Study shows alien abductions, UFO encounters are lucid dream

[trainedobserver]

While you have to question how this explains such cases as Cash-Landrum and the other "top ten" UFO cases I think this is an interesting development and probably explains many "bedroom" encounters.

Study shows alien abductions, UFO encounters are lucid dream

 

[tyder001]

I have actually suspected this. Before I get into trouble I'm not saying it explains it all. But, I'm gonna research the site. Haven't read it yet but my knee jerk reaction was "I knew it." Anyway, thanks for an interesting resource.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Let me add really quickly that I understand that any study especially when it comes to the "soft" sciences such as Psychology or Social Work is an on-going process. Still, data collection and interviews and trends are indicators. I don't know if these folks come from the skeptical side or lean a little to the paranormal side. But, I am interested in following some of the links.

 

[Rramjet]

Such a study as mentioned in the OP does nothing to “explain” UFO or abduction encounters at all. It is merely an hypothesis that requires rigorous scientific testing according to the accepted rules of science before it can be claimed to be either true or false. In fact it is merely the latter section of the same tired old UFO debunker sweeping generalisation: “It is all either misidentification of mundane objects, hoaxes or psychological problems” dressed up in new clothes (well, not even new...)

One can induce hallucinations (lucid dreaming, OBEs, false memories, etc) in anyone given the right conditions. That does not mean we have therefore “explained” observational data. Theoretically, we could “explain” any observation in such a manner, but that does not make that “explanation” true in any specific instance. In the research mentioned, to make the link between the research and UFO/alien case reports, one would have to demonstrate that the conditions that induced “alien” hallucinations in the research, also applied in specific UFO cases.

If there is any such evidential link between the factors outlined in the cited research and the Cash-Landrum incident - then I would like to see it. Of course the UFO debunkers are never able to actually present any such evidence or link, instead they merely resort to repeating the same sweeping generalisations - stating them as if they were true when they have not been demonstrated to hold true in any case at all.


Finally, this idea that psychology is somehow a “soft” science is quite misleading. As with any science, it utilises strict scientific methodology and it has developed behavioural theories that are falsifiable and that reliably predict behavioural outcomes and that are also experimentally repeatable.

 

[trainedobserver]

The generalization and over simplification of at least the article aside, I think that these experiences can be induced is significant. There are reports that they spontaneously arise in people using DMT and other consciousness altering substances. That combined with the parallel between these experiences and some forms of schizophrenia (see Operators and Things: The Inner Life of a Schizophrenic) seems to indicate that some, dare say many, of these experiences belong squarely in the realm the mind.

It does appear that these types of experiences can be induced or arise in a person through artificial or natural means. This isn't news to anyone I know. I think it is significant and calls into question the nature of some, if not most of these experiences, in particular those of contactees, and abductees.

 

[softbeard]

Let me add really quickly that I understand that any study especially when it comes to the "soft" sciences such as Psychology or Social Work is an on-going process.

I completely agree with that statement. From my experiences, 'psychological' studies have to be taken with a grain of salt, though they gain my respect when they are done with quantitiative statistical data backing them up. I guess I'm trying to express my lack of faith in generalized psychological assesment, though my faith increases dramatically when backed up by a good statistical study.
Sorry to be off-topic a bit...
But, more to the point, yes I do believe most night-time 'alien-abduction' experiences are hallucination-based. The types of experiences described vary amongst cultures and time; the night-hag, succubus/incubus, ghosts in the night, and now with modern sci-fi movies, it's aliens. This is not to trivialize the experience; I'm sure it's very real to the person experiencing it.

 

[Rramjet]

This is of course the age old argument – when people see UFOs (or experience alien abduction), they are merely hallucinating.

What is never mentioned in the “induced alien hallucination” research is whether or not the participants knew that they were hallucinating – and it seems from the two personal accounts in the cited research that they were aware of it. Also, in the research cited the sample size was extremely small (20 participants) and 14 of those were not able to be induced into “alien hallucination”. Also, in the research, it took three days of training before "alien" hallucinatory effects were manifest – and such effects were not spontaneous – the participants had to “work” at it (apply their training methodology) to gain the desired affect… Moreover, it is never described in detail what most of those “alien” experiences consisted of (just two are cited) – and it is interesting – given the ubiquitousness of the “grey alien” culture - that none of the encounters were of such a type…

Anyway – I will state again – what needs to be demonstrated before such an “induced alien hallucination” hypothesis can be taken seriously, is for a link to be drawn between the experimental research and case reports. That is, are the conditions in the research where hallucinations were induced manifestly apparent in any case report. If not, then it is hard to see how the link can be drawn.

Rudaga (the lead researcher) stated:

“ "Alien contact is not indicative of the existence of otherworldly civilizations, but rather of a poorly studied state of consciousness that people fall into inadvertently.” (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313447)

But there was nothing inadvertent about it at all – it was induced after days of practice and conscious effort… It has never been demonstrated that people can fall into such states of mind “inadvertently”…and that would have to be demonstrated as a first step in getting such an explanation recognised as plausible…

 

[Randall]

I'm not convinced that all unexplained UFO reports or abduction experiences are based on some form of hallucination; drug induced or otherwise. The missing time element also adds a layer of mystery to these cases that mere hallucination alone doesn't easily explain.

 

[bbridges]

Couldn't have said it any clearer, myself. The protocols are so specific that generalizing from the results is not​ science, it's opinion.

 

[Hotkafka]

This is funny if you consider that men like Dr. John Lilly and Metzger were saying these things in the 60's and 70's when conducting sensory deprivation research. OBE's are nothing new to psychology, however dressing it up to explain away a particular pop cultural issue will surely look good for future UCLA funding drives. In my book, this research does nothing to further an understanding of the alien abduction phenomenon. It's actually going backwards. Psychologists, parapsychologists and other psychologically-minded reserachers were well aware of this decades before this cherry-picking UCLA sleep researcher stepped into the picture. In any case, i'm guessing documenting spontanous or waking OBE's (as well as mass OBE's) could be a little more daunting.

 

[bbridges]

Well said, Hotkafka. What strikes me, though nothing new, is the sorry state of mind that thinks this flawed bit of half-ass research is 'proof' of anything; and then it gets so much press. The PM managers perhaps?

 

[trainedobserver]

This is funny if you consider that men like Dr. John Lilly and Metzger were saying these things in the 60's and 70's when conducting sensory deprivation research. OBE's are nothing new to psychology, however dressing it up to explain away a particular pop cultural issue will surely look good for future UCLA funding drives.

I've read John Lilly's books and I'm fairly familiar with his work. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topics that are generally discussed in the Paracast forums. One thing I get from John Lilly's work and P.K. Dick's religious experience (just to name two) is that incredibly complex and individual inner experiences of which any number of reasonable as well as unreasonable interpretations can be applied are possible. People arrive at interpretations of the strange from different places and are often convinced in the unquestionable reality of their version.

I guess I'm seeing something different in the article. I see another indication that alien abduction like phenomena isn't what the present cultural programming presents it as.

Of course you can't say all alien abduction and UFO experiences are some delusion existing only within the experiencer's mind no more than you can say than none of them are. It's all pretty mysterious to me.

 

[Rramjet]

Of course you can't say all alien abduction and UFO experiences are some delusion existing only within the experiencer's mind no more than you can say than none of them are. It's all pretty mysterious to me.

Actually, you cannot say that any alien abduction or UFO experiences are “delusion”...

It is all merely a generalised hypothetical. This is the UFO debunker argument:

Under certain conditions the human mind can fall victim to hallucinations, therefore alien abduction and UFO experiences might be hallucinations…

There are two key sections in that argument that are assiduously avoided by the UFO debunker:

1. certain conditions
2. might be

1. The UFO debunkers have never been able to demonstrate that those “certain conditions” (whatever they may be) actually apply in UFO/abduction experiences. In other words, to make the hypothetical a plausible explanation, the UFO debunker must demonstrate that those “certain conditions” are manifest in UFO/abduction cases. As far as I can tell they have not been able to do that – and until they can do that, they cannot state that the any UFO/abduction experience may be so explained.

2. The UFO debunkers are always tempted to turn that “might be” into a “can be” or even a “have been shown to be” (or even just plain old “are”). The title of this thread for example demonstrates this propensity of the UFO debunkers to allow their belief system to illegitimately influence their logical, critical or scientific ability to assess the actual evidence.

The study in question does not “show” (or demonstrate or “prove”) anything except that (under certain conditions) humans can hallucinate – yet (for example) tyder001 (in post #2) states “I have actually suspected this” as if stating “I knew it to be the explanation all along” and trainedobserver states in post #4 “…seems to indicate that some, dare say many, of these experiences belong squarely in the realm the mind” when there is no such “indication” in the research at all - and softbeard states (rather patronisingly and dismissively in post #5) “This is not to trivialize the experience; I'm sure it's very real to the person experiencing it” as if to say “Oh the poor dears, they hallucinate and don’t even know it. They think it’s real the poor things, yet we know better don’t we…”

bbridges sums it up when he states “What strikes me, though nothing new, is the sorry state of mind that thinks this flawed bit of half-ass research is 'proof' of anything; and then it gets so much press.” Indeed.

 

[trainedobserver]

Well, I have not presented the article as proof of anything other than there is more than one way to look at this business and as a means to stimulate conversation. I think I've inadvertently touched a few nerves.

Just to clarify: My thinking that UFO and abduction experiences can be induced by artificial and natural means is not based on this one article that I quickly read and posted to the paracast forum as a item of interest. And as I stated in my introduction to the thing, it in no way explains the top ten UFO and I should have added top ten abduction cases.

Also, I realize that many of you who are reading my rambling here have had abduction experiences or know those who have. I personally am not trying to dismiss your experiences or your thoughts about them nor do I presume to know what the hell is really going on.

[Turns to the technician in the hazmat suit with the giant soapy brush, "You think this shit will ever come off?"]

 

[bbridges]

"Man with giant soapy brush" made me laugh out loud, TO.