The Famous Dr Rudy

I agree, that happens, but this story still originates from some event. That event seems to have been shared by more than one person who I have little reason to disbelieve were there (we have Rudy, and the other guy who Smithy found). The period that Rudy claims the patient described to him, also appears to coincide with the period of the patients auto-resuscitation, which fits well with the same period of recall described by other experients. The patient appears to have had a pretty classic hospitalised OBE. I don't see any reason to dispute any of that. Is Rudy confusing his own memory of the period of auto-resuscitation, with his memory of what the patient described as happening, not only is that possible, I'd say that over time, interference between both memories would be certain.

But I think you're still forced to concede that these hospital OBE recollections are commonly recalled with information that appears to come from the period of the patients resuscitation, and not other periods, and that this requires a satisfying explanation... and I certainly haven't seen one yet.

I mean, can you not meet people a least a little way, by accepting that the common OBE recollection of information, apparently from the period of the experients resuscitation is a bit of a puzzle?

I agree - it's a puzzle and I'm only trying to demonstrate that there is more than one solution to the puzzle.

I think any post surgery discussions will centre around the resuscitation, as it is point of most drama that drives the narrative (and we love a narrative).

It's also important to keep in mind that when someone doubts a story like this it is not purely a case of dismissing evidence, but bringing other evidence to bear on the case. For example, in this instance the idea of human-type vision without a human visual system is difficult to reconcile given what we know about that system and how it works. Remember, this system, with its neural organisation and feedback loops, doesn't give us a 'true' view of our environment or 'reality', but a very human representation of it, to make it easier to efficiently interact with it. We have exactly the same issues with hearing.

Now, some may say that this model of vision and hearing is based on a narrow view of these senses, and presupposes a certain metaphysic, and they'd be right. However, this approach has yielded much progress in modelling systems, and making good predictions based on these models, over and over. It's almost irresistible.

I agree - it's a puzzle and I'm only trying to demonstrate that there is more than one solution to the puzzle.

I think any post surgery discussions will centre around the resuscitation, as it is point of most drama that drives the narrative (and we love a narrative).

It's also important to keep in mind that when someone doubts a story like this it is not purely a case of dismissing evidence, but bringing other evidence to bear on the case. For example, in this instance the idea of human-type vision without a human visual system is difficult to reconcile given what we know about that system and how it works. Remember, this system, with its neural organisation and feedback loops, doesn't give us a 'true' view of our environment or 'reality', but a very human representation of it, to make it easier to efficiently interact with it. We have exactly the same issues with hearing.

Now, some may say that this model of vision and hearing is based on a narrow view of these senses, and presupposes a certain metaphysic, and they'd be right. However, this approach has yielded much progress in modelling systems, and making good predictions based on these models, over and over. It's almost irresistible.

I get where you're coming from. I'd also probably favour the status quo, and feel little motivation to explore much beyond it, if I hadn't had that childhood OBE outside the back of my dad's second empty property. Without that, it's just easier to fall back on the existing way we understand our observations. But that experience is a terrible niggle for me, I know that it's not right, and that it isn't satisfactorily explained by existing models and theories - no matter how useful they are. There is a drive in me to try and reconcile that experience with our existing observations.

That drive is what motivates me to explore further afield, and when I do... all these other niggles that other people have experienced get thrown up. Some in scientific publications, some arguments that rage in psychology, and masses and masses of common anomalous human experiences.

I know that there is not as yet any satisfactory way of unifying these unexplained experiences into the existing way we understand the world, and I understand that we can't just undermine existing - and damn useful - theories, until we have something better to put in their place. But what I am certain of, is that some of those oddities I talked of don't fit, and won't fit, and to get them to fit, will require change.

Some underlying structure of our experience isn't being accessed, processed and stored the way we popularly believe it is, that's about as succinct a summary as I can make. If past changes to our understanding are anything to go by, the solution will keep the vast majority of our observations intact, instead, generalizing our existing ideas, with a radically new way of understanding them.

So going back to these hospital OBE recollections that are commonly recalled with information that appears to come from the period of the patients resuscitation, and not other periods... I haven't seen a satisfactory solution yet.

I have something to add here. It doesn't mean anything to anyone else but I was the very first person to view the Rudy video (on you tube) which I immediately sent to Smithy who in turn sent it to his research partner (Titus Rivas) and contacts all around the world. No one was able to contact Dr Rudy to delve further into the case and later we discovered why of course.

It was me again who spotted an online comment by Dr (Amado) Cattaneo and asked him if he would allow researchers to contact him (Smit and Rivas). He very kindly agreed. This gave me the opportunity to "speak" (via email) to him about the case in some depth. It was just a stroke of luck and an amazing opportunity to hear from the 'horses mouth' confirmation of the incredible nature of the case. The main thanks of course go to Mike Milligan for persuading Dr Rudy to talk about the case on camera and Smit and Rivas for publishing the paper.

I think I'm slightly better informed than Malf about it, That's all.

I have something to add here. It doesn't mean anything to anyone else but I was the very first person to view the Rudy video (on you tube) which I immediately sent to Smithy who in turn sent it to his research partner (Titus Rivas) and contacts all around the world. No one was able to contact Dr Rudy to delve further into the case and later we discovered why of course.

It was me again who spotted an online comment by Dr (Amado) Cattaneo and asked him if he would allow researchers to contact him (Smit and Rivas). He very kindly agreed. This gave me the opportunity to "speak" (via email) to him about the case in some depth. It was just a stroke of luck and an amazing opportunity to hear from the 'horses mouth' confirmation of the incredible nature of the case. The main thanks of course go to Mike Milligan for persuading Dr Rudy to talk about the case on camera and Smit and Rivas for publishing the paper.  

I think I'm slightly better informed than Malf about it, That's all.

Your emotional attachment to the case is clear, Tim. 

Yeah but this is only anecdotal... 

Your emotional attachment to the case is clear, Tim. 

Would it be too much trouble for you to tell me again how you think the patient (actually) came by the information he was in possession of, Malf ?  It's a horrible rainy night here and I could do with a real good belly laugh to cheer me up.

Would it be too much trouble for you to tell me again how you think the patient (actually) came by the information he was in possession of, Malf ?  It's a horrible rainy night here and I could do with a real good belly laugh to cheer me up.

Mind if I sit beside you on the couch on this rainy night and listen?

Would it be too much trouble for you to tell me again how you think the patient (actually) came by the information he was in possession of, Malf ?  It's a horrible rainy night here and I could do with a real good belly laugh to cheer me up.

I don't know what happened. I've speculated at possible mundane explanations already and I'm not sure that any of them are funnier than disembodied senses. That depends on one's sense of humour, and the biases one takes into making sense of the story I guess.

I don't know what happened. I've speculated at possible mundane explanations already and I'm not sure that any of them are funnier than disembodied senses. That depends on one's sense of humour, and the biases one takes into making sense of the story I guess.

"I don't know what happened."

No, of course you don't, you weren't there. The two main witnesses that were there have told you what happened. Why automatically disbelieve them ? 

"and I'm not sure that any of them are funnier than disembodied senses."

IN-bodied senses are just as difficult to understand, Malf.