Peter, permit me to offer one correction. An OBE is NOT an LD by definition, because if you know that you're dreaming, which defines an LD, you obviously know that you are NOT out-of-body. The two are mutually exclusive subjective states. To be more accurate semantically, we could say that an OBE is a dream with LD-like features, but lacking the awareness that it's a dream. Those features include a sense of immediacy, presence, awareness, and so on, which are themselves somewhat lacking in ordinary dreams. You know that consciousness has been altered, but you don't realize in what way. That's the essential OBE, in my experience. Personally, I don't have OBEs anymore. I quickly recognize that I'm in a dream.

The really interesting question to me is, why do dreamers have these lucioid (hey, a new word!) experiences, even though they aren't lucid? Why do they believe that they have been out-of-body upon awakening (or "returning to the body") instead of just dreaming? Other dreams don't leave this impression. Why are these dreams so different subjectively from the ordinary? As we know from our own experience, this impression is so powerful that it's very hard to convince anyone who experiences this type of dream that that's what it is.

I've given this a lot of thought, and it seems to me it's because these dreams occur usually from the waking state, as in a wake-initiated lucid dream, therefore we take into the dream some of our waking cognition and memory, like the memory of our bedroom, of being in our bed, etc., which often is the content of such a dream. We were awake so recently the continuum of consciousness feels unbroken. Therefore our consciousness must have moved to a different place, or now inhabits a different plane; we don't realize we have fallen asleep. Add to this the somatic experiences of entering REM, the vibrations and the loss of gravity that simulates floating, or lifting, etc., and the conviction of being OOB is firmly set.

Oops! This isn't an OBE thread, I realize, but since it came up, I felt this distinction needed to be made to avoid confusion. Also, I love to sound off on the OBE question. Please don't have a cow!

By the way, I personally now use the term WID(wake-initiated dream)for OBE, basically a WILD without the lucidity.

And now, back to the thread.

Paul

Eve, Stephen presented his data at Naropa. I don't think it's published except maybe as an abstract, and I couldn't tell you where. Basically it was about following the shape of a circle traced in the air with your finger with your eyes, while eye movement was recorded, in a lucid dream, when fully awake, and when using an imagined finger with the eyes closed. The circle was equally circular in the LD and when awake, badly made with imagination only. Or something like that. It shows that dreams are not just tricks of the imagination, but true perceptual experiences. I'm sure I'm not saying it quite right.

Paul

Hi Paul and Eve,

Here's a link to the abstract that shows Stephen's data on comparison 'tween dreaming, perception, and imagination:

http://lucidity.com/Tucson2000abs.html

Imagine that! Better yet, just dream it. ;) Keelin

Dear Paul,

I understand what Stephen has in mind for a robust shared dream experiment. First, Worsley, et al. proved that lucidity occurs during REM by using left-right eye signals to show that they were conscious. This is an objective proof recorded and duplicated in the lab using EOG (Electrooculogram) sensors. Shared lucid dreaming also requires an objective proof, but much more rigorous. The experiment requires monitoring two dreamers eye movements during REM. To facilitate a synchronized lucid state they need to be given cues simultaneously. This part of the experiment is possible with modified NovaDreamers or Dreamlights. During the time they are lucid and presumably (ah-hem) carrying out their shared lucid dream, their eye movements are recorded to a computer file. If both of the oneironauts are sharing a dream and following a dream finger left-to-right then their physical eye movements would also be synchronized (albeit reversed) in time. Analysis of the data file and graphing the subjects eye movement as a function of time would reveal a synchronized eye pattern if they were sharing a dream.

The experiment would need to be carried out several times to accept or reject the hypothesis that a shared consciousness can occur between two humans while in a lucid dream state. Rejecting a hypothesis as being false when it should be accepted true is called a type-1 error. Levels of significance on the order of 0.005 to 0.01 (0.5% to 1%) would be needed to accept the hypothesis as being true. The level of significance figures mean that only a 0.5% to 1% chance exists that we will reject the correct hypothesis. To get to these levels of significance (which get smaller and smaller when you're trying to get an extreme hypothesis accepted as true) means that many test samples need to be collected. There are numerous ways to statistically test the hypothesis (Gaussian, one-tailed, etc.) which clinical researchers are well familiar with.

What is sobering about all this is it will take many tests to statistically prove, using the scientific method, that shared consciousness really exists. The good news is that the technology exists to carry out this experiment. The bad news is it will need to be done many times under controlled conditions, and even that does not mean it is true and will be accepted. So until such experiments get funded (in an unclassified research setting) all we can do is discuss our opinions which is still an interesting exercise.

Regards,

Scot Stride

Paul:

Thanks for the correction on OBE's/LD's up there.

I agree that they're not the same thing; my statement was more of a typo than anything else, I suppose. My bad...

OBE's are indeed just dreams, and lucidity would, if nothing else, negate the experience. I do like the term "WID," though -- fairly clever and to the point!

Peter

Scot, the problem I foresee with the shared LD experiements is not that positive results won't be accepted, but that negative results won't be accepted. Specifically, if a study failed to reveal any proof of shared consciousness, as I believe will be the case, critics could always claim that the subjects simply lacked the "talent", or "degree of conscious awareness", or some other skill or ability to successfully establish such a link, which would have validity!

So, what's the endpoint of the experiment in case of no evidence for shared consciousness? What would it take to convince the world that there is no such thing?

Paul

Dear Paul,

I say skeptics, critics and pessimists be dammed. "No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit" (HK). In this case I feel the skeptics would take issue with a positive proof not a negative one. Yes, we can't prove a negative, but we can get pretty close. Negative proof does not upset the applecart'our blissful ignorance rolls on. Positive proof, of a very high confidence, means other doors start to crack open, and stay open. These are doors the skeptics may want kept closed because their opening could disrupt society and the status quo. Who wins if it can be proven that humans can communicate on a transcendental level? We all do! And if it can't be proven, but the results look promising, that opens up other topics of research which takes us beyond the anecdotal evidence that's overflowing on the Internet. Frankly, there may be no "endpoint" to the experiment. The entire exercise may be just trying it to have fun!!

Regards,

Scot Stride

Peter, Paul, Scot and others, I would understand it like that: Negative proof cannot mean more than "this time we simply didn't make it, for what reason ever!" - You must not forget, there is already plenty of anecdotal evidence! Any positive result - weak or strong - is definitely further motivation and scientific justification for increased efforts to get the ultimate (???) proof.

Is it possible at all to proove that some phenomenon doesn't exist? If you had a suitable theory you maybe could exclude the existance of a certain phenomenon using mathematical methods assuming that the theory holds. But there is always a very high probability that your theory is not an absolute truth but valid for certain boundary conditions only. The only correct and safe statement can therefore be: "well, I haven't observed anything like this yet..." - and some might frankly add: "...and I wouldn't stand the consequences of such an observation either!"

Let's not get stuck by any fixed ideas. Theories develop, knowledge increases and consciousness is a vast unknown field. There will always be some Einstein, Heisenberg, Plank, Pauli, Schrödinger... to shaken common theories and to predict phenomena which have only been (lucidly?) dreamed about before!

Paul, why not to accept the equation "OBE = LD" ? Isn't the necessary condition for a LD to be in a REM state and to know and be able to reflect your state by means of your waking consciousness? Most people talking about OBEs tell that they knew and have been able to reflect their state - most probably a REM state - by means of their waking consciousness. The question, whether these people do believe to be really out of their body does not seem relevant in this respect, if this judgement is independent of their state.

"OBE = Dream" is justified only if people do exclude the possibility to be out of their body in their waking state but accept this interpretation during their OBE. And, of course, if they aren't lucid.

Concerning the reality of an OBE I would first differentiate carefully. Even if in 99% of all cases the reality of OBEs cannot be proved, a generalisation must not be made (see my previous post). From my own experience I know that there is not only one kind of OBE. There are many different kinds and it is very difficult to differentiate between them. There is the whole bandwidth of cases between obvious fake situations with an environment and a physical body which are highly unstable and manipulable and fully realistic scenes with the true (???) physical body which can be studied from mind-blowing angles never imagined before and at an even microscopic level of detail making observations which can be verified later.

Skeptics often try to oversimplify and to ignore that fact. They try to come up with simple rules like "OBE is nothing more than a dream" or "if OBE is real then it is very easy to prove that".

Show a Learjet to two scientists living in 1800. One is a visionary and he says "I was dreaming of such objects. I saw them flying in the sky!". The other one replies: "Impossible. Nothing can fly unless it is lighter than air! But if you were right after all and this thing was really able to fly then it should be very easy to prove it to me! Go and fly!". The other one tries for a few minutes to open the door without having a key. "You see", the skeptic says triumphantly, "Give it up, you'd rather accept the laws of nature. This is a perfect proof for me!"

Regards, Wilfried

Hi Peter, Thanks for Clarification. Looks like you are on the same page basically regarding our extistence continuing in some cohesive state after the physical beta one. Just that you need more scientific proof which is probably a ways off. Even with LDs and the eye monitoring or circular motion proof one can't proof that they felt textures, passed thru hard objects and sensed the penetration, or spoke to dream characters as if one does when truly awake beta wise, but we all know it is possible on this forum because we have actually done it. That is what I was driving at.

Best Dreaming! Pat

Scot, you have a very strong bias that shared consciousness is possible, that's obvious. To favor a cherished belief is certainly a human characteristic, even among scientists. But to say "skeptics be damned" is not very productive, when seeking the truth. Skepticism is essential to scientific advancement. Are we seeking truth, or are we closed to any ideas but our own? We need to be open to the possibility of being wrong in our beliefs.

A key characteristic of any valid scientific theory is the potential of it to be proven WRONG by a well designed experiement. I think this is even more critical to good science than the experiement that proves it correct. If the potential to be proven wrong does not exist, it's not a valid theory. If you couldn't possibly disprove a theory, it falls outside the limits of real science, and into the realm of pseudoscience.

My question to you is in the spirit of making this effort real science. The effort required to do what you suggest is major. I would like to participate, but not if we're not strictly adhering to scientific method. It would be a waste of time.

It's easy to see how certain results would prove this phenomenon, but can you tell me how your experiment could be designed so that negative results would allow the phenomenon to be rejected? That's really important!

Paul

Kausel, I am open to any experiment that can prove that some kinds of OBEs may be excursions of consciousness beyond the body. Lacking hard data, I have only my own personal experience to go on. I don't take anecdotal evidence as truth.

It was not an easy leap for me to accept that my own OBE type experiences we're really a unique kind of dream. I loved being OOB. I had dozens of such experiences. I mapped out my astral plane in great detail. I knew it as well as normal reality, knew how to travel, find friendly guides, you name it. I was into it up to my eyebrows.

I no longer subscribe to this interpretation, because there is a much simpler explanation, one that has scientific data to support it (see the article on TLI website). Not that this makes the experience any less fascinating. In fact, if someone can prove I have truly been out-of-body, I'll be the first in line. I miss those mysteries.

Paul

Paul, what are hard data? What is hard enough for you? Are you disappointed that your OBEs didn't give you such "hard data"? Didn't you get at least a few indications at some rare occurances that were strong enough not to disregard them completely and keep them as (your) mysteries?

What you wrote about disproving theories is absolutely right, and if you refer to the "theory" that OBEs are real then your conclusions perfectly apply and its easy to disprove but impossible to prove this simplified statement. If you start the other way round testing the "theory" OBEs are fake then you will never be able to prove it (you can do so only for a finite number of occasions) while you might eventually be able to obtain some evidence or even more or less "hard" data that the statement might be wrong.

So, accepting that the first statement has already been disproved (OBEs are certainly not always real) we can work on disproving the second one - according to what you wrote, a much more joyful and fascinating exercise!

By the way, we are talking about generalisations or opinions and not about real theories. We are far away from having an OBE theory.

But there is a widely accepted theory or even more. By making such experiments the whole materialistic view of the world is being under test. And this view of the world tries to exclude experiences like OBEs. Any statistically firm observation can shaken the fundaments of this view even if boundary conditions are not known yet and repeatability is questionable.

Many people are reporting experiences which contradict the material view of the world. Few of them are critical enough and many of them report merely what they would wish having experienced. Often a less probable explanation is believed when a much more probable explanation contradicts ones beliefs.

I don't want to believe anything. I neither think that the materialistic view is any absolute truth nor do I accept blindly what any Guru or church is telling or preaching. I want to make experiences myself and I try to fairly compare statistical probabilities for possible explanations.

If I had read one unknown symbol out of possible 10 during an OBE correctly (I haven't made such experiments yet and am probably not even able to at this moment) then the probability is 10% that I got this result just by chance. So this is not yet a very strong disprove of materialism. But if I had read and remembered a 12 digit number correctly then I had already got strong evidence for a spiritual nature of the world. If such or even stronger evidence is reported by other trustworthy people, too, then it is well worth to accept spirituality as a "working theory" to eventually approach the "hard data" disproving the purly materialistic paradigm. This would return the lost mysteries to many of us!

Take care, Wilfried.

Kausel, I have systematically tested my own experiences in OBEs, regarding the ability to read digital clocks, printed material, etc. I have checked my sleeping self to see what I was wearing (once I was sleeping in a tuxedo--obviously not my real sleeping self). In all cases my experiences were typical of how the mind works in dreams. My own bias at the time was that OBEs were real! Nevertheless, this was hard evidence to me in favor of the dream concept for OBEs.

However, I would not expect to convince anyone else on the basis of my experience, so it's not scientific hard evidence. Hard evidence is, for example, Stephen's proof that LDs actually do occur. It's observable and reproducible. It's there in the graphs, on paper, for all to see. Basically it's undeniable, and so anyone opposed to the reality of LDs had no choice but to alter his position.

Now, to prove a theory of OBE or shared consciousness validity would require that kind of data. The hard part in putting any idea to the test is to find or design the right experiment. Once you have that, the whole thing becomes fairly simple. Proving the truth or falsity of the general theory of relativity was easy once the experiment to look at bending starlight from behind a solar eclipse was designed. Likewise, we need simple tests for OBE or shared dream consciousness, the results of which will prove or disprove their reality. Then, whatever the results, we need to adjust our thinking accordingly. My posts to Scot above were in that spirit. I did not intend any debate on the truth or untruth of any idea, nor of the scientific method.

Seek the truth,

Paul

Paul, its often just as you are telling but sometimes it can be different. Don't ask me why.

We are dealing with human beings and their capabilities and not with heavy masses and their gravity! This makes a huge difference. Can you control your moods like a sun controls its gravitational force? Can you control your thoughts like a sun controls its light radiation? Are your skills and your motivations perfectly equal every day, morning and evening, day and night?

And what makes you so sure that it is nothing more than your own personal will which is required to become lucid, to have a true OBE, to really meet someone else on any non-physical plane?

It is obviously the abysmal complexity of that organ called brain which lets you attribute all strange experiences to it. But what if the goal of evolution has never been the perfect single individuum but rather the perfect union of all consciousnesses, just like our brain is the union of all its nerve cells?

If you think our consciousness is just a product of the interaction of the neurons in your brain and evolution has optimized these interactions in order to create the one who is looking out of your eyes, then it shouldn't be too absurd to reflect on the possibility that some greater consciousness might exist supported by the interactions between billions of individual consciousnesses.

I am speculating now but didn't you say you are missing the mysteries?

Let me return now to the "right" experiment. In case there is some truth in the theory of a common consciousness, it seems important to me to investigate possible motivations and aims of this common selfhood. This might help to find boundary conditions required to make true OBEs controllable and repeatable.

Seekin the truth is what I dedicate myself to, glad you are doing the same!

Wilfried.

Kausel, if you are suggesting we can't apply the same rules of research when humans are involved as we do in, say, physical science, let me state that there is no more rigorous science today than psychology. Psychologic research is held to the highest methodologic and statistical standards, and yet it deals with those very isssues of mind, consciousness, and behavior of unpredictable humans. It's quite possible to perform experiments on mind as rigorous as those in physics.

I don't hold to any of the beliefs you ascribe to me in the rest of your post. What makes you think that I do?

As for doing more advanced study into the phenomenon of shared consciousness, why expend the effort if it isn't really possible? First things first.

That's really all I want to invest in this particular discussion. Thanks for the thoughts.

Paul

Paul

..So we're done with OBE's?

Oh, thank heaven, now I don't have to put on my moderator cap and ask what happened to the discussion of synchronicity!

And now back to our show?

Peter

So, what is synchronicity, exactly? Is it like I dream it, then it happens for real? I have personally not experienced that. Is it a common phenomenon among oneironauts?

Paul

Hi Paul,

Well that's one form of syncronicity, dreaming and then having it show up in. It can of course occur completly on the waking plane as well. Having a sense to walk a diferent way home or feeling pulled to go somewhere and running into a friend one hasn't seen in years. Have we not all had a similar experience at one time or another.

Like last week: In one night, I had a dream about my ex-wife Jody (who I hadn't dreamed of in at least ten years), another in which I was thinking about moving to Los Angeles, and a third in which I was conversing with a young dark-haired woman who was smiling very happily.

The very day of these dreams at a gathering that evening a young dark-haired woman introduced herself to the group as having moved recently from Los Angeles, that caught my attention!

But what really amazed me, (and am very happy to report that I stayed calm witnessing this) is that when she came to purchase some literature (I was manning the table that night) and we spoke a bit, she smiled a big smile and there she was, the very person I'd seen smiling in the dream!

Had not made the connection totally because she had been quite serious during the meeting, not smiling at all.

This occurence happened after there had been some discussion on this topic on this thread, so obviously the idea of syncronicity "was in the air" as a possibility. It was the most syncronistic dream I'd ever had so far.

Glad we didn't shout: "Oh my God I saw you smiling in my dream last night just the way you're smiling at me right now!"

And if she hadn't run from the room by then, dropping to my knees, declaring.

"Don't you see what this means?! We're meant to be together...FOREVER!"

Yes, we're glad we didn't do that.

Daniel

Sorry folks! I did not want to offend someone! If I did then I really apologise! I didn't consider my posts to be off-topic either as I think that true synchronicity, shared dreams and real OBEs have to be treated together.

Paul, I know that psychologists do follow scientific rules and I know that they are applying statistical methods which are far beyond of what I understand now. But just like any research on LD requires people having the capability to enter this state, research on OBEs, shared dreaming or synchronicity requires people who are able to produce such phenomena at will, if possible under laboratory conditions.

Before any experiment to prove or disprove whatever can be designed, it is essential to study the necessary boundary conditions for such phenomena to occur. How will you apply any statistical method or objective measurement technique if you are not able to produce the phenomenon in the first place?

All the best, and much success in all your undertakings, joyful dreams and all the mysteries you would like to experience!

Wilfried.

It seems like much that is synchronous can be explained by coincidence. In the vast array of cognitive and physical experiences we have on a daily basis, such occurences are not that unlikely from time to time. The question is, if there is another basis other than coincidence, why don't these things happen more often?

Always the skeptic,

Paul

Paul,

A synchronicity is an event or experience that has a meaningful coincidence that is beyond chance, statistically. Of course it would be difficult to calculate the statistics of a particular experience like this. I suppose a synchronicity is an external event which indicates some kind of casuality with ones mind, feelings or internal experience. All I can do is give an example of what I consider types of synchronicity in my life:

In a meditation I asked the primordial dreamtime to give me any signs which may have significance to me in some way, whether its answered prayer or a better understanding of synchronicity. I got some mental images of a deep purple color(vague), a Celtic cross, and the number 12 written on the surface of a basketball. Later that evening, say 5 hours later, as I'm flipping the channels not knowing or planning what to watch, I stop and become interested in a special on Mystics and early Christianity. In one scene is a woman in purple who symbolizes Mary Magdalene and the archetype of the Divine Mother/Bride of Christ. I felt this was meaningful to me based on my own interests in Gnostic Christianity. In the next few scenes it shows the old Cathar Roselyn Chapel with the old Celtic cross on it. Ok...

Then I change channels and watch some show on this 12 year old kid who is a champion body builder, very famous. At the end of that show, the scene is this 12 year old balancing on a basketball with one foot doing karate kicks.

Had I not spontaneoulsy watched these TV show, my awareness would't have caught the significance of the symbols which appeared in my earlier meditation. They had significance for me, but maybe not for anyone else watching these shows.

In another more profound synchronicity, it happened after a lucid dream where I asked the wisdom of the Buddha to show me something or a teaching. I was shown a large gold pick up truck turning a corner on a city street. At the time it seemed insignificant UNTIL the next few days as I was driving in traffic, the same type of gold pick up truck came and pulled in front of me, at the same time my CD just turned on by itself playing a song that for me communicated a message of healing my heart. This had significance for me.

My postulation was that the occurrence of synchronicities will happen with more power when created through lucid dreams, as opposed to other waking states of consciousness. This was based on Tibetan Buddhist Dream Yoga concepts.

This past weekend I attended a Dream Yoga/Lucid Dreaming seminar by Alan Wallace and asked him why the lucid dream state is considered more powerful. He said that it is because it is a more subtle and refined state of awareness, sort of like a laser beam as opposed to a diffuse flashlight. It has more focused power when directed by the mind.

Eve

Eve, I'm reading a book called "24 Hour Lucid Dreaming", which isn't about lucid dreaming at all, but about becoming aware of 'The Dreaming', an aboriginal(among others) belief regarding subliminal, fleeting experience that presages actual reality. Is that what you are referring to when you talk about 'the primordial Dreamtime'?

I don't understand the nature of these images you receive upon request. Are you in a trance state of some kind? Are these just flashes of imagination, mental images, or true visions?

I'm quite sure I've never experienced these things myslef, at least not that I recall.

Paul

Paul,

The book you mention, 24 Hr. Lucid Dreaming is also the one I have by Arnold Mindell, Ph. D. I also read the one called "The Dreammakers Apprentice", where he gives some exercises to do in a relaxed state related to tapping into the "Dreamtime". The imagery I receive is like a visual image in my minds eye, and sometimes its a single word or phrase. It doesn't always work though, and as far as I know, my mental state-- Im just practicing shamatha. I'm simply relaxing focusing on the breath, then letting go of any thinking and just observing what comes up. It is a meditation method that Alan Wallace teaches as well. Maybe he will teach us some good meditation techniques at the Retreat this summer.

Eve

I thought it might indeed be the same idea, thanks for responding. I thought, however, that he uses the expression 'Dreamtime' meaning actual dreaming, while 'The Dreaming' referred to that pre-awareness experience. I must have it backwards. In any case, it's interesting reading. There's so much to learn.

Yes, I hope Alan will teach us something useful for lucid dreaming. I don't meditate in any traditional way, but I do practice inner body awareness throughout the day. It keeps me grounded in the moment, but doesn't really lead me into altered states or specific imagery. I am really awful at visualization exercises; lots of room for improvement there. I envy anyone with talent in that area.

Paul