Psience Quest

(2017-09-05, 05:49 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Gulp. We need a hero.

I had one here, name of Trevor. He had an OBE during an unwell event inside his little trailer home, no one around to project him up into the air. Max didn't like the Dickensian participants (spirits) so it was dismissed.

  https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1trevo...e_nde.html

(2017-09-05, 05:56 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I had one here, name of Trevor. He had an OBE during an unwell event inside his little trailer home, no one around to project him up into the air. Max didn't like the Dickensian participants (spirits) so it was dismissed.

  https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1trevo...e_nde.html

I believe that falls under exception #1: there were no physical observers, therefore veridical perceptions cannot be verified. Case closed. Let's move on.

Now, if those spirits had instead been real people... oh, sorry, no. Then exception #2 applies: their electromagnetic fields provided all the information necessary to Trevor's compromised electromagnetic field.

(2017-09-05, 06:06 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Now, if those spirits had instead been real people... oh, sorry, no. Then exception #2 applies: their electromagnetic fields provided all the information necessary to Trevor's compromised electromagnetic field.

I thought it was quite an interesting case (to show to Max). The guy was definitely alone and he does see visually what is below him, from his out of body position, The way the pillows are bent around his head, the light on the wall etc but of course without anyone around to back it up, it's no good. Then again, if there had been anyone around to back it up, that would have disallowed it. (as we've said of course)

(2017-09-05, 06:18 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Dunno what you're going on about, it was a great NDE, but there's no point saying the OBE was veridical, when it wasn't. The OBE was distinctly different from reality of the enviroment both before, and after he work up, as he openly admits.

Leaving aside veridicality, what is your explanation for him having the perception of floating above his body? Mind model ?

Max_B: to me, your theory seems unfalsifiable. Can you tell us what it would take to falsify it? Is there anything that you would accept as falsification?

(2017-09-05, 07:17 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]If somebody saw a hidden, secret, realtime target during a verifiable NDE/OBE. So, if there was no cheating, and the target was secret, could not be guessed, was hidden on high, and was tied to the time of the event (realtime) and verifiable, say in a hospital setting. Then my ideas are wrong, and it might mean something really did leave the body, or something we haven't considered.

OK, good, so you don't rule out the possibility of AWARE II coming up with this sort of data point?

(2017-09-05, 07:17 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've had to do a 'major' alterations to them before, based on new information, for example IIRC a few years ago, one study of apparitions I read contained a report from a new fishing boat crew-member,  who claims to have seen a recently deceased fisherman who had worked on the same boat entering a door and disappearing, the witness had never seen the deceased crew-member before, so didn't recognize him, hence why he followed him. The fishing boat was at the time traveling at sea, and moving up and down on the swell/waves, and the apparition moved naturally with the boat.

How did this alter your ideas?

(2017-09-05, 07:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Not at all, but the experiment needs to be solid, and designed to rule out information leakage, otherwise I and others are going to be rightfully skeptical that any hits they claim to get are real. A very very difficult task!!



I felt it was a long shot that the fishing boat could have been in the same place at sea, at the same height, on the same swell etc, it destroyed any early preconceptions I had entertained, that information might be tied to absolute positions in spacetime, i.e. a position on the earth, like a place, where a castle was, or an old house was, or where stonehenge was. Following that, I had to change my ideas to allow information to be related to relative positions in spacetime... those ideas have since changed, and been developed much further.

"Not at all, but the experiment needs to be solid, and designed to rule out information leakage, otherwise I and others are going to be rightfully skeptical that any hits they claim to get are real. A very very difficult task!!"

Who is the "others" that you refer to, Max. More to the point can you explain specifically how this (potential in your view) error in the study is likely to occur and why you think you are better qualified to spot it than the researchers themselves ?

(2017-09-05, 09:44 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]The 'others' are anybody who is skeptical that an entity actually leaves the body.

I don't know why I'd be better qualified to spot anything.

We know next to nothing about the details of the study that they are undertaking, so one can hardly say anything specific... but say it's a changing target on a horizontally mounted LCD screen above head height... perhaps a CCTV camera within the hospital is able to show/record the target... somebody is seen looking at the target from a stepladder... somebody is seen with a mirror on pole... the target can be easily guessed... the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena.

I wish they would use a shotgun approach to targets. More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets.
Instead of plumping everything on above head height targets, with - I think - the inevitable result that they have no hits, the lack of which causes funding (and hospital commitment) to further target studies to evaporate.

But I may be pleasantly surprised, the study may be far cleverer than the very sketchy info we have.

"The 'others' are anybody who is skeptical that an entity actually leaves the body.

I don't know why I'd be better qualified to spot anything.

We know next to nothing about the details of the study that they are undertaking, so one can hardly say anything specific... but say it's a changing target on a horizontally mounted LCD screen above head height... perhaps a CCTV camera within the hospital is able to show/record the target... somebody is seen looking at the target from a stepladder... somebody is seen with a mirror on pole... the target can be easily guessed... the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena.

I wish they would use a shotgun approach to targets. More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets.
Instead of plumping everything on above head height targets, with - I think - the inevitable result that they have no hits, the lack of which causes funding (and hospital commitment) to further target studies to evaporate.

But I may be pleasantly surprised, the study may be far cleverer than the very sketchy info we have.Max_B"
..........................................

I'll go through this properly tomorrow.

(2017-09-05, 09:48 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]"The 'others' are anybody who is skeptical that an entity actually leaves the body.

I don't know why I'd be better qualified to spot anything.

We know next to nothing about the details of the study that they are undertaking, so one can hardly say anything specific... but say it's a changing target on a horizontally mounted LCD screen above head height... perhaps a CCTV camera within the hospital is able to show/record the target... somebody is seen looking at the target from a stepladder... somebody is seen with a mirror on pole... the target can be easily guessed... the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena.

I wish they would use a shotgun approach to targets. More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets.
Instead of plumping everything on above head height targets, with - I think - the inevitable result that they have no hits, the lack of which causes funding (and hospital commitment) to further target studies to evaporate.

But I may be pleasantly surprised, the study may be far cleverer than the very sketchy info we have.Max_B"
..........................................

I'll go through this properly tomorrow.

Assuming that emergency rooms are fitted with CCTV and I don't think they are (might be wrong) the footage certainly isn't shown to patients recovering from a cardiac arrest, is it ?  I suppose you could hypothesise that the security guys could somehow 'zoom in' on the laptop and make a record of the pictures and then (for some strange reason) go and tell the patient what the picture was. It seems like an enormous stretch to me.

With regard to the step ladder scenario, surely the attending doctors/nurses and the member from the Aware team are not  going to allow someone to wander in with a pair of steps during an emergency code, are they ?

...and the bloke with the mirror on the pole. He would surely be ejected, or be arrested for indecency, wouldn't he ?

Max said " the target can be easily guessed"

How ?

Max said "the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena."

... the target isn't real time ? Of course it is, what else could it be ? It just seems to me that you're throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some of it sticks, Max. Furthermore, if they are successful and the referees are satisfied that the methods are correct and tight, what will it matter to the world if you or me disagree ? 

Max said "More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets."

Targets at different heights would invalidate the data much more effectively than any of your previous suggestions above. You would want that because your theory could then (hypothetically) be tested with doctors "transmitting" the picture they could see, into the brain of the patient beneath them. But they're never going to test for that, ever.

IMHO you're simply riding on the back of the OBE during NDE phenomenon.