OBE FAQ
Ian H Spedding
nom...@hotmail.com says...
>
> I am getting _extremely frustrated at what seems to be attempts to turn this
> newsgroup into a sci newsgroup. Mention of topics like Occam's Razor do not
> belong here, IMHO. If I wanted to learn about scientific investigation, I
> would join a science newsgroup or journal club. Alt.out-of-body should not
> pander to people who have the agenda of destroying its very existance by
> proving the Superiority of Science.
None of the sceptics here are out to "destroy" this group, even
assuming that were possible. But what is wrong with looking at
these things from a scientific perspective?
> I am sure that there are people like me who would like to post about their
> OBEs but who are afraid of being ridiculed by some of the more vocal
> advocates of Science.
Sceptics have no problem with people discussing their
experiences. What we do question is some of the explanations for
them that are put forward. Speculation about astral planes and
such is okay but when people present it as established fact then
they are likely to be called on it.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Janice
>What happened to the FAQ that was supposed to be addressing this issue?
I got very busy at Christmastime, which stopped me from working on it
when I had planned to, and I never got back to it. I still hope to
finish it one of these days.
Still, no FAQ is going to prevent people from having and posting
conflicting points of view. That's just the way of unmoderated
newsgroups. The best one can do is use a killfile, and be careful about
quoting anything inflammatory so as not to defeat the purpose of other
people's killfiles.
--
Alt.Out-of-Body Unlimited:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The Lucid Dreaming Nook:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/nook1.html
Onno Westerman
"E N Argye" <nom...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:Xns93875A569E2A...@167.206.3.2...
>
> >> I am getting _extremely frustrated at what seems to be attempts to turn
> >> this newsgroup into a sci newsgroup. Mention of topics like Occam's
> >> Razor do not belong here, IMHO. If I wanted to learn about scientific
> >> investigation, I would join a science newsgroup or journal club.
> > these things from a scientific perspective?
> > experiences. What we do question is some of the explanations for
> > them that are put forward. Speculation about astral planes and
> > such is okay but when people present it as established fact then
> > they are likely to be called on it.
Yes I think that's because the sceptics don't have OBE's themselves because
when they had they were talking different..........I can tell.
Onno
>
> QED!!!
>
>
> I rest my case!!!
Janice
nom...@hotmail.com says...
>I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately if I started a killfile, that would
>mean that I would miss a lot of interesting posts. Although your private
>newsgroups are a great idea, not too many people use them.
Yes, that's always been the way with them. There will be a flareup of
the old skeptic/believer battle, people who would rather get out of the
heat join the private boards, then after awhile they stop using them.
>OTOH, when I read some of the skeptics' opinions, it almost makes the idea of
>a killfile worthwhile. Sometimes (like now) I just feel like killfiling
>everyone. Gr-r-r-r.
Well, you know, you can use a killfile as a temporary measure--throw
people in it while you're in a bad mood then let them out later. I've
done that. :-)
>Even though I know that arguing with the skeptics is pretty pointless (since
>they are so intent on showing off their superior "knowledge", they don't seem
>to give a sh** about anyone's beliefs), I still seem compelled to post.
>Frustrating, no?
I can see your dilemma.
>Anyway, I think I'll just lurk for now and see if the FAQ makes any
>difference.
OK. Keep reminding me about it so I get on it. :-)
Tien Yen
Janice wrote:
>
> In article <Xns938773A2A2EA...@167.206.3.2>,
> nom...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >What happened to the FAQ that was supposed to be addressing this issue?
>
> I got very busy at Christmastime, which stopped me from working on it
> when I had planned to, and I never got back to it. I still hope to
> finish it one of these days.
Did you get my e-mail last week?
[...]
Janice
>Did you get my e-mail last week?
Yes, thanks. I'm behind with answering emails, as usual, but not too far
behind this time.
Janice
>Yes I think that's because the sceptics don't have OBE's themselves because
>when they had they were talking different..........I can tell.
Hmm? I've been having something of an OBE dry spell this year, but
nevertheless I have maintained the same position when talking about them
here for three and a half years now. No difference. :)
Ian H Spedding
> > quoting anything inflammatory so as not to defeat the purpose of other
> > people's killfiles.
>
>
> (Begin vent)
>
> I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately if I started a killfile, that would
> mean that I would miss a lot of interesting posts. Although your private
> newsgroups are a great idea, not too many people use them.
>
> a killfile worthwhile. Sometimes (like now) I just feel like killfiling
> everyone. Gr-r-r-r.
>
> they are so intent on showing off their superior "knowledge", they don't seem
> to give a sh** about anyone's beliefs), I still seem compelled to post.
> Frustrating, no?
Personally, I don't understand why you're so irritated. It isn't
a question of belief. Either OBEs are a paranormal phenomenon
involving disembodied consciousness or they're not. If you're
right and I'm wrong my scepticism won't make the slightest
difference to that.
Ian H Spedding
>
> >> I am getting _extremely frustrated at what seems to be attempts to turn
> >> this newsgroup into a sci newsgroup. Mention of topics like Occam's
> >> Razor do not belong here, IMHO. If I wanted to learn about scientific
> >> investigation, I would join a science newsgroup or journal club.
> >
> > these things from a scientific perspective?
> > experiences. What we do question is some of the explanations for
> > them that are put forward. Speculation about astral planes and
> > such is okay but when people present it as established fact then
> > they are likely to be called on it.
>
Exactly what is it that has been demonstrated?
> I rest my case!!!
Your case is that OBEs should be immune from questioning?
lorz
"E N Argye" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns938773A2A2EA...@167.206.3.2...
> I am getting _extremely frustrated at what seems to be attempts to turn
this
> newsgroup into a sci newsgroup. Mention of topics like Occam's Razor do
not
> belong here, IMHO. If I wanted to learn about scientific investigation, I
> pander to people who have the agenda of destroying its very existance by
> proving the Superiority of Science.
>
> OBEs but who are afraid of being ridiculed by some of the more vocal
> advocates of Science.
>
Thats not true. I came to this NG years ago looking for answers and
opinions. I didn't want just one opinion. I wanted all opinions. What's
wrong with that? It is very close minded to just want to hear what you want
to hear. If thats the case you need to start a NG with the priority reqired
that you be a true and only believer. i don't believe this is it. I am a
fence sitter on the experience and there are others like me and we would
have no where to go to discuss it if it were just for true believers or only
non believers.
Why would you be afraid of being ridiculed anyway. It wouldn't bother me in
the least if people ridiculed my eperiences. That's life. Block the ones
you dont care to read or just dont read them. This is stuff I tell my 13
year old.. come on!
Eric
scientific proofs before you try to find out what it is? A scientific
proof may not be available in our lifetime. But you are missing
some wonderful experience.
I was sceptic initially but a few accidental and few induced OBEs
convinced me that consciousness can be taken to any point in time-space
continuum.
Rgds
Eric
Trish
Janice <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.193c18e2d...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <Xns93876FBD6CA0F...@167.206.3.2>,
> nom...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately if I started a killfile, that
would
> >mean that I would miss a lot of interesting posts. Although your private
> >newsgroups are a great idea, not too many people use them.
>
> Yes, that's always been the way with them. There will be a flareup of
> the old skeptic/believer battle, people who would rather get out of the
> heat join the private boards, then after awhile they stop using them.
Didn't that Jerry Gross fellow have an online message board at one time?
With quite a few members to boot. Wait ... perhaps it was a Robert Bruce
website that hosted the forum. Either way, they are out there.
As far as I know, this is the only group that hosts skeptical opinions on
the topic.
Ian H Spedding
<cuUAa.287492$w7k.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
er...@nowhere.org says...
>
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
[...]
> > Personally, I don't understand why you're so irritated. It isn't
> > a question of belief. Either OBEs are a paranormal phenomenon
> > involving disembodied consciousness or they're not. If you're
> > right and I'm wrong my scepticism won't make the slightest
> > difference to that.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> Ian, have you made any attempts to have an OBE? Are you waiting for
> scientific proofs before you try to find out what it is? A scientific
> proof may not be available in our lifetime. But you are missing
> some wonderful experience.
>
> I was sceptic initially but a few accidental and few induced OBEs
> convinced me that consciousness can be taken to any point in time-space
> continuum.
I've never had an OBE or lucid dream either accidentally or
deliberately, although I'd certainly like to judging by the
descriptions I've read here.
I mentioned before that I conducted a little poll of my co-
workers a while back and was surprised to find how many said
they'd had LDs or OBEs - something like 60% of them. For some
reason, I'd assumed it was much rarer. The next question, of
course, is why do some people have them but others
apparently, never have them? After all, we all dream, even if we
don't all remember them.
Janice
spirito...@earthlink.net says...
Yes, there are still active web fora on OBEs. Just not the ones I've
started. :-)
Janice
ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>The next question, of
>course, is why do some people have them but others
>apparently, never have them? After all, we all dream, even if we
>don't all remember them.
Normally one's critical faculties and memory access are crippled during
sleep by biochemical and other changes within the brain, so there's
little lucidity in ordinary dreams. There is probably a range involved,
though, with some people not being as disabled as others in this regard,
at least from time to time. One of these days, imaging studies of lucid
dreamers will be done and we'll know a bit more about what's going on in
their brains.
lorz
"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.193ed977e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
We're just better than you, Ian :Ş
Eric
dreams or have lucid dreams. OBEs can be initiated from lucid dreams.
If you look at a hypnogram of a healthy person you will find that
roughly every 90 minutes we have REM sleep and we can write a small
script to play a sound every 90 minutes. This is the easiest and
cheapest thing to do. Try this during weekends as interrupted sleep made
me very tired.
If you have money to burn try the 'Novadreamer' from lucidity.com or
better yet go to a sleep laboratory and get your hypnogram plotted and
see what's actually going while you sleep.
Rgds
Eric
Ian H Spedding
lo...@bellsouth.net says...
Hmmmph! Okay, I admit it. You're better than me at having your
legs up in the air. ;-P
Ian H Spedding
JayAVo...@netscape.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.193ed977e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>
> >The next question, of
> >course, is why do some people have them but others
> >apparently, never have them? After all, we all dream, even if we
> >don't all remember them.
>
> Normally one's critical faculties and memory access are crippled during
> sleep by biochemical and other changes within the brain, so there's
> little lucidity in ordinary dreams. There is probably a range involved,
> though, with some people not being as disabled as others in this regard,
> at least from time to time. One of these days, imaging studies of lucid
> dreamers will be done and we'll know a bit more about what's going on in
> their brains.
That's an interesting idea. If the disabling of one's critical
faculties and memory access are part of the same inhibitory
system which prevents us from moving while we're dreaming then
lucid dreams could be the result of that mechanism not working
properly in some people.
Janice
ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>> Normally one's critical faculties and memory access are crippled during
>> sleep by biochemical and other changes within the brain, so there's
>> little lucidity in ordinary dreams. There is probably a range involved,
>> though, with some people not being as disabled as others in this regard,
>> at least from time to time. One of these days, imaging studies of lucid
>> dreamers will be done and we'll know a bit more about what's going on in
>> their brains.
>
>That's an interesting idea. If the disabling of one's critical
>faculties and memory access are part of the same inhibitory
>system which prevents us from moving while we're dreaming then
>lucid dreams could be the result of that mechanism not working
>properly in some people.
I'm not a neuroscientist, of course, but I don't think it's considered to
be the same system. In fact the two mechanisms can work quite
independently of one another, as for example when someone remains
conscious while the atonia sets in or becomes conscious before it lifts
(=sleep paraysis experience). If there were a direct connection between
the two you'd presumably see people who fail to lose their higher
cognitive abilities also fail to lose their muscle tone, which simply
isn't the case.
As for one's cognitive abilities being anomalously enabled during REM and
thereby facilitating lucidity, it's too early to suppose that this is due
to some sort of malfunction as opposed to simply being part of the normal
range of human variation. It simply hasn't really been studied yet. I'd
be inclined to think it part of the normal range, because I've seen
nothing to suggest that lucid dreamers commonly have deleterious side
effects that might be connected to their altered style of dreaming--no
memory problems or anything like that.
Janice
JayAVo...@netscape.net says...
>In article <MPG.193f5047d...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>>In article <MPG.193ec25e8...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
>>JayAVo...@netscape.net says...
>
>>> Normally one's critical faculties and memory access are crippled during
>>> sleep by biochemical and other changes within the brain, so there's
>>> little lucidity in ordinary dreams. There is probably a range involved,
>>> though, with some people not being as disabled as others in this regard,
>>> at least from time to time. One of these days, imaging studies of lucid
>>> dreamers will be done and we'll know a bit more about what's going on in
>>> their brains.
>>
>>That's an interesting idea. If the disabling of one's critical
>>faculties and memory access are part of the same inhibitory
>>system which prevents us from moving while we're dreaming then
>>lucid dreams could be the result of that mechanism not working
>>properly in some people.
>
>I'm not a neuroscientist, of course, but I don't think it's considered to
>be the same system. In fact the two mechanisms can work quite
>independently of one another, as for example when someone remains
>conscious while the atonia sets in or becomes conscious before it lifts
>(=sleep paraysis experience). If there were a direct connection between
>the two you'd presumably see people who fail to lose their higher
>cognitive abilities also fail to lose their muscle tone, which simply
>isn't the case.
Oh, also, consider REM sleep disorder, which is kind of the converse of a
sleep paralysis experience. People who have this problem have normal
muscle tone during REM and can end up running around the room smashing
into things, acting out their dreams. They are anything but lucid at the
time. So while the two types of inhibition--motor and cognitive--
normally coincide, the fact that each can be engaged separately from the
other would suggest that they are not the same mechanism.
Trish
Woohoo! LMAO! Someone should make a bumper sticker.
lorz
"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.193f4df94...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
Too funny.
Eh, You should be so lucky! ;)
Onno Westerman
"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.193f5047d...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
Yes and that is the case with people who have narcolepsy
alt.support.narcolepsy
onno
Janice
ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>Hmmmph! Okay, I admit it. You're better than me at having your
>legs up in the air. ;-P
This image sure is sticking in your mind, Ian! Whateve would you make of
the OBE in which I was hanging upside down from the ceiling? :-P
Janice
>
>"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> schreef in bericht
>news:MPG.193f5047d...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> That's an interesting idea. If the disabling of one's critical
>> faculties and memory access are part of the same inhibitory
>> system which prevents us from moving while we're dreaming then
>> lucid dreams could be the result of that mechanism not working
>> properly in some people.
>
>Yes and that is the case with people who have narcolepsy
>alt.support.narcolepsy
Bringing up narcolepsy is a good point. People with narcolepsy can be
suddenly smitten by sleep-onset REM with the characteristic atonia, and
since they may well retain a fairly high degree of awareness when this
happens, they tend to get a lot of sleep paralysis experiences and
hypnagogic hallucinations. I've talked to a number of narcoleptics who
try to make the best of this by encouraging lucid dreams or OBEs when it
happens. Others, unfortunately, mostly get really scary sleep paralysis
experiences like Lorene's so it's not much fun for them.
Narcoleptics have an obvious pathology, with symptoms like excessive
daytime sleepiness, falling asleep at the drop of a hat, and collapsing
when under emotional stress. But they are only a very small subset of
the population. Plenty of people experience SP, OBEs, and LDs with no
associated pathology, so we shouldn't automatically think of such
experiences as inherently symptomatic of anything just because
narcoleptics have them too. Narcolepsy appears to be just one inroad to
them.
Ian H Spedding
<f5oBa.20926$rO.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
spirito...@earthlink.net says...
"OBErs do it one plane and then another."
"OBErs don't need a leg-up"
"Remember to wax before going OBE"
Ian H Spedding
JayAVo...@netscape.net says...
> In article <MPG.193f4df94...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>
> >Hmmmph! Okay, I admit it. You're better than me at having your
> >legs up in the air. ;-P
>
> This image sure is sticking in your mind, Ian! Whateve would you make of
> the OBE in which I was hanging upside down from the ceiling? :-P
That would depend on whether you were swinging from a chandelier.
:)
Janice
ian_sp...@lineone.net says...
>> This image sure is sticking in your mind, Ian! Whateve would you make of
>> the OBE in which I was hanging upside down from the ceiling? :-P
>
>That would depend on whether you were swinging from a chandelier.
No such luck. I've never had a chandelier in my bedroom.