Debunk my experience

Salmon

Oh come on, admit it. Fluorescent pink and orange aren't much different under a Forer effect.

Linda

I'd say it is physically impossible to share a sample of fluorescent colours via a computer screen. The essential property is the chemical constituents which respond to light in a particular way. The computer screen doesn't receive those chemicals, so cannot respond to light in the same way.

I would agree. And even if it were, that sample I posted isn't the only option for Day-Glo Orange; some are more "orangey" than others. And all are equally nauseating.

Sartori's write-up of her interview with that patient, and any patient mentioned here, wasn't quoted in full, and the book where these reports came from has only been linked to in the form of an Amazon offering that's prohibitively expensive. The quote doesn't tell me anything about the lighting in that room, how the color was perceived by Sartori herself, etc. My post was made late at night and somewhat facetiously. But on the limited information available, I would say that the patient being able to recall an unusual color on top of the monitor, when pressed on the subject, is notable. One could explain that by speculating that Sartori could have inadvertently given away some idea of the color of the paper in an earlier interview; that, being pressed on this particular point, the patient deliberately or unconsciously invented a detail that happened to roughly correspond to the actual paper; or that the patient was genuinely out of his body and did observe what was on the monitor but didn't recall it until pressed, because even a target mounted on bright and unattractive paper isn't going to draw your attention when you suddenly find yourself out of your body.

This thread is the first I've ever heard of Patients 11 or 17; my biggest familiarity with Sartori's work up to this point was the detailed paper on Patient 10. In the case of Patient 17, were I in her situation, I might have tried mounting multiple targets at various points throughout the room, and mounted overhead cameras at various points as well. If the patient didn't see any of those targets and claimed it was because of where they were "floating," one could collect enough information from the patient to deduce where exactly they were "floating" and use the cameras to determine what would and wouldn't be visible from that position.

Oh come on, admit it. Fluorescent pink and orange aren't much different under a Forer effect.

Linda

They do bear a striking resemblance from that perspective. While on the subject...
as you likely know he operated a museum. In that museum was a sign that read "See the Egress" , sure enough people went to see it only to be surprised.

I suspect that's the reaction most people would have when reading the account (with Penny's aside).

Linda

I didn’t read the account.

Sartori's write-up of her interview with that patient, and any patient mentioned here, wasn't quoted in full, and the book where these reports came from has only been linked to in the form of an Amazon offering that's prohibitively expensive. The quote doesn't tell me anything about the lighting in that room, how the color was perceived by Sartori herself, etc.

I've tried to quote everything out of the book which is at all relevant, especially because most people unfortunately are not able to access the book. The quote doesn't tell you anything about the lighting in the room, because Sartori did not include that information. Sartori described the colour as "Day-Glo orange" (which I mentioned previously), so I presume that's how she perceived it.

My post was made late at night and somewhat facetiously. But on the limited information available, I would say that the patient being able to recall an unusual color on top of the monitor, when pressed on the subject, is notable. One could explain that by speculating that Sartori could have inadvertently given away some idea of the color of the paper in an earlier interview; that, being pressed on this particular point, the patient deliberately or unconsciously invented a detail that happened to roughly correspond to the actual paper; or that the patient was genuinely out of his body and did observe what was on the monitor but didn't recall it until pressed, because even a target mounted on bright and unattractive paper isn't going to draw your attention when you suddenly find yourself out of your body.

There was no mention of the colour of the paper to the patient, in the interviews. One huge advantage with Sartori's work is that she provides complete transcripts of the interviews, so that one can go back and look for whether or not she inadvertently gave away information. However, since she was also working in the ITU, we don't know what she said to patients while she was caring for them, outside of the interviews. 

She used the brightly coloured paper in the hope that it would draw patients' attention during an OBE.

This thread is the first I've ever heard of Patients 11 or 17; my biggest familiarity with Sartori's work up to this point was the detailed paper on Patient 10. In the case of Patient 17, were I in her situation, I might have tried mounting multiple targets at various points throughout the room, and mounted overhead cameras at various points as well. If the patient didn't see any of those targets and claimed it was because of where they were "floating," one could collect enough information from the patient to deduce where exactly they were "floating" and use the cameras to determine what would and wouldn't be visible from that position.

Earlier I quoted what Sartori said about patient 11 in the write up of her results. The transcript of the interview she is referring to goes:
(Again, P is Penny, 11 is Patient 11. Please note that this patient had two OBEs, and there is short narrative of the first experience in the transcripts, but the more detailed transcripts are about the second experience.)

P: One of the things that I'm investigating is the out of body experience and on top of the monitors at the bedside of every patient I've got things hidden.
11: Yeah, you told me that - I didn't see it, no.
P: I'm still waiting for someone to see that.
11: Well you don't look for it do you. That's the thing see, now if you told me it was there then the second time I'd have looked for it and told you what it was. I'd have looked the second time see.

If you have any questions about what's in the book, I can type out excerpts.

Linda

I didn’t read the account.

Ah, I see. You read part of Will's post, but not all of it.

Interesting.

Linda

Ah, I see. You read part of Will's post, but not all of it.

Interesting.

Linda

Sadly, I was only commenting on the colour. Lol

There seems to be a gleeful resurgence in hope by desperate 'sceptics' currently doing the rounds again based on this article here :

 https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...32921.html

Basically probing the brains of dead people (with devastating brain injury) to observe what occurs (chemically) after withdrawal of life support. There's something funny going on here because a study like this and it's conclusion was withdrawn a couple of years ago. I'm not sure what's going on yet but it seems odd.

The article, Electroencephalographic Recordings During Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy Until 30 Minutes After Declaration of Death, from The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences describes a case series of four patients that were part of a larger feasibility study that asked if it was possible to monitor circulatory and neurologic function in patients during the dying process (Dhanani et al, Critical Care Medicine, 2014). Feasibility studies are meant to determine whether or not a study can be done; they are meant to be starting points, and results cannot be interpreted as conclusive or definitive. All four participants that were part of this case series were critically and terminally ill and, after a thoughtful decision by the family and medical team, underwent withdrawal of life sustaining therapies to allow natural death to occur. These patients were all declared dead by standard clinical examination by their treating physicians, who were independent from the research team. Although deceased organ donation can occur when specific criteria are met and clinical death is declared in such circumstances, none of these patients were organ donors.
Importantly, using a modified type of electroencephalography (EEG) it was shown that brain activity stopped minutes before the heart stopped beating in 3 patients. In one patient, low-frequency, sporadic EEG activity occurred after the heart stopped beating. In the article, the authors state that because this activity occurred long after the loss of circulation, this activity is likely an artefact – that is, it cannot be interpreted or trusted as accurate. EEG monitoring in patients can be subject to false readings due to environmental conditions within the intensive care unit that are not related to the patient’s brain activity. The authors conclude that the recording is a false reading and cannot be assumed to indicate that the brain is still functioning.  Furthermore, the patient’s heart had stopped, there was no blood pressure, no breathing, no response to pain stimulus, and no pupil reaction. This fourth case highlighted the uncertainty about the use of this specific EEG method to monitor brain activity during the dying process. Future studies will need to monitor EEG activity with improved methods. The authors are currently carrying out a larger study with improved EEG monitoring techniques in order to further explore the pattern of loss of brain activity during the dying process.

This study did not and cannot draw conclusions about re-defining death or end-of-life. The authors are enthusiastic about the interest in media that this article has generated and look forward to sharing the results of their new study in the near future 

http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2017/03/17/pilot-study-for-the-determination-of-death-after-cardiac-arrest/

The article in The Independent references this study:

Terminal spreading depolarization and electrical silence in death of human cerebral cortex

First published: 13 January 2018

Basically probing the brains of dead people (with devastating brain injury) to observe what occurs (chemically) after withdrawal of life support. There's something funny going on here because a study like this and it's conclusion was withdrawn a couple of years ago. I'm not sure what's going on yet but it seems odd.

The article,
Electroencephalographic Recordings During Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy Until 30 Minutes After Declaration of Death

That one is dated March 2017.