I think this is as good as anyplace to insert this:
I was reading a new book and came across the following quote from a "real" scientist. I thought I would paste here because on more than one occasion Linda and others have stated or suggested, that science doesn't believe this stuff (paraphrasing of course).
I assume they didn't mean to say it categorically,, but still, I feel the need to say this for the record:
LOTS of working/publishing scientists not only believe this stuff is real, but think it is irrational not to believe it: that is if one is looking at the data objectively.
Richard Conn Henry, Prof of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins Univ. said in his 2005 book "Mental Universe" the following:
"Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial, mental and spiritual".
Of course there are MANY quotes that one could post the show both opinions from various scientists, so this one quote is not the end of any discussion on the topic.
My central point is: real scientists, who are doing real "hard science" work (not psychology, or para---), at world-class universities, are making this claim.
With all due respect to Linda et al: it can't be dismissed as an "unscientific" view. In other words: that it is not supported by convincing scientific evidence.
(2017-09-19, 09:39 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]snip They are more about whether our sensory perceptions can be non-physical.
Question Linda-
Looks like to you, the fundamental question for validating NDE and OBE is whether we can "prove" sense data from our physical world while in these states. (I put prove in quotes because I believe there is no accepted universal standard for this)
What makes the following examples fall short for you? Assume you are familiar with each.
1- The Maria "tennis shoe on the ledge story" from the Seattle hospital.
2- The dentures story
3- The Pam Reynolds story
4- The Anita Moorjani story (specifically where she senses her doctor's conversation with her family which took place down the hall)
It seems that each of these include unexplained ability sense data when this was impossible.
None of these cases were documented prior to feedback being offered. And they also, by and large, do not involve sense data obtained when this was impossible.
For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained. Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3,
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2).
I remember that I tested the idea that Anita Moorjani couldn't hear the conversation over the distance she described in her book (I read the book) and I could hear it. (Through an open door, around a corner, and about 60 feet away, I could hear a TV at low/normal volume, IIRC.)
I'm not sure that we want to start on Pam Reynolds, but Rudolph Smit underwent a test of whether a statement could be heard under the conditions for Pam's Auditory Evoked Potentials (moulded earpieces - one playing loud clicks and one playing white noise) and he could hear it. She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics). The BIS shows that awareness does not begin to decrease due to burst suppression until the suppression ration is greater than 50% (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580235). Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.
The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.
Does documentation matter? It seems to. In Sartori's NDE research where she actually records everything carefully, it can be seen that she provides information to many of the patients she interviews about the details of their resuscitation. And in one case, in her research paper, the statements that she found remarkable from her subject came from her or were not recorded (the most remarkable statement turned out to have come from a third-hand report).
Linda
(2017-09-19, 12:35 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I think this is as good as anyplace to insert this:
I was reading a new book and came across the following quote from a "real" scientist. I thought I would paste here because on more than one occasion Linda and others have stated or suggested, that science doesn't believe this stuff (paraphrasing of course).
I assume they didn't mean to say it categorically,, but still, I feel the need to say this for the record:
LOTS of working/publishing scientists not only believe this stuff is real, but think it is irrational not to believe it: that is if one is looking at the data objectively.
Richard Conn Henry, Prof of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins Univ. said in his 2005 book "Mental Universe" the following:
"Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial, mental and spiritual".
Of course there are MANY quotes that one could post the show both opinions from various scientists, so this one quote is not the end of any discussion on the topic.
My central point is: real scientists, who are doing real "hard science" work (not psychology, or para---), at world-class universities, are making this claim.
With all due respect to Linda et al: it can't be dismissed as an "unscientific" view. In other words: that it is not supported by convincing scientific evidence.
I don't want you to get the impression that I think no scientists accept this stuff. I've tried to say otherwise multiple times.
What I have said is the same thing that most people say, including proponents - there hasn't been general acceptance by scientists. That is, we don't see the idea spreading and gaining acceptance through closely related fields and then further abroad, in the way that other ideas have spread. We don't see psychiatrists as a group generally picking up on Tucker's reincarnation research. We don't see physicists in general picking up on Radin's double-slit experiment. We don't see psychologists in general picking up on Bem's presentiment research (except in the expectation of getting negative results to debunk it). Etc.
Proponents attribute this to pig-headedness. I'm suggesting it's due to the level of evidence (the lack thereof) needed to change minds.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 12:57 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]None of these cases were documented prior to feedback being offered. And they also, by and large, do not involve sense data obtained when this was impossible.
For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained. Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2).
I remember that I tested the idea that Anita Moorjani couldn't hear the conversation over the distance she described in her book (I read the book) and I could hear it. (Through an open door, around a corner, and about 60 feet away, I could hear a TV at low/normal volume, IIRC.)
I'm not sure that we want to start on Pam Reynolds, but Rudolph Smit underwent a test of whether a statement could be heard under the conditions for Pam's Auditory Evoked Potentials (moulded earpieces - one playing loud clicks and one playing white noise) and he could hear it. She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics). The BIS shows that awareness does not begin to decrease due to burst suppression until the suppression ration is greater than 50% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580235). Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.
The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.
Does documentation matter? It seems to. In Sartori's NDE research where she actually records everything carefully, it can be seen that she provides information to many of the patients she interviews about the details of their resuscitation. And in one case, in her research paper, the statements that she found remarkable from her subject came from her or were not recorded (the most remarkable statement turned out to have come from a third-hand report).
Linda
Source that denture man was undergoing CPR when he received some sensory data ? We also lack an explanation of how he'd be able to recall in such detail and have such a high level of consciousness in such a state. 'Some awareness' is a world away from the detail he called and the type of experience he had.
You were at full waking consciousness and purposefully trying to see if you could hear (also how can you guarantee the acoustics, background noise etc were the same? You can't). You wouldn't accept this level of person research in the proponent direction, so why should we accept the test of yours having any baring on Anita's case? And remember her brain was in an impaired state at the time.
Source for your claim about Santori? Her telling a patient everything then finding the statements read back to her remarkable seems very sloppy to me, would like a credible source that that actually happened. And what statement came from what third-hand report? More details please.
(2017-09-19, 01:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want you to get the impression that I think no scientists accept this stuff. I've tried to say otherwise multiple times.
What I have said is the same thing that most people say, including proponents - there hasn't been general acceptance by scientists. That is, we don't see the idea spreading and gaining acceptance through closely related fields and then further abroad, in the way that other ideas have spread. We don't see psychiatrists as a group generally picking up on Tucker's reincarnation research. We don't see physicists in general picking up on Radin's double-slit experiment. We don't see psychologists in general picking up on Bem's presentiment research (except in the expectation of getting negative results to debunk it). Etc.
Proponents attribute this to pig-headedness. I'm suggesting it's due to the level of evidence (the lack thereof) needed to change minds.
Linda
One issue with your theory is that skeptics themselves have stated the evidence is at least at a reasonable level - Wiseman's infamous quote comes to mind. Is he wrong? If so, why? You also state that it's not down to pigheadedness, isn't psychologists doing research attempting to debunk it 'pigheadedness'?
Then you also should explain why the vast majority of people who conduct Parapsychology research or who are familiar with the literature are proponents or lean that way, if the evidence is as bad as you say it is?
You also haven't mentioned the taboo of psi/Parapsychology, Max stated himself that Guerrer might be screwing over his career by attempting Radin's work (and succeeding, if he'd got a negative result his career would be fine). I also asked somebody to do an interview for this website, and they said only if it could be anonymous.
I get the impression that you have already decided psi is impossible, so you do whatever it takes to make sure you don't change your mind. If nearly everybody else as well informed as you is at least 50/50 or not a proponent of psi, why are they wrong but you're right?
(2017-09-19, 12:57 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]None of these cases were documented prior to feedback being offered. And they also, by and large, do not involve sense data obtained when this was impossible.
For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained. Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2).
I remember that I tested the idea that Anita Moorjani couldn't hear the conversation over the distance she described in her book (I read the book) and I could hear it. (Through an open door, around a corner, and about 60 feet away, I could hear a TV at low/normal volume, IIRC.)
I'm not sure that we want to start on Pam Reynolds, but Rudolph Smit underwent a test of whether a statement could be heard under the conditions for Pam's Auditory Evoked Potentials (moulded earpieces - one playing loud clicks and one playing white noise) and he could hear it. She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics). The BIS shows that awareness does not begin to decrease due to burst suppression until the suppression ration is greater than 50% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580235). Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.
The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.
Does documentation matter? It seems to. In Sartori's NDE research where she actually records everything carefully, it can be seen that she provides information to many of the patients she interviews about the details of their resuscitation. And in one case, in her research paper, the statements that she found remarkable from her subject came from her or were not recorded (the most remarkable statement turned out to have come from a third-hand report).
Linda
OK. Although I disagree with just about every assertion you are making, it is nice to at least hear the details.
Thank-you for that Linda.
The reason I have been asking this sort of case specific question is to get to these sorts of nitty-gritty details explained in a nice simple format.
I would guess that it is unlikely that a case will come along that will comply with the level of proof you seek. But at least now I have a better idea of what that is. It's helpful for me to envision why someone would not be convinced of what I see as obvious and overwhelming evidence at this point.
Yes, there are ways in these cases that it is just barely POSSIBLE to justify not accepting the story. It just comes down to how thin the story is that you will allow yourself to grasp on to, to support the denial. Is see these arguments as extremely thin, especially because there are literally a thousand other stories waiting that I could bring up. However I am quite sure now, based on the types of arguments I am seeing, that most, if not all of these, would allow similar and equally improbable scenarios that one could bring to bare.
I want to be really clear though and say that I don't think you are being disingenuous at all about this in the least. Seems like you are being very genuine and reasonable in your desire to discuss this and explain your position.
(2017-09-19, 02:56 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Source that denture man was undergoing CPR when he received some sensory data ? We also lack an explanation of how he'd be able to recall in such detail and have such a high level of consciousness in such a state. 'Some awareness' is a world away from the detail he called and the type of experience he had.
You were at full waking consciousness and purposefully trying to see if you could hear (also how can you guarantee the acoustics, background noise etc were the same? You can't). You wouldn't accept this level of person research in the proponent direction, so why should we accept the test of yours having any baring on Anita's case? And remember her brain was in an impaired state at the time.
Source for your claim about Santori? Her telling a patient everything then finding the statements read back to her remarkable seems very sloppy to me, would like a credible source that that actually happened. And what statement came from what third-hand report? More details please.
http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experi...077345103X
http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf
The advantage of the hidden target is that we get to forego these kinds of arguments, where proponents want to restrict our sensory capacity and skeptics don't. None of the cases jkmac mentioned would be remarkable with some sensory function, whereas spotting a hidden target would be remarkable even with full sensory function.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 03:01 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]One issue with your theory is that skeptics themselves have stated the evidence is at least at a reasonable level - Wiseman's infamous quote comes to mind. Is he wrong? If so, why?
He's not talking about the level of evidence that I brought up earlier. He only said that it was on par with some psychology research, which I'd agree with. As has been discovered, some psychology research also suffers from low quality.
Quote:You also state that it's not down to pigheadedness, isn't psychologists doing research attempting to debunk it 'pigheadedness'?
Not really. Lots of research is done with the expectation that the results will be negative. The question is whether someone will change their mind if it's not.
Quote:Then you also should explain why the vast majority of people who conduct Parapsychology research or who are familiar with the literature are proponents or lean that way, if the evidence is as bad as you say it is?
Don't you think there must be a very strong selection bias there? By and large, people who conduct parapsychology research who become skeptical about that research probably leave the field, leaving behind mostly just those who believe.
Quote:You also haven't mentioned the taboo of psi/Parapsychology, Max stated himself that Guerrer might be screwing over his career by attempting Radin's work (and succeeding, if he'd got a negative result his career would be fine). I also asked somebody to do an interview for this website, and they said only if it could be anonymous.
I agree it's not popular. I'm suggesting that there are good ways to make it more popular.
Quote:I get the impression that you have already decided psi is impossible,
Really? Even though I very specifically said otherwise?
Quote:so you do whatever it takes to make sure you don't change your mind. If nearly everybody else as well informed as you is at least 50/50 or not a proponent of psi, why are they wrong but you're right?
Where are you getting that from? Among people who seem well-informed there seems to be a wide range of acceptance, from full acceptance to skepticism or even cynicism.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 03:49 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experi...077345103X
http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf
The advantage of the hidden target is that we get to forego these kinds of arguments, where proponents want to restrict our sensory capacity and skeptics don't. None of the cases jkmac mentioned would be remarkable with some sensory function, whereas spotting a hidden target would be remarkable even with full sensory function.
Linda
Sure,,,, if it ever happens.
But also you don't think there will be some other improbable argument like: hey, wait a minute, maybe the person overheard someone else who had just checked the system and knows the secret code? That COULD have happened right? You know, extraordinary claims, and all that,,,
No it will not be accepted by all, if it ever occurs.
Also this assumes the hidden code is readable from the astral. Evidence I've mentioned here says that it is usually not, according to Jurgen Ziewe.
(2017-09-19, 01:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want you to get the impression that I think no scientists accept this stuff. I've tried to say otherwise multiple times.
What I have said is the same thing that most people say, including proponents - there hasn't been general acceptance by scientists. That is, we don't see the idea spreading and gaining acceptance through closely related fields and then further abroad, in the way that other ideas have spread. We don't see psychiatrists as a group generally picking up on Tucker's reincarnation research. We don't see physicists in general picking up on Radin's double-slit experiment. We don't see psychologists in general picking up on Bem's presentiment research (except in the expectation of getting negative results to debunk it). Etc.
Proponents attribute this to pig-headedness. I'm suggesting it's due to the level of evidence (the lack thereof) needed to change minds.
Linda
I get your point. If that works for you that's fine. And I don't mean that as a snub or a wise-crack.
I guess I feel better knowing that my position is also held by more than a handful of PhD level physicists. Which of course your's is too I realize.
Reminds me of the early days of rocketry when mythical American's said to the USSR: our Germans are smarter than your Germans...
