, who had had no contact at all with the subject, to prepare the targets.

So, why didn't the idiot provide a second experimenter straight away?

Casparov, your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. Posting such a piece of unscientific crap as "evidence" for your deranged fantasies of OBEs is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with at least a working brain cell.

And before you ask: no, I'm not going to check the other links you posted. The "evidence" you gave with your first link is more than enough. Go away.

[aitm]

perhaps this is as simple as evolution...consider please.....IF all life evolved through the basic molecular then cellular stages, we, they, everything has a "history" of each step so to speak. Why could NOT the brain produce the same effects of drugs if they were brother and sister a billion years ago? Why could not the brain adapt the ability to produce the wanted and desired or needed images that the higher brain level asks for? Why is dreaming so under-appreciated while so called "out of body" or "white light experiences" given some special credibility when we already understand the brain can produce some pretty fucking AWESOME dreams eh? And why do we think, even for a moment, the we alone, the human animal have the only ability to do this?

[Casparov]

Casparov, your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. Posting such a piece of unscientific crap as "evidence" for your deranged fantasies of OBEs is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with at least a working brain cell.

And before you ask: no, I'm not going to check the other links you posted. The "evidence" you gave with your first link is more than enough. Go away.

The experiment was conducted in 1966, I included it originally because it was the first recorded experiment that exactly matches the type of experiment Berati proposed had never been done before. I don't particularly think this experiment is convincing myself, but it's existence refutes the idea that the experiment Berati proposed had never been conducted and never produced results.

The CIA research is much more convincing, but as I have stated multiple times, I am not interested in this debate. I don't care to prove OBE's are real to anybody. Whoever is truly interested will find out for themselves, no studies are going to supercede direct personal experience.

[DunkleSeele]

The experiment was conducted in 1966, I included it originally because it was the first recorded experiment that exactly matches the type of experiment Berati proposed had never been done before. I don't particularly think this experiment is convincing myself, but it's existence refutes the idea that the experiment Berati proposed had never been conducted and never produced results.

The CIA research is much more convincing, but as I have stated multiple times, I am not interested in this debate. I don't care to prove OBE's are real to anybody. Whoever is truly interested will find out for themselves, no studies are going to supercede direct personal experience.

Bollocks, personal experience is the crappiest form of evidence possible. Only independent observation in a controlled environment can produce real evidence. Then again, it takes some intellectual honesty to see that.

[ApostateLois]

That is an excellent presentation of what happens. It took me three years to reach that level. When I showed my wife how to do it she flew out the window and it scared her and she wouldn't do it again.

Sounds like the time when I had to have an infected tooth removed when I was a kid, and they gave me nitrous oxide. I felt myself rising off the dentist chair and floating out into the hallway. It was great! I would love to do any kind of meditation that gave me that feeling again. I still wonder if I would have floated out of the building and into the parking lot.

[Berati]

Quote
You did not answer my question. Why is it possible to prove OBEs are real, but not possible to prove they are not real? I'll give you a hint: why is the statement "there are no black swans" not provable? Can you attempt an answer?

What is this? Why are you insisting I jump through your hoops? I will answer it once but I will not repeat myself: A positive assertion is subject to the burden of proof, and a negative claim is not.

This is only a partial answer.
I didn’t ask why it doesn’t need to be proven (burden of proof); I asked why it is not provable. Even if we come to an agreement that we must both accept the burden of proof, we cannot proceed in a scientific manner if there is no way to falsify an assertion whether positive or negative.

"There are no black swans" being unprovable has to do with falsifiability and is the most common illustration of that principal. There is no way to falsify the statement therefore it can never be denied even if ifalse.
Think about it, and see if you can come up with any test or experiment that would prove the "There are no black swans" statement true.

However, “All swans are white” is falsifiable and even though we can never prove a universal generalization such as this, it is at the very least logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.

"Materialism is false" is not a provable claim, because it is a negative claim, and therefore is not subject to the burden of proof. "Materialism is true" is a provable claim, because it is a positive claim, and therefore is subject to the burden of proof.

This is why I wanted to know if you understood falsifiability and its application to either negative or positive claims.
“Materialism is false” IS a provable claim. However, “Materialism is true” can never be proven to be true but it can be falsified.
For example; an actual, repeatable out of body experience is evidence that “Materialism is false” is a true statement since we would have evidence of a consciousness separated from a material brain.  Or, a person who could penetrate the so called illusion of materialism with his consciousness and walk right through a solid object would be proof that “Materialism is false”.
Proof that “materialism is false” is conceivable and is therefore what must be proven even if it’s a negative statement.

“Materialism is true” is a positive statement just like “I am innocent” is a positive statement, but neither has the burden of proof because neither is ultimately provable. The burden of proof has to rest on the opposite side of the coin which is “Materialism is false” and “you are guilty”.

Think about it, and see if you can come up with any test or experiment that would prove that "Materialism" is true.

.

Positive proof of a negative claim is impossible

This is simply not true.  It is a rule of thumb used because of the inherent weakness of inductive arguments. It is very often true, but not always.
For example five is not equal to four is a negative that is easily proven.
Also, In logic, the rule of non contradiction (i.e. that "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive) can be used to easily prove a negative by simply proving A is B which automatically negates A is not B. Just google “you can prove a negative” and you will find many proofs. In fact, just look at the examples I gave above that would prove “Materialism is false” to be true.

The point here is that Burden of proof works hand in hand with falsifiability. You have to understand both.
If you want to rely on the scientific method, you need to know the rules. I know your cognitive dissonance will never allow any of this to sink in, but others may read this post as well.

[Casparov]

http://youtu.be/ZlZNmwCD1pA

[DunkleSeele]

http://youtu.be/ZlZNmwCD1pA

LOL William Buhl(shit)man? Really? A crank who's never given any shred of objective evidence other than his "extensive personal experience"?
FUCK OFF!

[Sargon The Grape]

I did some research on this guy. His resumé consists of the following:

-4 decades of work with so-called "out of body experiences."
-Author of several books on the subject.
-A certified hypnotherapist.

The first has no basis in science.
The second is meaningless for our purposes.
The third can only be used to change behaviors and implant false memories. It has jack all to do with anything else.

I don't even need to watch the video at this point.

[PickelledEggs]

I'm not watching an hour and a half of complete nonsense. I already tried to watch God's Not Dead and I ended up getting violent diarrhea. The diarrhea was more likely from the salmon I ate earlier that day, but still. Everytime I get diarrhea, I'm going to think of God's Not Dead.

[Solitary]

If a person thinks that mental events caused by physical events are as real as physical events themselves they are delusional. Subjective experiences are not reliable for a search of the truth. Even the great skeptic The Amazing Randi had an out of body experience and was convinced it was real until his friends proved he didn't. I've had them and have to admit they seem very real, and I know they are a result of my brain creating reality by data we receive from the world of reality, and also from our memories, or body sensations, and are not really real. But objective reality is real because it doesn't go away. Solitary

[DunkleSeele]

I did some research on this guy. His resumé consists of the following:

-4 decades of work with so-called "out of body experiences."
-Author of several books on the subject.
-A certified hypnotherapist.

The first has no basis in science.
The second is meaningless for our purposes.
The third can only be used to change behaviors and implant false memories. It has jack all to do with anything else.

I don't even need to watch the video at this point.

Some time ago I already had the misfortune of reading something written by that conman. No way I'm taking seriously anything that crank is saying.