Better late than never

Last year Stephen Braude sent me a link to a YouTube video in which he is interviewed about his paranormal investigations and writings. Unfortunately, because I was about to take a trip at the time, I never looked at the video and forgot about it until now.

Today I rediscovered the email and watched the interview, which is really quite interesting. I found Braude's discussion of a table-tipping event particularly enjoyable.

The video runs about fifteen minutes and can be viewed here.

Comments

[william]

excellent video thanks for sharing.

that is what I love about this blog.

he states correctly there tends to be two types of people those that accept everything on the paranoramal and those that accept nothing. with exceptions of course. Braude being one of those exceptions.

neither side understands the role of science or the scientific method.

paradigms was mentioned in this video. :-)

Braude proves some scientists are able to step outside the prevailing paradigm and seek deeply into these mysteries of life.

[Kevin]

Excellent video! Thanks for posting.

[Sandy]

Nice video! There are some good podcasts featuring Stephen Braude as well:

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/yourmentalhealth/2009/09/15/immortal-remains-the-evidence-for-life-after-death

http://webtalkradio.net/index.php/show-podcasts/73-truth-about-life-with-stephen-hawley-martin/2023-the-truth-about-life-is-there-life-after-death

http://webtalkradio.net/index.php/show-podcasts/73-truth-about-life-with-stephen-hawley-martin/1759-the-truth-about-life-can-mind-produce-matter

http://webtalkradio.net/index.php/show-podcasts/73-truth-about-life-with-stephen-hawley-martin/1875-the-truth-about-life-mind-over-matter-and-the-skeptics

[Kris]

Speaking of better late then never....

A few months ago when we were discussing NDE experiences I mentioned the Al Sullivan Case to Keith Augustine.

Keith's rebuttal of this was to link to his article on infidels.org.This struck me as suspicious but I didn't follow up on it till recently by emailing Dr Greyson. Here are the emails. You be the judge.

____________________________________________

My first email

Dear Dr Greyson

I have a question about this NDE case

1. The case of Al Sullivan: Al was a 55 year old truck driver who was undergoing triple by-pass surgery when he had a powerful NDE that included an encounter with his deceased mother and brother-in-law, who told Al to go back to his to tell one of his neighbors that their son with lymphoma will be OK. Furthermore, during the NDE, Al accurately noticed that the surgeon operating on him was flapping his arms in an unusual fashion, with his hands in his armpits. When he came back to his body after the surgery was over, the surgeon was startled that Al could describe his own arm flapping, which was his idiosyncratic method of keeping his hands sterile.

However when I read about this case this is what Keith Augustine reported.

] In his first commentary Bruce Greyson denied that near-death researchers ever appeal to such "'high probability' guesses" when making a case for veridical paranormal perception during NDEs—which is a bit too strong given that such instances can be cited. (In fact, in my response I cited three examples of 'high probability guesses' proffered by near-death researchers). More importantly, though, Greyson maintained that there have been cases of NDErs accurately reporting quite unpredictable details, noting for instance "one man's accurate description of his cardiac surgeon during his open-heart surgery 'flapping his arms as if trying to fly'," a detail which Greyson described as "corroborated by independent interviews with the doctors and nurses involved" (Greyson, "Paranormal" 240). (The surgeon in question had developed a habit of keeping his arms close to his chest and pointing with his elbows to keep his hands sterile.)

But psychologist David Lester had already noted that the 'corroboration' for this case was sorely lacking, writing in an earlier book:

The case [Emily Williams] Cook [and coauthors Bruce Greyson and Ian Stevenson] felt was most supportive [of veridical paranormal perception during NDEs] was that of a 56-year-old man who was operated on for quadruple bypass surgery. During the surgery, he had a near-death experience, including the sensation of floating out of his body and observing the operation. In particular, he described the surgeons working on his leg (they stripped some veins to create a bypass graft) and one of the team flapping his arms as if trying to fly, a gesture which that surgeon habitually made during surgery. The patient wrote the experience down in 1990, and Cook's team interviewed the surgeons in 1997. The surgeon who flapped his arms did not recall whether he did so or not, and the other surgeon did not recall him doing so, although he did confirm that the patient reported the experience immediately after the surgery.

In this case, the best case that Cook could produce, the experience was not recorded for two years and the surgeons were not interviewed until nine years had passed. Given that many patients report near-death experiences and that many of the researchers (such as Ian Stevenson and his team) are located in a university with a medical school, it is amazing that no case has yet appeared in which a near-death experience (let alone one with the features that Cook focused on) has been recorded (with audio or video recorders) immediately after the patient recovered and the details checked there and then. This needs to be done, and it is surprising that it has not yet been done [emphasis mine] (Lester 96).

This looks very suspicious to me. My guess is that Psychologist David Lester is trying to pull a fast one. Many people cannot recall exact what they did at a given moment and if I was asked if somebody engaged in a certain activity at a specific time I would be hard pressed too.

However we can still ask this question. Was the Dr who performed the surgery on Al Sullivan known for regularly flapping his arms , even if he cannot recall if he did it at one specific time.

Thanks

Kris

____________________________________________

Dr Greyson's 1st response

Dear Kris,

Thanks for your -email. I was actually the member of Cook's team who interviewed Al Sullivan, his cardiologist, and the cardiac surgeon. The surgeon was not "known" for regularly flapping his arms, as far as I could ascertain. That is, surgical nurses and residents who had not worked with him were not aware of this idiosyncratic habit. However, he did acknowledge to me that he typically did that in all his surgeries when Al had his operation, although he couldn't swear that he had done so for Al's.

As for the suggestion that no NDE had been captured on audio or videotape immediately after recovery, I am not aware of any hospital that has ever permitted research of that kind. Certainly my hospital is much too concerned about patient confidentiality to permit recording without extensive prior permissions, which of course would be impossible to obtain immediately after a cardiac carrest. This strikes me as another illustration that no evidence, no matter how good, will ever satisfy the debunkers.

____________________________________________

My next email

Dear Dr Greyson

Thanks for your rapid response. I am not sure per say sure how one would film an NDE anyways, seems a bit screwy to me. If it is happening inside the head obviously a camera would not pick it up and if I do recall the traditional view of the soul is that it is invisible...

Make sure I am reading your response correctly. While the doctor cannot swear that he did the arm flapping during Mr Sullivan's surgery he did state he was in the habit of doing that and he knows he did it in the time period when Mr Sullivan had his surgery.

Thanks

Kris

____________________________________________

Greyson's response

Kris,

Yes, you are reading my response correctly.

Best wishes,

____________________________________________

I debated whether I should post this or not. However I have before questioned Keith's motives and I think this proves my case.

There is no way it didn't occur to Keith to simply verify the possibility I verified with Dr Greyson.

Either he contacted Greyson and got an answer he didn't like or he didn't contact him in the first place, knowing this was a very distinct possibly. I will let you all be the judge.

[Michael Prescott]

I don't think you've proven anything about "Keith's motives," and I wish you would stop casting aspersions on someone who simply happens to disagree with you.

The case involving the doctor who flapped his arms seems pretty strong to me, but it would be even stronger if it had been investigated sooner and if the doctor had been sure he really did flap his arms on that occasion. Lester's objection strikes me as overstated, but it does raise relevant questions.

It's interesting to get this new info on the case, but I wish you wouldn't couch it in personal terms.

[Kris]

My problem is here

" The surgeon who flapped his arms did not recall whether he did so or not, and the other surgeon did not recall him doing so, although he did confirm that the patient reported the experience immediately after the surgery."

That statement is highly deceptive. It is meant to fool people. It leaves out something that was readily verifiable just by asking Dr Greyson. While the Dr. in question cannot remember his exact actions he can state he does regularly do the arm flapping.

However we know the following.

a.) The NDE was reported immediately
b.) the doctor did engage in the habit of arm flapping, even if he cannot recall exactly when he did it.

A skeptic would have to argue that the man coincidentally hallucinated something as unlikely as arm flapping, in a room with a doctor who is known for arm flapping, but this time did not do that.

I simply do not like it when people try to pull fast ones and that was an attempted fast one.

[Michael Prescott]

"That statement is highly deceptive. It is meant to fool people."

I agree that Lester's statement is tendentious and misleading. Whether or not it is *intentionally* misleading, I can't say. Maybe Lester misunderstood the details or had inaccurate information. Who knows?

Regardless of what Lester said, I can't fault Keith for relying on it. After all, 95% of what I've posted on this blog comes from books I've read. I don't check the accuracy of every source. I don't email every researcher whose name comes up, trying to verify or clarify every point. Within reason, I assume that seemingly authoritative sources can be trusted. I don't think this policy implies dishonesty on my part.

Laziness, sure. But I've never tried to hide that.

:-)

[sonic]

Thank-you for the link to the interview.
I wonder what would happen if academic freedom was such that a graduate student would feel free to discuss something he had seen that was fascinating before reaching tenure. (I don't think Braude is alone here)
The only problem is that I'm now going to have to read some of his books. So much to read, so much time to read it in...

[Kris]

Maybe I am not in a very forgiving mood .

It was dishonest or at least bloody incompetent on Lester's part( I lean toward dishonest though cause of that misleading dribble about video taping NDEs). Perpetuating it seems best explained by dishonesty to me for the reasons below.

Keith is a trained philosopher. He should have seen the blatant fallacy in that statement instantly. Any half way intelligent high school student would realize it instantly. I hate to sound mean but frankly it is worse if a trained philosopher truly made such a silly error.

I managed to find Dr Greyson's email in about five minutes. My email took me about five minutes to write. I did not take me long at all to unravel this trick.

Keith has debated Greyson before so he certainly knows how to contact him. Being a trained philosopher he certainly should have realized the problem I did instantly and should have followed up.

I am left with two options; incompetence or dishonesty. I lean toward dishonesty for the simple fact that Keith can create the most creative " how it could have been scenarios" and can spot other people's fallacies but he couldn't spot this elementary error. Who can believe that?

I would have been a lot more forgiving if Keith did not know Dr Greyson and could not contact him. Certainly both apply to Keith.

Michael, what would happen if a major Paranormalist got caught misrepresenting skeptics in such a manner?

[Zerdini]

Stephen Braude's The Gold Leaf Lady should really have been called The Brass Leaf Lady as that appears to be what it apparently was but 'Gold' is more eye-catching!

Braude stated in his book: Materializations (assuming they really occur) are cases where objects seem to be produced out of nothing.

Well they DO occur and are not produced out of nothing - quite the reverse.

I don't doubt the appearance of brass leaf on Katie's body and clothes even though I haven't seen it. From what Braude writes:

In addition to being gratifyingly cooperative, Katie is an unusually versatile psychic subject. The apparent gold foil on her body is only one of the interesting phenomena swirling around her. For example, Katie frequently seems to receive apported objects; seeds reportedly germinate rapidly in her cupped hands; and observers have also claimed to see Katie bend metal. Katie is also reported to be both a healer and a medium (or channel). And in that latter capacity she has been observed and videotaped writing quatrains in medieval French, ostensibly from Nostradamus, and similar in both style and content to Nostradamus’s actual quatrains , Katie appears to be an undeveloped psychic.

He gives credence to this view by adding:
Regrettably, I didn’t observe any foil on the several occasions when Katie lifted her shirt. But I did observe stigmata-like raised and reddish patches on her skin that had not been there before, in the shapes of a cross and of a butterfly. I also observed several instances of automatic writing in medieval French, some other displays of ostensible mediumship, and also a peculiar incident with a video lamp bulb.

[Michael Prescott]

Kris, all I can say is that you seem to have a personal animus against Keith, and I think it would be useful to ask yourself why he bothers you so much.

There are many skeptics and always will be. If you let them get under your skin like this, you'll be in a state of perpetual agitation.

For the record, I doubt it would have occurred to me to contact Dr. Greyson, so I guess I'm either incompetent or dishonest, too.

However, I appreciate your providing more information on the case. It's always good to get more facts.

Zerdini, thanks for the quotes. I'd forgotten about the medieval quatrains. I do remember that Katie helped the police solve a case, as briefly described in Braude's book. The gold leaf phenomenon is puzzling, since one would think that hammered metal must originate in a factory. Somehow I would find it easier to accept if she were producing something natural, like flower petals, though I guess there is no intrinsic difference between apporting man-made and natural items.

Braude acknowledges (in his book) that skepticism about Katie is warranted, inasmuch as he and other observers were never able to capture the actual emergence of the gold leaf on videotape. He says he saw it with his own eyes, but doesn't expect others to take his word for it.

It's also worth pointing out that the book is a collection of strange and memorable cases in which Braude personally participated, not a collection of the strongest cases on record. In other words, Braude isn't saying that the gold leaf lady is proof of anything. He's only saying that it was an interesting (and amusing) personal experience.

[Zerdini]

The gold leaf phenomenon is puzzling, since one would think that hammered metal must originate in a factory.

Maybe it was apported from a factory! lol

It seems to me that it could be poltergeist-like phenomena or a spirit with a highly developed sense of humour.

I agree that it is interesting and amusing.

[Kris]

Michael

Keith per say does not get under my skin. His "how it could have been scenarios" get under my skin. They do not strike me as remotely honest.

Maybe I am wrong but over the years I have bee told I am good judge of people.

[steve wood]

The Al Sullivan case is certainly an unusual one. Why did Mr Sullivan 'hallucinate' heart surgeon Dr Takata doing an impersonation of a chicken ?

Technically, the hallucination should only contain normal surgical scenarios. Maybe this type of thing is more routine than we think, though, to lighten things up a bit. Takata could have trying to top Dr La-Sala's,( his assistant)rather boring impression of a goldfish.

[Kris]

Very unusual indeed and now in fact we know Dr Takata in fact does the chicken on occasion. However like most human beings he cannot exactly recall when and where he did it.

We also know that Al Sullivan reported his NDE instantly.

Here is how

" The patient wrote the experience down in 1990, and Cook's team interviewed the surgeons in 1997. The surgeon who flapped his arms did not recall whether he did so or not, and the other surgeon did not recall him doing so, although he did confirm that the patient reported the experience IMMEDIATELY after the surgery"

We also know that Mr Sullivan wrote down his experience in 1990.

So we can eliminate the possibility that the following.

a.) Sullivan seeing Dr Takata flapping his arms

b.) Surely we don't think he heard Dr Takata flapping his arms

c.) he recounted his NDE instantly, mentioning this odd detail. Therefore he could not have had time to hear about it normally.

Here is the only possibility open to a skeptic. He coincidentally hallucinated a chicken routine for whatever reason ( maybe he ate KFC the night before I don't know) and against all odds had a surgeon who did the chicken the routine. Surely that is the best explanation isn't it :)

Anything is possibly in skeptic land after all :)

[Mark]

c.) he recounted his NDE instantly, mentioning this odd detail.
Therefore he could not have had time to hear about it normally.

Heres the thing. Did Sullivan report NDE to surgeons instantly or did
they hear about it then? Did Sullivan mention the odd detail to them?
Its hard to believe both of them would not know for sure whether one of
them was flapping his arms at this occasion if it was mentioned to them
right after surgery. Is an astonishing thing to forget!

[Michael Prescott]

Since I believe that many NDES and OBES are genuine, I have no reason to doubt the story. However, if I were inclined to doubt, I might hypothesize:

a) that Sullivan heard someone refer to the doctor's idiosyncratic behavior, either before or after the surgery; or

b) that Sullivan was not fully unconscious, despite sedation, and heard someone remark about the "chicken routine" at the time when it was performed.

As I say, I have no reason to doubt Sullivan's recollection, since I'm already convinced by other evidence. But for those who are not convinced, other explanations are at least within the realm of possibility.

Mark also raises an interesting point about how the surgeons could possibly have forgotten such a detail if it was reported to them the same day. I would have to assume that Sullivan did not tell the surgeons, and that they did not hear about his recollection until long afterward, when the case was being investigated. This is not necessarily surprising, since your surgeon may not be the person you'd want to talk to about such an intense, personal experience. (My impression is that many surgeons don't have the most endearing bedside manner.)

[Kris]

Yes he recounted it instantly. Read here Mark

" The patient wrote the experience down in 1990, and Cook's team interviewed the surgeons in 1997. The surgeon who flapped his arms did not recall whether he did so or not, and the other surgeon did not recall him doing so, although he did confirm that the patient reported the experience IMMEDIATELY after the surgery"

However they were interviewed in 1997, seven years later.

The Dr who confirmed that the NDE report probably did not see Dr Takata " doing the chicken".

However this is not remarkable in itself. The other doctor certainly would have focused on the patient while Dr Takata was in another area " doing the chicken".

However Dr Takata cannot per say swear what he was doing seven years ago at an exact location and time, most people cannot. However he can testify if such behavior is normal, and he indicates that it was.

So we are stuck with a very unusual skeptical explanation to explain this one away.

[Kris]

Lets look at these two arguments from Michael

a) that Sullivan heard someone refer to the doctor's idiosyncratic behavior, either before or after the surgery; or

Not likely. If the letter from Greyson is correct then it was not common knowledge. Why would people discuss that anyways. Why would Mr Sullivan recall such a trivial detail.

b) that Sullivan was not fully unconscious, despite sedation, and heard someone remark about the "chicken routine" at the time when it was performed.

I doubt surgeons would discuss such trivial things in the middle of surgery for obvious reasons.

The account mentions he discussed it immediately. I think I gave a very plausible explanation on why the other surgeon didn't see it.

[Kris]

I just did a quick experiment.

I used my watch for this.

I wet my hands. I used the " chicken method to dry them"

It took me three seconds.

so my scenario of the other doctor not seeing this it is very very plausible

It just requires Dr Takata to be out of his view for three seconds. I suspect that would be very likely during a surgery.

[Michael Prescott]

I agree that the nonskeptical explanation is more convincing. But it's not airtight. These things rarely are.

[Kris]

I agree with you Michael

I am playing on the web a lot today cause I am sick as hades so not much else I can do :(

A skeptic has to explain why a person would hallucinate such an odd thing and he also has to postulate that a person did said odd thing with a doctor in a the room who was known to do that, but this time didn't.

I have to explain why another doctor missed the event in question. I think I did it well enough. The event was only a few seconds and the doctor more then likely would have been focused on the patient for obvious reasons. If the doctor should have been focused on Dr Takata and not the patient why should he have been focused on Dr Takata and not the patient?

[steve wood]

Intriguingly, I think the particular routine that Dr Takata performed, involved his hands being flatened onto his chest(I know I read that some time ago but why that should be more hygenic, not certain) and his elbows flapping, exactly like a real chicken(shape wise), but not really like a simple chicken impression.
I might be wrong, though. cluck cluck. :<

[Aftrbrnr]

On the topic of Braude, I think he's come a long way from being a big proponent of Super-PSI to being sympathetic to life after death. Here's another video of him discussing life after death, had this interview been made back in the early '90s, I think Braude would've had much different opinions.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-would-an-Immortal-Soul-be-Like-Stephen-Braude-/166

[steve wood]

Just another point.

I can't really believe that he came out of deep anaesthesia, saw the 'arm flapping' and then went back under, deep enough that he wouldn't be aware of his chest being cut open.I think we have to put this report down to fraud/made it all up. Just like the other two hundred.

[Kris]

Hey Steve

I just called it the chicken cause I had to call it something. What are these two hundred you speak of.

[steve wood]

Hey Chris,
I think you might have called it 'the chicken' because I made reference to Dr Takata previously(impersonating a chicken)
Thankyou for that.

' What are these two hundred you speak of '

The number of very evidential veridical accounts during NDE, worldwide, is into the hundreds(maybe more)and I think you know that.(Greyson has over a hundred)I don't have time or the ability to list them all here. You know where to find them, I 'm sure.
Check out Alois Serwaty/Von Jankovitch, for example- Arbeitskreis origenes.

[Kris]

Actually I don't

Tell me where please.

I am slightly surprised we have not seen Keith with this one. I thought he was like Beetlejuice. Say his name three times in any NDE discussion and he appears.

[Michael Prescott]

"I am slightly surprised we have not seen Keith with this one"

Obviously you're trying to bait him.

Equally obviously, he is too smart to take the bait.

I respect him for that.

[sonic]

The video aftbrnr links to is really good.
Braude seems to understand the issues surrounding the subject of life after death very well and I have enjoyed his communications in the two videos I've seen so far.
That does it--I'm looking for one of his books tomorrow.

[Aftrbrnr]

I do like the fact that his interviewer, who seems to be sympathetic to parapsychology, still drills Braude about other possibilities such as fraud. You still need a balanced picture in my own opinion, and I think it is right of the interviewer to ask those questions.

[Ronnie Lee]

Closer to Truth is a wonderful show. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in our favorite topics here.

[steve wood]

Kris, The accounts are veridical but they are in the main anecdotal/retrospective accounts.Life after life contains many. I don't know exactly how many Ken Ring claims to have come across in his first study Life at death. His 'last' was Mindsight in which he produced several good cases of obe observations in the blind. Then there are Sabom's cases can't remember how many exactly(six in particular stand out). Peter fenwick has published some good ones in The Truth in the Light(Major Derek Scull and the red trouser suit case,for eg). Melvin Morse has a nice collection of Childrens OBE's(many verifiable). Elizabeth Kubler Ross(deceased) published some but tended not to worry too much about details. Maurice Rawlings has a few.Fred Schoonmaker claimed to have come across fifteen hundred NDE'S in his surgical career(don't know how many OBE'S were in that figure) There are more researchers than this and not just the English speaking variety. Dr Jaques Charbonier in France, for instance.
Isn't there some data from Germany?

[Kris]

Hey now!!

Saying right now that pretend Augustine comment was not me!

[The Major]

Good God. If that's Kris, sort it out, mate.

[Kris]

Seriously that was not me at all. I posted the discussion but I am not in any way impersonating Keith. Michael can easily verify my claim.

[Michael Prescott]

Obviously the comment signed "Keith Augustine" is not really Keith.

It wasn't Kris, either. Not his IP address. In fact, it's an IP address that has not been used for comments before. The user is in Kansas City.

I've blocked that IP address to prevent further comments.

Jeez ...

[Michael Prescott]

Oh, I also deleted the fake comment.

[Kris]

Hey Steve

Thanks for the references, it will give me something to look into it later.

Michael, thanks for removing it and thanks for the vindication. That was pretty slimy.

[The Major]

Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion, Kris.

[Ryan]

I thought that fake comment was funny. Obviously, it had to be deleted - but it's not like it was a real to attempt to be deceitful.

Kris, if you're bored and sick, check out the new Skeptiko podcast for a heated NDE debate. Actually I think the guest makes some good points, he seems reasonable, it's just a tetchy conversation.

[michael]

There is an excellent interview on NDE's with a skeptic researcher at Skeptiko.com

[Aftrbrnr]

Yeah, I fired an e-mail to Michael about the recent interview, hopefully he'll post it on his blog and/or have comments about it.

[Kris]

Looks like we got a rumble!!!

However unfortunately the rumble is a non issue....

Holden was squashed like a bug in 2006....

http://www.iands.org/iands_news/research_news/rem_intrusion.html

http://www.iands.org/images/stories/pdf_downloads/longholdenremintrusion.pdf

I always wondered about that REM argument. The basic problem with it is this. There is no way to know if NDErs had a greater rate of REM intrusions before their NDE. Until you can show that, you have nothing, the argument is still born. Increased REM intrusion could simply be an after affect of NDES. Truth be told with all the problems of the REM explanation that is probably what it is.

All is forgiven Major. I can be a prick but I don't resort to dishonest tricks. Honest tricks is another thing though :)

[Andrew Davidson]

What did the fake Augustine comment say? who was it do you know Michael? or rather not say.

Seems like there is a few people on this blog that don't like that guy, But Sceptics will be Sceptics even if you bash their head against a Brick Wall it won't change their thinking in any way.

I am still a little sceptical of NDE's and Mediums.

[Michael Prescott]

"who was it do you know Michael?"

I have no idea. Someone from Kansas City, who had never left a comment here before (at least using that IP address).

Just a silly hit-and-run post.

[Kris]

I should feel bad. Skeptics are never mean to us after all.

[michael]

some might find this of interest. It's the latest Edge magazine from the Society of Scientific Exploration. There is a book review of Maria Coffey’s Explorers of the Infinite by Michael Schmicker. It details NDE / Paranormal type experiences in extreme athletes.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_02.pdf

[michael duggan]

ooops,

Sorry MP!

[Julio Siqueira - juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br]

"The user is in Kansas City. ... ...I also deleted the fake comment."

So I guess we are not in Kansas anymore... :-)

Hi, Michael. One more time, congratulations for your good blog. As usual, I come at the end of the party. Anyway, I wanted to leave a note here saying that I intend to write this year two articles on my webpage, the first one "criticizing" Keith Augustine's "The Case Against Immortality," and the second one "criticizing" his online article on "Hallucinatory NDE" and also the whole of his exchange of ideas on this matter with the IANDS guys. I will try to be as constructive as possible, despite a recent information that I received about Keith a couple of days ago. After all, I think, IMHO, that we must always bear in mind that we all have our vices and our agendas, and perhaps we should not go to hard on other people's vices and agendas. Maybe...

Kris said: "I should feel bad. Skeptics are never mean to us after all."

You are a lucky man, Kris. I have been often abused by skeptics and internet atheist-materialists. Some of them seem to be real Bad Boys... :-)
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/criticizingskepticism.htm

Best Wishes to you all,
Julio Siqueira
juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br
____________________________

[Kris]

Wow

I thought skeptics were paragons of virtue and reason and would never be mean or petty.....

Hey if you want a copy of those emails between me and Dr Greyson I will happily pass them on, speaking on information about Keith.

[steve wood]

Ref- The recent Skeptiko podcasts,

It seems to me that Dr Persinger is contradicting himself. The God helmet stimulates the cortex and he says that mimicks the features of the NDE.

But he also speculates that even with a flat EEG, there can still be enough undetectable brain activity at a deeper level, ie consciouness has retreated to a different place. In that case, he is really saying that consciouness can move around in the brain, sort of like a 'bouncy ball of energy' in a box. But isn't consciousness ie sight, sound, cognition and memory formation a product of all the collective lobes and brain stem working together ?

Mind you, what do I know.

The Kevin Nelson interview was also very interesting but I had to read it(sound system broken) and therefore can't judge what tone of voice Nelson was using.

If I'm reading it correctly, Dr Nelson was getting a bit 'shirty,' brow beating with the... "You're not a neurologist and I am routine"....."Where's the data...no that's the conclusion....where's the data?"(Penny Sartori's Study)

I may have this wrong, but I thought the 'data' was the discovery and documentation of patient's lucid experiences while comatose, and the conclusion...consciousness may not be totally dependent on brain activity.

Alex Tsakiris tried his best to get Nelson to spell out exactly how he thinks NDE's are possible in a dead brain but he(Nelson) fell back on the 'just before' factor.

[-Marty]

'''Dr Nelson was getting a bit 'shirty,'''

Ha ha Spike accused Buffy of being "Shirty" as well... though like her, I didn't believe "Shirty" was even a word,
At least until now...

I listened to the Tsakiris interview with *cough* DR* cough* Nelson…
And if "Shirty" means he was playing the "I am a Neurologist and you're not" card then yeah, he was all Shirt and no pants.

[Julio Siqueira - juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br]

"Hey if you want a copy of those emails between me and Dr Greyson I will happily pass them on, speaking on information about Keith."

That would be nice. Thank you! After all, science is a human endeavour, and it is important to understand what our (in this case, Keith's) human aspect is doing while science gets done.

Julio Siqueira
juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br

[Michael Prescott]

"Spike accused Buffy of being 'Shirty' as well"

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was my favorite TV show throughout the time it was on. I haven't seen it in years, but I imagine the dialogue, at least, would still hold up.

My all-time favorite TV show is HBO's "Rome." Wish it had lasted more than two seasons ...

"I thought skeptics were paragons of virtue and reason"

Are any of us? I know I'm not. I'm with Hamlet on this one:

"I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very
proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us." [Act 3, Sc. 1]

[Kris]

I'm a prick myself , however I like to think I reason out my views and I am not too beholden to a philosophy or a religion.

As for Dr Nelson

The proof is in the pudding. Gives us an explanation for what happened to Pam Reynolds, Al Sullivan and the Satori case. It doesn't matter one bit where consciousness is if you it has no way to interact with the outside world now does.

The only way consciousness could have interact with the outside world in those cases is to move it outside the body.

Basically we win by default.

[Michael Prescott]

"it is important to understand what our (in this case, Keith's) human aspect is doing while science gets done."

I have to say that I really, really hate the "holier-than-thou" tone of comments like this.

It just annoys the hell out of me. It puts me in mind of Matthew 7:3.

How about simply recognizing that all of us have strengths and weaknesses, insights and blind spots, good days and bad days?

And the remark about how "science gets done" is kind of ridiculous, given that the vast majority of scientists would not recognize the subject matter of this blog as having any connection with science.

I myself have suggested that there are limits to how much science can teach us in this area. A lot of these phenomena are inherently subjective.

I have no intention of allowing this blog to turn into a forum for bashing Keith Augustine or any other individual, and I'm increasingly tempted to clamp down on the comments in a major way -- possibly by instituting comments moderation, or by banning the people who keep bringing it up, or by shutting off the comments altogether, or just closing down the whole blog.

The blog post associated with this thread never even mentioned Keith or NDEs.

People keep saying, "The skeptics are mean to us, so it's okay for us to be nasty about them." If this is your philosophy, start your own blog. My attitude is that if you look for nastiness, you will found it. If you look for decency, you are more likely to find it. What you see in others is a reflection of who you are.

Try treating those who disagree with you with respect and courtesy, and you may be surprised at the results.

There is enough negativity and unfriendliness and incivility on the Internet. This forum is meant to be a friendly, open-minded place that welcomes all comers.

If some of you want to wage war on the "opposition," go somewhere else. Please.

[Aftrbrnr]

I have to side with Michael on this one, when you have an eye for an eye attitude, no one wins. Some (notice "some') skeptics may not be nice or honest, but as Michael says if you still exercise kindness and respect, sometimes they will open up.

On topic, what else do you guys think of the second Braude video considering how many have known him as the champion of Super-Psi for years?

[Julio Siqueira - juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br]

"Try treating those who disagree with you with respect and courtesy"

Wise and honorable words.

I just want to highlight that being critical towards Keith as a philosopher (and as a proponent of refutation to survivalist worldviews and theories) does not necessarily equal being destructive to him as a person. What I may do (after further extensive checking, as I usually do) is to present (in my website) some pieces of criticism towards some of his ideas and towards some of his conclusions, and also towards some of his "tactics" in his interactions with skeptics and non skeptics and etc (that, after triple checking). I repeat: science is not only ideas and theories; it is, topmost IMO, the making of these ideas and the interactions that we carry on along the way. (and if the subject of this thread is not scientific, I can't understand why so many scientific papers have already been published on this matter...)

And as far as I can see, it is quite legitimate to mention Keith in this thread, precisely because he is one who has forwarded pieces of information and reasoning (of very high quality, by the way - IMHO) to counter evidence for the afterlife from a logical and philosophical and scientific perspective. Just as it would be legitimate to mention Paul Edwards, or Ian Stevenson, and just as it would be, IMO, highly illegitimate (or at least far less legitimate) to mention Richard Wiseman, Ray Hyman or Adrian Parker (guys more dedicated to non survivalist psi investigation and refutation). Having a skeptic site myself, and also an "anti-skeptic" site, I must say that I myself have benefited enormously from criticism directed towards not only my ideas and my "pieces of information," but topmost directed towards my stands, my possible motivations, and my "methods," so to speak.

Michael, decisions regarding censoring are yours alone, and are to be respected. But trying to draw some wisdom from sources similar to yours, I would recommend Matthew 3:12...

Best Wishes,
Julio Siqueira
______________

[steve wood]

Michael Prescott,
You need a large scotch...WITH ICE !

If my comments have been causing you stress, I'm happy to say thankyou and goodnight. It's a great blog and I've really enjoyed particating in the 'debate.'
Best wishes to all the commenters on here, including yourself.

[Leo MacDonald]

I wonder what everyone thinks of this youtube video created by Qualiasoup. I just noticed it on youtube. It talks about substance dualism with the usual split brain evidence which doesn't show that we have two personalities by splitting brain hemispheres however according to this fellow it must be so. He does have a good point though about how processes don't have weight, color or texture the same as consciousness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA

[Ryan]

I've noticed this tension building up for awhile; I sensed some impatience in MP's comments. The thing is (IMHO), this forum is not "team afterlife"; and "skeptics" are not another team to be battled. People with different opinions are not nasty people because of it. One can feel under attack if someone strongly disagrees with one's beliefs. Especially with sensitive areas like a belief in the afterlife, that cut quite deeply into our fears and vulnerabilities. Sceptical opposition can feel personal – like our hopes are being dashed, and only nasty and insensitive people dash our hopes, don't they?

I think it's a good idea to try to cultivate that peace of mind where we're not grasping for a particular conclusion. Opposing arguments seem less jarring, this way – they become interesting, not threatening. Moody, Braude, Sheldrake seem to have this approach. Sure, some of these “sceptical” types don't do a good job of defending their position; they're neither sensitive in their conduct nor sophisticated in their arguments. And there is a lot of woo-woo and nonsense out there, too; but it all acts as a challenge to develop our analytic skills, self-awareness and “humaneness”. I do sense a bit of impatience from Moody, for example, insofar as he's pressured to support the afterlife position, when he just wants to investigate and explore (his Skeptiko interview is excellent, by the way).

It's maybe not a good idea to turn this issue into a full discussion. Here, it may be best simply to read the words of our kind host and blogger, exchange ideas without any kind of tribalism, heeding always these words of Whitehead:

“There remains the final reflection, how shallow, puny, and imperfect are efforts to sound the depths in the nature of things...” (P&R, xiv).

[Marty]

Leo, thanks for the video

If its true that one could "Split up one Brain" into TWO people and get two distinct personalitys and consciousness
well that would be a powerfull argument for the Skeptics
I wonder if its true... I found this regarding "complete cerebral commissurotomy"
where they split hemispheres in epilepsy patients
and found seperate awareness......

http://tiny.cc/G3Gbm

sigh.....

[dmduncan]

Excellent video with Braude, and again you see someone's investigations into the paranormal are precipitated by some bizarre experiences of his own which he cannot ignore.

Now once you've been exposed to something odd and you do realize that — just as he says in the video — the universe is more strange than we want to admit, I think you tend to accept the possibility of weirdness, and because of that you may defend something that eventually turns out to be fraudulent, and this becomes the only thing your critics remember.

But I think it's much more important to be willing to be wrong rather than to miss an essential piece of the puzzle about how our universe works.

If you don't think something is possible you will not explore it as a possibility.

Because when you are curious that means you really want to know, and when you are not, that means you think you already do.

And the latter path is the easy one — whether what you think you know regards life after death or the impossibility of such.

I wish I did know. All I do know for sure is that weird things happen, and they don't seem to care that they don't make sense to us.

[Goonch]

I often find myself getting angry when I see some 'skeptical' arguments to various phenomena that on the surface can appear as truth of 'debunking' but anyone who goes deeper will often find it false and possibly intentionally dishonest.

But I question why I get angry. Its not as if the winner of a debate determines the truth of reality. Reality will be reality regardless of how many people believe it.

I think it boils down to feeling betrayed by society and the scientific community to a degree. There is all this evidence and yet no one, including myself long ago, had heard of it. I was told 'you are a pack of neurons' and believed it. And youth today are told much the same.

I have to remind myself that science is a slow changing process, its best not to buy into an 'us versus them' mentality, and the material routinely discussed here will exist regardless of how many choose to ignore it.

At the heart of it, the skeptical crowd and myself often share a fundamental desire, and that is to 'stamp out' what we perceive to be ignorance. I need to work on letting this desire go.

[sonic]

I've seen Braude in two interviews and I liked him alot.
Some of what he says reminds me of something Moody said (I'll paraphrase) that he had been going to meetings of 'believers' and 'skeptics' for years. Saw the same people year after year, only the believer would become the skeptic and vice-versa.
Who couldn't like a subject like that?

[Zerdini]

"For now we see through a glass, darkly".......

[Luis]

"by banning the people who keep bringing it up, or by shutting off the comments altogether, or just closing down the whole blog. "

This is my first post here, although I've been reading MP's blog for some time, probably over 3-5 years now.

I never posted before for 2 reasons, first, because English is not my mother tongue and I still find difficult it to maintain lengthy discussions on these subjects without the language proficiency required to express all the subtleties and nuances needed.

And secondly and more important, because although I've learnt a lot since I began to investigate on these subjects 4 years ago (I was an skeptic myself until I was 36) I still can recognize I have a lot (and I mean a LOT) to learn, and I know when to keep my mouth closed, listen and learn from those who know much more than I do.

I must say that the tone of MPs posts and comments, his knowledge and approach to this field, and that from most of the people posting here, have been an amazing source of information and knowledge and a great help during this learning.

So, I just though it was about time to stop lurking and leeching to thank you all and specially MP for the effort put here and the work done.

[Kris]

I believe the frustration is reasonable and the time for dialog with skeptics is largely over.

Skeptics have no problem whatsoever suppressing any form of research into parapsychology nor do they have the slightest qualms with misrepresenting research that already exist.

They have no problem denouncing paranormal researchers for not publishing in mainstream journals but when we try they harass the journals. It is the old persecutors trick, denounce us for not doing something they won't let us do.

They have no problem creating absurd double standards for parapsychologist to jump through. They have no problem with goal posting. They have no problem misleading the public.

We have to start fighting back and fighting hard. If they misrepresent research on a public forum they should be sued for slandered. Hit them in the wallet. Hit them whenever we can. You catch one being dishonest you never let them live it down.

Skeptics are bullies and we are letting ourselves be easily bulled. The only thing a bully understands is harsh consequences for their actions.

[Michael Prescott]

"We have to start fighting back and fighting hard.... Hit them whenever we can." - Kris

You're welcome to do that, but I would prefer that you not do it here.

There are many other forums where this combative approach will be appreciated.

I prefer to maintain an atmosphere of decorum and mutual respect in this little corner of the Internet. As Hannibal Lecter once said, "Disrespect is unspeakably ugly to me." (This did not prevent him from murdering and cannibalizing his victims, but I digress.)

My standards may seem quaint in our increasingly uncivil society, but I intend to enforce them. For the time being, I've switched to comment moderation, even though it is inconvenient for all concerned.

Luis, I appreciate your kind words. Thanks!

[sonic]

There are other sites that are combative.
This site has been less combative, more open to ideas and possibilities. This is one of the things that makes it so good. (The knowledgeable author MP and posters (ZC comes to mind immediately) complete it.)
Michael-- do what you have to do to maintain the quality that this has.
Best Wishes

[michael duggan]

MP, couldn't agree more. I have developed my thinking on several consciousness related issues, in particular the possibility of survival, as a consequence of this blog. The pedagogical nature of the material is second to none, and I have learnt a lot.
If others have axes to grind, let them release their frustrations elsewhere and not here.

[Zetetic_chick]

I'd like to comment something.

I think Michael (Prescott) is right about the need of keeping a positive, open mind atmosphere for exhanging ideas in his blog.

This blog is well read at the paranormal, spiritualist community, and many spiritual seekers find here a refreshing perspetive and a positive atmosphere to exchange ideas (or read them at least).

Thus Michael cannot allow this positive atmosphere be damaged by negative, purely critical or hostile contributions, even if they're somehow justified in one or other sense.

Kris, I fully understand your frustration. And I think your opinion against skeptics in general is largely justified. I've felt myself a similar frustration.

I even agree that proponents of parapsychology should be more active in replying, rebutting and exposing the skeptics' attitudes and double standards (you can call it "fighting back" if you want). Winston Wu' SCECOP is one first approach to that kind of tactic.

But it's a tactical mistake to "fight back" in the wrong places.

This blog is not a place to fight back skeptics in general or to debunk certain individuals in particular. Michael cannot allow his blog be pushed in that direction.

We have to respect the purposes and the spirit of this blog.

Perhaps you should join SCECOP, whose explicit purpose is actively to fight back the skeptics. Your contribution there possibly will be appreciated.

Kris, please send me a e-mail (my e-mail address is in the profile of my blog), I'd like to discuss with you many of these questions, share with you what I've learned from skeptics too and exchange some relevant information and evidence about the afterlife topic.

[Kris]

Hey Michael

I like being here so I will not be combative. Your house your rules.

[Ben]

"My standards may seem quaint in our increasingly uncivil society, but I intend to enforce them."

I thank you for heading such a civilised blog, Michael.

It is interesting though, that when things get a bit heated or controversial, the sheer volume of comments rises. Good old human nature, eh?

[Ronnie Lee]

I remember stumbling into this blog on accident during my journey of researching NDEs. I've been hooked ever since, and it's definitely one of my favorite blogs out there.

[william]

“At the heart of it, the skeptical crowd and myself often share a fundamental desire, and that is to 'stamp out' what we perceive to be ignorance. I need to work on letting this desire go.”

I think the great challenge in life is not to stamp out ignorance in others but look into that proverbial mirror and see our ignorance. Besides if there were no ignorance there would be no us just Isness. Perfection creates imperfection for a very good reason without our imperfections there is no unique souls. Those imperfections lead to much suffering, as there are consequences for our choices in life.

We are distinguishable from that that is (God) because of our ignorance i.e. lack of infinite intelligence. This is a very difficult concept to accept as the human mind and even the consciousness of a soul wants to make God in its image.

I just saw on TV that the last pope used to beat himself with a belt to draw closer to Christ. This behavior is based in guilt and this guilt has its home not in drawing closer to God or Christ consciousness but in self-confirmatory egotistical behavior which of course would not draw him closer to Christ Consciousness but separate him even farther from Christ. Even the pope’s ego can be very deceptive. It appears that the pope thinks his soul existed outside of infinite Oneness.

Does anyone know if a pope every came through a medium after the pope crossed over. It seems I remember reading something about this occurring. Or not.

Art I just read a book I think you would find very interesting and inspiring. This lady had a near death experience and later in life left her body while giving a eulogy and had a profound mystical experience and in her words an encounter with God and found these other dimensions very loving and knowledgeable. The book is “hear his voice” by Nancy Clark. No Art there is not any mention of reincarnation in this book.

I thought I posted this last night but it did not post. Was it considered combative or just ignorant?

[Mike M]

I will repeat other peoples praise for your site MP. I've been following this blog for about 2 years and I check it few times a week for updates, since you have good knowledge on all things Psi, NDE, afterlife, etc.

[dmduncan]

"Your house your rules."

Well there you go. That's a fair way of putting it.

[Hope Rivers]

It's been a very long time since posting comments here but I still check in from time to time to read MPs posts, which he invests his precious time researching, analysising and producing intelligent, knowledgable and balanced views. Not everyone would give as selflessly for years to keep this blog going, making regular posts to quench everyone's thirst for knowledge and exchange, whilst tolerating immaturity, verbal attacks and commenters who use this platform as their pulpit, constantly rehashing their fixed beliefs in most posts whether related to the discussion or not.

It has been a pleasure to escape into this little corner of the world from time to time and learn new things and maybe for some of us even see things differently to one's current beliefs.

It's not a competition of conversion to one's own beliefs but identifying we are all united and deep down are all seekers of the truth, despite our fears and how they make us act out. They say the truth sets you free and it certainly does with most things, the question of immortality may one day be mostly proven scientifically but the questions of "why?" and "what for?" I believe and will always pose difficulties for science.

MP keep up the terrific work and your blog should always remain a place of harmony, wisdom and maturity, I totally agree with your vision and from what I've read so far so do many others.

[Julio Siqueira - juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br]

Zetetic chick said:

"I think Michael (Prescott) is right about the need of keeping a positive, open mind atmosphere for exhanging ideas in his blog."

I acknowledge and support the numerous virtues of this blog and of Prescott's stand. Also, I fully support the above phrase from you, ZC, but I must say I did not see this "open mind atmosphere" towards me... So, again, I congratulate Michael for his good work. And in respect for his home rules (which, IMHO, disregard Matthew 3:12), I would like to wish him and you all good luck and say farewell.

Julio
_____

[Ryan]

Hey, Hope - nice of you to drop in. I hope you're doing well.

@Julio - I think you may have just arrived at a bad time, so your comments were perhaps taken to be part of the larger tone that was building on the blog. You seem like an open-minded guy - good luck with your research into these mysteries. :-)

[Art]

"The book is “hear his voice” by Nancy Clark. No Art there is not any mention of reincarnation in this book." - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay then, I will look for it! I do enjoy mystical experiences. Some of them that I have read have been very profound. One of my most favorite is on the Taste site: Transcendental Experiences of Scientists:
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=arc&ss=1
The experience is called "Riding the Dragon" about this medical doctor that is at a Medical conference and I guess the talks were so boring that he kind of started zoning out and had this very profound mystical experience. The URL is:
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00070&ss=1
I am also a huge fan of death bed visions and find them to be very full of hope and uplifting.

[Michael Prescott]

"I thought I posted this last night but it did not post. Was it considered combative or just ignorant?"

Neither. I didn't see the earlier comment. I guess it didn't get through.

Thanks to everyone for the nice compliments. Nice to hear from you, Hope!

My apologies to Julio for seemingly singling him out when I was actually reacting to the general tone of the thread.

By the way, as far as Matthew 3:12 is concerned (a verse about sending people to hell), I would say that it probably reflects Matthew's predilections more than Jesus'. Matthew is very big on "wailing and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness" and even modifies some of Jesus' parables to include this element.

In my opinion, we have to read any sacred text sensitively, accepting the truth we find there but not the less admirable elements. To me, Matthew 7:3 captures a profound truth (we see the splinter in our neighbor's eye but not the plank in our own), while Matthew 3:12 is mere fear-mongering coupled with a revenge fantasy. But your mileage may vary.

[Art]

Speaking of New Testament quotes, Church service was canceled today because of all the snow and ice on the roads here in Middle Tennessee. I went out this morning and scraped about 5" of snow and ice off our cars this morning. The road out in front of our house is a sheet of ice at least a half an inch thick. It's like a skating rink! Down the street from us there are four cars stuck in ditches at the bottom of the hill. Glad it's not me!

[Julio Siqueira - juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br]

Thank you for your words, Michael.

As to "while Matthew 3:12 is mere fear-mongering coupled with a revenge fantasy," I hope you undestood that what I meant was that YOU (you, Michael) should be careful when sorting out who and what you send to "hell."

Keith Augustine sent me an email and I have replied it to him already. I hope this will be one more round of constructive exchange of ideas with him, as have more than once happened in the last years (through private email).

Best Wishes,
Julio
_____

[Michael H]

In my opinion, we have to read any sacred text sensitively, accepting the truth we find there but not the less admirable elements.

I couldn’t agree more. Another way to say that is to just follow your own wisdom, which simply involves accepting that which elevates your spirits and discarding that which lowers your spirits.

It seems to me that we’re all looking at everything through the plank in our own eyes, while other people’s specks of sawdust are obvious to us. We’re oblivious to our own planks, though, so we get upset when someone tells us we’re afflicted by a speck of sawdust.

All that planks and specks actually are is belief systems, though. When I read Matthew 3, I see an allegory about tossing our own belief system into a bonfire, a bonfire that begins when we find ourselves “gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire”, which only means that we need apply MP’s suggestion regarding the interpretation of sacred texts to our own mind: “accepting the truth we find there but not the less admirable elements”.

Once that fire has started, it can very well consume the whole damn plank. And when the plank is consumed, what remains is experienced as “the Spirit of God descending like a dove” and we will understand that the “kingdom of God” is nearer than we could possibly have imagined, and that the love expressed in Matthew 3:17 doesn’t apply to Christ alone, but extends to everyone and everything, despite whatever struggles we’ve had, or are continuing to have, with the stupid plank.

That’s how I interpret Matthew 3, but as MP says - your mileage may vary.

It also seems to me that the idea of following your own wisdom is a good rule to apply when we’re faced with opposing views. In my case, I’m pretty much opposed to all views – I think the solution to absolutely everything involves moving beyond our own belief systems, while nearly everyone else appears to think that everything would be just fine if everyone shared just one belief system, which interestingly enough, inevitably appears to be whatever belief system they happen to be attached to at the moment. That observation applies to me as well – the belief system I’m attached to at the moment tells me that everything would be just fine if everyone was willing to question their own belief systems. The truth of course, is that everything is perfectly fine already, and it's only my own belief system that tells me otherwise.

I’m sure some of the things I’ve written in these threads have offended some readers at times, but I do make an effort to avoid attacking the person while presenting an alternative position. That’s not always easy to do, given how whacked-out certain perspectives appear to me today, but I do try to remember where I’ve come from. As a friend of mine, a psychologist who experienced a profound shift in perspective in the middle of a session with a client put it, “It was amazing to discover that I’d been wrong about absolutely everything!”