(2017-09-02, 01:00 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]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.
I think that unfortunately it is quite likely that experimental studies like AWARE will never and can never make a conclusive case no matter how long they are continued, and at no matter how many hospitals. Despite a large and convincing body of anecdotal veridical cases that meet a lot of common sense evidential standards, such as are documented in
The Self Does Not Die. The problem is, it is as if this phenomenon (along with other forms of dramatic paranormal phenomena) just doesn't want to be pinned down with some form of repeatable laboratory experiments. When it is attempted to pin them down, it just doesn't work - deep veridical NDEs either don't happen at all or always in rooms without the experimental apparatus. It is as if the "powers that be" want to maintain a certain uncertainty, with the phenomena only exhibiting themselves spontaneously in life, in such a way that there is never conclusive scientific proof they actually occurred as reported. It would be interesting to speculate why this should be, whether it is a conscious and deliberate plan, or merely the way things are, like quantum mechanical uncertainty.
(2017-09-03, 08:27 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I think that unfortunately it is quite likely that experimental studies like AWARE will never and can never make a conclusive case no matter how long they are continued, and at no matter how many hospitals. Despite a large and convincing body of anecdotal veridical cases that meet a lot of common sense evidential standards, such as are documented in The Self Does Not Die. The problem is, it is as if this phenomenon (along with other forms of dramatic paranormal phenomena) just doesn't want to be pinned down with some form of repeatable laboratory experiments. When it is attempted to pin them down, it just doesn't work - deep veridical NDEs either don't happen at all or always in rooms without the experimental apparatus. It is as if the "powers that be" want to maintain a certain uncertainty, with the phenomena only exhibiting themselves spontaneously in life, in such a way that there is never conclusive scientific proof they actually occurred as reported. It would be interesting to speculate why this should be, whether it is a conscious and deliberate plan, or merely the way things are, like quantum mechanical uncertainty.
Could be some cosmic evasion plan, but I suspect it's just the numbers. e.g. (Probability of NDE happening) x (probability that they are remembers) x (probability that they are reported) x (probability that the person experiencing it looks in the right direction) = very small number indeed
(2017-09-01, 07:43 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]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.
As a shortcut for me having to read all of the literature Horror , I have a question...
Do any of these studies include cases where a person in OBE or NDE, DID see the laptop (or whatever mechanism was created to send the a message), did look at it, and simply got the wrong, or nonsensical information?
I ask because in his book Multidimensional Man, Jurgen Zewie has documented cases where the information was actually different when viewed from an NDE state. So if this is the case, there really three possibilities: subject didn't notice the note (a Miss), subject read the note and reported correctly (a Hit), and lastly, the subject read the note and reported it incorrectly (a Near Miss?).
(2017-09-14, 08:51 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]As a shortcut for me having to read all of the literature Horror , I have a question...
Do any of these studies include cases where a person in OBE or NDE, DID see the laptop (or whatever mechanism was created to send the a message), did look at it, and simply got the wrong, or nonsensical information?
I ask because in his book Multidimensional Man, Jurgen Zewie has documented cases where the information was actually different when viewed from an NDE state. So if this is the case, there really three possibilities: subject didn't notice the note (a Miss), subject read the note and reported correctly (a Hit), and lastly, the subject read the note and reported it incorrectly (a Near Miss?).
No, AWARE I only reported one OBE with veridical information and it happened in a room that wasn't prepared (no target = can't see what isn't there).
(2017-09-14, 08:57 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]No, AWARE I only reported one OBE with veridical information and it happened in a room that wasn't prepared (no target = can't see what isn't there).
Thanks.
Are you using the term OBE to intentionally differentiate from NDE?
1 out of how many NDEs?
(2017-09-14, 08:51 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]As a shortcut for me having to read all of the literature Horror , I have a question...
Do any of these studies include cases where a person in OBE or NDE, DID see the laptop (or whatever mechanism was created to send the a message), did look at it, and simply got the wrong, or nonsensical information?
Neither, none of the above. Some of the patients who had an NDE reported accurate veridical information, But since they had no idea that they were 'supposed to' cooperate by falling ill and having an NDE at the right place and the right time, and then look for a specific target, there was no opportunity to do so. You've heard of the difficulty of herding cats? Trying to do so with seriously ill patients is much harder.
Quote:I ask because in his book Multidimensional Man, Jurgen Zewie has documented cases where the information was actually different when viewed from an NDE state. So if this is the case, there really three possibilities: subject didn't notice the note (a Miss), subject read the note and reported correctly (a Hit), and lastly, the subject read the note and reported it incorrectly (a Near Miss?).
Yes, I've read something similar regarding OBE research.
However an NDE isn't the same in that the OBE participant has specific goals, The NDEer doesn't even know anything about the experiment until afterwards.
(2017-09-14, 09:04 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks.
Are you using the term OBE to intentionally differentiate from NDE?
1 out of how many NDEs?
I meant veridical OBEs during NDEs. Only a combination of both could produce a hit that supported the hypothesis.
There were 140 survivors out of a pool of 2,000+ patients (ridiculous recruitment standards that were corrected for AWARE II) that were interviewed, out of which 9 reported NDEs. One reported an OBE and another some sort of awareness of the environment that could not be elaborated due to the severity of his condition.
Edit:If you are wondering why the recruitment standards were ridiculous, it's because they also counted the patients that died to bolster the tally.
(2017-09-03, 08:27 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I think that unfortunately it is quite likely that experimental studies like AWARE will never and can never make a conclusive case no matter how long they are continued, and at no matter how many hospitals. Despite a large and convincing body of anecdotal veridical cases that meet a lot of common sense evidential standards, such as are documented in The Self Does Not Die. The problem is, it is as if this phenomenon (along with other forms of dramatic paranormal phenomena) just doesn't want to be pinned down with some form of repeatable laboratory experiments. When it is attempted to pin them down, it just doesn't work - deep veridical NDEs either don't happen at all or always in rooms without the experimental apparatus. It is as if the "powers that be" want to maintain a certain uncertainty, with the phenomena only exhibiting themselves spontaneously in life, in such a way that there is never conclusive scientific proof they actually occurred as reported. It would be interesting to speculate why this should be, whether it is a conscious and deliberate plan, or merely the way things are, like quantum mechanical uncertainty.
You have to remember this time (Aware 2) that every (or the majority of) cardiac arrest(s) will have a target. Personally, I just think it's a matter of time until the first hit. Some meticulous old buffer (probably a train spotter) will be curious enough to make a mental note of that unusual picture on a pole and when he wakes up.....
(2017-09-14, 08:51 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]As a shortcut for me having to read all of the literature Horror , I have a question...
Do any of these studies include cases where a person in OBE or NDE, DID see the laptop (or whatever mechanism was created to send the a message), did look at it, and simply got the wrong, or nonsensical information?
I ask because in his book Multidimensional Man, Jurgen Zewie has documented cases where the information was actually different when viewed from an NDE state. So if this is the case, there really three possibilities: subject didn't notice the note (a Miss), subject read the note and reported correctly (a Hit), and lastly, the subject read the note and reported it incorrectly (a Near Miss?).
No. As far as I'm aware the only patient who has ever reported an OBE in an area with a hidden target, is Penny Sartori's patient 10.
(2017-09-14, 12:58 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]You have to remember this time (Aware 2) that every (or the majority of) cardiac arrest(s) will have a target. Personally, I just think it's a matter of time until the first hit. Some meticulous old buffer (probably a train spotter) will be curious enough to make a mental note of that unusual picture on a pole and when he wakes up.....
Yes, it will happen.
And then there will be claims that someone else saw it and told the patient of it, or, or, or. Skeptic
Do you really think a positive result will be embraced by material science? ROFL
I think this work is important, but I have no illusions about who will mostly benefit, and it isn't the science community as a whole. It's the average seeker. The crazy truth is, there is already enough evidence to convince that person today.