OBE portion of the NDE

Rather than invoking something that leaves the experiencers body as an explanation for the verifiable OBE portion of the NDE. It’s possible that these experiences might involve the use of third party/ies eyes, or, more accurately third parties conscious awareness. Using conscious awareness offers a possible explanation for the common lack of body, and field theories of consciousness (McFadden, Pockett) make a lot of sense to me.


It’s also worth bearing in mind, that these experiences are not always seen from a ‘floating’ type perspective, some are also seen from a ‘first-person’ perspective. In the diagram above, fields from multiple third parties create the commonly recalled floating experience. However, just a single third party would produce a first-person perspective.

Henrik Ehrsson’s work may offer some explanations for this. He seems to demonstrate properties about our location of ‘self’.
1) shifting of self-location in space.
2) the difficulty the brain appears to have in perceiving the ‘self’ to be located at two different places at the same time.

I’m open minded on type of fields, but EM fields are an interesting example, because we’ve known since 2010 that neuronal networks are probably affected by the very EM fields they create when firing – creating a feedback loop. Here’s a link to the paper Frohlich & McCormick (2010). Here’s a link to a more readable article: Cortical Call Out: The Brain’s Electric Field Creates a Feedback Loop That Synchronizes Neural Activity.

It seems logical – at least to me – that this research indicates the brain might therefore be affected by external fields, particularly if the fields are similar to the ones the brain usually produces itself.

These fields are arguably one of the best correlates of consciousness we currently have, and they are also strongly suspected to be involved in laying down memories. Modulation of local field potentials in the V1 and V2 visual areas of the brain have also been shown to correlate with perception. We also have real problems explaining our normal visual experience of reality without some way of binding these synchronously firing neurons together, its long been suspected they might be bound together by fields.


2 thoughts on “OBE portion of the NDE

  1. But the people who claim to have this OBE segment also on rare occasion claim to have witnessed friends or family a long distance away from the injury site, who later confirm the story with one of the people they were watching that was not in local field distance. If we disclaim those fragments, then local field telepathy starts to sound like a serviceable explanation. If we retain those fragments, how do you reconcile potential non-locality of the “mind fields” in those instances?

    • Hi Joshua, I’d have to consider the details of the actual cases to be able to comment on them?

      I’m pretty much reconciled at the present time to both local, and non-local field effects, as two correlated effects in the verifiable NDE OBE. However, the overwhelming bulk of reported verifiable NDE OBE’s occur close to the patient, and become less and less frequently reported the further away from the patient they are. So there does appear to be a local effect with frequency of reporting increasing, the closer to the patients body the verifiable NDE OBE occurs, that too needs an explanation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s