(2018-03-29, 07:36 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Where do you say you quoted the dictionary definition of the word "unreal"?
Looking back at a previous time we went round this mulberry bush, I see I actually said to
fls then "
Perhaps it would be helpful to define what you mean by ‘unreal’."
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a-...7#pid12727
She didn't respond to my request.
I think this is the study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063168/
Interestingly, the results of the prior study I referenced were not replicated in this study. The MCQ score for NDEs was similar to those in the prior study, but the MCQ score in the control and other groups were substantially higher in this study.
I am sorry to hear about your burglary and loss, Arouet. That's distressing.
Linda
(2018-03-29, 03:38 AM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]I posted a study a couple times that found IIRC that the gamma waves in the subjects of NDErs recallng their NDEs were very similar to the gamma waves of subjects recalling their hallucinations. If I’m not wrong the study involved hypnosis as well and the researchers reported being surprised at this result. Searching my posts on Skeptiko should turn it up if that forum hasn’t been deleted. Unfortunately my home was burgled a few weeks ago and my computers with all my saved studies were stolen.
I know we're not exactly pals, Arouet but I'm sorry to hear that. Base/deplorable human behaviour never changes, sadly. I hope you and your family get over it soon. In the UK we have a massive problem with this type of crime.
(2018-03-29, 11:09 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I think her choice of label - 'unreal experiences' - for the types of experiences she is catagorising is confusing, and she's admitted it is inaccurate, but that really isn't my main interest in pursuing this.
I simply wanted to know specifically how she has separated out the sub-set of experiences she has labeled 'unreal experiences' from the universe of 'experiences'. (i.e. what is she measuring, how is she measuring it, and demonstrating how she does that to the forum)?
That's all.
I'm referring to whatever experiences mainstream and parapsychology researchers are describing in their studies. If you are confused about how they are identifying those experiences, then I would suggest that you refer to their research or ask them. For example, (as I mentioned previously), questions start with "do you remember anything from your stay in the ICU/your cardiac arrest/your ambulance ride, etc.?" and then asking the subjects to elaborate on what they remember. Some of the wording Penny Sartori used as a prompt (at least in her guidelines) was "
was this the kind of experience which is difficult to put into words?" (first mentioned in post #63).
If you are questioning the validity of these methods, then that is something you need to take up with the researchers. I've given numerous examples of the kinds of experiences they identify, but otherwise I haven't separated out any sort of sub-set of experiences on my own, so directing these questions to me is irrelevant.
As far as I can tell, the subjects and the researchers don't seem to have difficulty with this process. If you are truly unfamiliar with the use of the word "unreal" in the English language, then a dictionary could be consulted.
Linda
(2018-03-29, 12:05 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I can tell, the subjects and the researchers don't seem to have difficulty with this process. If you are truly unfamiliar with the use of the word "unreal" in the English language, then a dictionary could be consulted.
I'll ask again.
You said you had already posted the dictionary definition here. Where do you say you posted it?
(2018-03-29, 12:39 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You've still chosen a sub-set of experiences from the universe of experiences, and labeled them 'unreal experiences'?
It was you who mentioned hallucinations, dreams and other unreal experiences, as being included in your sub-set of experiences which you labeled 'unreal experiences'?
It wasn't the researchers who made that choice. You made that choice to select certain types of experience, which you included in your sub-set 'unreal experiences'?
Perhaps you just plucked them randomly from the universe of experiences, or perhaps you selected them in some way. But how did you do that? How did you make the selection?
No. The very first time I ever mentioned "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences", I did so in this post
here. I put "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences" in quotes and then I immediately followed the line with a link to a google scholar list of research specifically described,
by the researchers, as research on hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences or various combinations thereof (
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG). Clearly this distinction has been around for a long time and is being made by the researchers performing these studies. You saw that post because you participated in the discussion about that post, so there is no excuse for this pretense at ignorance on your part.
Linda
(2018-03-29, 01:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]The very first time I ever mentioned "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences", I did so in this post here. I put "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences" in quotes and then I immediately followed the line with a link to a google scholar list of research specifically described, by the researchers, as research on hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences or various combinations thereof (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG).
Well, I would just say again that if you are using a term in a different sense from the normal one, you need to explain that, otherwise you'll end up misleading people.
The fact that you may have quoted an example of a non-standard usage at some previous time and in a different thread is really neither here nor there. You really can't expect people to search through all your previous posts for enlightenment about possible non-standard usage of every word you utter.
(2018-03-29, 01:48 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]If you won't tell us what experiences are in your sub-set of experiences, and you also won't tell us how you've chosen these these things to go into your sub-set, then we can't really discuss your sub-set any further can we?
Except that I told you exactly which experiences are in that set - whatever experiences are in the dozens and dozens of papers in this list:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG
So discuss away.
Linda
(2018-03-29, 02:36 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Except that I told you exactly which experiences are in that set - whatever experiences are in the dozens and dozens of papers in this list:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG
545 papers, to be precise. Though, of course, Google being what it is, the 545 hits currently returned by that search link won't be the same ones it would have returned last November when
fls originally posted it.
I wonder - is this the most absurd comment ever made in the history of Internet discussions?
And has
malf really read all 545 of those papers, and made a list of everything mentioned in them?
I feel I should just say that on the basis of my experience in this thread and a number of others, I shall not be initiating any more discussions in the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section of this site.
I have always been keen to encourage discussions between sceptics and proponents. I feel that this is not only beneficial but vital to the field. But as a result of the actions of one participant, it's a sad fact that attempts at discussion in "Skeptic vs. Proponent" are frequently disrupted and indeed reduced to the level of pantomime.
The forum rules allow for sceptical discussion of specific issues in any section of the site, but say that arguments based on blanket scepticism - in other words "debunking" based on non-acceptance of any of the anomalous phenomena discussed here - should be reserved for the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-fo...re-posting
So where possible I'm going to avoid the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section, and post in the other sections of the site when I can. Not that that means I won't try to correct obvious falsehoods in the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section when I see them. Though even that is often a self-defeating activity, as it seems to lead only to more falsehoods and obfuscation.