(2017-09-01, 06:31 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks tim. I understand what you're saying - there was nothing to test.
It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us. I guess if there were dozens of NDEs and none of them saw the target that might constitute failure, maybe not even then. Do you happen to know what the criteria for success were?
"It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us."
It's anybody's guess, Obiwan. Personally, I feel certain it won't fail but that's a fat lot of use to anyone else. We just have to wait and see, it may take decades to get enough hits to finally shut down the debate. I certainly don't know what the criteria are for success (how many hits). I do know that many physicians know there's something going on which cannot be attributed to brain delusions.
(2017-09-01, 06:50 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]"It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us."
It's anybody's guess, Obiwan. Personally, I feel certain it won't fail but that's a fat lot of use to anyone else. We just have to wait and see, it may take decades to get enough hits to finally shut down the debate. I certainly don't know what the criteria are for success (how many hits). I do know that many physicians know there's something going on which cannot be attributed to brain delusions.
I think that's perhaps one of the difficulties with studies like this. They have criteria for success and if they're not met, then even if there are interesting results, effectively they don't count toward the purpose of the study.
Nobody seems to be interested in my suggestion of repeatedly giving a person a heart attack and resuscitating them until they give us the answer
(2017-09-01, 07:16 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]I think that's perhaps one of the difficulties with studies like this. They have criteria for success and if they're not met, then even if there are interesting results, effectively they don't count toward the purpose of the study.
Actually they do count. All outcomes count.
Currently AWARE II is in progress. You can be sure that the outcomes - all of them - from AWARE were used in the design and planning of its successor.
They also count in that the study generated information - it tells us things we didn't know before the study. When investigating areas which are under-researched, all information is of enormous value.
(2017-09-01, 07:18 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]There hasn't been a hit on a secret, hidden visual target, so there has never been any reason to raise the issue of leakage to explain a hit. But people are naturally curious, as Penny Sartori says...
"When I did a pilot study I realised that my colleagues were very curious about the symbols and in my absence many of them had climbed up on ladders to view them. This in itself could have invalidated the research especially if my colleagues had discussed the symbols within earshot of any patient – if a patient had reported an OBE, it could be a mind model constructed from what the patients heard the staff talking about. So I had to renew all of the symbols and spoke to each staff member and explained the importance of them not knowing what the symbols were. I showed them the previous symbols that I had to replace and their curiosity was satisfied and they no longer had the need to climb on ladders."
Any hit's and comments similar to Pennys will be immediately raised as the reason.
That's old technology now, Max. I could be wrong but I think the pictures on the laptop change every few minutes (but don't quote me on that)
I'm currently talking to and writing a book based on the experience of someone who not only left his body, he 'walked' about all over the hospital and travelled instantaneously around the United States, checking up on old friends. A fanciful claim, yes but he has witnesses. He saw things he couldn't possibly have seen or known about and confirmed it all later when he recovered. I'm afraid "field theory" wouldn't explain his report.
I understand your point Typoz but it doesn't really move me - even I can extract lessons from failure
. What happened to me was still a failure nevertheless
(2017-09-01, 10:45 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]I understand your point Typoz but it doesn't really move me - even I can extract lessons from failure . What happened to me was still a failure nevertheless
Seriously, I think this is a mistake. (well, ok, perhaps I shouldn't be so dogmatic).
But there are plenty of sceptics willing to claim there is no evidence for any of the things we discuss here. The last thing we need is for an actual veridical report during cardiac arrest to be swept aside as a 'failure'. I think we need to call a spade a spade. There
was a successful result. Let's make sure that is the headline story.
(2017-09-01, 09:51 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]That's good, it won't help with leakage claims, but it helps with the 'when'.
You've never understood my ideas... but most of the distant veridical type OBE's seem to be with relatives, friends, loved ones, who I suspect already have similar networks.
So that allows 1) a localised effect from third party strangers who can lay down their own field pattern on an adult patients exposed network, 2) a localised, or distant effect with friends, family, loved ones because the adult patients networks are already similar. 3) a mixed effect in children, where they can experience both strangers and loved ones both localised and distant, because their networks are not fully formed/still forming and because of this, they have greater compatibility (less uniqueness) than an adults network.
Max said "That's good, it won't help with leakage claims, but it helps with the 'when'"
Sorry, I don't understand that statement, Max
Max said "You've never understood my ideas"
Is this not a reasonable summary ? You believe that 'brains' (at any distance) are capable of exchanging real time, ultra clear visual information with another brain (that is switched off) by some type of electro magnetic field. And the brain that is switched off can automatically and preferentially harvest the pertinent/relevant "sent" information from the other brains, selecting only what it needs to form a perfect real time view of itself (it's body)...and then when the patient wakes up there is a further fine tuning in that the position of this observation is relocated to the ceiling ?
Leaving aside the incredible (multiple) "leaps" that are needed to even begin to get one's head around that, bear in mind in doesn't fit the data.
Patients often report their sense of self leaving behind their physical body through the top of their head. They feel everything that is vital about them (ME, MYSELF) is actually up on the ceiling. They also report that they can pass through walls and see and hear things they couldn't possibly have seen, 'down the hall' and beyond etc.
Naturally, you scoff at the idea of an invisible autonomous self or 'soul.' However, there is indisputable evidence for the self/soul even if it is just confined to the brain. We all have a sense of self a persisting entity that makes us who we are. The question has always been can that 'entity' continue....or not.
Max said >but most of the distant veridical type OBE's seem to be with relatives, friends, loved ones, who I suspect already have similar networks.
My friend also floated above the earth but I have only have his word for that, of course. I should point out he is absolutely not the kind of guy to have invented any of this.
I'm pretty sure I am right about the experimental protocols and how they work. I could be wrong. My understanding is that, strictly speaking, one has to be very specific about what one is going to do and how one is go to do it. Amongst other things this, is to permit peers to identify any flaws in the protocol and also to facilitate replication.
Now if something happens that's useful, as you descibe, that's great and needs analysis but if it falls outside the terms of the study, the study didn't 'find' it per se. I.e. It wasn't a finding of the study.
There are, as you know, many many examples of veridical NDEs, some of which have been analysed in great detail - this sounds like it may be another one but unless it meets the criteria of the study there may be a bit of a 'so what' from dispassionate reviewers of the study. An advantage might be that in the course of looking for NDEs, there was more likelihood that they would identify veridical elements.
I don't think the AWARE study has found anything much, by its own measures yet, but I agree with tim it's not a failure in the sense that it undermines the veridical nature of NDEs, but in others it is, if it hasn't achieved its stated objectives i.e. It didn't work.
My own view, fwiw, is that the failure of the AWARE study to meet its objectives so far, doesn't affect the current position wrt NDEs. It probably needs to run for a long time. I think the idea behind it is probably the only way we'll see evidence of the veridical nature of some NDEs that will convince a sceptical observer.
(2017-09-01, 07:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I'm currently talking to and writing a book based on the experience of someone who not only left his body, he 'walked' about all over the hospital and travelled instantaneously around the United States, checking up on old friends. A fanciful claim, yes but he has witnesses. He saw things he couldn't possibly have seen or known about and confirmed it all later when he recovered. I'm afraid "field theory" wouldn't explain his report.
He went the "Christmas Carol" route on his NDE?
(2017-09-02, 01:26 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, your summary is a horrible misunderstanding of my ideas.
Oh well, maybe someone else can have a stab at it and enlighten me.