"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Go reread your post. Your suggestions are not realistic in my opinion... if that's what is required in order to establish that in your mind, so be it. I am not certain that your suggested methods are remotely applicable to almost any of the cases. I am openly and directly disagreeing with you about those being realistic explanations for the body of research as a whole.

I agree with Dante. Which is why I am asked for a description of what you WOULD consider valid. I think it's important that those of use who are taking the time to try and discuss this from the "pro" side feel that we are having a conversation "in good faith", and not just being run around in circles, which I must admit, is often how it feels.

I personally don't mind taking the time to get down to details on this stuff, but I won't, if I feel like I am dealing with someone who is being disingenuous. I am not accusing anyone of such, at the moment.

I agree with Dante. Which is why I am asked for a description of what you WOULD consider valid. I think it's important that those of use who are taking the time to try and discuss this from the "pro" side feel that we are having a conversation "in good faith", and not just being run around in circles, which I must admit, is often how it feels.

I personally don't mind taking the time to get down to details on this stuff, but I won't, if I feel like I am dealing with someone who is being disingenuous. I am not accusing anyone of such, at the moment.

I assume that part of your attempt to assess ingenuousness is to read the links provided and to follow up on them?

I agree with Dante. Which is why I am asked for a description of what you WOULD consider valid. I think it's important that those of use who are taking the time to try and discuss this from the "pro" side feel that we are having a conversation "in good faith", and not just being run around in circles, which I must admit, is often how it feels.

I personally don't mind taking the time to get down to details on this stuff, but I won't, if I feel like I am dealing with someone who is being disingenuous. I am not accusing anyone of such, at the moment.

I agree. I feel much the same way. Which is why I suggested that we seem to be talking past each other - I didn't think you were deliberately trying to run in circles, and I'm not. You're other post was helpful, so I can give some more specific examples.

Linda

I assume that part of your attempt to assess ingenuousness is to read the links provided and to follow up on them?

I follow up on things quite often, and I comment quite often. Look at the number of posts I have made, it's not like I hide in the weeds and snipe. I try and put myself out there. And I can't think of a time where I ran and hid rather than responded to a question, other than the time or two that I just decided to call it quits on a dialog that was obviously going in circles.

BTW- Which particular links are you referring to?

And then,, there are other times were I've decided not to "chase the stick" thrown by others. 

It's interesting though- I do take notice of the fact that not one person on the con side of the discussion (should I use the word Skeptic? really not sure what good word is w/o being snide) has responded with a simple example of how they might be convinced by solid evidence: yourself included. Not a link, not a rambling tome, just a simple expression of what might, in theory, be considered valid evidence of these sorts of events. edit- with the exception of Linda now.. Thanks Linda.

Should I attribute that to the fact that there really IS NO valid example that they could even imagine ? Or maybe they just don't care enough about that question to respond? (Which is a completely valid choice of course)

The point is very important to me though because it signifies whether discussion about evidence is even warranted, and worthwhile.

I agree. I feel much the same way. Which is why I suggested that we seem to be talking past each other - I didn't think you were deliberately trying to run in circles, and I'm not. You're other post was helpful, so I can give some more specific examples.

Linda

Still waiting for an example to discuss.

I agree. I feel much the same way. Which is why I suggested that we seem to be talking past each other - I didn't think you were deliberately trying to run in circles, and I'm not. You're other post was helpful, so I can give some more specific examples.

On the subject of specific examples of psi, should I conclude that you don't want to talk about the Global Consciousness Project?

For this conversation I'm just removing physical psi such as PK (eg spoon bending, table tipping,,) and trying to stick with phenomenon that are more centered on the seat of consciousness, and personal information. ie: whether we are physical or non-physical beings at our core.

So for example- can you give an example that would fullful your demands for facilities such as: NDE, OBE, Mediumship, Reincarnation, or similar ?

NDE and OBE are easier. They are more about whether our sensory perceptions can be non-physical.* One kind of good evidence is what is called "all or none case series"**, and that would be useful here. The identification of hidden targets, such as those used by Parnia in the AWARE study and Sartori in her ICU NDE studies would fulfill my demands.

Mediumship and reincarnation, which are more about non-physical preservation of personality and memory, are more difficult to isolate. I think in both cases you need a longer perspective - it can't be don't with one kind of experiment. 

Readings performed and assessed with control groups, under blind conditions, are a good start. But the problem is that the effect tends to disappear under those conditions. One idea I had was to look at remarkable correspondences (what people often refer to as establishing veridicality), which may persist. It doesn't distinguish between telepathy and non-physical preservation of personality, though.

Identifications done under double-blind conditions (like a police line-up) would fulfill my demands for reincarnation. Again, it doesn't distinguish between telepathy and non-physical preservation of personality. Which is why this would take a longer picture - follow-up investigations addressing different questions.

Linda

 * I am going with your use of "physical and non-physical". I use physical and non-physical differently, which isn't relevant to the discussion, but it could be confusing if you looked at some of my old, old posts. 

** All or none case series" are case series where formerly all subjects had the relevant outcome, but now some do not, or formerly some subjects have the relevant outcome, but now none do. The first part is relevant here - the one exception, when that exception is never expected, becomes evidentiary.

Still waiting for an example to discuss.

Didn't realize I was on the clock. I was typing as fast as I could. I guess I shouldn't have paused to explain what an all or none case series was.  

Linda

NDE and OBE are easier. They are more about whether our sensory perceptions can be non-physical.* One kind of good evidence is what is called "all or none case series"**, and that would be useful here. The identification of hidden targets, such as those used by Parnia in the AWARE study and Sartori in her ICU NDE studies would fulfill my demands.

Mediumship and reincarnation, which are more about non-physical preservation of personality and memory, are more difficult to isolate. I think in both cases you need a longer perspective - it can't be don't with one kind of experiment. 

Readings performed and assessed with control groups, under blind conditions, are a good start. But the problem is that the effect tends to disappear under those conditions. One idea I had was to look at remarkable correspondences (what people often refer to as establishing veridicality), which may persist. It doesn't distinguish between telepathy and non-physical preservation of personality, though.

Identifications done under double-blind conditions (like a police line-up) would fulfill my demands for reincarnation. Again, it doesn't distinguish between telepathy and non-physical preservation of personality. Which is why this would take a longer picture - follow-up investigations addressing different questions.

Linda

 * I am going with your use of "physical and non-physical". I use physical and non-physical differently, which isn't relevant to the discussion, but it could be confusing if you looked at some of my old, old posts. 

** All or none case series" are case series where formerly all subjects had the relevant outcome, but now some do not, or formerly some subjects have the relevant outcome, but now none do. The first part is relevant here - the one exception, when that exception is never expected, becomes evidentiary.

Thank you... 

I want to take a closer look and think and then ask a question or two...

One question does come to mind immediately though. 

Since much of this data in literature comes from non-controlled, non-lab situations, I was really curious if there is a "non-managed" (not prearranged) situation that you would find convincing? Or is the very nature of this sort of evidence not reliable to you on a prima facie basis?

Didn't realize I was on the clock. I was typing as fast as I could. I guess I shouldn't have paused to explain what an all or none case series was.  

Linda