Can Telepathy Occur During Dreams and OBEs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Albert George
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the exploration of telepathy and out-of-body experiences (OBEs), sparked by a British documentary on sleep. Participants express varying beliefs about telepathy, questioning its scientific validity and the existence of evidence beyond anecdotal claims. A scientist shares a personal experience related to dream telepathy, emphasizing the difficulty in distinguishing between coincidence and genuine psychic phenomena. The conversation highlights the challenges of scientifically testing telepathy, with suggestions for structured experiments to assess correlation between dreams and external stimuli. Participants debate the neurological basis of OBEs, referencing studies that link them to brain function rather than paranormal activity. The need for rigorous scientific evidence is stressed, with some advocating for open-mindedness toward unexplained phenomena while others caution against dismissing established scientific explanations. Overall, the thread reflects a blend of skepticism and curiosity about the potential for telepathy and the nature of consciousness, urging for more research into these complex topics.
  • #31


So it was still densely compacted even after I broke the one sentence up into three different sentences? :) Again, the further discussion is interesting, thanks. I tried to make some points- one which pftest expressed better-
pftest said:
The ability to induce an OBE is not a proper argument to support the position that an OBE is not actually "out there".

Another point was that I imagined there were reasonable grounds for questioning disturbances of TPJ, and felt the link might support this. Firstly because TPJ disturbance may not be involved in every case (again, I think your explanation of how this was done without seeming to involve TPJ disturbance, and using the glove example, was better than mine). And secondly because it noted that healthy people were tested in this instance , rather than the pathological cases of previous tests.

And to answer your question, no, when I said ‘results from’ I didn’t mean ‘requires’, and I think it was this sort of confusion that I had hoped to clarify - hope I’ve expressed this better now.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


fuzzyfelt said:
I tried to make some points- one which pftest expressed better-
The ability to induce an OBE is not a proper argument to support the position that an OBE is not actually "out there".
Any demonstration of a purely neurological cause for the experience is obviously a proper argument to support the position that there is no "out there" OBE. Any demonstration of the spherical nature of the Earth is a proper argument to support the position the Earth is not flat.
 
  • #33


zoobyshoe said:
Any demonstration of a purely neurological cause for the experience is obviously a proper argument to support the position that there is no "out there" OBE. Any demonstration of the spherical nature of the Earth is a proper argument to support the position the Earth is not flat.

One cannot prove that there are no genuine OBEs. We can show evidence that OBEs can induced and explained using conventional science. We can also cite the lack of evidence to support other explanations for OBEs.

A more appropriate analogy might be that proof the Earth is round is not proof that there are no flat planets. Likewise, the ability to induce sensations artificially is not evidence that those sensations don't occur otherwise due to real, tactile experiences.
 
Last edited:
  • #34


Ivan Seeking said:
Likewise, the ability to induce sensations artificially is not evidence that those sensations don't occur otherwise due to real, tactile experiences.
The "sensation" here is lack of sensation: the person's sense of proprioception is shut off or somehow disconnected from consciousness.

I am sure you've heard of the phantom limb phenomenon in amputees. They feel the limb is still there because their internal model of the limb is still there, and the neurons where that model is located are being stimulated by nearby neurons in the absence of authentic stimuli from the outside.

Strangely, the opposite can happen: the internal model can be damaged such that a person can not sense a limb they still have as part of their body. The real limb becomes strange and grotesque to them. They "disown" it, and can't account for it.

Best reference for that is The Man Who Fell Out of Bed, chapter 4 of The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat in which Sacks tells the story of a stroke patient who woke with no proprioception in one leg. Unable to feel any ownership of the limb, he regarded it as a strange, foreign, horrible object, and threw it out of his bed. But, of course, he went with it.

Sacks, himself, years later had the same experience of his own leg after he damaged it badly and was recuperating in a hospital. (He tells the whole story in A Leg To Stand On)It is, apparently, not uncommon for people's internal model, their proprioception, of damaged limbs to fade away. Sacks says it's not that you feel the limb is missing, rather it's as if you never had a limb there and can't account for the strange, unearthly thing you find attached to you. He describes all this in rich detail in the book: a kind of purgatory of 12 days before the sensation started to come back bit by bit, during which had a major identity crisis based on his now distorted body image.

The "real, tactile" experience here is your internal sense of touch. It's not being "stimulated" to reall a memory here, it's being shut off or otherwise disconnected or made quiescent.
 
  • #35


zoobyshoe said:
The "sensation" here is lack of sensation: the person's sense of proprioception is shut off or somehow disconnected from consciousness.

I'm lost here, with this and discussions of phantom limbs etc., are you still discussing TPJ disturbance?
 
  • #36


Ivan Seeking said:
One cannot prove that there are no genuine OBEs. We can show evidence that OBEs can induced and explained using conventional science. We can also cite the lack of evidence to support other explanations for OBEs.

And then we simply apply Occam's Razor to shave away the "other explanations" for OBE's, and conclude that there are no "genuine" OBE's. Once cannot prove that there are no genuine OBE's in the same sense that one cannot prove that there is no sasquatch, yeti, loch ness monster, aliens visiting earth, secret "new world order", fairies, dragons, dodo birds alive today, leprechauns, and/or mermaids.

We have a perfectly reasonable explanation, based on well established scientific principles, which reasonably explains all the claims of OBE's. Without any further evidence (which you admitted we don't have in posts #4, #16, and #17), there is no reason to consider any "other explanations".

Why has this thread lasted this long? This thread should have been locked after the first post or at least after Zz's response.
 
  • #37


NeoDevin said:
And then we simply apply Occam's Razor to shave away the "other explanations" for OBE's, and conclude that there are no "genuine" OBE's.

Occams razor is a rule of thumb, not a scientific principle that can be used to draw conclusions.
 
Last edited:
  • #38


Ivan Seeking said:
Occams razor is a rule of thumb, not a scientific principle that can be used to draw conclusions.

Well in that case you can't disprove that it is actually invisible faeries holding us down and keeping the planets in orbit.
 
  • #39


NeoDevin said:
Well in that case you can't disprove that it is actually invisible faeries holding us down and keeping the planets in orbit.

Correct. We can only cite evidence to the contrary, and the lack of evidence to support the assertion.

Long ago it was believed that the angels pushed the planets along on their celestial spheres. Then Newton came along and rotated the positions of the angels by ninety degrees.
 
  • #40


Ivan Seeking said:
Correct. We can only cite evidence to the contrary, and the lack of evidence to support the assertion.

So you would contend that genuine OBE's are as worthy of consideration as invisible faeries holding things down? I can live with that.
 
  • #41


NeoDevin said:
So you would contend that genuine OBE's are as worthy of consideration as invisible faeries holding things down? I can live with that.

We have anecdotal evidence for OBE's, but as far as I know, we don't even have anecdotal evidence for fairies. So, no, they are not the same. The question in my mind is whether we have compelling anecdotal evidence for any claims of OBEs.

This almost seems like a religion to you [and many others here]. Why? Why are you determined to have a definite opinion?
 
Last edited:
  • #42


The assertion of invisible fairies was designed to not be falsifiable. If a person really believes that they experience genuine OBEs, then they could be tested and the claim confirmed [evidence presented to support the claim] or falsified [the person is not able to provide information about a remote location as claimed]. But, like fairies, we could never prove that there are no genuine OBEs even if no one claimed to experience them. We can reduce - generalize - the claim to one that can't be falsified.
 
Last edited:
  • #44


fuzzyfelt said:
I'm lost here, with this and discussions of phantom limbs etc., are you still discussing TPJ disturbance?

Ivan is comparing the OBE to other sorts of hallucinations, the hallucination of a sound, for example, or the hallucination of something in the visual field, saying that the ability to induce such an hallucination does not disprove real sounds or real visual experiences. His train of reasoning is: just because there can be a false OBE doesn't mean there are no real experiences of this sensation. I am pointing out the flaw in that train of reasoning, which is that the proprioceptive failure that is required for an OBE is not a stimulation of a sensation, it is the failure of a sensation: the failure of proprioception to give you internal information about your body. When you have no feel for where your limbs are in relation to each other, no feel for your body position as a whole, it is a situation of sensory deprivation. And it is from sensory deprivation that hallucinations easily arise. Failure of proprioception is not the hallucination of something that isn't there, it's the inability to sense something that is there. It is analogous to blindness or deafness.

Phantoms limbs and their opposite (the inability to sense the position of a limb which is still there) are further examples of the importance of proprioception, and the sensory and cognitive confusions that result when it is disturbed. The inability to feel the position of a limb results in a massive crisis of self-image, and emotional and cognitive disownership of the limb. By extension, during the OBE where complete sense of body ownership is lost, you often have people hallucinating the sight of themselves from outside.
 
  • #45


Ivan Seeking said:
Occams razor is a rule of thumb, not a scientific principle that can be used to draw conclusions.

In Principia Mathematica Newton laid out some "Rules of Reasoning" which are essentially a restatement of Occam's Razor:

RULE 1

We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

RULE II

Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

RULE III

The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

RULE IV

In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Newton-princ.html
 
  • #46


The thing about OBEs is that
1] we do have anecdotal evidence AND
2] there is some case for repeatability, reproducibility and falsifiability.

So it falls within the realm of scientific study.
 
  • #47


What Ivan Seeking says makes a lot of sense to me. It seems the only sensible approach. We can't hold a definite opinion on the basis of heresay evidence, we would have to verify it empirically. This means running an experiment and obtaining statistically significant and reproducible results.

Unfortunately in physics no such experiment is possible. In consciousness studies we can't even prove that people have in-body experiences. Elesewhere there is even a popular view by which bodies are illusory and OBE's the only kind of experience we can have.

Presumably Christians and those with similar beliefs have no choice but to believe in OBE's, (or is it because they do not believe in them that our bodies must come back to life at the Resurection?), but I'm quite sure that there's no way to demonstrate that they're possible or impossible. It seems to be just the 'other minds' problem in another guise.

I recently read Carlos Castenada's Tales of Power and would highly recommend to anyone looking into these things. His Don Juan, (who can shape-shift, teleport and other cool stuff as some Zen adepts are said to be able to do), gives the sorcerers explanation for our ability to act at times as if we are in Neo's Matrix. It would be because we are.

I think this would be the implication of OBE's, if such things are possible, but I can't see how their possiblity could ever be proved except by having one.
 
  • #48


Zooby, thanks for the reference.

Dave, then where are the studies?
 
  • #49


NeoDevin said:
Zooby, thanks for the reference.
You're welcome.

Dave, then where are the studies?
I just finished a book by V.S. Ramachandran, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness in which he mentions that the drug Ketamine can produce OBE's. I googled "ketamine out of body experience" and got a few interesting links on the first page which you can do yourself if you're interested. This would be a relatively reliable way to produce the experience at will, however it doesn't seem to be a "clean" OBE: the person feels drugged and high, and it is mixed up in many cases with the travel through a tunnel experience of the "Near Death" experience. Ketamine was developed in the early 1960's and was used as a field anesthetic in Viet Nam for a while, but it was discontinued specifically because of this "OBE" side effect.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the same book Ramachandran mentions the following odd case that has an obvious bearing here:

"Shai Azoulai and I recently saw a patient with a right parieto-occipital tumor who constantly experienced a visual hallucination of a twin or doppelganger always about a foot to his left and front. The twin mimed his movements in perfect synchrony. When I irrigated his left ear canal with cold water (stimulating the vestibular system) the twin was seen to 'jump around' and 'shrink in size' to a midget. Here is yet another reminder of how tenuous our sense of being anchored to our body really is, even though we usually take it to be one of the axioms of our existence."

p.150

This irrigating the ear with cold water is a technique used in rural India to diagnose seizures since it will trigger a seizure in some epileptics. This is probably where Ramachandran picked it up. He mentions having tried it on a stroke patient who was paralyzed one one side but seemed unaware of that; to be hallucinating that the paralyzed side was working perfectly well. (This happens in some cases, this woman wasn't unique.) Irrigating the contralateral ear brought her to awareness of the paralysis, snapped her out of the hallucination for a time, but she later reverted. Perhaps he tried it here hoping it would make the man's doppelganger completely disappear, but he changed it to a midget instead.
 
  • #50


zoobyshoe said:
The Out-Of-Body experience has been demonstrated to be a neurological phenomenon, a temporary failure, or blocking of, the sense of proprioception coupled with a release hallucination. It's been known for decades that it commonly happens to some people diagnosed with seizures, and also to some people who suffer from Migraines, and it was specifically located to an area on the temporo-parietal junction a couple years ago when it was induced in a woman with epilepsy who was about to undergo epilepsy surgery. Another class of people who seem to report frequent OBE's is heavy pot smokers, I recently found out.

zoobyshoe said:
The "sensation" here is lack of sensation: the person's sense of proprioception is shut off or somehow disconnected from consciousness.

zoobyshoe said:
is comparing the OBE to other sorts of hallucinations, the hallucination of a sound, for example, or the hallucination of something in the visual field, saying that the ability to induce such an hallucination does not disprove real sounds or real visual experiences...

Phantoms limbs and their opposite (the inability to sense the position of a limb which is still there) are further examples of the importance of proprioception, and the sensory and cognitive confusions that result when it is disturbed.

The TPJ was mentioned as the specific location of proprioception, yet in the information you linked to about limbs (Ehrsson's virtual hand experiment) brain activity was mentioned as occurring in the premotor cortex.

As well, the results of further studies of TPJ disturbance could not distinguish between an arrest and extra noise in the TPJ-

'We can postulate at least two mechanisms for
the interfering effect of TMS, either of which could explain our
results. First, TMS could have added extra noise to the neural
signals that provide input to a body/non-body discrimination pro-
cess. Additional input noise would impair discrimination. Second,
TMS could have transiently arrested the test-for-fit process itself,
reducing the difference between body and non-body processing.
Our results cannot distinguish between these two mechanisms of
action'

http://www.manostsakiris.googlepages.com/TsakirisNeuropsychologia.pdf

Also, Ehrsson's repeatable experiment upon healthy people, which is anecdotally more like an anecdotally reported OBE (than the partial effects of Blanke's magnetic disturbance on an epileptic patient's TPJ) and which involves virtual sensations, seems more likely to involve more sensations than less.

Thus, I think the evidence of lack of sensation as sole cause is inconclusive or irrelevant.
(Wrote something like this yesterday, but have had computer problems.)
 
Last edited:
  • #51


fuzzyfelt said:
The TPJ was mentioned as the specific location of proprioception...
No, it is mentioned as the specific location where OBE's were triggered by stimulation with an electrode. Proprioception, as far as I know is generalized throughout the parietal lobes and is also processed in the cerebellum. I have never heard it attributed to one spot. Proprioception may be got to in some different way by stimulating some other spot on the parietal lobes: touch them somewhere else and the person may feel like their nose is pointed sideways, who knows?

As well, the results of further studies of TPJ disturbance could not distinguish between an arrest and extra noise in the TPJ-

'We can postulate at least two mechanisms for
the interfering effect of TMS, either of which could explain our
results. First, TMS could have added extra noise to the neural
signals that provide input to a body/non-body discrimination pro-
cess. Additional input noise would impair discrimination. Second,
TMS could have transiently arrested the test-for-fit process itself,
reducing the difference between body and non-body processing.
Our results cannot distinguish between these two mechanisms of
action'

http://www.manostsakiris.googlepages.com/TsakirisNeuropsychologia.pdf...

...Thus, I think the evidence of lack of sensation as sole cause is inconclusive or irrelevant.
(Wrote something like this yesterday, but have had computer problems.)
Whether it's one mechanism or the other with the TMS is not too important since they have merely "suggested" a test-for-fit process here, not exactly proven one. What I would like to know is whether any of the test subjects felt their hand had turned into a spoon after TMS at the TPJ. (Such things can happen: a girl I know said she felt like she had turned into a giant muffin after eating mushrooms. Carlos Castenada reports that Don Juan slowly talked him into "becoming" a crow after smoking something, as well.)

There is clearly some higher function somewhere making decisions about what to believe in the event of sensory discrepancies but the proposal of the OBE as a disturbance of the test-for-fit process is shaky when you ask where the rubber hand (or spoon) is in the wild OBE. Also, what corresponds to the tactile deception?

The OBE is a great deal more dramatic and comprehensive than adopting a rubber hand and also happens without elaborate lab illusions: it happens spontaneously to people as they are drifting off to sleep with their eyes closed. As you may know from accounts, the experience is often preceded by a loud buzzing and strong sense of the body vibrating. This is obviously some kind of neuronal hyperactivity, be it a simple partial seizure or the kind of less organized "noise" that precedes the expanding area of spreading cortical depression in migraine aura. The loss of sense of body follows this, and is obviously something akin to post-ictal Todd's Paralysis or cortical depression in the wake of a scintillating scotoma happening in brain areas responsible for proprioception. Once it is paralyzed or depressed, some other part(s) of the brain try to make sense of this come up with the interesting "solution" to the problem which is that consciousness has left the body, complete with corroborative hallucinations of autoscopy and/or of travel.

Also, Ehrsson's repeatable experiment upon healthy people, which is anecdotally more like an anecdotally reported OBE (than the partial effects of Blanke's magnetic disturbance on an epileptic patient's TPJ) and which involves virtual sensations, seems more likely to involve more sensations than less.
Blanke did not use magnetic stimulation. He was using depth implanted electrodes which can both send and receive signals. They do this to try and provoke the seizures from which the patient normally suffers in an effort to specifically locate the problem seizure focus which will be removed in surgery. For obvious reasons they want to limit what they remove as much as possible. Depth implanted electrodes are an invasive procedure and are only used on people going to have surgery anyway.
I don't see why you find the rubber hand to be more like anecdotally reported OBE's.
 
  • #52


zoobyshoe said:
No, it is mentioned as the specific location where OBE's were triggered by stimulation with an electrode.

OK, that is a relief! I had been confused by the words and run-ons and thought you were saying the OBE phenomenon or proprioception is specifically located at the TPJ, which seemed a big leap. Rather you only meant that electrodes in that spot caused something-‘failure’, ‘blocking’…- affecting something around the area which has something to do with proprioception. It took me a while to get that!

And, sorry, electrodes in Blanke’s case, and magnetism used in a further study of TPJ disturbance with results that left possibilities of arrest or noise open, but is there any reason to state that lack of sensation is a sole or necessary cause?

zoobyshoe said:
I don't see why you find the rubber hand to be more like anecdotally reported OBE's.

And no, I didn’t think Ehrsson’s glove experiment that you linked to was more similar to anecdotally reported OBEs, and I think that answers some of your questions. Instead I meant Ehrsson’s OBE experiment that I had linked to.

To explain, I had originally linked to Ehrsson’s OBE experiment as good reason to question Blanke’s OBE experiment since it is a repeatable experiment and unlike Blanke’s, involves healthy people. Another reason was because it may not involve TPJ disturbance. Further, it also is more similar to anecdotal descriptions of OBEs than the experience in Blanke’s case. I raised it again here because it involves virtual sensations, suggesting involvement in this seemingly better OBE experiment of more, rather than less, sensation.
 
Last edited:
  • #53


fuzzyfelt said:
OK, that is a relief! I had been confused by the words and run-ons and thought you were saying the OBE phenomenon or proprioception is specifically located at the TPJ, which seemed a big leap. Rather you only meant that electrodes in that spot caused something-‘failure’, ‘blocking’…- affecting something around the area which has something to do with proprioception. It took me a while to get that!
Sorry if my wording was confusing. Yes, all I meant to say was that the TPJ had been isolated as a critical spot where an OBE could be triggered. What that means is that it's neurological. The TPJ is some kind of important point of contact with the circuit, or circuits that are involved in the OBE, but "OBE activity" in these circuits may range far from that spot.

... but is there any reason to state that lack of sensation is sole cause?
The failure of one sensation, proprioception in this case, is all we need to start a multimodal hallucination in other senses. Removing one class of information, internal sense of body, is all we need to require the brain to reprocess everything else it has to work with into the new fictional picture of the body located floating in the room near the ceiling. If you don't feel located anywhere you confabulate something plausible to account for that and outright hallucinate a view of yourself lying in bed from a perspective near the ceiling.

You may wonder why I don't suppose the visual hallucination precedes the feeling of floating: Autoscopy can, and does, happen by itself with no "floating", as in the report from Ramachandran I quoted to Neodevin. The "double" seems perfectly subject to gravity. In other reports the person's visual perspective can shift from the real position to the perspective of the double and they can look at themselves from either perspective, but neither is floating. It's not a case of being out of body, but more like suddenly having two separate bodies and one consciousnes that can shift back and forth. There is no automatic tendency for autoscopic experiences to take the form of "floating", therefore there must be some specific trigger for it when they do.

If we suppose that an unexpected failure of proprioception is the primary event, then we have good reason for the hallucinations that follow which are, in effect, answers to the question "Why don't I feel like I'm in my body?"

Interferring with some integrative process (test-for-fit) by the introduction of "noise" seems very unlikely to produce the relatively coherent (however erroneous) experience of the OBE. Failures of integration, agnosias, are incoherent, chaotic experiences. Here's what facial agnosia looks like to a migraine sufferer who has episodic experiences of it:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037570406X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Sacks describes an equally horrifying, Picasso-like, experience of his leg the first time he tried to stand on it after recuperating from having torn a major muscle loose: it's position seemed to change incoherently six times a second. Ascribing the cause of the OBE to a failure of a specific integration process doesn't fit with the much more chaotic and bewildering, choppy things that actually seem to happen when integration fails. I am more likely to suppose the integration process goes really well in an OBE. The problem with it is that it's based on incomplete data: with no internal information from the body the brain decides it is located floating in the room.

Messages from proprioceptors in the body, like all other sensory information, go first to the thalamus, and they are reworked and sent to the cortex from there. The cortex feeds info back to the thalamus, and the thalamus responds. The thalamus always controls the cortex and has the ability to put the cortex to "sleep": to slow or stop the information it feeds to the cortex and to send those neurons the instruction to stop processing. This is what happens when we go to sleep. This thalamo-cortical-thalamo circuit is where proprioceptive information could be blocked or disrupted. The TPJ may be a critical place to get into that circuit and mess with it.

And no, I didn’t think Ehrsson’s glove experiment that you linked to was more similar to anecdotally reported OBEs, and I think that answers some of your questions. Instead I meant Ehrsson’s OBE experiment that I had linked to.

To explain, I had originally linked to Ehrsson’s OBE experiment as good reason to question Blanke’s OBE experiment since it is a repeatable experiment and unlike Blanke’s, involves healthy people. Another reason was because it may not involve TPJ disturbance. Further, it also is more similar to anecdotal descriptions of OBEs than the experience in Blanke’s case. I raised it again here because it involves virtual sensations, suggesting involvement in this seemingly better OBE experiment of more, rather than less, sensation.
Blankes' is repeatable, in principle, though no one would allow such an invasive procedure under other circumstances. The Ehrrson demonstration is of gravity-bound autoscopy, not an OBE with floating near the ceiling. The Blanke OBE definitely sounds more like the average anecdotal report than the Ehrrson one. Also, I hope it is clear by now that I am not asserting the OBE consists exclusively of the lack of proprioception. The "more sensations" are obviously there, but they are supplied by hallucination: there are no cameras showing you a view of yourself from the outside, no one simultaneously touching you and your virtual image with a stick. That demonstration tells us that proprioception can be fooled: over-ridden by conflicting information from other senses. It doesn't begin to explain why someone should suddenly not feel located in their body or why they have a clear view of themselves from the outside in the absence of a camera set up.

I get the feeling you are attaching to the "healthy" part of the Ehrrson demonstration, as if it's a forgone conclusion that all spontaneous OBE experiencers are neurologically perfectly sound. The full body lab illusion in healthy people requires an elaborate technological set up to create autoscopy. What is creating the autoscopy in the spontaneous OBE? Clearly it is some kind of hallucination, and, as such, pathological: something isn't working right. The notion of a perfectly "healthy" spontaneous OBE doesn't really make sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54


I've just read more of the earlier parts of this thread and see the Ehrsson OBE experiment had been mentioned before me, sorry to be repetitive, but I'm now left with little time to reply fully to the previous post.

I was interested in clearer data shedding any light on various reasonable doubts.

zoobyshoe said:
as if it's a forgone conclusion that all spontaneous OBE experiencers are neurologically perfectly sound..

Odd it was felt that I’d leapt to that conclusion, despite being mindful of not doing so, and conversely the statement-

zoobyshoe said:
Clearly it is some kind of hallucination, and, as such, pathological

discounts the already mentioned toxicological anecdotal exceptions. General population surveys also suggest anecdotal cases without relationship to specific pathology.
 
Last edited:
  • #55


Oliver Sacks said:
Although Colman, in 1894, wrote specifically about "Hallucinations in the Sane, associated with local organic diease of the sensory organs, etc.," the impression has long remained both in the popular mind and among physicians, too, that "hallucinations" means psychosis - or gross organic disease of the brain. The reluctance to observe the common phenomenon of "hallucinations in the sane" before the 1970's was perhaps influenced by the fact that there was no theory of how such hallucinations could occur until 1967, when Jerzy Konorski, a Polish neuropsychologist, devoted several pages of his Integrative Activity of the Brain to the "physiological basis of hallucinations". Konorski inverted the question "Why do hallucinations occur?" to "Why do hallucinations not occur all the time? What constrains them?" He conceived a dynamic system which, he wrote, "can generate perceptions, images, and hallucinations...the mechanism producing hallucinations is built into our brains, but it can be thrown into operation only in some exceptional conditions." Konorski brought together evidence - weak in the 1960's but overwhelming now - that there are not only afferent connections going from the sense organs to the brain, but "retro" connections going in the other direction. Such retro connections may be sparse compared to the afferent connections, and may not be activated under normal circumstances. But they provide , Konorski felt, the essential anatomical and physiological means by which hallucinations can be generated. What, then, normally prevents this from happening? The crucial factor, Konorski suggested, is the sensory input from ears, eyes, and other sense organs, which normally inhibits any backflow of activity from the haighest parts of the cortex to the periphery. But if there is a crucial deficiency of input from the sense organs this will facilitate a backfow, producing hallucinations phisiologically and subjectively indistinguishable from perceptions. (There is normally no such reduction of input in conditions of silence or darkness, beause "off-units" fire up and produce continuous activity.)

Konorski's theory provided a simple and beautiful explanation for what soon came to be called "release" hallucinations associated with de-afferentation." Such an explanation now seems obvious, almost tautological - but it required originality and audacity to propose it in the 1960's.

There is now good evidence from brain-imaging studies to support Konorski's idea. In 2000 Michael Griffiths published a detailed and pineering report on the neural basis of musical hallucinations; he was able to show, using PET scans, that musical hallucinations were associated with a widespread activation of the same beural networks that are normally activated during the perception of actual music.

-Musicophilia

pp 82-84
 
  • #56
Thanks, that was interesting too, although I wonder about a number of things including what overwhelming evidence is referred to aside from Griffiths’ 2000 report. Or, regarding that report, does it support Konorski’s idea in any way other than via activation of the same neural networks as activated during actual perception? Another wonder is, is there any difference between the workings of the brain during hallucination and such workings during sleep? For example, http://www.celiagreen.com/charlesmccreery/dreams-and-psychosis.pdf
 
  • #57
fuzzyfelt said:
Thanks, that was interesting too, although I wonder about a number of things including what overwhelming evidence is referred to aside from Griffiths’ 2000 report.
The "overwhelming evidence" was for the existence of the "retro-connections". Sacks doesn't cite any sources for this. I assume it is so accepted he didn't feel the need to: that's the impression his wording has on me, anyway.

The Griffiths study was not called "overwhelming evidence", merely "good evidence". I take it from the context that the Griffiths' study is cited as one example of a pleurality of such studies (perhaps because it was the first?): "There is now good evidence from brain-imaging studies to support Konorski's idea."

Or, regarding that report, does it support Konorski’s idea in any way other than via activation of the same neural networks as activated during actual perception?
I am not sure what else you feel needs to be supported. The existence of "retro-connections" is, apparently, not in doubt, having been previously confirmed from other sources, according to Sacks' mention of "overwhelming evidence".

Another wonder is, is there any difference between the workings of the brain during hallucination and such workings during sleep? For example, http://www.celiagreen.com/charlesmccreery/dreams-and-psychosis.pdf
Sacks is speaking specifically about "release" hallucinations here, in reference to the concept of "hallucinations in the sane". I haven't read your link but from the "dreams-and-psychosis" in the address I assume it discusses "hallucinations in the insane", which Sacks isn't addressing here.
 
  • #58


zoobyshoe said:
I am not sure what else you feel needs to be supported. The existence of "retro-connections" is, apparently, not in doubt, having been previously confirmed from other sources, according to Sacks' mention of "overwhelming evidence".
Ok, thanks.

zoobyshoe said:
Sacks is speaking specifically about "release" hallucinations here, in reference to the concept of "hallucinations in the sane". I haven't read your link but from the "dreams-and-psychosis" in the address I assume it discusses "hallucinations in the insane", which Sacks isn't addressing here.

Do only psychotic people dream? :)
 
  • #59


fuzzyfelt said:
Do only psychotic people dream? :)
Meaning?
 
  • #60


zoobyshoe said:
I haven't read your link but from the "dreams-and-psychosis" in the address I assume it discusses "hallucinations in the insane", which Sacks isn't addressing here.

A look at the link (Charles McCreery, DPhil Formerly lecturer in Experimental Psychology, Magdalen College, Oxford, 2008,) should explain why I was alluding that the paper was not just about psychotic hallucinations, nor possibly at all, according to Sach's definition of psychotic.

To answer – a proposal linking dream and psychosis attendant hallucinations encompasses all who dream, psychotic or not. This is different to your assumption that it would only discuss psychotic people.

To elaborate, under a heading about Hallucinatory Episodes in the Sane, OBEs are discussed as a microcosm. For example,

‘ As Irwin (1985) points out, these experiences seem to occur in conditions either of
extremely low or extremely high cortical arousal.’

Interestingly, it also offers an alternative view to Sachs' definition ‘psychosis - or gross organic disease of the brain’, instead putting forward a case that although there may be some underlying organic lability,

‘the behavioural, affective and cognitive symptomatology may indeed be seen as functional on the present view, since they are only the observable by-products of a disorder of function’,

hence if the assumption that it only involved psychotic people according to Sachs' definition of psychotic and thus was not applicable, such an assumption could also be faulty.

I could ask my question differently, however - how does this ‘release’ hallucination differ from other hallucinations to be a sub-set of all hallucinations, or are you suggesting all hallucinations are 'release' hallucinations?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
12K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 459 ·
16
Replies
459
Views
78K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
864