Debunk my experience

I think Linda linked to the book but is using her own copy to provide the quote about patient 17. I don't have the book myself to read the context.

Yes. I think Max has a copy, and someone else (but I don't recall who, so not much help).

Linda

[Ninshub]

One of Sartori's papers coming out of that study (2006) is available here for free:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_Healing
(hit download full-text PDF button)

But apparently it's the study of just one of those patients.

Two studies were published prior that perhaps also contain some of the relevant details, although I can't find them online:
Sartori, P. (2004). A prospective study of NDEs in an intensive therapy unit. Christian
Parapsychologist, 16, 34–40.
Sartori, P. (2006, Spring). A long-term prospective study to investigate the incidence and
phenomenology of near-death experiences in a Welsh intensive therapy unit. Network
Review, No. 90, pp. 23–25.

[Ninshub]

Sartori, P. (2006, Spring). A long-term prospective study to investigate the incidence and
phenomenology of near-death experiences in a Welsh intensive therapy unit. Network
Review, No. 90, pp. 23–25.

Actually this one is online, reprinted by IANDS here:
https://iands.org/research/nde-research/...study.html

It summarizes the study but I don't see any details about patient 17.

I think she is referring to Patient 10 and Patient 11 - Patient 11 made the statement she quotes, and Patient 10 reported seeing the top of the monitor (where the picture would have been placed), but did not see a picture. I don't think there was a specific report of Patient 17 seeing the top of the monitor (the transcript of his interview is not in the Appendix, afaict).

Linda

This is an example of Linda's deliberate (I believe) misrepresentation of facts to try to discredit the data. I've bolded the erroneous information. This is what actually happened :

Penny: On the monitor next to your bed was something hidden on
top. Could you see what it was?

(Patient 10) No, I’ll be honest with you, Pen, I didn’t look. I didn’t twist my head
back that way; I was just looking at my side. I could see you and the
doctor and two to three others around me. Pen, if that’s death, it’s
wonderful, there’s no pain at all.

Patient 10 did not see the top of the monitor (where the target was). Linda has deliberately invented this scenario so that she can cast doubt on the validity/reality of this patient's out of body experience.

Looking into these reports more carefully, what is malleable is who was the source of the specific information in the first place. When the telling of the story and the subsequent feedback ("confirmation") are documented, what we see is that the initial patient statements are not specific until they receive feedback relating to a specific event. Then the story is subsequently told with the specific event, rather than with the original non-specific statements.

For an example of this (https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_Healing):

The patient said, "I could see one of the doctors pulling my eye, what for I didn't know."

The story on subsequent tellings becomes, "the patient correctly identified the consultant as having shone the light in his eyes, rather than one of the junior doctors with whom he was familiar."

What is lost is that the patient did not specify which doctor it was, nor that a light was shone in his eye. And what is amazing about this, is that both parties may be completely unaware of the substitution on subsequent questioning. Almost always, what we hear is what the story has become after feedback is given, so we can no longer discover who was the original source of the veridical information. What also is lost/discarded, are the many statements made by the patients which could not be matched to a specific event during the feedback process.

As far as I know, Sartori's work offers the only prospectively documented "veridical" experiences, and none of them hold up. And what's worse, is that we can see the process of providing specific information to the patient at work, in that documentation. Sartori was trying to be a careful researcher, and she still did it. In the loosey goosey give and take of informal discussion of an NDE, it's going to be even worse, not better. I think bringing up this research is treated as "debunking" in the derogatory sense, though.

Linda

Mainly because of my own childhood experience, I doubt your explanation necessarily holds in all NDE OBE cases. It does appear that experiences can occasionally become temporarily dislocated to such an extent - that we notice them. Rather like a train which goes through a set of switch points in an unintended direction, it seem that when information is closely aligned, it is possible for us to jump the switch points onto a bit of track that contains experiences which we identify as being noticeably out-of-place. The only way I have been able to try and reconcile this, is that information itself, underlies our experience. And further, that this information is organised quite differently to the way we experience it, and the way we currently understand it.

Actually this one is online, reprinted by IANDS here:
https://iands.org/research/nde-research/...study.html

It summarizes the study but I don't see any details about patient 17.

There aren't many details about patient 17, even in the book, because he wouldn't have been particularly relevant to the study (he didn't have an NDE, nor did his experiences happen when he was in a coma or cardiac arrest (rather, just the trance-like state described in the part I quoted)) except for his OBE experiences. I only brought it up because Mediochre was talking about veridical OBEs, and I brought up hidden targets, and it happened to be an example of an OBE taking place in a room with hidden targets.

Linda

ETA: Added last sentence, in case everyone had forgotten by now that my post and the post I was responding to wasn't about NDEs.

Actually this one is online, reprinted by IANDS here:
https://iands.org/research/nde-research/...study.html

It summarizes the study but I don't see any details about patient 17.

No and I don't remember reading anything about a patient who kept having OBE's.

I think she is referring to Patient 10 and Patient 11 - Patient 11 made the statement she quotes, and Patient 10 reported seeing the top of the monitor (where the picture would have been placed), but did not see a picture. I don't think there was a specific report of Patient 17 seeing the top of the monitor (the transcript of his interview is not in the Appendix, afaict).

Linda

Sartori tried to interview each subject 3 times. The part where Patient 10 makes this report (in Interview 2) goes as follows:
(P is Penny, 10 is Patient 10) (Parts in square brackets are information asides from Penny.)

P: I've asked you this before. You didn't notice the monitor did you? At the bedside, the one that registers that heart rate and blood pressure.
10: I saw that yes but I was up there looking down. [In the first interview he said that he did not notice it.] I could see everybody working there. My body was laying out...(irrelevant stuff)

P: Did you see any brightly coloured paper on top of the monitor with a picture on it?
10: No.
P: Because it would have stood out.
10: No, the only thing I saw was a monitor, I didn't see any words.
P: What did the monitor look like when you were up there, what shape was it?
10: Come to think of it ... no words ... it was a ... the thing about the monitor, it seemed to be ... it wasn't square, it was longer, oblong. On top ... it was a bit ... the only thing I think was on top of it was more of a pinky colour. Everything seemed to be pinky. [The symbol above his bed area was surrounded by a Day-Glo orange colour.]

Linda

There aren't many details about patient 17, even in the book, because he wouldn't have been particularly relevant to the study (he didn't have an NDE, nor did his experiences happen when he was in a coma or cardiac arrest (rather, just the trance-like state described in the part I quoted)) except for his OBE experiences.

Linda

So, irrelevant....but as usual for you, you thought you'd participate in a little bit of mischief, to see how many neutrals you can persuade to disregard the data as crap.

Mainly because of my own childhood experience, I doubt your explanation necessarily holds in all NDE OBE cases.

I agree. Which is why I suggested earlier (and on numerous previous occasions ) that it would be useful to prospectively document all OBE/NDE memories prior to feedback, in hopes of finding even a single case in which that explanation doesn't hold.

Linda