(2017-08-28, 11:40 AM)laborde Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Malf, that was a blast from the past; especially the posting dynamics between fors and againsts and the moderation decisions. Did note you recycled yourself, without attribution, here 
Quality comment, tho ... and goes to the only glove that can be laid on the case, assuming we grant Dr Rudy and his assistant the good virtue I feel they deserve.
It's a fun thread. You'll notice my absence from the first dozen pages or so. Yep, temp ban
(2017-08-28, 05:47 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]It's a fun thread. You'll notice my absence from the first dozen pages or so. Yep, temp ban
And here am I thinking it was all about timing your entrance
(2017-08-28, 05:47 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]It's a fun thread. You'll notice my absence from the first dozen pages or so. Yep, temp ban
Malf, humorous or ironic references to the moderation at Skeptiko are not acceptable on this forum. Email me when you're ready to come back.
(2017-08-28, 05:42 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure over that time period the actual events of his procedure would've been discussed with him. Probably several times.
And that explains it, does it. Those gullible physicians and nurses somehow fed him the information and didn't realise they'd done it ? And the guy himself didn't realise that he'd been fed the information...and instantly came to believe that he really had been floating around the OR (even though of course he hadn't really) ?
Malf, there isn't a smiley face picture in existence which accurately sums up my thoughts on this type of scepticism.
(2017-08-29, 01:37 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]And that explains it, does it. Those gullible physicians and nurses somehow fed him the information and didn't realise they'd done it ? And the guy himself didn't realise that he'd been fed the information...and instantly came to believe that he really had been floating around the OR (even though of course he hadn't really) ?
Malf, there isn't a smiley face picture in existence which accurately sums up my thoughts on this type of scepticism.
It's not about gullible hospital workers, it's about the control over information being discussed with the patient. There's also family members, who would have been given the some of the story before the patient even woke up.
I say 'some of the story' as it is well known that anecdotes like this grow over time in order to appear more wonderful and impressive. We are story telling animals, and this is human nature.
I suppose this could be connected to the discussion over 'extraordinary evidence' in another thread at the moment. If one wants to find evidence of 'disembodied senses' one would have to do much better than this story.
(2017-08-29, 06:10 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Malf, humorous or ironic references to the moderation at Skeptiko are not acceptable on this forum. Email me when you're ready to come back.
Awesome work. And for a moment, a split second, you got me
(2017-08-29, 06:23 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]It's not about gullible hospital workers, it's about the control over information being discussed with the patient. There's also family members, who would have been given the some of the story before the patient even woke up.
I say 'some of the story' as it is well known that anecdotes like this grow over time in order to appear more wonderful and impressive. We are story telling animals, and this is human nature.
I suppose this could be connected to the discussion over 'extraordinary evidence' in another thread at the moment. If one wants to find evidence of 'disembodied senses' one would have to do much better than this story.
"it's about the control over information being discussed with the patient."
You seriously think that those physicians were not capable of discerning a genuine unexplainable report from their patient
? Are you not embarrassed by such nonsense ?
" I say 'some of the story' as it is well known that anecdotes like this grow over time in order to appear more wonderful and impressive."
Do you not realise that the reason why they went in to talk to the patient over a period of ten days was simply because they were so perplexed by what he had told them.
There was no "growing" of the report ! If there had been a mundane explanation, do you not think that between them they would have realised that ?
What about the patient ? Was he a fool ? How do you convince someone that they've been floating around the operating room and seen things they couldn't possibly have seen, when they really haven't (according to you) .... and then get them to sincerely swear that they have ?
"If one wants to find evidence of 'disembodied senses' one would have to do much better than this story."
Really ? A patient lying stone dead on an operating table, closely monitored, is able to accurately describe what is occurring around him, including things he couldn't possibly have known about ?
What exactly would you like to see as evidence suggestive of such ?
(2017-08-29, 07:59 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, that happens, but this story still originates from some event. That event seems to have been shared by more than one person who I have little reason to disbelieve were there (we have Rudy, and the other guy who Smithy found). The period that Rudy claims the patient described to him, also appears to coincide with the period of the patients auto-resuscitation, which fits well with the same period of recall described by other experients. The patient appears to have had a pretty classic hospitalised OBE. I don't see any reason to dispute any of that. Is Rudy confusing his own memory of the period of auto-resuscitation, with his memory of what the patient described as happening, not only is that possible, I'd say that over time, interference between both memories would be certain.
But I think you're still forced to concede that these hospital OBE recollections are commonly recalled with information that appears to come from the period of the patients resuscitation, and not other periods, and that this requires a satisfying explanation... and I certainly haven't seen one yet.
I mean, can you not meet people a least a little way, by accepting that the common OBE recollection of information, apparently from the period of the experients resuscitation is a bit of a puzzle?
I agree - it's a puzzle and I'm only trying to demonstrate that there is more than one solution to the puzzle.
I think any post surgery discussions will centre around the resuscitation, as it is point of most drama that drives the narrative (and we love a narrative).
It's also important to keep in mind that when someone doubts a story like this it is not purely a case of dismissing evidence, but bringing other evidence to bear on the case. For example, in this instance the idea of human-type vision without a human visual system is difficult to reconcile given what we know about that system and how it works. Remember, this system, with its neural organisation and feedback loops, doesn't give us a 'true' view of our environment or 'reality', but a very human representation of it, to make it easier to efficiently interact with it. We have exactly the same issues with hearing.
Now, some may say that this model of vision and hearing is based on a narrow view of these senses, and presupposes a certain metaphysic, and they'd be right. However, this approach has yielded much progress in modelling systems, and making good predictions based on these models, over and over. It's almost irresistible.
I have something to add here. It doesn't mean anything to anyone else but I was the very first person to view the Rudy video (on you tube) which I immediately sent to Smithy who in turn sent it to his research partner (Titus Rivas) and contacts all around the world. No one was able to contact Dr Rudy to delve further into the case and later we discovered why of course.
It was me again who spotted an online comment by Dr (Amado) Cattaneo and asked him if he would allow researchers to contact him (Smit and Rivas). He very kindly agreed. This gave me the opportunity to "speak" (via email) to him about the case in some depth. It was just a stroke of luck and an amazing opportunity to hear from the 'horses mouth' confirmation of the incredible nature of the case. The main thanks of course go to Mike Milligan for persuading Dr Rudy to talk about the case on camera and Smit and Rivas for publishing the paper.
I think I'm slightly better informed than Malf about it, That's all.
(2017-09-03, 07:42 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I have something to add here. It doesn't mean anything to anyone else but I was the very first person to view the Rudy video (on you tube) which I immediately sent to Smithy who in turn sent it to his research partner (Titus Rivas) and contacts all around the world. No one was able to contact Dr Rudy to delve further into the case and later we discovered why of course.
It was me again who spotted an online comment by Dr (Amado) Cattaneo and asked him if he would allow researchers to contact him (Smit and Rivas). He very kindly agreed. This gave me the opportunity to "speak" (via email) to him about the case in some depth. It was just a stroke of luck and an amazing opportunity to hear from the 'horses mouth' confirmation of the incredible nature of the case. The main thanks of course go to Mike Milligan for persuading Dr Rudy to talk about the case on camera and Smit and Rivas for publishing the paper.
I think I'm slightly better informed than Malf about it, That's all.
Your emotional attachment to the case is clear, Tim.
