When you read a lot of material about the paranormal, you encounter all kinds of claims. Sometimes it becomes difficult to separate the strong cases from the weaker ones. It can even be confusing and discouraging, as the weaker cases start to overwhelm the stronger ones in your mind.
A possible approach to this problem is to ask yourself, "If this were the only evidence I had for a particular claim, would I believe it?" In this way, you can separate lines of investigation that otherwise might run together in your thoughts.
Admittedly, this method is somewhat subjective, since it depends on what you personally would accept as adequate evidence for any given claim. But at least it provides you with a method, however rough, for discriminating among the various strands of evidence that present themselves to you.
Here are some examples of my personal evaluations of different kinds of claims.
If the reports of people taking hallucinogenic drugs like DMT were the only evidence for the existence of other planes of reality, would I believe in those other planes? I would not. I would assume that the elaborate scenarios visualized by users of psychedelic drugs are woven out of the material of the unconscious mind.
If Robert Monroe's reports of his out-of-body experiences were the only evidence for such experiences, would I believe in OBEs? I would not. As I've written elsewhere, Monroe's accounts are frequently so bizarre that they sound more like dreams or hallucinations than real experiences.
If past-life hypnotic regression were the only evidence for reincarnation, would I believe in reincarnation? I would not. Hypnosis is not necessarily reliable as a method of obtaining factual information. Hypnotized subjects may confabulate to please the hypnotist, and may draw on long-buried memories of books and movies from years ago in order to fill out their narratives with convincing details. D. Scott Rogo's excellent book The Search for Yesterday offers a detailed examination of past-life memories obtained through hypnosis, and provides serious grounds for doubting their validity in at least some instances.
If the investigations of Ian Stevenson, and like-minded researchers such as Jim Tucker and Carol Bowman, were the only evidence for reincarnation, would I believe in reincarnation? Possibly, yes. At the very least, these studies strongly indicate that something paranormal -- something that cannot be explained by any "normal" means -- is going on. Whether it is reincarnation or some form of spirit obsession/possession or some other phenomenon, I don't know. But a lot of this evidence seems very good to me.
If the only evidence for psychokinesis were the reported phenomena of Uri Geller, would I believe in PK? Probably not. Too many questions have been raised about some of Geller's more bizarre claims -- for instance, being in telepathic contact with extraterrestrials. Plus, there is Geller's undeniable gift for showmanship, which at the very least blurs the line between genuine phenomena and stage magic.
If the only evidence for psychokinesis were the reported phenomena of Eusapia Palladino, would I believe in PK? Probably, yes. Though Palladino was unquestionably capable of cheating, she also seems to have produced genuine phenomena in circumstances that preclude fraud. The 1908 Naples sittings are the prime example. I think it is highly unlikely that a team of very experienced investigators, who among them had debunked more than 100 physical mediums, and who observed Palladino in adequate light, taking strenuous precautions, would be completely fooled over a long series of sittings.
If the only evidence for apparitions consisted of the so-called "crisis apparition" cases collected by the Society for Psychical Research in the late 19th century, would I believe in apparitions? Yes, I would. The sheer quantity of cases accumulated by Edmund Gurney and FWH Myers, and the high quality of the better-documented ones, convinces me that crisis apparitions are a real phenomenon.
If the only evidence for mediumship consisted of the sittings of Edgar Cayce, would I believe in mediumship? No, I wouldn't. Most of Cayce's channeled information consisted of nostrums intended to cure various ailments. No systematic effort was made to determine if the cures were successful, and most of the remedies seem dubious at best. Cayce's predictions have sometimes proved incorrect, and his reconstructions of the past are also open to serious challenge by archaeologists and historians.
If the only evidence for mediumship consisted of the performances of contemporary TV mediums like John Edward and George Anderson, would I believe in mediumship? Probably not. Although watching John Edward on TV got me interested in mediumship in the first place, I could never rule out the possibility -- however unlikely -- that he was faking it in some incredibly clever way. After all, he controlled the venue, and most of his appearances were edited. While I think Edward is probably for real, I base this opinion on my knowledge of other mediums rather than Edward alone.
If the only evidence for mediumship consisted of the investigations of Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard, would I believe in mediumship? Yes, I would. Both of those ladies were extensively examined by highly capable researchers over a period of 20 years. They remain the most thoroughly tested in mediums in history, and I cannot see any remotely plausible non-paranormal explanation for their accomplishments.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, obviously. But perhaps it gives some idea of how I would try to distinguish between relatively strong and relatively weak evidence. Once having accepted the stronger evidence, I probably do have a tendency to be more accepting of some of the weaker cases as well. For instance, since I think PK is possible, I'm more inclined to think Uri Geller can actually do it. But Geller's evidence on its own would not convince me.
It's probably natural to become less skeptical about certain areas of evidence when you have overcome your initial skepticism in related areas. But I do think it's useful to occasionally review all the evidence as dispassionately as possible, and to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Excellent exegetic post Michael.
I do the same for various areas of Parapsychology. Some areas are much stronger than others. The evidence for healing effects in living organisms (for example) is not as strong as the massive database on PK-RNG experiements. The free response Ganzfeld database is stronger and more consistent than the remote viewing database. However, I would still be convinced of the reality of psi, based on these respective "inferior" databases as even these are statistically robust and counter explanations (file drawer, faulty methodology and statistics, experimenter and subject fraud) seem incapable of troubling the psi hypothesis.
The Global Consciousness Project is particular nightmarish for those of a materialist bent!
I never really appreciated the older evidence from psychical research, until reading your post.
Posted by: michael duggan | June 10, 2010 at 01:39 PM
Great post. I think that ganzfeld experiments using "gifted" subjects, i.e., artistically inclined people, provide excellent psi evidence. And the experimental results are repeatable according to reports I've read about the subject.
Sorry to go a bit off topic, but by far the best evidence for psi, absolute proof in fact, is personal experience of the phenomena. I've had a few such experiences, in the form of vivid, complex precognitive dreams.
Posted by: Carl Olsson | June 10, 2010 at 03:11 PM
Carl, personal experiences will only ever convince the experient. These don't offer any real proof to anybody else, unless they can be objectively verified, i.e., OBE's during cardiac arrest, etc.
Posted by: michael duggan | June 10, 2010 at 03:30 PM
Excellent post, Michael, thank you! :)
Posted by: Louise | June 10, 2010 at 04:06 PM
Good point. If I ever told anyone of the details of my precognitive experiences, they wouldn't be convinced of anything. And because of the great amount of detail involved, they would probably be bored to tears.
The phrase "absolute proof" I used is somewhat off-putting. Maybe "top-quality wheat" is more fitting. Also, amend the post to say "by far the best evidence of psi to me . . ."
I agree that those near-death accounts only have real value if they include things like "I was surprised to see my brother-in-law down the hall and he was telling my wife that he couldn't stay long at the hospital because he was on the way to the vet with his cat, and etc. etc."
Posted by: Carl Olsson | June 10, 2010 at 04:34 PM
Carl, were the ganzfeld tests only done on gifted individuals? I could be mistaken about this, but I was under the impression that ganzfeld work could actually get some fairly good results with almost anyone.
Posted by: Sandy | June 10, 2010 at 05:11 PM
Sandy, typically, the average person can shift the guessing rate to 33% correct choices (where chance would give 25%, 1 in 4). When creative people have been studied (for example by Honorton testing Julliard students) the it rate climbs to 40 - 50%. Throw in those creatives who have had previous psychic experiences and the hit rate shoots to 70%.
http://dbem.ws/ganzfeld.html
Posted by: michael duggan | June 10, 2010 at 05:45 PM
Sandy, I believe ganzfeld experiments on ordinary folks were getting good results in many cases. But tests with artistic types gave even better results. Dean Radin has done interesting writing on this topic.
Posted by: Carl Olsson | June 10, 2010 at 05:50 PM
Thanks for the info, Michael D and Carl. I still find it interesting that ordinary people can get 33%. It doesn't surprise me that musicians would score so well. So much of creating music depends on the ability musicians have to connect and cooperate with each other while playing in a group situation.
Posted by: Sandy | June 10, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Sometimes it's hard to know what is good information and what is disinformation. And sometimes people may innocently pass on disinformation because they aren't aware it is disinformation. Sometimes, even if you take something with a grain of salt, it helps to make a note of it because you may come across something else later that lends credence to it.
Posted by: Jeff R | June 10, 2010 at 07:16 PM
Interesting post, Michael. Got me thinking.
"It's probably natural to become less skeptical about certain areas of evidence when you have overcome your initial skepticism in related areas. "
For me, this is a huge part of the equation. Because if I were to answer the question "If this were the only evidence I had for a particular claim, would I believe it?" the answer would always be no. My openness to any claim of psi is always based on my acceptance of prior data and/or my own experiences.
When I read about anomalous claims in areas that are unfamiliar, I may be intrigued, but I'm never really convinced until I can begin to correlate the new claim to the experiences of others.
I'm so glad you mentioned Carol Bowman, by the way. Her "Return to Heaven" is one of the most persuasive books I've ever read.
"Sorry to go a bit off topic, but by far the best evidence for psi, absolute proof in fact, is personal experience of the phenomena. I've had a few such experiences, in the form of vivid, complex precognitive dreams."
Yes! I remember clearly that there was a period of time in which I was hopelessly on the fence about the reality of psi. Despite the fact that I was strongly impressed by a wide variety of books and researchers, it was not until I began recognizing my seemingly precognitive dreams, recording them, and doing science (as best I could) with them, that the scales finally tipped for me.
I remember clearly one strange and vivid dream and its aftermath—and have it thoroughly documented, too—that finally made me say to myself: That's it! I've now reached the point where if I had to bet my own good money on whether or not psi truly exists, I would say yes.
"Carl, personal experiences will only ever convince the experient. "
Perhaps, Michael. But I wonder if anyone is ever truly convinced of psi without having had some sort of compelling experience. MP, for example, has described a few of his own experiences, and I found them interesting, to say the least.
So here's a question to the group: Is there anyone here who is convinced of the existence of psi, but has not had any experience of their own that would tend to confirm it? Or at the very least, the experience of a spouse or very close friend?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 10, 2010 at 08:03 PM
So here's a question to the group: Is there anyone here who is convinced of the existence of psi, but has not had any experience of their own that would tend to confirm it? Or at the very least, the experience of a spouse or very close friend?
That's a great question! It seems like everyone that I've talked to or corresponded with who is convinced of psi always has had some kind of personal experience. It is a bit disheartening though. I'd like the evidence to be enough to convince someone, but I don't think it works that way.
I showed a university professor that I trust how I make my pk wheel turn. She was so excited to see it happen, she even tried it herself and got it to work. Then she sent me out of the room and tried it just to make sure I wasn't doing some kind of trick and it still worked.
Since then, she hasn't been able to move the wheel the way she could that first time. She gets it to move slightly, but it won't spin rapidly the way that it did before. She's seen me do it a few times since then. I had it working at the campus coffee shop just a few days ago for her.
She thinks that after that initial experience, doubt about her ability to move the wheel has set in and stopped it from working. She's a scientist and has gone over and discounted a number of mundane explanations for the wheel moving. She thinks that logically pk is now possible. But the idea that pk is possible for her to do just doesn't agree with her. It is a difficult obstacle to overcome.
Posted by: Sandy | June 10, 2010 at 08:51 PM
"But the idea that pk is possible for her to do just doesn't agree with her. It is a difficult obstacle to overcome."
Yes, and despite all the apparently precognitive dreams I've had in the past fifteen years—some quite impressive, I think— there's still a part of me that goes: "C'mon Bruce. Who are you trying to kid?!"
Nevertheless, as I've said, if I had to put money on it, I'd go with the "it's real." Seeing as I don't have a lot of money to spare, that's saying something. :o)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 10, 2010 at 09:02 PM
Bruce, what amazed me is that as soon as I had confided in her, she started telling me about her own experiences. She said that she had put those things out of her mind for such a long time, but now she is very curious again. She's even been coming up with fun psi tests for us to try together. She sent me out water witching last time.
It's almost easier to believe in psi as a group than it is alone. When we're alone, there is a tendency to forget.
Posted by: Sandy | June 10, 2010 at 09:09 PM
Cool, Sandy! You must be enjoying her newfound openness.
"It's almost easier to believe in psi as a group than it is alone. When we're alone, there is a tendency to forget."
Yeah—I guess it takes some courage to believe in stuff that many are quick to label nonsense. It's like being a heretic.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 10, 2010 at 09:35 PM
Bruce, that's part of it, but not all of it. I really do think there is a tendency to forget psi experiences.
If I hadn't written things down, many of those experiences would be lost. I had forgotten about experiences that I had gone through as a teenager until I found an old journal. As soon as I read them, I remembered, but it was so odd to have forgotten. The professor I mentioned says that she had forgotten many experiences too, but now they are flooding back.
For some reason, psi functioning doesn't seem to like to be observed or remembered.
Posted by: Sandy | June 10, 2010 at 09:51 PM
A possible approach to this problem is to ask yourself, "If this were the only evidence I had for a particular claim, would I believe it?" In this way, you can separate lines of investigation that otherwise might run together in your thoughts.
The only evidence that would convince me ( and has done) is that which I have experienced myself.
Even then, it has been the accumulation of evidence over many years through different types of mediumship plus personal psi experiences that has been the clincher.
Other examples, as stated by Michael, have simply been confirmatory to my own experiences.
Posted by: Zerdini | June 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM
The only evidence that would convince me ( and has done) is that which I have experienced myself.
That says it all, doesn't it?
I can't even argue against this stance because I'm no different. Does that mean that the paradigm shift will never come? It seems a bit much to ask to have to provide the opportunities for personal experiences to enough scientists to make a difference in how things like survival of consciousness are considered.
When I've done the pk wheel stuff in front of people, some of them get these really far away looks on their faces when they watch the wheel spin. I didn't understand what the big deal was. It's just a little paper wheel spinning. It's not very exciting, really. I guess it comes down to it being a personal experience, even if it isn't all that exciting.
Posted by: Sandy | June 11, 2010 at 05:40 AM
Michael,
Until I had my own experiences to go by I was pretty skeptical. I read many people's accounts but somewhere inside there would still be a nagging doubt. When something, be it psychically or mediumistically happens to you it does open your mind to the possibility. Seeing is believing for sure.
Thanks for the great information.
Posted by: Angela Artemis | June 11, 2010 at 07:28 AM
Angela, your website mentions you being an intuitive. When did your experiences start? Did you always have them and finally recognised them for what they were, or were they triggered by a particular event or situation?
Posted by: Sandy | June 11, 2010 at 07:39 AM
Sandy's comment on the 33% having an effect when the odds are 25% is interesting.
Assuming the sample size is large enough to be significant, would this not support the idea that the ability being tested (in this case telepathy I think) is universally available to some extent? It is a shame that there seems to be so little research into it at present.
I wonder how often this ability is used without our even being aware of it?
Posted by: Paul | June 11, 2010 at 09:32 AM
Paul, Dean Radin gives a talk where he addresses this kind of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
Psi functioning may be like musical ability, with a bell curve shaped distribution. Most people have some musical ability. A few people are tone deaf. And a few are very talented.
Posted by: Sandy | June 11, 2010 at 09:45 AM
Thanks Sandy. I like Dean Radin's work. The music analogy is probably a good one. I am definitely on the left hand side of the x axis in both fields :)
Posted by: Paul | June 11, 2010 at 01:19 PM
Suppose Michael Prescott's blog was the only evidence of psi and related phenomena. Would you believe it?
You betcha. He shows careful critical thinking combined with sparkling open mindedness. Zesty without getting your lap wet. Cheers!
Posted by: Tharpa | June 11, 2010 at 08:43 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Tharpa ... but if my blog were the only evidence, even I wouldn't believe it!
:-)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 11, 2010 at 09:55 PM
Would I believe anything based on one source of information that I couldn't validate myself?
Hm. I am not so sure. I think it would depend what was at stake. I have read masses of evidence supporting survival. Do I believe we survive physical death? - I think it is difficult to dismiss out of hand but I wouldn't insist it was true. Does that mean I believe it, or not?
Posted by: Paul | June 12, 2010 at 01:24 AM
Zerdini wrote: "The only evidence that would convince me ( and has done) is that which I have experienced myself."
This is crossing over the threshold between strong belief and certain knowledge. I'm sure this remark really applies to everyone and no written evidence, no matter how well researched and documented, can convince anyone absolutely.
Posted by: MickeyD | June 12, 2010 at 05:32 AM
For me, the near death experience has been the convincing factor. I can't find a problem with accepting them as what they appear to be. Somebody else said this somewhere (can't recall who it was)...but if we do not accept them as what they appear to be then what on earth are they...and what would we accept as evidence of survival. The OBE followed by the tunnel(or not as the case may be)into the glorious light, overwhelming joyous reunion with deceased loved ones etc, it fully satisfies.
Set against this of course, we have the objections- DMT can reproduce all the same effects(no it can't) so can special K(no it can't)...OBE's can be artificially induced(yes..but this is only a play on words)
The people that have the experience are satisfied that they have been to heaven. Wouldn't we all be if we had a NDE ?
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 05:43 AM
I agree Trev- reading accounts on the NDERF website has been very powerful, inspirational reading for me. Very convincing, even when factoring in some cultural and personal conditioning/interpretation into the mix.
Personal experience is clearly the gold standard in any real conviction- but interpretation, projection and just plain fantasy's work on memory can play a part our egos may not want to or be able to cop to.
On the other hand intuition and reason as a basis for belief are clearly subject to a world of subconscious bias.
So, reading personal accounts of, say, NDEs is for me a very powerful tool. Right from the horse's mouth, a thousand narratives singing in harmony, quite a celestial choir.
If you go to the NDERF.org website, check out the 'extraordinary NDEs' section and make yourself some popcorn, sit back and enjoy all the spectacle/drama of Hollywood combined with the profundity of the New Testament dancing with the Bagavata Gita. And they're true!
Posted by: Tharpa | June 12, 2010 at 07:11 AM
Tharpa, is the NDE literature alone enough to convince you? Or did you still require some kind of personal experience to open up the possibilities for you?
I suspect that it requires some kind of personal experience to at least make consideration of the evidence possible. I think having a dramatic experience like an NDE makes it very hard to doubt survival, but most people don't need that much of a jumpstart to become open to the possibility.
Most people do have experiences involving psi, but it is easy to explain them away and forget them. But if they make you curious enough to start looking at the literature, that could change your whole outlook.
Maybe it isn't possible to accept any sort of evidence without at least some kind of experience to get the ball rolling?
Posted by: Sandy | June 12, 2010 at 07:48 AM
I find the NDERF stuff ALSO very inspirational and enjoy reading it as well. That said - I think the NDE is probably amongst the weaker evidence(s) for survival - as it is the easiest to relegate to a purely internal event...even if we don't understand the mechanism for "how" it happens just yet.
There are VERY few accounts of OBE's - where there is factual, objective information retrieved that proves true and accurate. Even Robert Monroe's stuff - and some of the other avid OBE'rs is fraught with fantastic fantasy - and I'm pretty sure Monroe never really got a 100% verifiable "hit" when tested by OBE friendly scientists.
The same thing with the excpeptional NDE cases...I've yet to see one that is so clearly demonstrated to be happening "out of the body" that there is no room to argue. (the Pam Reynolds case is really good, but there are some pretty good arguments that it's been embellished a bit - and reconstructing it could explain some things that seem unexplainable)
I guess I'm in the camp that says there is so MUCH we don't yet understand about the human brain, and the experiences it can generate in states we don't yet fully "get", that to think these experiences are PROOF of life after death is more wishful thinking and selective science.
(although I DO believe if the current AWARE studies present lots of proof positive, it's going to be very powerful)
I DO believe that the many other fingers pointing to the same thing are more compelling, much of the medium communication, ADC's witnessed by numerous people at once, experiences like those that Zerdini has recounted here, etc - to me, are MUCH more difficult to explain away.
(As I don't believe ANY understanding of how the brain operates in various states of distress will explain them.....and while possibly NOT as personally transformative, they seem to be much more objectively evidential than interior experiences, no matter how transcendent.)
Posted by: felipe | June 12, 2010 at 07:52 AM
LOL..Tharpa, great point ! I'm not decrying anyone's experiences but I find the simple out of body experience convincing. Here's why. (the heavenly bit is great, of course, but we can't prove that 'bit' beyond reasonable doubt. However...
There are enough cases on record of accurate veridical observation as to make it almost improbable that the information could have been gained any other way than through a true separation of mind and physical body.
If the good old mind model(as many have pointed out on here) ie the mental confabulation was the explanation, why is what is confabulated always relevant to what is actually going on in the surroundings? Others on here have said this in the past and I think it's a good point. Some of these patients should wake up and be convinced that they've been to the moon or something, if it's just a confabulation based on subconscious promptings(the surgeon might have mentioned what a lovely full moon there was that night for example...not perfect but you get the picture,anyway)
One of Sabom's patients reported seeing a doctor injecting his groin while he was clinically dead and being resuscitated. When Sabom checked it out in the patients notes, he discovered that it wasn't a 'shot', but rather a sampling/drawing of blood to test the gasses etc. Now, if this had been a confabultion, the patient would have said that they were taking some blood from my groin etc...but he didn't. He called as he SAW it and he saw it as a lay-person would.
Now there are just too many of these cases to keep on dismissing them.
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 08:12 AM
Felipe, Hi I just read your post. I note that you say there are very few Nde's where there is factual information that proves right.
That's not correct, though. Sabom had six gold standard cases(very accurate detailed/specific) and more than thirty others that were accurate but not as good as the former six(because the patients had said that they were so taken with the experience that they weren't paying any attention to their surroundings).
The Reynold's case is stunning. It's only because it's been smeared(not trying to start a row, by the way) that some waverers are now not so sure about it.
What about Janet Schwaninger's study.
A physican who actually worked at her(study) hospital witnessed his own resucitation and knew exactly how many times he'd been shocked (seven)Quite impressive in that state, I think.
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 08:27 AM
Oh and bear in mind that Sabom's control group, when asked to confabulate the events of their resuscitation(and they too had been resuscitated)the vast majority made glaring mistakes. Whereas the target group(who claimed to have actually witnessed their own resus.- made none !
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 08:35 AM
I agree, Trev - those cases are very compelling.
However - there are MANY very smart scientists, and people who have researched NDE's and the mind at work in a friendly, favorable way to PSI, who do NOT believe they are evidence of life after death, but who posit all sorts of other ideas that are more reasonable to them.
( I know Dean Radin has been mentioned in this thread via the comments - I'm pretty sure HE doesn't believe in survival of conciousness, but has alternative theories of mind at large, etc)
There are in fact ways to extrapolate the remote viewing experience, Trev - for example - and look at that through the prism of a "mind at large" or brain as a filtering mechanism or reduction valve - and NOT believe that we survive the death of our physical bodies at all.
(and again - there are lots that posited that sort of stuff - from William James to Huxley, etc - and did NOT neccessarily believe that there is a "self" that survives physical death.)
I hope you are right though - and I do find the thought - and the stories - inspirational as well!
Posted by: felipe | June 12, 2010 at 09:38 AM
Thanks, felipe, good points,
Still I find Psi explanations just as problematic as dualism/survival. I hear what your saying about psychedelics etc...I don't think those experiences fully satisfy/ convince the subjects, do they ?
On top of all the NDE research we have death bed visions as well. And of course from many impressive contributors to this blog, spiritualism, too(which I don't know much about).
There comes a time IMHO when one has to weigh up the evidence and go with it otherwise we just get bogged down forever in the endless possibilties of creative skeptical objections.
I know someone who has had one of these experiences(as we all probably do(NDE's)(Sandy on here for instance.)I've quizzed him until the cows come home about... was it real ?...are you sure you weren't dreaming("don't be stupid, Trev, I was dead")...well, how do you know you were dead? "Trev...I saw myself on the road"
Do you not think it might have been a mind model ....? "No, Trev, I don't, you'll know when you see 'your'-self...." Are you certain ?
"Shut up, for goodness sake, Trev.
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Hi Folks
Michael, enjoyable post as always. Like you, if your blog was the only evidence of psi I wouldn't believe it. But still, your blog helps!!
Anyway, I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but it seems at least tangentially relevant. I just had a brief discussion over on the Buddhist site Tricycle. http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=1697 (at the bottom of the page). It was part of a conversation about long time Buddhist Stephen Batchelor who has "come out" as an atheist. I thought that posting some thoughts on psi might be interesting. I got carried away and came across as too dogmatic. the respondent took me to task, and I tried to respond as best I could.
Anyway, here's the connection with the "wheat and the chaff". Why do we have so much trouble accepting psi? Why do we even have to spend time separating the wheat and the chaff. Why do we, as Marcello Truzzi said, think that psi makes "extraordinary claims" (extraordinary in relation to what?).
Haven't we finally finished with the whole question of scientific evidence now that Richard Wiseman has come out and said that psi has been proven if you hold it to the same level as other areas of science.
I think if we can really get clear about what makes us think psi is extraordinary then the whole field will make a quantum leap forward.
What makes people think psi is extraordinary. The only thing we know, that we call the "world", is forms in the space of awareness. We have no direct experience of boundaries in that awareness, so why should we think that forms "in" one person's awareness are absolutely separate from anothers' awareness?
Posted by: Don Salmon | June 12, 2010 at 10:22 AM
As for a 'self' that survives physical death, one could make a case that there never was a 'self' in the first place- simply, or not so simply, a sentient pattern of awareness that has no solid core, and changes every minute. How are you the same 'self' as you were as a baby?
This is a Buddhist view of the self and the notion of sunyata, or emptiness. This isn't nihilistic, though, because there is still luminosity. The ultimate nature of reality is emptiness/luminosity. A dream analogy works pretty well.
Focus only on the emptiness, you get nihilism. Focus solely on the luminosity and you get eternalism. If you must err, tho, err on the side of eternalism!
As far as proof is concerned, I'll leave that to the provers. But I was yanked out of my body through the hole at the top of the head once by some negative- or at least very naughty- beings, and that shit was real. Like a tissue out of a hole in a cardboard box, I mean just whipped out and sent flying across the real sky as far as I could tell. Terrifying. So, Sandy, when I read the NDE stuff it may only be considered convincing to me because I have had some personal experience. I'd love to hear yours!
I'm not sure what I would wish for if given the choice- reincarnation makes sense to me in terms of justice. Some people just lead such miserable lives, I cannot accept that's just bad luck. And if they're working through karma and lessons to be learned, that makes total sense to me.
I tend my nature to err towards nihilism, so I'm just going to have to go with survival for the sake of my own sanity- and my own survival. Coz if and when somebody proves something else, let me know and I'll go out and buy me a big 'ol Desert Eagle because I've worked with too many miserable old people for all that suffering to mean nothing, and I aint gettin' any younger.
Posted by: Tharpa | June 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Hi Tharpa,
Nice comment. I like your thoughtful balancing between nihilism (no self) and eternalism (all Self).
Just to get back to the thought, why do people think psi (rebirth, OBEs, NDEs, etc) are extraordinary.
I had another thought after posting. Does anybody know of any legitimate evidence against any paranormal phenomenon?
I love the example of the person who tries to "replicate" the experiment of creating ice, and after lowering the temperature to 42 degrees, triumphantly declares there's no such thing as ice. From what I've seen, a lot of so called "evidence" against psi is of this type.
Keep in mind the great (??!?!) Donald Rumsfeld's maxim, The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not asking about failure to replicate (absence of evidence). Is there really any scientific evidence - not unwarranted materialistic ideas like 'modern neuroscience' provides evidence that the mind is entirely dependent on the brain - it does no such thing - but actual solid, empirical evidence. I can't imagine what such evidence would look like.
THe question of psi, rebirth, OBEs, etc is not really an empirical problem, it's a philosophic problem. As psychologist Bill Adams once pointed out to me, I could ask him to think of a number from 1 to a million, and guess the correct number 1000 times in a row, and without a theoretical context, I haven't "proved" psi. Or I could tell you the contents of a safe a thousand miles away. All I've done is spoken some words.
As soon as we switch our mental context (like Tharpa's suggestion of thinking of this all as a dream or dream like) everything is a miracle. Right now, cognitive scientists have absolutely no way of explaning qualia - that is, the colors, sounds, and the feel of the world. They may talk about wavelengths and electromagnetic waves and optic or auditory nerves, but that's all abstract concepts. They have no way of even accounting for qualia, which means they have no way of accounting for anything in our experienced universe.
So why is psi considered extraordinary?
Posted by: Don Salmon | June 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Trev - I agree that much of the OTHER evidence for survival (i.e. - shared ADC's, some of the medium communications, some of the better Ian Stevenson style research and most especially experiences like the one's that Zerdini has shared - in toto - seem to point to the fact that we are more than our bodies for sure. I think the NDE's - and OBE anecdotes are very powerful when viewed through that prism - and add supplemental evidence to a growing body of proof.
There are a lot of OBE's that get it ALL wrong - and a fair amount of published material that to me - is suggestive that even some of the better performers, when put to a test - can't identify ANYTHING correctly, even when told to pay attention..:-) (I think Alex Tanous was a well known exception)
My feeling, and I know people here disagree - but if the AWARE study brings forth empirical data, it's going to be hard to refute. But if it DOESN'T.....I think it's going to be a body blow to the notion that the NDE is actually an external event - rather than a decidedly rich and elaborate interior experience, akin to a hallucination we don't yet understand.
BTW - I have trouble with all of the self/no self stuff. I have a self....and self-ishly - I'd like to take it with me where ever I'm going next..:-)
Posted by: felipe | June 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM
"Tharpa, is the NDE literature alone enough to convince you? Or did you still require some kind of personal experience to open up the possibilities for you?"
Sandy, when I began reading about NDE's in 1991, it was a huge step for me. Until then I had been not just an atheist, but a cocksure, angry one. For example, I remember being on a blind date with an attractive young woman, and having quite a good time until she asked me, "Do you believe in out-of-body experiences?"
Looking back on that occasion, I'll bet that she was looking for an opening to share something deeply meaningful to her—quite possibly an NDE. And (considering the turn my life has taken since then) how I wish I had given her that opportunity! Instead, I was annoyed and said something like, "Out of body? I AM my body. How can I be outside myself!" To me, she was simply acting crazy. Like my mother. And that's a deep, historical pain that I don't want to revisit.
But a few years later, in 1991, my life wasn't working so well. I guess that's why I was willing to re-consider possibilities that I had closed the door on for decades. And NDE's had something in common with the psychotherapy that had been the cornerstone of my life for many years—NDE's were rooted in FEELING. Feeling deeply. That made me perk up my ears a bit.
And when NDE'ers began saying that what they experienced was so powerful, so ecstatic, so extraordinary, so profoundly loving that words simply couldn't describe it, I knew that I too had had an experience like that.
Because 20 years earlier, a college friend had given me some LSD. This was before I had even tried marijuana! I had no idea what to expect, and for twenty years afterwards I had no context, no way of grasping what I did, in fact, experience back on that day.
Until I began reading about the NDE.
I'm saying all this, in part, because I want to explain more clearly why, for me, the notion of "evidence that stands by itself" doesn't make sense. Whenever new information comes my way, I always judge it based on what I've read, heard, and/or experienced up to that moment. My LSD experience allowed me to consider the possibility that NDE's are real. My study of NDE's opened me up to the possibility of psi in general. And so it goes.
MP—I may not always agree with you, but I do love the intelligence, clarity, and passion with which you express yourself on matters that are close to my heart! And for this wonderful forum.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM
hi,
am i missing something?
Posted by: Don Salmon | June 12, 2010 at 12:19 PM
"My LSD experience allowed me to consider the possibility that NDE's are real."
Add to that sentence: and in its own way, my experience in Primal Therapy set the stage as well.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Bruce, I totally understand why it seems to take an experience to open people up to the possibility of psi. My husband has so much difficulty with anything remotely to do with psi phenomenon. He has seen move my pk wheel and knows about the testing I had done. He used to avoid looking at me when I did the pk wheel but now sometimes when I think he is watching the game on TV and I'm playing with that wheel, I'll look over and see him watching it move. I don't say anything, because I don't know what to say. I somehow think my experiences are changing him.
Posted by: Sandy | June 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM
I once heard Charles Tart say something along the lines that the evidence for psi suggests the possibility of survival of consciousness, because the sorts of beings who could demonstrate such abilities are the ones likely to be able to survive. I know that psi doesn't prove survival, but I tend to think it does point to the possibility of such a thing.
Survival helps to make sense of why these abilities exist because perhaps we need them after this life is over. Maybe we even evolved to survive, who knows? The stuff I brought back from my NDE don't always work very well or make sense here. But it made a lot of sense to experience things that way when I was dead.
Dean Radin and Julie Beischel give an excellent talk on the evidence for survival that can be downloaded from the IONS site. I thought membership was required to access the mp3, but apparently not:
http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/audios/dean_radin_and_julie_beischel/survival_of_consciousness
Posted by: Sandy | June 12, 2010 at 12:43 PM
"My husband has so much difficulty with anything remotely to do with psi phenomenon. "
Sandy, I understand your husband. A version of him is permanently installed somewhere in the back of mind. :o)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Sandy, I'll add to that by saying that for years, I used to have running debates on spiritual matters—almost all in my head—with a disbelieving friend, and with Arthur Janov, the 100% atheistic founder of the therapy that was my "home" for so many years. These arguments went on for many years, even though I understood completely, even then, that the real argument was always between me and . . . me.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Sorry, that should read: A version of him is permanently installed somewhere in the back of my mind.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 01:23 PM
That's OK, Bruce, I figured that's what you meant. I feel badly for putting my husband through such stuff. Although I did tell him that I could see colors early on in our relationship. He was silly enough to propose anyways.
Posted by: Sandy | June 12, 2010 at 01:28 PM
"Although I did tell him that I could see colors early on in our relationship. He was silly enough to propose anyways."
Maybe he just thought to himself: "Hmmm. I wonder why she wants to assure me that she's not colorblind?"
Nah!!! I'm sure he understood you completely but felt you were irresistible despite your little quirks.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 01:46 PM
Hi, again, felipe,
We just need to keep the discussion about the BEST studies. You know which they are.
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 02:09 PM
.....If people who claim to have been out of their physical body cannot get any accurate information from their surroundings, then this of course indicates that it is not a real OBE.
The best studies all confirm that they can. Are there any studies of hospitalized persons that have proved this to be inaccurate ? IMHO there should be some, by now. Why aren't there any ?
Posted by: Trev. | June 12, 2010 at 02:25 PM
I’m finding it stranger by the year that most of us can find no means to answer conclusively the questions that have been raised here. There may be a few of us who have been given permission, by virtue of private experiences, to leave the game, but the rest of us are left to endlessly scratch our noggins. And I ask myself, why is it that we have no ‘clear and distinct’ way to resolve our doubts, both as to psi in general and more specifically as to survival.
What is really strange is that I find myself tending more and more to think that we are all quite carefully managed behind the scenes. I’m beginning to suspect that there are some things that we are not allowed to know. A quotation from William James keeps coming back:
I confess that at times I have been tempted to believe that the Creator has eternally intended this department of nature to remain baffling, to prompt our curiosities and hopes and suspicions all in equal measure, so that, although ghosts and clairvoyances and raps and messages from spirits…can never be fully explained away, they can also never be susceptible of full corroboration.
And more explicitly, there is the statement of a person recounting her experience during a NDE:
And then I asked him, “Since I can’t stay, since I’m going to be going back, I’ve another question to ask. Can you tell me--what it’s all about”? [Laughter from the audience. In other words, she was asking, she said, how does “the whole thing” work?] And he did tell me. And it only took two or three sentences. It was a very short explanation and I understood it perfectly. And I said again, “Of course!” And again, I knew it was something I had always known and managed to forget. And so I asked him, “Can I take all this back with me? There’s so many people I want to tell all this to.” And he said, “You can take the answer to your first question--which was the one about sin--but,” he said, “the answer to the second question you won’t be able to remember.” [And she found in fact that when she returned to physical life, she could not.] And that was the last thing I heard…[before coming back].
In snooping about I have discovered quite a number of similar descriptions of NDEs that include this feature of erased memories of “universal knowledge.” It makes it seem as though something is going on that is orchestrated. We may not be as free to sort things out as we like to think we are.
And if this is the case, it would not surprise me if such projects as AWARE and the deciphering of the Thoulless and Stevenson codes come out as blanks.
And who are the members of that amused audience?
Posted by: w vogt | June 12, 2010 at 02:31 PM
can someone explain to me, specifically, why you think these things are baffling? is it possible to think of them as the norm? One of the things I do as a psychologist is disability evaluations. Well over half of the people I interview - who are NOT psychotic - have had what are unforunately called paranormal experiences. I suspect, if we lookeda little more carefully at our moment to moment experience, we'd find that so-caled paranormal things are happenign most of the time. They only seem strange because we've been so strongly conditioned - individually, for decades, as a culture, for centuries - into thinking they're abnormal.
Can someone explain to me specificcally, why does it trouble you about belief? Why do you accept the ideas of a very few skeptical people (the percentage is tiny, really, compared to the rest of the population) when your own experience tells you otherwise? I'd love to be able to understand this more clearly.
if you don't want to post it here, please write me at donsalmon7@gmail.com.
Posted by: Don Samon | June 12, 2010 at 03:01 PM
Hi Don,
I love your questions. I'll have to think a bit before answering. But let me turn the tables here: Is there any part of YOU that still doubts the validity of psi? Do you have your own version of Sandy's husband—however faint—lingering somewhere in your own psyche?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 12, 2010 at 04:04 PM
Don - I think you are minimizing natural instinct.
I don't believe it's a "tiny" percentage of the populous who are genuinely doubtful as to what happens after this life ends.
And I don't believe that those people are basing that belief in what skeptics have to say either.
For most people....the stuff discussed on this blog is NOT so top of mind.
They believe what they're religious convictions or upbringing tell them....or not.
I was raised Jewish - and I've run the gamut from being very religious as a kid - to very secular and agnostic - to now, just very curious and fascinated by the possibilities.
I think it's very rare to find that special spirit who is ready to face death with an absence of fear, trepidation or uncertainty.
Reading the experiences of others - especially the exceptional experiences we discuss here, is inspirational, enlightening and helps assuage the fear a bit for me. I would really love to believe that those I love are interwoven into some sort of great tapestry of eternal connection, and it's a very warm and meaningful thought.
But our instincts - whether we admit them here or not - is that death is the end. Our own death - and the deaths of those we love.
So I always sort of blanche at the idea that the "skeptics" drive conventional thought - because I only need to look within to recognize I'm fearful of what happens....mostly to those I love - but of course, ultimately, to myself as well.
I would guess - if others here who expouse certainty that life continues after this incarnation ends, if truly honest, most are probably equally as uncertain, and philosophical bravado aside, are happy to be on this side of the veil rather than the alternative..:-)
Posted by: felipe | June 12, 2010 at 04:56 PM
Don,
I'd be interested in your professional opinion about my layman's opinion that follows; most people have a neurotic need to feel they need to know The Answer to everything that they encounter. They are impelled to create paradigms and then make everything they experience fit into those paradigms.
This is true of both believers in the "paranormal" and non-believers.
Nuerosis, if I'm not mistaken, arises from persistent anxiety and the anxiety from fear of what? IMO the fear is the ego's realization that it is largely temporal and temporary and not in control.
In the past, the neurotic clung to the paradigm established by the church. Now the neurotic has science.
But life is what it is, an infinite mystery beyond human comprehension and explanation. So sometimes phenomena from infinity slip through the shields of the paradigms in ways that the experiencer cannot completely ignore. Then there is a necessary reconciliation.
The skeptics are the guardians of the modern paradigm. They (and their egos) are enjoying the illusion of control. As such, their opinions must be addressed lest cognitive dissonance develop in our society; creating a even more anxiety........
Posted by: Erich | June 12, 2010 at 05:09 PM
Don,
That is such a tough question! I do believe that psi is real. I can't deny that I believe in survival of consciousness. That would be like denying I'm an NDEer.
It would be easier not to believe. Not for the skeptics. I don't care about the skeptics. I would be easier on the people I care about.
Posted by: Sandy | June 12, 2010 at 08:32 PM
Wow! Great responses. Have to think over them for awhile, but let me immediately share my most relevant neurosis - I thought I was being ignored - big personal button for me. There. I said it:>)))))) And while I'm going on about neurosis, I then assumed I'm just an old fool who doesn't understand how blog forums work. Maybe there was some time lag in the way the posts went up?
Anyway, I do want to take a bit of time to reflect on what you guys are saying, Jan (my wife) and I were talking about this awhile ago on our morning walk. We're trying to come up with an image to convey the sense of why we think about skepticism and beliefs the way we do. I'll just mention this, though it may sound obscure without further background. Here goes:
Owen Barfield, in his 1957 book, "Saving the Appearances", lays out - beautifully I think - a description of the way we - in modern times - "feel" the world around us. (by modern times, he means since Galileo and Descartes and Bacon - post medieval, that is).
He refers to the modern stance as one of an "onlooker". We somehow stand apart from the world, as if we are players on a stage. Jan didnt' like that image so much, and suggested something more artifical, like a movie set. If you've ever been on or seen a movie set, there's an artificiality about it that is very different from the polished look you see on screen.
By contrast, Barfield suggests, the medieval person related to the world as if it were a garment that he/she wore. In that world, it was normal to feel that aliveness and mind and consciousness pervaded the universe, that people were not essentially separate from each other.
In the modern world, no matter whether your belief is that of a New Age woo-woo, a Christian fundamentalist, or a James Alcok psi-debunker, the feeling underlying these superficial beliefs is one in which direct inner contact with others, the extension of consciousness after death, is "para"normal.
Interestingly, in cultures like that of Japan where - despite intense Westernization - there is still a feeling of being "embedded" in the world (I forget the name of the author - some psychologist or cognitive scientist of some stripe recently wrote a book describing experiments showing that Japanese and Americans perceive the figure-ground relationship differently, with Americans focusing more on the isolated figure and Japanese tending to perceive the figure in relationship to the ground or background - and that Japanese scientists are much more likely to be accepting of paranormal phenomena, and Japanese in general have much less difficulty thinking/feeling the environment - the physical environment - to be alive.
Another really interesting person to look at is Les Fehmi, a psychologist working for many years in bio and neurofeedback. He has discovered a particular brain wave pattern he calls "narrow objective" focus, which is very similar to Barfield's onlooker consciousness, which is characteristic of most of us in modern times. He's found that within a few weeks of simple exercises to extend attention in a more diffuse way, maintaining awareness of space between objects rather than focusing narrowly on teh objects, has resulted in dramatic changes not only in psychological problems (just bringing more attention to peripheral vision has in some studies brought about dramatic reductions in ADHD symptoms without medication) but even a host of physical problems like high blood pressure, intestinal problems like IBS and others.
I suspect - though I haven't seen the literature - that Open Focus would yield much stronger psi effects as well. Anyway, I hope these ramblings weren't too incoherent. We recently put up a video which kind of hints at this, over at youtube (if you search "Beyond the Matrix: The Only Way Out" you can find it). We're working on other videos, but meanwhile are swamped with tutorials on Logic Pro 9 and Final Cut Pro. If any of you out there know these programs, please write! donsalmon7@gmail.com.
I'll probably need to take a few days at least to ponder this. This is such wonderful, beautiful stuff. and like, I don't remember who it was who said it, but I agree - thank you Michael Prescott for this wonderful forum.
Posted by: Don Samon | June 13, 2010 at 05:59 AM
hi, well, i'm back right away:>))) Thought of two things just as I pressed the "post" button. I happened to see Erich's comment about skeptics being the "guardians of the modern paradigm". That's beautiful. I do think that they actually play an important role - just take a look at the typical New Age bookshelf and imagine if there were no skeptics to keep us on our toes. Shwew! It's bad enough that people take Joel Osteen seriously when he says we should pray, as we enter a restaurant, applyign "positive prayer", "Father, thank you, for I know you will seat me at the table of my choice."
On a more serious note, Les Fehmi's "Open Focus" is similar, though much simpler, to the Buddhist "samata". Alan Wallace, over at the Institute for Consciousness Studies at UC Santa Barbara, has written about the minimum requirements for "psi on demand" as spelled out in Buddhist writings over 1500 years old.
Would you like to try? Here goes:
Sit calmly, make sure the phone and any other buzzer/timers are turned off. Now, rest your gaze on a neutral spot a few feet in front of you on the floor. Make sure your back is straight but not too rigid.
Now, do nothing. Thoughts (ideas, images, memories, etc) will come and go. Let them. Don't do anything. Except - whenever you notice that you have identified with a thought, let it go. Go back to just watching the play of thought.
Does that make sense: If not, try this: Try to make your mind as empty as possible, no thoguhts. You'll fail within 10 seconds at most, more likely 2 or 3 seconds. While maintaining all your effort to stop thoughts from coming, you should notice that the first thought that comes arises on its own - that is, you don't have the feeling that "you" are thinking the thought. Then continue watching thoughts arise and dissolve the same way.
Here's one more way to do it if the other two don't make sense. In your mind, quietly "hear" the word "calm" as you breathe in, and "peace" as you breathe out. Don't make any effort to control your breathing, and only make the gentlest effort to "say" or "hear" the words "calm" and "peace". If you can focus gently on this for a few minutes without being too distracted, let your attention be less focused on the breath or words and start focusing more on the silence between the words. The more fully you can be focused on the silence, the easier it will be to notice observe the various random thoughts that will inevitably arise without identifying with them.
Ok, you get it? Now, according to the ancient Buddhist texts, if - without the support of the breath or the words, you can maintain this stance of simple observation of thoughts without identification - FOR ABOUT 4 HOURS - you will probably be able to reliably demonstrate various psi phenomena. (Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, chapters 2 and 3, have much briefer but similar instructions - notice particularly the instructions for pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhi -these come after the yoga and pranayama which are so popular nowadays)
So, no time to lose - let's all start practicing:>)))))))))))
Posted by: Don Salmon | June 13, 2010 at 06:13 AM
certainly the way others including myself think about accepting the evidence,however skeptics won't believe u have that mindset,like randi,most will use an appeal to "pink unicorn" argument and not give any evidence no matter how waterproof the serious consideration it deserves.
Posted by: Bryan.A | June 13, 2010 at 06:57 AM
This would not be airtight against skeptical objection, but it would have the virtue of providing a test that would prevent us believers dismissing a negative result by claiming that the NDE-ers’ spirits would not care to notice the tops of lighting fixtures, but would be focused on their bodies.
OTOH, if there were dozens of cases of towel-identification, it would stretch credulity that they were all instances of coincidences and collusion, as skeptics would like to claim. It would damage their credibility if they were to stubbornly cling to such an unlikelihood as totally invalidating the result.
Let’s say that AWARE finds 1000 NDEs, of which 250 involve looking down on the body, but only one (or, gulp, zero) of those involved noticing the hidden number. Skeptics could claim it was a fluke. We’d be which we were before, with nothing gained, and an opportunity wasted. I hope it’s not to late to add this lesser test to the remainder of the study. It would be a shame to let the opportunity of the AWARE experiment be partly wasted by not capturing all the data it can and thereby narrow down the number of debatable points.
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 13, 2010 at 07:39 AM
PS: "Let’s say that AWARE finds 1000 NDEs, of which 250 involve looking down on the body, but only one (or, gulp, zero) of those involved noticing the hidden number." -- By which I meant the number currently being used, the one near the ceiling.
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 13, 2010 at 07:41 AM
The book (probably) is The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why by Richard E. Nisbett
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 13, 2010 at 07:46 AM
"We are well supplied with interesting writers, but Owen Barfield is not content to be merely interesting. His ambition is to set us free ... from the prison we have made for ourselves by our ways of knowing, our limited and false habits of thought, our 'common sense'" (Saul Bellow )
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 13, 2010 at 08:00 AM
I get where your coming from, Roger. The problem is..where would the towel be kept ? It would have to be locked in a cabinet out of site but there isn't the space in hospital bed-side cabinets. Also in the hubub of resuscitation they wouldn't have time to take it out and put it over the patients feet without compromising their duty of care.
Someone, sooner or later, will see the target, I have no doubt about that but it may take longer than anyone thinks. The Sartori case of the man who saw the nurse sticking her head through the curtains(when he was comatose and witnessed to be) shows clearly that information will be gathered.
Posted by: Trev. | June 13, 2010 at 08:04 AM
PS regarding the Barfield book: 1988 is just a republication date; 1957 was the first publication.
Surely there's space somewhere there for one small towel. (It needn't be any larger than a face-cloth, which is the term I should have used.) If not, place it atop a light fixture with a string hanging down and yank it down when needed.
OK, in such situations it can't be brought into action. In calmer situations, or in cases where there one of the personnel has ten seconds to spare, it can. For example, it would be laid atop the feet of a patient undergoing any risky operation in the beginning, before his heart had stopped beating. It's not every operation that involves a patient being brought into an ER in a flatlined state from the outset, where there is no time for anything else but efforts at resuscitation.
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 13, 2010 at 08:23 AM
Roger's suggestion makes sense, but I couldn't help thinking of this scenario ...
Patient: "Hey, what's that little towel you're draping over my legs?"
Doctor: "Oh, that's just so if you die and are resuscitated, you can tell us if you were able to read the number on the towel, while you were floating out of your body."
Patient: "GET ME OUTTA HERE!!!!"
:-)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 13, 2010 at 08:50 AM
@MP - Quite! LOL
Posted by: Paul | June 13, 2010 at 09:14 AM
Good points, Roger.
but I honestly don't think the skeptics would accept that the towel hadn't been somehow 'seen' by someone or discussed. If the towel came out more than once with the same picture on it, Woerlee and co would easily be able to rip holes in it(the methodology, that is)I might be wrong, though. You could always email Parnia with the suggestion.
MP, "GET ME OUTTA HERE"....LOL !!
Posted by: Trev. | June 13, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Solution: don't lay it down until the patient has been anesthetized.
It wouldn’the matter if many patients correctly described the facecloth (the term I will use henceforth). Let's say 250 reported seeing their body, and only 5% of them (13) described the facecloth accurately. In that case it wouldn't be too hard to argue that those persons had been woo-woos who had been clued in to the answer by a woo-woo nurse (or janitor). But the higher the percentage of "hits," the harder it would be to credibly explain them away. If there were 50 hits, it would be inconceivable that they all had conspired on the spot with a sneaky nurse – especially if other patients failed to report being approached by such sneaky nurses.
One interesting control-test, which could be run separately from the AWARE study, would be to pay hospital employees to describe the facecloth to post-op patients and try to inveigle them into reporting that they'd seen it during their NDE. If their success rate is low, and if many such patients report the attempt to their doctors, that would undermine the plausibility of a spontaneous woo-woo conspiracy.
There could be 52 (say) facecloths kept in a locked vault inside sealed envelopes and rotated into the operating room once a week by a single employee who had no contact with the rest of the staff -- the janitor, say, or the head of the hospital.
Thanks, I will, if someone will post his e-mail.
What I fear, though, is that he or the supervisory team won’t accept any protocol that isn’t “bulletproof,” because it “doesn’t meet the highest scientific standards.” He may be inclined by scientism to dismiss the Good because it isn’t the Best, which would be foolish in a case where the best amounts to the “best butter” – i.e., to something inappropriate for what’s being tested; and where “the Good” is actually the best we can hope for.
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 13, 2010 at 10:30 AM
If AWARE returns any results, I will eat my hat. Who, out of body, is going to have any desire to explore some weird corner of the ceiling while they are adjusting to the new phenomenon?
I almost feel like it's setup to fail. Then we'll have a guy who world-famously debunked the NDE.
It's going to be very retrogressive.
Posted by: Cyrus | June 14, 2010 at 06:22 PM
It might have been better to find people who claim to be able to initiate OBEs at will, and then use a similar setup. That way the person could be instructed to look for the images.
This was the protocol Charles Tart used in his experiment with the famous Miss Zee, and it did produce positive results, though on a limited basis.
I tend to agree with Cyrus that a person experiencing the dying process -- which is presumably as momentous an occasion as being born -- may not be focused on marginal, irrelevant details.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 14, 2010 at 07:50 PM
'I almost feel like it's set up to fail'-Cyrus,
Don't worry, if the study is conducted long enough, someone will see the target for sure. It's not going to be many because as you say, most disembodied souls won't be the slightest bit interested in exploring some corner of the ceiling, when they can go and explore the wonders of the next world.
Parnia has said in interviews many times, he knows the difficulties etc, but they only need to garner a few solid cases and then they can conduct an even bigger and tighter study with more funding. Aware will not be the last one, by any means.
Posted by: Trev. | June 15, 2010 at 01:30 AM
I am not sure I share your pessimism Cyrus. I pass by objects everyday that I certainly don't remember - this doesn't prove they don't exist does it? :)
Posted by: Paul | June 15, 2010 at 01:59 AM
... or that I didn't make the journey.
Posted by: Paul | June 15, 2010 at 01:59 AM
Right - if you guys really believe that people are prone to notice all kinds of other stuff happening that are not really "significant" - i.e. - the famous shoe case - and the plethora of stuff that's used on ONE hand to be evidential (on the sheer basis of it's randomness) and then DON'T believe that ANY people will see the very same sort of stuff because of it's inherent disinteresting nature, i believe you probably don't genuinely believe the experience is real, or aren't confident where it counts.
(because if NO ONE sees anything verifiable, predicated on stuff that the experiment creators determined would be LIKELY to be evident to those reporting previous NDE'S......quite simply, the most straightforward explanation is that it's not an external experience....period, and more akin to the many OBE'S that FEEL real, but report things that weren't there, or mistake the actual visuals completely.)
I also am perplexed at how many people on the board tend to look at this through the prism of how the skeptics may rebut the results, etc. Who cares what the "skeptics" say?
Don't you simply want your OWN proof that these are real in an empirical way? I could give a care what ANY skeptic says.....i simply want my own skepticism and natural uncertainty addressed - NOT someone else's whose opinion is completely meaningless to my life.
BTW - I did have an NDE like experience many years ago that was quite profound, and the stuff I experienced turned out to be false.
That experience has made me incredibly curious about the afterlife.....but also very cautious about what is really "real" as well..:-)
Posted by: felipe | June 15, 2010 at 06:34 AM
felipe,
As I've previously posted, there is already a lot of extremely good veridically(is that a word)authenticated data. Just because the skeptics ignore it or write it off to confabulated mind models doesn't meen it's no good. That's what they must do to protect their world view...and will continue to do, whatever happens with aware.
Take yourself back to before Sabom began his study in 1978. He was not expecting to confirm Moody's observed pattern that he'd heard about. He thought it was 'frankly ridiculous' and would be shown to be so by his rigorous scientific study. Five years later he changed his mind. Now the skeptics didn't like this of course...but Sabom could find no other explanation for how the veridical information was gathered other than actual separation of mind and body.
Why don't you buy a copy ? You can pick them up for next to nothing on the web.
Recollections of Death. excellent
Posted by: Trev. | June 15, 2010 at 07:38 AM
Felipe, getting my own proof was the easy part. Well, maybe not all that easy. I did have to get through a head-on collision that sheared my car in half and crushed it down to the dashboard. But I do have my own proof.
I'd like others to have the chance to know what I know (without the prerequisite of almost dying). I think that scientific research is the best way to make that possible. The skeptics are not going away and their concerns do need to be addressed. It's a slow process, but if you bombard them with enough good science, I think eventually the message will get through.
Posted by: Sandy | June 15, 2010 at 08:16 AM
"... if you guys really believe that people are prone to notice all kinds of other stuff happening that are not really 'significant' - i.e. - the famous shoe case..."
The shoe case is a good example of an NDEr noticing something trivial and irrelevant, but it's also pretty unusual. Most of the veridical observations involve things that would be of immediate personal interest to the patient.
But I agree that if the study is well designed and well implemented, and still yields no target sightings at all, then the transcendental nature of NDEs would have to be open to question.
I don't think the study will resolve the issue fully, one way or the other. If there are no target sightings, the previous cases (like "Maria's shoe") still remain unexplained; and if there are target sightings, it will still be possible to argue that some kind of clairvoyance took place, rather than an actual OBE.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 15, 2010 at 08:29 AM
Trev - I agree that there is separation between mind and body.
The question to me is - what does that mean?
What if that is TRUE 100%....and yet we are still dead as doornails when the clock stops ticking?
Is this topic still interesting....or is it only because we interpret that to mean we continue to live on in some blissful state when this life is done?
As Michael points out above with the clairvoyance comment - or as we discussed in an earlier part of this thread - is it that the brain is a "reduction valve", mind at large sort of thing that allows us ACCESS to information that lives in some sort of field, or does it suggest that we continue to LIVE after we die?
I don't care to psychoanalyze "skepics". It sort of feels silly to me to wonder what challenges someone else's world view or is genuinely what they believe to be real.
Raymond Moody has said numerous times he doesn't believe that the NDE is proof of an afterlife. (and has modified this statement in confusing ways over the last decade)
Trev - i think where you and I disagree, is I don't find it all that suprising that Sabom authenticated anything that Moody reported before him.
There is CLEARLY an experience that is universally similar in many respects, and there are many cases that go back WELL before this was introduced to popular mainstream bookshelf culture.
The question to me simply is - does it prove life after death, yes or no?
Are there other explanations that may be outside of conventional thought but are MORE likely to explain the experience....yes or no?
That's all. I'm just not so sure if I believe that remote viewing, for example, has been demostrated empirically (which I believe that it has) while less sexy than life after death, can't be extrapolated out to explain much of this stuff in a way that mainstream science will one day embrace.
(and explain the NDE in a way that doesn't include survival of conciousness)
Posted by: felipe | June 15, 2010 at 09:05 AM
"I'm just not so sure if I believe that remote viewing, for example, has been demostrated empirically (which I believe that it has) while less sexy than life after death, can't be extrapolated out to explain much of this stuff"
Stephen E. Braude makes an argument similar to this in "Immortal Remains." It's quite a good book. Ultimately, Braude does come down (tentatively) on the side of survival, but he doesn't think NDEs prove very much.
I am less inclined to credit super-psi explanations, but they can't be ruled out.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 15, 2010 at 09:31 AM
As someone who had a NDE and alot of OBE's. I believe the strong OBE component(earth bound type)is not ordinary & common. Intuitively the Aware project will fail to meet all it's objectives. Sorry I can't see it any other way :-(
Posted by: Hope Rivers | June 15, 2010 at 09:38 AM
Nice post.
For me it comes down to half of what you say. The other half comes from to the rantings of the Shermers and Randies of the world. Its like they are just keep telling me not to pay attention to whats behind the curtain. I can't help but investigate further.
Posted by: nycjeff | June 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM
"The question to me simply is -does it(the NDE) prove life after death, yes or no ?"
Felipe, the answer is of course no, it(the NDE) doesn't prove life after death beyond any doubt...(disembodied spirits might, for instance, only be able to exist for a few earthly minutes before they melt into the ether forever)...but that is so unlikely, that one can jump over the tiny gap(the last bit of ?% scientific proof) and be confident in doing so.
If it is not proof of survival(together with all the vast amount of other paranormal evidence ) then where are we to look for that proof ?
Posted by: Trev. | June 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM
The shoe example is a good one. It is an example (assuming it is true) of an object being somewhere unexpected and therefore more likely to make and impression and perhaps be remembered?
Posted by: Paul | June 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Paul,
I believe that Kimberley Sharp, the nurse that reported the infamous shoe on the ledge incident, told the truth(there is another one - Ken Ring/sharon Cooper.. 'red shoe'on the flat top of a hospital building )The critics have visited the(Kimberley clark sharp)- hospital and remarked that..that particular window cill(ledge) was 'visible' from the road(even though it is several storeys up..and therefore the report is contaminated. Apart from that, Sharp, might have made it up(as Maria-the migrant worker could not be traced)
Posted by: Trev. | June 15, 2010 at 03:28 PM
Hi Trev
I would find it hard to call Kimberley a liar. It it possible that she was mistaken I guess. If I say I believe that what she said is accurate then it follows that I must accept a number of other things that flow from that. I am not ready to do that at the moment so I will just purse my lips and say "that's very interesting" sotto voce :)
Posted by: Paul | June 15, 2010 at 04:07 PM
I.e., it's sufficient to establish that there is a non-material element to reality in order to knock down their paradigm. Once it’s acknowledged that there's a "wildcard" at large in reality, the door is open, in principle, to just about anything -- including NDEs, which we can nail down at our leisure. (Because plenty of funding will flow in our direction once the paradigm flip-flops. (Licks chops.))
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 16, 2010 at 01:01 AM
There have been a lot of comments here, probably because the concept is such a good one. I think you could add to the list, would you believe in PK if the only evidence were the PEAR experiments? My answer is yes, definitely. Done at Princeton with careful controls over 20 years, the overall result of billions of trials is a positive one with an effect size of 1 in 10,000. Tiny, but it shouldnt be there at all, and the fact that it is conatins a significance level of billions to one.
As for the statement that it is only a personal psi experience that will convince you to believe in it, I dont think it is true of the best and most dedicated researchers. John Beloff, for instance, in Edinburgh designed a huge number of successful experiments in none of which did he achieve any personal success as a subject. He believed in the validity of psi without showing any ability in it himself. I have been convinced of the validity of psi since my student days, through reading the results of experiments, but only a few years ago did I start to have highly evidential precognitive dreams which gave me personal experience of psi.
Posted by: Peter Wadhams | June 16, 2010 at 05:04 AM
I agree with Roger, one bowl through the skittles and they have to take notice.
Posted by: Trev. | June 16, 2010 at 07:15 AM
I didn't actually mean that hardcore skeptics would argue for clairvoyance, but rather that people who are sort of on the fence regarding survival might argue for it.
If there are any hits, I would expect skeptics to argue that there could have been information leakage, or that the patient's description of the target was vague or was inaccurate in some small detail. And to say that the study wasn't big enough and needs to be replicated again and again and again before the results can be accepted.
When I described the Pam Reynolds case to a skeptical friend, he said, "Well, maybe if it could be replicated 10,000 times, it might be worth looking at."
So that's where the goalposts are. For now.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 16, 2010 at 09:09 AM
"So that's where the goalposts are. For now."
Fun-nee!
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 16, 2010 at 10:03 PM
finally and honest skeptic :)
Posted by: Kris | June 17, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Hi, Kris. Are you in Iraq now, or back home?
(Or is this a different Kris? I haven't checked the ISP.)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM
WB Kris :)
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Parnia is open minded enough that he won't buy into straw-clutching skeptic arguments. If AWARE returns results, it will be really solid. But, again I think it's pretty unlikely.
If the area of interest is simply survival after death, I only put NDEs as #4 or #5 on the list of top evidence. Above NDEs are mediumship research, after death comms, the overall field of transcommunication. And then you also have phenomena like astral projection... far more repeatable and reliable.
Instead of AWARE, there needs to be a more widescale research program that asks: is the mind non local? Study the best astral projectors and psychics, study NDEs, and mediumship. Make objectives to locate things.
I mean, this has already been proven in many police departments. A local psychic out here near Tucson helped the police find a body in the desert (wife murdered by husband.. big case a few years back). Police searched the whole desert, and she explained quite clearly the body was near an old blue carousel. They found the body near an old, blue carousel which was part of an abandoned playground in the deserts between Phx / Tucson.
With information this precise, if psychic abilities were not already accepted as fact by many police departments, she could have been charged as a co-conspirator.
And if psi is real, which it is, it opens up a lot of doors to many other things being real, including consciousness separation, which is almost a give-in with a psi-as-real model of the universe.
So the point is that it would be arrogant if a lack of results from a study like AWARE is enough to wave the hand of dismissal at survival, psi, etc. But, I'm expecting it to happen.
Posted by: Cyrus | June 17, 2010 at 01:56 PM
Cyrus,
If the study is conducted for long enough, they will get the hits.
All the other studies have produced veridical information, this will too. The disembodied people just have to float high enough...and some of them will.
Posted by: Trev. | June 17, 2010 at 02:48 PM
"With information this precise, if psychic abilities were not already accepted as fact by many police departments, she could have been charged as a co-conspirator."
Interesting point, Cyrus. I remember a case (I think it happened here near L.A.) in which a woman did, in fact, provide accurate information, psychically obtained, and quickly became a prime suspect. She was eventually exonerated, but went through some harrowing moments.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 17, 2010 at 03:29 PM
Same Kris
Busy in California at language school. Hey what is the best book you know on historical mediums.
Posted by: Kris | June 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM