Perfect choice, love your taste Steve.
I find this one interesting (don't know if anyone else will). You know he's just telling it like it is. He wasn't expecting anything to happen, the experience just spontaneously occurred next to his sleeping wife (NB Max, his wife wasn't observing him) obviously no one else in the room. He states it is the most important thing that has ever happened to him in his life. If this was the father
of any of the "sceptics" on here, how would they try to rationalise it away, I wonder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47SPv1wjOa8
(2017-09-05, 04:07 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ](NB Max, his wife wasn't observing him)
Sorry, Tim, but Max (almost - see below) always has an out. In this case, the out is this: if there was nobody else there to corroborate his observations, then how do we know that they were veridical? And if somebody
was there to corroborate the observations, then, of course, s/he was transferring them to the percipient through some sort of electromagnetic communication which overrode the percipient's compromised electromagnetic system!
It's pretty nifty (for Max) that this hypothesis could pretty much only be overturned by (well, aside from common sense) veridical perceptions of the sort that AWARE and AWARE II are seeking to establish: perceptions of images on high shelves which are unavailable to anybody other than the percipient.
(2017-09-05, 04:40 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, Tim, but Max (almost - see below) always has an out. In this case, the out is this: if there was nobody else there to corroborate his observations, then how do we know that they were veridical? And if somebody was there to corroborate the observations, then, of course, s/he was transferring them to the percipient through some sort of electromagnetic communication which overrode the percipient's compromised electromagnetic system!
It's pretty nifty (for Max) that this hypothesis could pretty much only be overturned by (well, aside from common sense) veridical perceptions of the sort that AWARE and AWARE II are seeking to establish: perceptions of images on high shelves which are unavailable to anybody other than the percipient.
Good points, Laird. Max has already (apparently) dismissed any future Aware results.
Max_B Wrote: [url=http://psiencequest.net/forums/post-2920.html#pid2920][/url]I don't think anybody is going to recall hidden, secret, real time information in AWARE II, and if they do... the possibility for sensory leakage will cause any hits to be dismissed. AWARE II's lack of hits is going to get used as evidence that NDE OBE's are just sensory leakage, or information leakage etc.
(2017-09-05, 04:55 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Good points, Laird. Max has already (apparently) dismissed any future Aware results.
Max_B Wrote: [url=http://psiencequest.net/forums/post-2920.html#pid2920][/url]I don't think anybody is going to recall hidden, secret, real time information in AWARE II, and if they do... the possibility for sensory leakage will cause any hits to be dismissed. AWARE II's lack of hits is going to get used as evidence that NDE OBE's are just sensory leakage, or information leakage etc.
Ah. So even in the third case, he has an out: sensory leakage. How delightfully complete. His theory, then, is effectively unfalsifiable.
(2017-09-05, 05:03 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Ah. So even in the third case, he has an out: sensory leakage. How delightfully complete. His theory, then, is effectively unfalsifiable.
"His theory, then, is effectively unfalsifiable."
I'm afraid so. I've tried quite hard to persuade Max to the contrary, by posting reports that exceed the scope of his theory. However, he then seems to endow it with additional abilities/characteristics to cover any eventualities, leaving me stumped again
(2017-09-05, 05:16 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]"His theory, then, is effectively unfalsifiable."
I'm afraid so. I've tried quite hard to persuade Max to the contrary, by posting reports that exceed the scope of his theory. However, he then seems to endow it with additional abilities/characteristics to cover any eventualities, leaving me stumped again
Tim, have you ever wondered whether you are an attorney where the defence always has the perfect technicality by which to get his client off? Or whether you are hunting a prey which has the perfect camouflage? Or whether you are playing blackjack against a card-counter?
(2017-09-05, 05:27 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Tim, have you ever wondered whether you are an attorney where the defence always has the perfect technicality by which to get his client off? Or whether you are hunting a prey which has the perfect camouflage? Or whether you are playing blackjack against a card-counter?
"Or whether you are hunting a prey which has the perfect camouflage?"
I see the task (of refuting Max's theory) as on a par with attempting to rid Australia of the cane toad
