Sei sulla pagina 1di 7
Journal tment tnngen, 9997.11, [Hf Where am I? : Perspectives in Imagery and the Out-of-Body Experience SUSAN BLACKMORE University of Bristol she ltera:ure on the out-of body e»pe-ienice (O84) isbrie'ly reviewed. The theory s put rardshat the OBE & an illusion ol reality.” Iinvolvesthesubstittioy ofthe normalingut von node! of tre extamal word by an interraly gene'ated model in "observer" per teive The theory predicts tha: peeple who have OBEs should be more likely to use Spree: perspectives in imagery, memory and dreams, should be betier able to use dit (here viewsoints and te switeh viewpoints whe reouired. Three studies are reported. it ai con‘invedthat OBErs are more I kely¢o use the observer perspective in ecal of dreams Natok ofrecli‘e events They are better able to switca viewpoin:sin imagery and report {lewet and mete vivid images from diferert viewpoints. An out-of-body experience ‘OBt} may be defined as an exp which a 92'son seems to be awake and to p2-ceive the world fro jocation outside of the physical body. in other words, it seems to the experiencer as though he or she has left the boi. Such experiences have been reported trom many ages and cultures \Blackmore, 1932a; Sheils, 1978). They have been stucied (esastral projection ortraveling clairvoyance) within early psychical research (Myers, 1903) are more recent y within parepsycho cey (e.g, Blackmere, 1982; Rogo, 1978) and they form an integral pactofthe near-death experience recently descrived by Ring (1980), Sabom (1982) and others (Greyson & Flynn, 1964), They are not, howeve:, confined to near-death or even st-essful ations. Indeed, they can occur under circumstances “enging from |i ‘tneatening stress (Noyes & Klett, 1976; Siegel 1984) to meditation, ‘elexation or even walking or dr ving (Black nore 19643; Green 1968). The experience itself varies but typica ly the experiencer suddenly linds hi self loo* of an out-ol-body presence fasbeenfound {Mcrris et al, 1978). Research continues butso far has not Jed the kind of progress wa ch could bring these theories beyonce te level of specuiaticn, ‘This thiows the onus 02:0 :he “psychological theo‘es.” Palmer (1 978) treats the OBE as an at:emot :o reintegrate the body image inthe face ofa thyea:to the ege brought a2>ut by proprioceptive changes and distortions of the body image. threnwald (1974) consider deny ceath and Noyes and « et:i (1976) as derealization in the face of life thieatening danger. Siege! (1980) treats it as purely hallucinatory and Sagan |1979) end Honegg2" 11963) compare: with the bitth experience. an analogy I fine less than compelling (Blackmore, 19832). Both Rogo (1982) and nyself (Blackmore, 1982a) nave reviewed these theories and argued that all have de‘iciencies and none can account satisfactorily for the phenomenology of the experience. tts also very hard to derive specific predictions from these theo ‘ies. has been argued that the psycholog cal theories predict shet OBE1s should have better or move vivid ragery. In fact, OBErs have been found not to {itfer from others in tests of vividness of imegery or conticl of imagery Glacknore, 1983b; Coo<& Irwin, 1983). This Could be tzken as evidence for the separation theorias, but some psvcholog cal theories also predict {his (Blackmore, 19846). Also. there is evidence that OBErs sore higher 00 a pertorrance-basec spatial imagery task (Cook & Irwin, 1983) and havea greater capacity for absorption in inner experiences, a3 mezsured by Tellegen’s Absorpticn Scale (Gagaard & Twemlow, 1985; Irwin, 1981; Myers, Austrin, Grisso & Nickeson, 1983). Also, OBEs ere more common inthose wit1a’fantasy pone personality” (Myers&Austrin, 1986;\ ‘4 Barber, 1982). However, the theovias as they stand.cc not make sufficiently Precise predictions for t ese findings te have "Lch utility 56S Bhokrwore “Anadditional probiem isthatthe OBE may not be one unitary phenomeng, temaybe tnat more than one theory is needed to account forthe dversey ofthe experience. However, ir the absence ofany deertypology 01 O3iy we may be best to attempt thecry cf them all, : | have recently proposed a psycvological theory cf the OBE wich 1 aveue, can zeceunt for the pheror=rology Of she CEE and mate Spacific and testable predictions {Blackmere, 1984). This theory stay by asking why cur perceptions normally seem “real.” It ests on two simple suppositions: Fist, that the cognitive system has to decide which Gfite models represents axternal reality and, secord, that i Chooses one ‘and only one — the most stable The most staole “nodel is normally the input-driven one butif this breaks down ot ve" rr adels will eke over. The OBE is then seen as one result of such a breakdown. It occurs whenan internally generated model takes over the role of “reality” from an input based model, “Tre first point resis on corsidering how the cognitive system knows hat is input ard what s internally generated: in other words, howitsa ut realty tasting, It isclearthatinput cannot be :eegedias such; itistoo .d formation during input processing sh abi inextr cably bound up with recal ‘Aso, if one asks what units of information could oe tagged, there sno obvious answer. Categories change drematically as intormation pastes through :he system. Athing is not the same thing from retina to cortex.So there are 10 cbvious nts to be tagged. It makes "nore sense to sugges that the decision s made at a far nigher level, Let us suppose that at any time the cognitive syste 10.s many Figh level models. Some of these ere involved in thinking and imagining but only one represets extemal reality. How does the system know whic is whichi st make ase of a pwerful const:aint (and such constraints are 932) that there is only one external reality, So it model. What then distirguishesthe model ics Itcan always useful (Marr, 1 knows itmust choos2only one based on input? Pethaps mast important is that it adequately pre future ingut. But what does this mean? It clearly cannot mean an in regress of models cf future ‘rodels, Rather, it may mean tha: inputs fepresented in terms which are relatively invariant through charges it input-— such as representing changing inputas'“a chairfallingov2r' rather thane disconnected series of changing features. This is2 particular spe the mere general characteristic of siabiliy, So let us suppose that tre fterion for “reality” stability. In other words, the coga tive syste” ‘chooses its mast stable model as represerting the external world. (Now that the argurrent would no: be greatly altered if some other criterion such as complexity or coherence, were used instead) ‘Notmaily, of course, t22 input-drivan model is the most stable. is any doubt it can always be checked against new inau: — by arcurd, blinking, touching and S09 Aso, we cannot choose to SA ifthere tooking 210 Were am iz 57 59 # Back relern to normal perspective and noi This approach to the OBE explains how the shift in persp about, wiy the out-of-body world appears much like the eos Glackmore 1978), andwry the exaerienceseemssores. Itsceoune Je sucden shilt back to normal perspect ve and it rakes sense of onditions under which the exper erces occur — they offen inv y sensery inp a his theory maces seve nother” reaity” BECAUSE We cannot meke ery other rodel a good enough Zomperitot. SC WE 2°€ Safely confined to seeing the world of ‘rput as “owever, uncer Certzin ciscumstances the stabi ity ofthe input-cr'ven mocelmay be threatened. This may happen when sensory inputis reduced fprexample. De0re 2rd during sleep. or when input is contounced with rase induced by drugs, anoxia and so on, or when fear, stress or pain grovideincentives for rejecting input. Ifthe input-driver model becomes| unstable, its supre acy may be crallenged. I! some other mod gable t will e» vPOthesi take over as reality and seem real what haopens next deoends very uch on the nature of the competing| model. Obviously. Most models involved in deydreaming or thinking| would, if they took over, lead to hallucinations and therefore the system should seek to av2\d this happening Interestingly, itis this attempt at avoidance which may actuaily give rise to an OBE. When the inpurdriven model isthreatened, the system will presumably normally seek to Fetura t¢ input contol. One way of doing this is t: reconstructamod=|of the remembered surroundings from the top down. Wiis is an adequate model it will again pred ct future input and so be sabilized. Norma ity will be res:ored. On the other hand, it may not be scod enough £9 predict input. indeed it is known that many people °° Construct memory images as though f-om an “cbserver’ perspective (tan No ee ae acre wor inoonant said be the ayo conve verge issufficently stable, then t will take over and an OBE will have occurred. (C4 ed auttrat some peoy . bit of recalling nother words, the attemps to returntoinput controlresults in a cognitive cee Te observed, butfome ‘epresentation of the surroundings taking over as “reality fete pe leslestecee League lmen Ths" ctserver” model would be incom petible with sual input but it stage’ (Galton, 1883, pp. 23:98) Ahuncred years ter Nigroand Neier sould oe easly incorporate auctory input. This may explan what (1983) have made te satrcticr aeiween memories ‘called nee huppensin near-death experiences Rondual heating ray be suffciertto Perspective equivalent toGalon’s “rm ahence they vere obsered) Ov ce te infomation on which to constuct a cervincing and pay 294i” Obsever” poispective “hey showedthat te obse ver perspec acaurate, represeniation of what is gcing or. Reports of patients who is Tore kely to be used when tecalling situations with a high degree of {Ssenve’ their 9perations oF resuscitet.cn could then 92 explained without ©™OlION and sel-anareness, and wen racalling olds m recourse to the parson We would expect OBE to bet This may be espec aly ikey te occurto people who have some faci PesPectve” in maginacion end thinking with using o2se0Ver viewpoints and those who can easily switch fram ‘His viewpoint when they wish, | one toanother.I:isalso likely if there issome reason te preferan extarral_ TMee studies were carried out to test these pres Sr observer viewpoint, in cases of seva'e pain, sheck or fear there is a NiogBincentive so dissociate oneself from the source o* the pain In other fords such stress may help tc stabilize the observer viewpoint at the Methoa SiPense of the nerrai viewpoint. If this viewpoint is move stable, it will Subj2=ts. n the first study subjects were 93 psycno ogy studencsat:h wm more real. This marivatec switch to a different perspective will be Lriveisity of Bristol. Ages ranged from 18 to 26 with a maan age of 20 ‘asest for paople wro have the skill to switch perspectives at There were 39 males and 54 iernales (5 did not give their sex) Of course, i ateny time the bottom-up input processing can oroduce a Procedure, The students were givenaquestic class, Thiswas in Mere stable model this wi | cust the OBE model, There will be 2 sudden ‘hree parts. Part A asked them to recall six sc bedroom wotn ngsal become less sta: ‘model m sponta What is x2eded is the abil /,gooe imagery skil sm tc bring one abo.1:, because they aid and the OBE \s not surprising nd who can easily swtch to Experiment 1

Potrebbero piacerti anche