Lately I find myself bored with all things paranormal. Hence the posts about Mel Gibson, bad TV, and other trivia.
I've discovered that there are only so many accounts of NDEs and mediums I can read before they all start to sound the same. To break the monotony, I tried reading up on evidence that I had always dismissed as relatively weak, such as "between-life" experiences recounted in hypnotic regression. But I found that this evidence still struck me as weak, and therefore boring.
No doubt the mood will pass, but for the moment I'm not very motivated to rehash the same-old same old, and I'm not seeing any new thing under the sun.
One thing that does interest me is the AWARE study. As I've read more about this, I've become impressed by the scope and seriousness of the project. Though the natural tendency is to hedge one's bets (and I've done so in the past), I now think it is more intellectually honest to acknowledge that a study of this magnitude really should yield at least some definite "hits," if out-of-body perceptions during NDEs are truly paranormal. If no hits at all are obtained, it will be hard to defend the proposition that anything is really "leaving the body."
Of course, the other evidence for postmortem survival - primarily mediumship and children's spontaneous past-life memories - will remain. But if AWARE comes up empty on the crucial issue of veridical perception, the evidential value of NDEs will be severely diminished. I know there are many evidential NDE cases that predate AWARE, but most of them are open to critical carping of one type or another. If the best and most comprehensive study fails to replicate the earlier results, the criticisms of earlier, less well-documented cases will be exceedingly difficult to rebut.
But there's no reason to expect a negative result. Given the decent number of carefully investigated NDEs and the much larger number of anecdotal cases, there's every reason to anticipate a positive outcome, with highly consequential implications for the field of psi research in general and afterlife study in particular.
And that won't be boring at all.
=====
By the way, the image above, which is called "Bored Baby," is something I nicked from another website some time ago, because I thought it was funny. I'm no longer 100% sure where I got it, but I think it was the conservative political site Hot Air.
The AWARE researchers are brave, no doubt about it. I’m far from convinced that woo is ready to come all the way out of the closet and stand to attention under the searing searchlights of sceptical scrutiny.
Hope I’m wrong.
The baby looks like he’s backing the losing team.
Posted by: Ben | July 19, 2010 at 12:19 PM
hate to sound pessimistic but even if they do everything correct do we think the skeptics will accept this. There track record of honesty in this area of inquiry is not good after all.
Posted by: kris | July 19, 2010 at 12:40 PM
"I've discovered that there are only so many accounts of NDEs and mediums I can read before they all start to sound the same."
I'm smiling because I know exactly what you mean. But every now and then someone writes about these things in a way that still manages to touch me.
I've read hundreds of accounts of NDE's. This may be my single favorite:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers01.html
And for those not tempted to click the link, here's a brief excerpt:
"As my sleepy eyes slowly became adjusted to the brilliant radiance, I could make out shapes in the light. There were people there! People that I knew and loved. The place was completely familiar, as though I had been there just a few moments before.
'Did you have a nice rest?' one of my friends asked.
My other friends broke out into roaring laughter. They were making a joke. They all knew what a grueling ordeal such ventures into the material world can be. They had all made such ventures themselves, many times before. I joined in the laughter. How good it felt to laugh so freely. How strange, to be so open, and yet it was all so familiar."
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM
"If no hits at all are obtained, it will be hard to defend the proposition that anything is really "leaving the body."
I think one thing that will hamper the hits is the "how of leaving the body",many accounts of NDE's talk about watching the body from above looking down,instead of watching the ceiling looking up.
Since the "mark" is somewhere near the ceiling this does not fully take into account the modus operandi of alot of NDE's.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Bryan.A | July 19, 2010 at 01:04 PM
By the way, that is a great picture! Maybe he's thinking:
"I don't wanna hear about these near-death things anymore. I know what it's all about—I just came from there!"
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 19, 2010 at 01:05 PM
I'd like to believe there's no reason to expect a negative result but at skeptiko Penny Sartori said that the team will publish on AWARE late this year or early next year even though there are no compelling cases to write up
http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/1395-nine-lines-evidence-afterlife-4.html#post28288
Posted by: Mark | July 19, 2010 at 02:03 PM
"even if they do everything correct do we think the skeptics will accept this"
I'm not concerned about skeptics. I'm interested in evidence that I would accept.
"Since the 'mark' is somewhere near the ceiling this does not fully take into account the modus operandi of alot of NDE's."
I believe the images are on shelves near the ceiling. They are facing up. If someone's locus of consciousness were at the ceiling and he was looking down, he would presumably see the images. (If OBE perception works anything like physical perception ... Maybe it doesn't, but then it's pretty hard to test.)
"Penny Sartori said that the team will publish on AWARE late this year or early next year even though there are no compelling cases to write up"
I hadn't heard that. If there are no compelling results from the entire study, then I think the case that NDEs are truly paranormal will be greatly weakened.
"The baby looks like he’s backing the losing team."
Let's hope it's not our team! (But it might be.)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 19, 2010 at 02:36 PM
Here's a cure for boredom, maybe. (I posted it last night on the gone-cold "Books" thread.)
I just read an article in the latest (August) Wired by Matthew Honan about the hot market for "stunt books." (It's not online yet.) These are accounts of an author's attempt to accomplish something unusual, like read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica, The Year of Living Biblically, etc. I bet you (MP) and/or your site's regulars could think of a few promising themes, even if only for laughs.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 19, 2010 at 03:39 PM
BTW, here's an interesting book authored by Sunday night's guest on Coast to Coast AM, Jeffrey Kripal, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University, who "shared his historical analysis of paranormal and psychical research. Instead of evaluating the paranormal through science, he views it through the filter of religious or human experience.
"Myers, one of the founders of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), coined the term "telepathy" in 1882 from the Greek words telos and pathos, and attended hundreds of seances. Interestingly, Myers accumulated evidence of afterlife communications with a woman he'd been in love with, but the material was destroyed after his wife found out about it, Kripal reported."
http://www.amazon.com/Authors-Impossible-Paranormal-Jeffrey-Kripal/dp/0226453863/ctoc
Reviews:
“This is an excellent book. As well as being carefully researched and theoretically interesting, it is also engaging, witty, and thoughtful. Writing in an easy, contemplative style, Kripal is never less than rigorous and wide-ranging; he doesn''t get mired in statistics or parapsychological analysis, but instead, drawing on religious studies and cultural analysis, he explores key ideas and thinkers in their respective contexts. In the process, the reader is introduced to the largely rejected knowledge of the psychical, the sacred is resurrected in the paranormal, and lazy skepticism is challenged. Authors of the Impossible will contribute significantly to the intelligent, open-minded study of the sacred, while Kripal will, I suspect, become a key figure in the development of new trajectories in the study of religion.”—Christopher Partridge, Lancaster University
(Christopher Partridge )
“Jeffrey Kripal’s new book represents a serious intellectual challenge to the epistemological assumptions that govern the work of scientists and religion scholars alike. He demands nothing short of a paradigm shift in order to make sense of the odd, the anomalous, and the inexplicable. All of this he calls the impossible—the paranormal situations in which thought forms are said to become physical realities and the future to morph into the present and past. Kripal is no fluffy believer; he argues incisively and in detail in ways that seek to shake our materialist and rational foundations at their base, so that our defensive walls come tumbling down.”—Catherine L. Albanese, University of California, Santa Barbara
(Catherine L. Albanese )
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 19, 2010 at 03:49 PM
Funny, today I tripped across a recent video of Dr.'s Peter Fenwick and Sam Parnia via Victor Zammit. I believe it's recent, though I'm not sure.
http://www.victorzammit.com/week1bb/
Scroll down for the video.
Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but their attitudes about the topic of ADC's and NDE's seems sooo confident. Sam Parnia, especially. He is usually rather reserved, and he tends to couch his opinions in intellectual caveats.
Since they are absolutely tied into the AWARE project, I'm thinking that they are sitting on a small time bomb. They seem almost smug. We'll see once it's released in 2012.
And Micheal, I know what you mean about the skeptics, at least the pseudoskeptics. I got over their fundamentalist and biased attitude a long time ago.
Posted by: RabbitDawg | July 19, 2010 at 04:45 PM
Even if there are some evidential cases it is inevitable that pseudoskeptics (i. e. pathological skeptics) will still dismiss the results. After all, it's impossible, so there just has to be some other explanation.
If the study results in no evidential cases there could be several explanations. If there are very few NDEs at all or if there are a number of NDEs but with no OBEs, that phenomenon itself would need to be explained. My guess is that this is the more likely possibility. There is something about the paranormal that seems to be averse to being tested.
The problem is if there are a number of NDEs with OBEs but with no reporting of the signs. Of course the NDEers might not have noticed the shelves at all in their riveting interest in their own bodies below. If some NDEers notice the shelves but don't notice the signs then there will be the difficulty of still accounting for all the evidence already accumulated in NDE research, that valid information is apparently obtained while the brain is nonfunctioning during cardiac arrest for instance. This evidence still clearly implies that the mind is somehow not purely a function of the brain, whether or not true OBEs during NDEs can be confirmed.
The best analysis of OBEs in general I have found is Charles Tart's (from http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=50 .
"...what is an OBE? Does the mind or soul really leave the body and go somewhere else, “out,” or is the OBE just a special ASC that is basically hallucinatory in nature, i.e. that the feeling and conviction that you are elsewhere than your physical body’s location is an illusion?
After decades of reflection on the results of my own and others’ research particularly in the light of my studies on the nature of consciousness and ASCs, I have a more complex view of OBEs that includes both of these possibilities at different times and more. I believe that in some OBEs, the mind may, at least partially, really be located elsewhere than the physical body—this may have been the case with Miss Z. At the opposite extreme, as with my virtuoso hypnotic subjects whose experience was vivid and perfectly real to them but whose perception of the target room was only illusory, I believe an OBE can be a simulation of being out of the body, and mind is as much “in” the physical body as it ever is. In between these two extremes, I believe we can have OBEs which are basically a simulation of being out, but which are informed by information gathered by ESP such that the simulation of the OBE location is accurate and veridical."
Posted by: nbtruthman | July 19, 2010 at 05:07 PM
"I hadn't heard that. If there are no compelling results from the entire study, then I think the case that NDEs are truly paranormal will be greatly weakened."
I don't. What will be weakened is your theory about how they function and what is really going on, not whether some paranormal event is occurring. Any test such as the AWARE study is, is actually a test of your theoretical model of how what you are testing for works. If your understanding about how it works is wrong, then your test will be set up to look for something that does not exist in the way that you think it does.
I do NOT believe that NDEs are spirits leaving the body; I don't believe there are spirit eyeballs attached to disembodied spirit heads with spirit brains having perceptions of the "real" world.
And I do NOT believe that the spirit leaving the body explanation is the only paranormal way to explain NDEs.
It would also be wonderfully convenient if all paranormal phenomenon hinged on the results of the AWARE study, or if the NDE were the most compelling evidence of paranormal phenomenon. It is not.
Ultimately, a personal and permanent acceptance of the paranormal has to come from one's own experience. If it is never more than something you read about in books, then it's like wishing you could go to Hawaii, but never taking the steps to go there, or just not being able to do it.
Eventually you will probably lose interest in Hawaii, if only to prevent yourself from going crazy wanting something which you can't or don't want to go experience.
Posted by: dmduncan | July 19, 2010 at 06:14 PM
I believe that unquestionably either the afterlife is real, or the universe is desperately trying to make it real.
Why else so many consistent visions, with laws of physics being defied as people imagine personalities of the deceased?
It goes far beyond psychology. Is it possible the afterlife is not real, but it's trying to become real?
That's the only alternative I can imagine. Although, it would still leave us with a materialist's world in the end.
The AWARE study could 'fail'. And, if it fails simply because of irresponsible conditions, then we are looking at a devastating blow that will require years of 'cleanup' to bring afterlife knowledge back to the surface. There would also have to be a shift of interest from NDEs and the medical community back toward mediumship.
If it fails despite the protocol, then I will be forced to consider the aforementioned 'epic illusion' theory, that we are living in a material world yet we are all wired to seek out this specific idea of an afterlife, built into our consciousness like some deep-seeded failed computer program.
My intuition tells me AWARE will not produce satisfactory results. Just because the nature of the subject is like trying to catch smoke with your hands.
However, I certainly hope I'm wrong. If AWARE is greatly successful, things are going to change around town.
All the chips are on the table.
Posted by: Cyrus | July 19, 2010 at 06:25 PM
well we just got to wait for the study ehh.
Posted by: kris | July 19, 2010 at 07:25 PM
Hope this turns off the italics.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 19, 2010 at 07:39 PM
I looked at the video recommended by RabbitDawg, and both Fenwick and Parnia make some very interesting comments regarding the accumulation of data that I don't take to be sympathetic to the status quo materialist model at all.
Posted by: dmduncan | July 19, 2010 at 08:07 PM
"What will be weakened is your theory about how they function and what is really going on, not whether some paranormal event is occurring."
I dunno ... Seems to me that if the most comprehensive and (from what I've read) best-designed study fails to produce evidence of veridical perception, it's a big blow to the idea that NDEs are something more than hallucinations augmented by snatches of sensory input.
I don't see how we can have it both ways. If we say that veridical results will be highly significant, then we can hardly say that an absence of veridical results is no big deal. That's a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach.
"If it is never more than something you read about in books, then it's like wishing you could go to Hawaii, but never taking the steps to go there, or just not being able to do it."
I've done more than read about it in books. Still, after a while it's natural to lose interest in any subject that you've pretty thoroughly explored. However, I'm not saying my current ennui is permanent. It's a mood.
Mainly I wanted an excuse to post the baby photo. I think it's hilarious.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 19, 2010 at 08:08 PM
if we don't get positive hits we would have to analyze every NDE in question to see if they are the sort that should have got a hit. Some NDEs after all skip the hospital stage.
Posted by: kris | July 19, 2010 at 08:53 PM
"I don't see how we can have it both ways. If we say that veridical results will be highly significant, then we can hardly say that an absence of veridical results is no big deal. That's a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach."
The veridical results they get will probably be exactly like the veridical results we already have got.
If they get none at all, my impulse will not be to reject everything we have already got, but to ask why they did not get similar results. And it's not a question I'd answer by fabricating "probablies" that explain away the old results so that I can accept the new results. The total absence of positives would be a new mystery, not a new solution.
Also, the paranormal doesn't begin or end with the AWARE study or the NDE, and an AWARE study that hypothetically gets no positive results cannot address non-NDE paranormal phenomenon which still require explanation.
Looking for a "complete" explanation, we may have to consider that it may not be a simple matter of souls leaving bodies OR entirely brain produced hallucinations.
I think Parnia is asking the right questions. I think we falsely assume a lot more about what "hallucinations" are than we have a reasonable claim to.
One of the things I think the study may do is to lift the idea of hallucination out of the dismissive domain of materialism. It is probably time to begin distinguishing kinds of hallucination, between those that are imaginations and those that bring real data without sensation.
Of those that bring real data, there may be further divisions between real data that is private to the person having the hallucination, and real data that is received by multiple people having the same hallucination, therefore having the quality of being perceived because it is not private.
I think a lot of the conceptual lines of demarcation that people like Keith Augustine love are going to turn from solids into dashes.
There may be instances where it makes no sense at all to speak about what constitutes a hallucination and what constitutes an "objective" reality that cameras can capture; a phenomenon may evolve from one to the other.
And it may well be that what began as a study to answer the question of whether minds can separate from bodies may suggest more profound questions about the nature of reality itself, and so, not be a simple thumbs up or thumbs down experiment on a narrowly focused question.
I don't expect a simple yes or no answer from the study. Though that may be the intent, I do not believe that will be the result.
Posted by: dmduncan | July 19, 2010 at 08:53 PM
I'm pretty sure (>95%) the AWARE study will come up negative. Why? NDE perceptions are trancendental in nature. Yes, occasionally, events will be recalled, but these have emotional pertinence to the experient. remembering silly targets on shelves isn't going to happen. I'm more interested in the concurrent investigatiobs looking at brain oxygen levels. This should give us more of an indication of what's happening. I disagree with Michael P here. A negative result (from the veridcal OBE portion) should not weaken the NDE field, but rather qualify future investigations.
Let's not forget:
Mediumship studies (including exciting data from Virginia, DOPS)
Reincarnation (DOPS again)
Lab OBE research (Miss Z investigated by Charles Tart, Karlis Osis research of alex Tanous)
and of course the huge mass of psi research indicating brain - mind duality.
Posted by: michael duggan | July 19, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Rabbitdawg posts: http://www.victorzammit.com/week1bb/
--------------------------------------------
Rabbitdawg, Thank you so much for posting the link to the video. I enjoyed it very much. It was very positive and uplifting.
Posted by: Art | July 19, 2010 at 09:08 PM
I share my sentiments with dmduncan. While I can see why one would expect at least even one hit out of a study of this particular magnitude, I personally am not really holding my breath very much for anything that will really propel NDE research forward, and if we do get even a few positive results, I'll be surprise. I do agree we may have to rethink some things if we get no hits at all, but to me it won't completely cancel out some of the good pieces of evidence that we've already accumulated.
Posted by: Ronnie Lee | July 19, 2010 at 09:15 PM
I know where Prescott is coming from, there is only so much you can read on a subject, no matter how interesting and important, before the mind just goes 'enough already'. Ultimately there are mysteries that are impenetrable. I'm glad to see this study being done, it's great, and it is a big step forward but whatever the results, we will all still be arguing about what it all means a decade from now. And beyond..
These arguments will perhaps never be settled, maybe that's how it has to be, ultimately unknowable.
I do think though that we need to better understand and scrutinise many of the conceptual assumptions underlying much of the positive interpretations of NDEs. That is whilst I think there is considerable evidence for mind and consciousness distinct from the brain and perhaps going beyond the body, I think 'the believers' are not nearly skeptical enough of certain NDE interpretations. My big bugbear is the seeing/communications with "dead relatives" in the 'afterlife' or whatever you want to call it. Taking all this at face value is I think a mistake.
The believers here need to be far more skeptical on this front. Why take these contacts with 'dead relatives' at face value? Especially given the viability of other explanations: obvious wishful thinking, the power of the subconscious to fabricate illusions, even the collective unconscious and archetypal patterns may come into it, and other possibilities. Let us not overlook the obvious point that one of the things that defines human consciousness (and thus accounts for human history and our present dire circumstances) and sets us apart from the animals, are our self-deceptions, our folly, our muddle-headed thinking. Why should these self-deceptions cease after death (assuming of course consciousness survives death), especially in the state immediately after bodily death, where given the understandable shock and fears of any surviving consciousness during any 'transition', our fears and hopes would be most likely to manifest and cloud the mind (that we are assuming survives bodily death)?
In fact central to much religious commentary on the afterlife, especially from the Eastern religions (notably the Tibetan Book of the Dead) is that mind survives death, but so do the mind's illusions and fantasies! The believers in survival of bodily death need to be far more rigorous in their approach and look beneath the surface of the NDE experiential encounters and take into far greater account the subconscious and its motivations and related factors. On this front, I think the criticisms of the skeptics often misses the mark because of their a priori dismissal of possible survival of consciousness after death and the fact they are often enough wedded to materialist and monist theories of mind/brain. They thus miss the real weak point in the 'believers' literature on NDEs, notably the 'dead relatives' and 'spirit guides' visions being taken at face value since the skeptics are as likely to be dismissive of the collective unconscious and archetypal symbols and cultural patterning and their possible relevance to the NDE because of the skeptics' materialism (and thus lack of sympathy for Jungian psychology and philosophy) and their a priori dismissal of dualist models of mind/brain.
The same parallel exists in the considerable literature on seance mediumship where too many are quick to jump onto a survival interpretation, rather than acknowledging that whilst the evidence for paranormal phenomena associated with mediumship is considerable, the evidence for survival is another matter and it is certainly not on the same solid ground.
Posted by: Larry | July 20, 2010 at 12:59 AM
I know where Prescott is coming from, there is only so much you can read on a subject, no matter how interesting and important, before the mind just goes 'enough already'. Ultimately there are mysteries that are impenetrable. I'm glad to see this study being done, it's great, and it is a big step forward but whatever the results, we will all still be arguing about what it all means a decade from now. And beyond..
These arguments will perhaps never be settled, maybe that's how it has to be, ultimately unknowable.
I do think though that we need to better understand and scrutinise many of the conceptual assumptions underlying much of the positive interpretations of NDEs. That is whilst I think there is considerable evidence for mind and consciousness distinct from the brain and perhaps going beyond the body, I think 'the believers' are not nearly skeptical enough of certain NDE interpretations. My big bugbear is the seeing/communications with "dead relatives" in the 'afterlife' or whatever you want to call it. Taking all this at face value is I think a mistake.
The believers here need to be far more skeptical on this front. Why take these contacts with 'dead relatives' at face value? Especially given the viability of other explanations: obvious wishful thinking, the power of the subconscious to fabricate illusions, even the collective unconscious and archetypal patterns may come into it, and other possibilities. Let us not overlook the obvious point that one of the things that defines human consciousness (and thus accounts for human history and our present dire circumstances) and sets us apart from the animals, are our self-deceptions, our folly, our muddle-headed thinking. Why should these self-deceptions cease after death (assuming of course consciousness survives death), especially in the state immediately after bodily death, where given the understandable shock and fears of any surviving consciousness during any 'transition', our fears and hopes would be most likely to manifest and cloud the mind (that we are assuming survives bodily death)?
In fact central to much religious commentary on the afterlife, especially from the Eastern religions (notably the Tibetan Book of the Dead) is that mind survives death, but so do the mind's illusions and fantasies! The believers in survival of bodily death need to be far more rigorous in their approach and look beneath the surface of the NDE experiential encounters and take into far greater account the subconscious and its motivations and related factors. On this front, I think the criticisms of the skeptics often misses the mark because of their a priori dismissal of possible survival of consciousness after death and the fact they are often enough wedded to materialist and monist theories of mind/brain. They thus miss the real weak point in the 'believers' literature on NDEs, notably the 'dead relatives' and 'spirit guides' visions being taken at face value since the skeptics are as likely to be dismissive of the collective unconscious and archetypal symbols and cultural patterning and their possible relevance to the NDE because of the skeptics' materialism (and thus lack of sympathy for Jungian psychology and philosophy) and their a priori dismissal of dualist models of mind/brain.
The same parallel exists in the considerable literature on seance mediumship where too many are quick to jump onto a survival interpretation, rather than acknowledging that whilst the evidence for paranormal phenomena associated with mediumship is considerable, the evidence for survival is another matter and it is certainly not on the same solid ground.
Posted by: Larry | July 20, 2010 at 12:59 AM
The video of Parnia and Fenwick on the chat show is three years old.
Parnia has made relatively recent reference to at least one incredible(in his words) NDE which occured at Cornell. He only makes reference to it very briefly during a talk and doesn't give any detail whatsoever.
Solid veridical OBE evidence has already been harvested by Sabom, Sartori to name just two. The sixty year old carpenter(Sartori)(pink lollipop etc) case has confirmed Sabom's findings. True, he didn't see the target on the moniter(I didn't twist my head round that way, Penn) but his extremely accurate observations of his resuscitation make fraud the only realistic explanation if you want to refute it.
This is a white crow if ever I saw one. How many white crows do we need ?
The aware study will produce some of these accurate cases. Even if they don't see the target on the shelf you still have to explain how mind/brain can observe and gather information from an airborn position outside of it's comatose head.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 03:34 AM
One study is never conclusive of anything, pro or contra.
Most revived patients don't have (or recall having had) NDEs and of those very few that do most don't report veridical perception, journeys into the light, meeting dead relatives and life reviews seem much more common. Or at least that's the impression I get from reviewing the literature, confirmed veridical OBEs are statistically few and far between and are thus highly coveted by researchers.
So we're playing bingo here - only instead of 75 numbers to choose from we have 7500+. We can theoretically play just 5 rounds and win or it may take 50 rounds, or maybe even 500, the point is that you need to keep playing for a relatively large number of rounds before you can expect to get even a single hit, and if you quit playing too soon you may very well come up empty.
This kind of study ideally should involve many, many more participants and last on the order of 10+ years (the Lancet study lasted 13), then we'd have a much more solid overview of this phenomenon, real or not. But who would be willing to finance that?
That said, my own personal belief is that for some of Life's enduring mysteries and questions there will never be a definitive answer, no smoking gun, only yet more ambiguity and food for thought to keep us guessing and keep things interesting.
Posted by: Markus Hesse | July 20, 2010 at 03:38 AM
'confirmed veridical OBE's are 'statistically few and far between'
It depends on what you mean by confirmed, Markus. Confirmed by whom?
There are thousands of OBE observations that have been confirmed by the patients themselves asking the nurses and doctors if such and such a thing really happened. The literature is choc full of those.
Then there are the recollections of nurses and some doctors(all nurses.com)who have been surprised to be told what they were 'doing' while their patient was comatose etc. Quite a few of those.
And finally the major studies. Sabom for instance, didn't include... *thirty two*... (I think it was)cases where accurate veridical information was reported by the patients simply because he didn't feel the details were specific enough. But his six star cases plus the nightwatchman open heart surgery one are outstandingly evidential.
Sartori's study was only small but still came up with more outstanding cases.
Janet Schwaninger likewise.
(The Lancet study gathered information for four years and then had an eight year follow up)
The problem with the Aware study is that patients who have just exited their bodies are very unlikely to immediately start scanning the room for a target on a shelf, when an amazing light is beckoning them to Paradise, or some beautiful angelic creature is trying to take your hand.
"Just a sec, Jesus, I've just got to go and look up(or down) on that shelf over there and see what the picture is for the aware study...then I'll be right with you "
I think somebody will see it, just like they saw they other 'targets' in all the other sudies...but it's going to take time.
Let's be positive. Remember, there's all the other stuff that the scoftics have to deal with, aswell.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 05:07 AM
It wasn't the 'Lancet study' of course. I meant Van Lommel's published in the lancet. Sorry.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 06:04 AM
It depends on what you mean by confirmed, Markus. Confirmed by whom?
By confirmed I mean objectively and methodically investigated and documented to a degree that it'd stand up to (reasonable) peer-review and skeptical scrutiny.
I'm well aware of the plethora of anecdotal accounts out there but without such careful scientific validation I'm kinda reluctant to consider them as *equally weighty* supporting evidence.
I think somebody will see it, just like they saw they other 'targets' in all the other sudies...but it's going to take time.
I agree, if extra-corporeal perception is in fact real then it's only a matter of time until we get a hit.....but how much time? At what point does one say "we've waited long enough?"
Obviously a negative result will be pounced on by the debunkers and paraded around henceforth as yet another nail in the coffin of dualism while a positive one will likely first be met with accusations of "poor methodology," then "possible fraud" and then by stern-faced "more research is needed."
I'd agree with the latter. This study has the potential to kick off the largest paradigm shift in scientific history so I'm hoping those running things are being exceptionally rigorous and diligent, potential further research hinges on it.
Posted by: Markus Hesse | July 20, 2010 at 06:24 AM
There was a recent article in the January Issue of New Scientist Magazine (online) where the guy who ran the lab, Hogan, said that he thought the blurriness they found was evidence of the holographic nature of our universe. Now the reason this is interesting is because many near death experiencers say that during their experience it felt even "more real" and it was more clear than what we normally experience. If this side is the holographic projection then maybe what they are doing is their consciousness is moving over into the holographic film from which our side derives it's reality. In the film when they have access to "all information" then everything they experience would be more clear than what we experience here in this life.
There is a connection between NDE's and quantum physics and the holographic universe theory that no one has ever adequately explained away to me. How is it that people who have never heard of the holographic universe theory and know nothing about holograms oftentimes describe their experiences in terms that can only be called "holographic?" There is no way it is just coincidence.
People who have NDE's routinely talk about overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness, feeling like they are literally everywhere in the universe at once, time and space not existing, buildings that are "made out of knowledge", 360 degree vision, seeing colors they've never seen before, hearing sounds that they haven't heard in this physical universe, and during the life review seeing their whole lives flash by in an instant (bolus of information), and how the other side will feel even more real to us than this side does, and feeling the feelings and hearing the thoughts of the people they interacted with. I find these things to be very evidential because it parallels things I've read about in popular physics books.
Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, a PhD physicist says in his book The Spiritual Universe that "thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality." Perhaps on the other side it is even more true than here and that is why people like Mark H in his NDE description said he thought of a mountain and one appeared or A.J. Ayer's said that "his thoughts became people."
There are simply too many connections between NDEs and quantum physics and the holographic universe theory for it to be coincidental and I find that to be very evidential.
Posted by: Art | July 20, 2010 at 06:27 AM
Trev. Posted: "The video of Parnia and Fenwick on the chat show is three years old"...
Thanks Trev. I wasn't sure. As Art described, it was uplifting, but Dr. Parnia seemed more confident to me than he usually is.
He normally goes into protracted CYA medical-speak, in part, I believe, to um, cover his a** in the event no hard evidence appears in the AWARE study.
However, I can't believe that a study this massive won't produce some sort of tangible results. I remember reading an interview with Dr. Bruce Greyson in Vital Signs, where he stated that he thought that the AWARE study wasn't large enough to verify OBE's, and that he wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't any identification of the targets at all. He even seemed to not care very much if the targets were identified or not.
His main concern seemed to be if this study, under fairly strict scientifically reputable conditions, would confirm a continuation of consciousness after cessation of brain function. Oxygen levels, hypoxia, et. al. would either be confirmed or dismissed. If no rational reason were found for a continuation of awareness, no matter how transcendent, then even further study might be warranted and justified.
Posted by: RabbitDawg | July 20, 2010 at 06:42 AM
The only thing that is real is consciousness. Atoms are mostly ghostly empty space and the sub atomic particles themselves are hardly like anything we think of as matter, being more like eddies in a stream than a rock or a BB.
The only thing keeping my hand from floating right down through the table they are resting on is the negative charges of the electrons in my hand repelling the negative charges of the electrons in the table. What we see and experience are the electro-magnetic charges between atoms and not the atoms themselves.
Sub atomic particles are able to appear and disappear, sometimes appearing as a wave and sometimes as a particle, pass right through what we think of as solid matter, communicate instantaneously with each other, sometimes even seeming to appear to communicate with the people who are studying them. There is very little that is "real" about our so called physical universe.
This side is little more than a holographic projection from someplace else, and our brains work holographically and are essentially a hologram embedded in a hologram which means that this whole physical reality is "Maya" an illusion.
Michelle M says in her NDE description that we will look back on our lives here like they were a "dream in itself." While we are here we think it's a long time but looking back from the other side this life will seem like it went by in the blink of an eye. This isn't the main show, it is just a very temporary place our souls come to learn a few simple lessons and they merge back into the Spiritual Universe.
We may never be allowed to know absolutely for certain that there is life after death because it is in the not knowing that the lessons are learned. If the more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates then perhaps it's in the not knowing that the most powerful memories are created.
Losing someone we love is the ultimate lesson in separation - what it means and how it feels to be separate - so if we knew absolutely for certain that one day we were going to be reunited with them forever perhaps we wouldn't mourn quite as much. It's in the not knowing that we mourn, thinking we have lost them forever.
If we knew absolutely for certain that all the things that we love we were going to get back the separation we experience in this life wouldn't be quite as traumatic and the death of someone we love would cease to be the most powerful lesson in what it means and how it feels to be separate.
Posted by: Art | July 20, 2010 at 06:45 AM
I am no philosopher, or even a eloquent speaker...however, has anyone considered the fact that "The powers that be" may not want us to "Figure it out"....
if this is really a "test" or a "School" and there have been plenty of "you are supposed to learn..." and "Your task isn't completed..." ETC ETC in the literature... so maybe no matter what we do figuring out "Psy" or even "Life after death" beyond a shodow of a doubt mucks up the works OR
we do figure it out, the man steps out from behind the curtain and we have to set up a new game to deal with the doldrums of eternity......
Hey I am just sayin....
OK now to try some limited HTML here
I hope this turns off the Italics....
Posted by: -Marty | July 20, 2010 at 07:41 AM
Doh.... guess not.
Posted by: -Marty | July 20, 2010 at 07:42 AM
'..by confirmed I mean objectively and methodically investigated and documented so it'd stand up to (reasonable) peer review and skeptical scrutiny...'
Markus, Sabom and Sartori did objectively and methodically investigate and document what they found(30 years apart)and it was reviewed by some of his peers(as was Penny's work by hers)...but it's never enough for the skeptics. Sabom was also a skeptic. He didn't believe he would find any evidence at all for veridical OBE's/NDE's. He thought the idea was ridiculous. The only reason the study was ignored by the materialistic mainstream was that it came to the wrong conclusion ie provided very good evidence that the mind can separate from the brain as did Sartori's study.
I might add that now we know that the prospective studies match the old retrospective studies, Ken Ring's work can also be seen as very evidential.
Interesting, Rabbit Dawg and Art
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 08:17 AM
'..by confirmed I mean objectively and methodically investigated and documented so it'd stand up to (reasonable) peer review and skeptical scrutiny...'
Markus, Sabom and Sartori did objectively and methodically investigate and document what they found(30 years apart)and it was reviewed by some of his peers(as was Penny's work by hers)...but it's never enough for the skeptics. Sabom was also a skeptic. He didn't believe he would find any evidence at all for veridical OBE's/NDE's. He thought the idea was ridiculous. The only reason the study was ignored by the materialistic mainstream was that it came to the wrong conclusion ie provided very good evidence that the mind can separate from the brain as did Sartori's study.
I might add that now we know that the prospective studies match the old retrospective studies, Ken Ring's work can also be seen as very evidential.
Interesting, Rabbit Dawg and Art
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 08:17 AM
"I'm pretty sure (>95%) the AWARE study will come up negative. Why? NDE perceptions are trancendental in nature"
I agree. I believe that the AWARE study is trying to measure non physical reality with a physical measuring stick. It won't work, or it won't work very well. Much better to measure the physical activities, or lack therof, of the brain during the NDE. At least this applies an "apples to apples" approach. This will be much easier than trying to catch that elusive butterfly in the dark and prove nearly as much.
I disagree that a failure to get any "hits", negates the non physicality of the NDE for the same reason. The perceptions occurring in the event are non physical in nature and do not easily relate to physical measurment.
Posted by: GregL | July 20, 2010 at 08:30 AM
'The perceptions occuring in the event are non physical in nature..'
Greg, please could you just clarify that a little more, it's puzzling me ?
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 09:00 AM
It's in the "not knowing" that the lessons are learned - and the "not knowing" is what makes it so emotional - and because the more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memories it produces - I doubt we will ever be allowed to know absolutely 100% for certain that there is life after death. There will always be a certain element of doubt there. If it were not so then those that have all ready crossed over would just be allowed to come and visit us whenever they wanted. They could simply holographically project into our lives and give us advice and talk to us whenever they wanted. The bridge that exists between this life and the next exists for a reason. All we are allowed is little glimpses into the next life - NDE's, death bed visions, the work of some Mediums, ADC's, dreams, EVP, etc. And always there are the doubters and naysayers telling us it isn't real. They wouldn't believe even if their deceased parents appeared before them and started talking to them. They would just say it's some kind of technological trick and keep on doubting. They are married to their Newtonian 18th century understanding of physics and science and have been completely bypassed by the strangeness of quantum physics. They lack the imagination to see past the world that surrounds them.
Posted by: Art | July 20, 2010 at 09:54 AM
"Greg, please could you just clarify that a little more, it's puzzling me "
Trev, I meant that we are perceiving with non physical senses, more precisely,during the NDE transition, we are consciousness perceiving a non physical data flow. Any perception of physical reality would seem to be an anomaly, not conducive to physical testing.
I will be surprised if AWARE posts any definitive results in this area.
Posted by: GregL | July 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM
I'll be extremely surprised!
Posted by: michael duggan | July 20, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Thanks, Greg.
I think I understand what you mean. I guess I'm leaving myself open to scornful laughter but after years of perusing these curious accounts, it's made me believe in some kind of etheric spirit body surrounding the physical. What it is composed of(if it does exist) we'll probably never know but it must be(IMHO) able to be seen at some point, otherwise the dying(DBV's) would surely not be conversing with 'people they can see' and stretching out their hands to shake what appears to the carers etc as only fresh air.
I think this energy body detaches in the NDE, observes it's physical surroundings and goes back where it came from.
Then again, I might be a raving looney.
Posted by: Trev. off his nut | July 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM
"we are consciousness perceiving a non physical data flow. Any perception of physical reality would seem to be an anomaly, not conducive to physical testing."
That's possible, but there are two problems with it, IMO. First, it means (as you say) that the phenomenon is not conducive to testing, which takes it out of the realm of empirical investigation. Second, the many reports of NDErs who did see their environment in detail would suggest that some kind of perception is taking place - and if they can perceive doctors and nurses, hospital equipment, or a shoe on a ledge, then why not a graphic image near the ceiling?
I do tend to agree that NDErs (if they are perceiving anything real) are "perceiving a non-physical data flow." It gets back to Brian Whitworth's theory of the universe as a virtual reality simulation (use the Google search box on the left side of this page to search for the relevant posts, if you're interested). The discarnate consciousness may be tapping into the programming code that supports the entire VR simulation. This would explain the ability to move effortlessly to any point of interest, even if it is hundreds of miles away, or to review one's past life from multiple perspectives (all the info is stored in the database).
But ... the graphic images hidden near the ceiling would also be part of the database, just as much as the doctors, nurses, ER equipment, shoe on the ledge, etc. So I would still expect the discarnate consciousness processing this data flow to be able to "perceive" (non-physically) the images. If no one can perceive even one of the images, even in hundreds of tests, then other, less esoteric explanations of NDEs become more plausible, I think - although the issue will not be definitively resolved either way.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Perhaps by nearly sheer synchronicity (hehe) the latest episode of Skeptiko discusses AWARE. I'm about to listen to it now.
http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-aware-doomed-to-fai/
Posted by: Ronnie Lee | July 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Trev
You wrote:
"Parnia has made relatively recent reference to at least one incredible(in his words) NDE which occured at Cornell. He only makes reference to it very briefly during a talk and doesn't give any detail whatsoever."
Can you please reference this? Do you have a video or a script or something of where he said this? I'm extremely interested.
As for you, Michael Prescott, I think you should stop looking at the evidential aspect for a while, and investigate the more interesting and *deep* NDEs. And this one, of course, is the absolute top-notch NDE _IMAGINABLE_:
http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html
Just listen to the intro song, lol :)
Peace!
Posted by: Hjortron | July 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM
I think the brain oxygen measurements will yield more conclusive results (one way or the other).
I'm a little anxious negative results from AWARE could precipitate loss of academic interest in NDE's in the same way the null Benson data has caused intercessory prayer research to fall away.
Posted by: michael duggan | July 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Hi Hjortron,
If you go to www.Horizon research.org you will find the video on the right hand side of the screen. Unravelling the mystery of the self-Parnia and fenwick. If you have located the right video, Parnia should be wearing a black jacket and white shirt(very smart)and you need to go to part five to locate the comment which is about half way through.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Hi Hjortron,
If you go to www.Horizon research.org you will find the video on the right hand side of the screen. Unravelling the mystery of the self-Parnia and fenwick. If you have located the right video, Parnia should be wearing a black jacket and white shirt(very smart)and you need to go to part five to locate the comment which is about half way through.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 12:39 PM
On one hand, I think it would be nice if something good came out of this study such as evidence for non-local experiences.
On the other hand, nothing anyone could say will take my experience away from me. I won't change what I know or who I am. My NDE is a gift and a challenge that probably defines me more than any other experience that I've had. Nothing will change that.
Posted by: Sandy | July 20, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Marty said:
"has anyone considered the fact that "The powers that be" may not want us to "Figure it out"...."
This was a suggestion made by Sunday night's guest on Coast to Coast AM, Jeffrey Kripal, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University, and author of Authors of the Impossible: The Paranormal and the Sacred
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 20, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Trev
Thank you, I saw it, it's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qm7LIV6BfI (4:51 - 5:07). Very interesting stuff, but he doesn't mention if it happened recently enough to be mentioned in the study (and they launched it in Cornell, when, September 2008? I think they only had 5 UK hospitals running in the pilot phase of the study prior to that). So if it's going to be of any relevance it needs to have happened within the Sep 2008 - Oct 2009 time-frame (as this video was posted in October 26, 2009).
At any rate, wonderful stuff. Thank you.
Posted by: Hjortron | July 20, 2010 at 01:03 PM
There's an in-between possibility: partial hits. E.g., only some of the digits are correctly reported, or they are reported in a scrambled sequence, or 9's are reported as 6's, etc. That'll keep the pot boiling!
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 20, 2010 at 01:07 PM
Hjortron,
Even if it's not in the study, Parnia will eventually 'tell all.'
By the way, for anyone that remembers, I was going to try to contact Dr Spetzler at the Barrow Neurological institute to ask if Pam Reynolds brain waves were effectively flattened by the exceptional amount of barbiturates she was given pre-op. Because Pam 'died' recently, I didn't think it was appropriate...but I think now is a decent gap. So, now I'll see what he says.
Probably nothing.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 01:45 PM
Apologies for the double post, by the way.I don't know how that happened.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 01:47 PM
"But ... the graphic images hidden near the ceiling would also be part of the database, just as much as the doctors, nurses, ER equipment, shoe on the ledge, etc. So I would still expect the discarnate consciousness processing this data flow to be able to "perceive" (non-physically) the images."
I do agree with this. My point was that the data base (or VR) that the NDE'er is tying into is now the non-physical matter VR. Seeing the AWARE target would be an anamoly or bleedover of the physical matter data, and as such, would not happen very often.
I hate to say this, but I think some of these accounts have been "pumped up" by the authors who write about these occurences. I can't even count how many times I have read about the "shoe on the ledge" in different books.
A story with very little validation.
I do hope that the AWARE study has some dramatic hits, but I am not holding my breath.
Posted by: GregL | July 20, 2010 at 02:02 PM
The shoe on the ledge may have been a complete invention by the nurse/author, Kimberley Clark(Sharp) So might the red shoe on the roof in another case reported by Ring.
Vicki Noratuk may possibly be an attention seeker and subsequently lied about her alleged blind 'vision.'
It's possible, of course. But I don't believe it.
Also, why do proponents of NDE's have to provide endless cases of veridical observation when skeptics only have to come up with one(Wilder penfield type vague similarity)objection, to discredit and discourage the survival hypothesis?
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 03:32 PM
The problem i see is with the Aware is the fact that if someone is out of body they aren't going to be worried about seeing a Sign above but their own lifeless body there.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | July 20, 2010 at 04:15 PM
"Also, why do proponents of NDE's have to provide endless cases of veridical observation when skeptics only have to come up with one(Wilder penfield type vague similarity)objection, to discredit and discourage the survival hypothesis?"
Trev,
I think that this is the whole purpose, or one of the purposes, of the AWARE project, to come up with a truly veridical NDE. The "shoe" type observations are anecdotal at best and carry no scientific weight.
I myself, am not a skeptic of the NDE, I believe it to be a possible glimpse of another reality. I am skeptical, however, of these anecdotal and sensationalized reports.
NDE science would be much better served had Parnia and Fenwick decided to not publicly focus on the target sighting, but on the biological correlates (Van Lommel) of the NDE. Now, without any target success, their work will be viewed as a failure, empowering the skeptics, even if other results prove a resounding success.
Posted by: GregL | July 20, 2010 at 04:54 PM
'NDE science would be much better served had Parnia and Fenwick decided to not publicly focus on the target sighting.'
I think they had to do it, Greg. what's on the table is obviously not enough for them. Why, I really don't know. I find it truly astonishing that some posters on here(not very many on here of course) and other blogs continually keep repeating...Where's the evidence ?
We started off with a mere observed pattern and now we have corroborated veridical accounts with additional subjective transcendental life changing effects....and 'we' are still unsure.
Posted by: Trev. | July 20, 2010 at 05:27 PM
Trev,
I don't think *we* are unsure. I sure as hell isn't :D It's just that *skeptics* have a hard time accepting the validity of the NDE for a _variety_ of reasons. Here you can read more about it:
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/grossman.html
So you see, it's not really about the evidence, it's much more about the various implications.
Posted by: Hjortron | July 20, 2010 at 10:37 PM
I think a likely possibility is people will correctly describe surroundings around their hospital room but not see the target. This is what happened with Satori who did had a similar experiment to AWARE except on a much smaller scale (Only one patient was recorded to see objects around the room, and I think it's already been brought up here).
One concern I have is the impact negative results could have on the world. Granted, AWARE 'failing' doesn't disapprove the afterlife but it certainly turns into a more faith-based belief than something that has some science to it. My beef is it seems like from my observations that materialists think people will just gladly embrace the idea of no afterlife by using science to point out its non-existence. I've heard of a lot of people who reluctantly accept a belief of this life being the only one we get and end up being very depressed. I also find the materialist's ways of coping with the issue seem to be more of them preaching to the choir rather than something that can be effective for the general population ("Life goes on" or "you live on through your children", I'll go into what I believe are problems with those beliefs if someone requests). What I do think is needed in the event we get overwhelming evidence the afterlife probably isn't there is a comprehensive coping 'program' of some sort which I believe can be achieved but may take time to develop. Remember, statistics show the majority of the world believes in the afterlife, so there could be a big crash if those beliefs are smothered out.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | July 20, 2010 at 11:00 PM
I'm quite surprised at how many contributors to this thread don’t think AWARE will give solid proof. Comments like Roger Knight’s and Marty’s “maybe TPTB don’t want us to figure it out” are dealt with in Thomas Campbell’s My Big TOE, which posits the idea of a “Psi uncertainty principle” acting, I suppose, rather like the physics equivalent of Jung’s archetypal trickster to thwart our every attempt to find the Brian Whitworth-posited computer code (alluded to here by Michael P and GregL) and thereby undermine our powerful faith in this Virtual reality.
Sometimes I think all the various internet conspiracy theories are authored beyond our VR for these very purposes –to distract and divide those who start to understand some aspect of the matrix-like truth.
If I were the author of the VR, I’d probably make it possible for participants to become aware of the matrix at some point. It would be fun. The next step would be to figure out the best techniques for escaping (eg meditation practices or certain psychotropic drugs under controlled conditions – cue the ominously quiet Erich!).
Meanwhile, I applaud Sandy’s approach: “Nothing can take away my own experience”.
Posted by: Ben | July 21, 2010 at 01:26 AM
@afterbrnr
I don't think the existence or otherwise of the 'afterlife' hangs on one (or even ten) studies. There already exists a great deal of material gathered over a very long period and freely available for those with an interest.
I suspect that the majority (if not vast majority) of people have no idea what NDEs and OBEs are and do little reading on the subject. I am not sure the AWARE study will even register on the Richter scale let alone have a cataclysmic impact - especially on those who have, or claim to have had, direct personal experience.
I know of folks who have research survival for decades and have no conclusive personal proof - does that mean all the research by others is invalid? I don't think so (I am not suggesting you think this either).
Incidentally, I can't really see how AWARE will 'prove' survival either (although it might be an indicator) even if it is successful since the patients must return from whatever state they are in to report their experiences. It would potentially prove a separation of consciousness and physical body but (perhaps in my ignorance)I don't see how it proves survival, though it might be further evidence.
Just my two penn'orth.
Posted by: Paul | July 21, 2010 at 02:02 AM
"I can't really see how AWARE will 'prove' survival"
I agree. What I'm saying is that a negative result (no "hits" whatsoever) will put the pro-afterlife camp squarely on the defensive, at least as far as NDEs are concerned. I don't see any way around this. On the other hand, a positive result (at least a few "hits") will put the skeptical camp on the defensive.
Ambiguous, debatable "hits" (perhaps the most likely outcome) will leave the status quo in place.
Most people who believe in an afterlife do so on the basis of religious faith, not scientific investigation, so I doubt the AWARE study will have any world-changing impact, no matter how it turns out.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 21, 2010 at 06:47 AM
Most people who believe in an afterlife do so on the basis of religious faith, not scientific investigation
I neither believe in an afterlfe because of religious faith nor scientific investigation.
Guess I must be odd one out! Nothing new there then.
I accept that there is an afterlife because of personal experience i.e. I have seen and spoken to people who live there - not once but many many times.
The Aware study will not make the slightest difference to me whether it is positive, negative or neutral.
Posted by: Zerdini | July 21, 2010 at 07:37 AM
Zerdini:
Same here.
But it will make a difference in our ability to convince self-proclaimed skeptics. Or will it? Will they invent new excuses? Is the actual evidence available irrelevant to their ignorance? I don't know, and THAT'S the interesting thing to me. That's the primary reason I want this study to be overwhelmingly positive; just to see how they react.
Posted by: Hjortron | July 21, 2010 at 08:05 AM
I am also pessimistic about AWARE bringing about positive results. There certainly are well documented cases of veridical OBEs but those are only about 20 or 30 that accumulated over 30 years or so (a good collections is at near-death.com which seems to me more or less complete). I also know about very few from Germany that are reported by medical professionals but again, they do not seem to happen frequently. I was sent a very interesting article by a researcher with the name Michael Nahm (he publishes in English) about the fact that veridical preceptions in Western NDEs seem to be the equivalent of the "mistaken identity" cases in Asia and ancient Rome were a person with a similar nam actually died. He offers some highly interesting ideas about that!
Posted by: Iris | July 21, 2010 at 08:57 AM
"Belief" is acceptance of an idea without evidence.
"Faith" is acceptance of an idea despite the evidence. Both are troll tools.
I do not believe nor do I have faith —
I simply draw logical conclusions from the evidence.
— Miles Edward Allen
Posted by: Zerdini | July 21, 2010 at 09:01 AM
Why do we care what the 'self-proclaimed sceptics' think about it?
Posted by: Paul | July 21, 2010 at 11:33 AM
The study will probably be inconclusive why? because other vedical obe experiments also shown inconclusive results which mean they were not negative or positive.
I don't believe there is an afterlife, i think there is because of what i have researched plus because the evidence points strongly in that direction.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | July 21, 2010 at 12:27 PM
"I neither believe in an afterlfe because of religious faith nor scientific investigation."
I would say that going to seances and making careful observations, especially under controlled conditions, is a form of scientific investigation. Not all science is done in the lab. Look at field anthropology, for instance.
"'Faith' is acceptance of an idea despite the evidence."
I don't see it that way. To me, faith means trust. It means that the evidence you have, and your personal experiences, both lead you to certain conclusions that you can't prove absolutely, but which you trust because they are consistent with what you know.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM
MP wrote:
Well put.
Ditto.
I dunno. I think about 10% of the world's population is "strong in their faith," with the remainder being Pascal-wagerers, unthinking herd-followers, hoping-but-not-hopefuls, etc. A strongly positive AWARE outcome would strengthen their faith and make headlines around the world, especially in the third world, where it would validate traditionalism. This is a possibility worth pondering. This could be a "world-historical event."
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 21, 2010 at 01:02 PM
On the flip side Roger, what about if the opposite happens? Will people just simply accept it and say, "Oh well, that's how things work" or will there be a breakdown of sorts from people feeling life is worthless now? It could be either way.
But now that I think about it, I think it is probably right that regardless of how AWARE comes out, it will probably neither prove or disapprove the whole life after death issue once and for all. I think Parnia himself has said that even if the results were overwhelmingly positive, you still only at best have a case for PSI but nothing conclusive yet for another life.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | July 21, 2010 at 01:44 PM
Afterbrner wrote:
I think we believers have wiggle room if there are no hits. As commenters upthread have stated, it's unlikely that those who are out of their body and looking down on it will be checking out the tops of lighting fixtures. OTOH, a half-dozen (say) "hits" will be impossible for scoftics to explain away.
1. The results won't be interpreted in such a minimalistic, parsimonious fashion in the Third World. Any proof of psi (i.e., of a non-materialistic level of reality) would knock the "nothing-but" world-view in a cocked hat, as far as the majority of mankind is concerned.
2. In intellectual circles, proving psi (which of course is all that AWARE would "prove," or anyway strongly support) would also be a world-historical event, reversing the materialistic intellectual tide of centuries, and side-lining our "advanced" thinkers. ("It is a fatal thing to be too modern; one can become old-fashioned overnight." --Wilde)
3. Near-proof or psi would lead to a flood of funding for psi research in order to get a better handle on this new realm, and its findings in turn would "prove" psi to the scientific mainstream. Scoftics would be marginalized if, for instance, Sheldrake's telephone telepathy and staring experiments were widely replicated under neutral, well-funded auspices.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 21, 2010 at 02:25 PM
Oops-- change the paragraph above to start:
"3. Near-proof of psi ..."
===============
Scoftics should have foreclosed our side's escape-hatch by adding another test-item to the AWARE protocol: a coded facecloth draped over the subjects’ ankles (in cases where there is time to do this). For instance, if subjects who were looking down on their body were unable to correctly report on the shape, color, and letter-code of such a facecloth, our side would be unable to use the excuse that they weren't looking in its direction.
(Each hospital would have a small box filled with about 25 such facecloths that would be randomly used during each operation. E.g., one might be pink, triangular, and letter-coded as "A", another blue, circular, and coded as “Z”.)
Of course, if many subjects DID correctly identify the facecloths (and no subjects reported being clued in to the identifiers by woo-woo nurses after the fact), that would reinforce any positive results from the light-fixture test.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 21, 2010 at 02:47 PM
Another issue I know is that what we've been saying about how the skeptics will likely not change their minds even in the case of a positive outcome can be applied to "our side" according to the skeptics. I think it's been hinted by many on the "believer" side that a negative result wouldn't change their minds, either.
With that in mind, does that show how biases can affect everyone, regardless of what "side" they are on?
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | July 21, 2010 at 04:55 PM
"I think it's been hinted by many on the 'believer' side that a negative result wouldn't change their minds, either."
That's really what I'm getting at. How willing are we, really, to accept the results, come what may?
Someone talked about having "wiggle room" even in the event of a null outcome. But should we want wiggle room? When Einstein's relativity theory was tested during a solar eclipse, Einstein didn't look for wiggle room. He said his theory would stand or fall by the results. (It stood.) Karl Popper called this the essence of the scientific approach.
The alternative, in Popper's view, was theories like Freudianism and Marxism, which could never be refuted because their proponents would always find wiggle room in the outcome of any test. Thus they became more like cults than proper scientific theories.
In the investigation of psi, the situation is admittedly complicated by the elusive nature of the phenomena and by the vagaries of human perception and recall. But since we often (correctly) accuse skeptics of moving the goalposts, we should be wary of doing the same thing ourselves.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 21, 2010 at 05:33 PM
One thing that I'd like to hear more about is NDEs in which the person has a negative experience, for instance, the person is plunged into an environment resembling Hell. I've come across a few of these, but not many. They seem to me to be pretty important, as obviously they can't be a result of wishful thinking. But for obvious reasons, I don't think too many people would actually wish to admit them. Personally, if there is an Afterlife, I'd like to think these negative environments appear as a result of a person's lack of soul progression--their coldness, greed, lack of empathy, etc., is reflected in the type of environment where they find themselves (as described in Borgia's Life In the World Unseen).
Posted by: Kathleen | July 21, 2010 at 05:39 PM
MP wrote:
Of course, we shouldn't want it, but if an experiment has been biased against a positive outcome, by failing to put the vindicating "shoe" in the "departed's" line of sight, we're entitled to say "No fair." It has failed to eliminate a valid objection to a negative result, so it has been poorly designed. It should, and easily could, have been made "airtight" against such an objection. I used the term "wiggle room" only to induce the test-overseers to tighten it up in the event if they are scoftics who wouldn't want to allow us such an escape hatch.
But I'm not doing so afterwards, like them, but beforehand.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, but to avoid being able to do so. (You should have read what I said more carefully, MP.)
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 21, 2010 at 06:16 PM
PS: Here's the context of my "wiggle room" comment:
The context was thus an argument about the impact on world public opinion of a positive vs. a null result. I was making the realpolitick point that the court of public opinion would be able (and entitled) to dismiss a negative result more easily than a negative result, given the project's biased experimental design.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 21, 2010 at 06:39 PM
Ooops:
Make that last sentence read:
"... public opinion would be able (and entitled) to dismiss a negative result more easily than a positive result, ..."
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 21, 2010 at 06:42 PM
"One thing that I'd like to hear more about is NDEs in which the person has a negative experience, for instance, the person is plunged into an environment resembling Hell." - Kathleen
-------------------------------------------
Heaven seems to be a place where thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality. In the Tibetan Book Of The Dead it tells the newly departed spirits not to be afraid of the demons it encounters because they are only projections of their own mind. In Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's (a PhD physicist) book "The Spiritual Universe" he talks about thoughts being things and consciousness creating reality. A.J. Ayer's, a famous atheist-philosopher, had a near death experience. He was talking to a friend of his (in French) and Ayer's said to him "you know it was strange, my thoughts became people?"
What is interesting about most negative NDE's is that if they last long enough they turn positive. The person calls out to the Light or God and the Light appears. This is what happened to Howard Storm. Howard Storm was a self avowed atheist, living in the Bible Belt, and more than likely had been exposed to a rather negative fundamentalist Christianity as a child, and he carried these memories with him. He rejected them in adulthood but buried deep in his memory or subconscious those memories remained. Now Storm thought of himself as a bad person. He said he was rude, selfish, demanding, arrogant, just an all around unpleasant person. Being an atheist I'm sure he was surprised when he found himself dead and still alive. I imagine what happened is that all those early memories from his childhood surfaced and finding himself still conscious even after his physical body was dead - he had a self fulfilling prophecy and he "conjured up" his own demons. He turned all his negativity, hate, jealousy, rage, resentment, disbelief, into demons - and he had to fight and overcome his own demons - before he allowed he called out to the Light - at which point the Light appeared and the demons disappeared.
I'm betting that if most negative NDE's lasted long enough they would soon turn positive. The duality we experience in this life doesn't exist in the next. The physics of Heaven is very different than this reality. It is some kind of strange quantum-holographic reality, a place where time and space don't really exist, and where our very thoughts will dictate what we experience. Whatever we focus our attention on, that is what we will experience. Mark H in his NDE description said he thought of a mountain and one appeared. Mark Horton (not the same person as Mark H)said he simply had to think of a time and place and he was there. Or as Jesus told some pharisees he was talking to, "Have I not told you, 'you are gods?"
Posted by: Art | July 21, 2010 at 07:51 PM
OT but worth attention - you guys see what's going on over at ScienceBlogs? So many of their bloggers are leaving or suspending blogging with them. PZ Myers has announced he is going on strike, Carl Zimmer has left them and he ain't the only one.
Even though ScienceBlogs is so orthodox and pro the status quo, and Myers is unpleasant, rude and a pseudoskeptic on the psi front, I find myself sympathetic to him and fellow ScienceBlog bloggers on this front.
This is all about the PepsiCo debacle, and the fact that the Pepsi company has been given their own 'nutrition science blog' over at ScienceBlogs which is owned by the Seed Media Group and has taken money from Pepsi so that Pepsi's own scientists can blog on uh nutrition and diet (yeah no kidding) at ScienceBlogs. This is not merely advertising that is acknowledged as such, this goes way beyond that. It is the most cynical kind of corporate sell of pseudoscience on the web.
Mark Chu-Carroll, a tech blogger at ScienceBlogs explains why he has gone on strike.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/07/seed_conflicts_of_interest_and.php
I never thought the day would come when I would give my support to the likes of PZ Myers, but there you go.
Posted by: Larry | July 21, 2010 at 11:58 PM
"You should have read what I said more carefully, MP."
Okay, point taken, Roger. I read your comment quickly and didn't interpret it correctly. Sorry about that.
"I never thought the day would come when I would give my support to the likes of PZ Myers, but there you go."
This inspires me to a burst of song! To the tune of "The Farmer and the Cowman Should be Friends" (from "Oklahoma"):
Oh, the woo-woos and the skeptics should be friends
Yeah, the woo-woos and the skeptics should be friends
The woo-woos channel ghosts and ghouls
The skeptics think that they are fools
But that's no reason why they can't be friends!
I'd like to say a word for the woo-woos
They came along and made a strong defense
They presented lotsa facts
With much subtlety and tact
- Even if they don't make any sense!
I'd like to say a word for the skeptics
The road they walk is difficult and grueling
They're lonely till the end
'Cause they seldom find a friend
- Except the folks they're capable of fooling!
I come out in support of the woo-woos
Their number includes many seers and sages
They will guide us on a road
That will lead us to our goal
- If we wanna live in the Dark Ages!
Let me speak my piece for the skeptics
They're rigorously logical and wise
They can explain away
Every strange anomaly
- It's easy when they won't open their eyes!
But the woo-woos and the skeptics should be friends
Yes, the woo-woos and the skeptics should be friends
The woo-woos say they'll never die
The skeptics shake their heads and sigh
But that's no reason why they can't be friends!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Great stuff!!
Especially love the "seers and sages".
Posted by: Ben | July 22, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Hey, MP, how about(for parallelism and rhyme):
"woo-woos and pooh-poohs"?
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 22, 2010 at 02:03 PM
sublime
Posted by: michael duggan | July 22, 2010 at 02:18 PM
This is rather off topic my father is in the hospital in critical condition he took a minor heart attack last night his heart function went from 30 percent to 20 percent. He has fluid around his lungs and heart and is hooked to an oxygen machine with a mask around his mouth. The doctor said the next time he takes a heart attack it will be a major one because his heart is so weak now.
Now, to ndes i strongly don't think it will be either a negative or positive result but an inconclusive result one where well the patient said he was floating around and said he saw that image but he could of open his eyes and saw it from his vantage point when the doctors and nurses weren't looking. All of the other 5 nde target experiments showed INCONCLUSIVE results!.
Posted by: Leo | July 22, 2010 at 02:45 PM
Leo, that was my first thought too, that the skeptics will be able to explain hits by saying patients somehow opened their eyes. I just altogether feel that this is something that can't be proven or disproven. BTW, my condolences for your father, hope all is well.
Posted by: Kathleen | July 22, 2010 at 03:30 PM
Leo, Hope your father gets better. My mother died a few weeks ago and I was with her to the end. I didn't see or feel anything out of the ordinary (other than extreme grief of course), but there was a definite transition in her physical countenance shortly after death that is difficult to explain on simple grounds.
Posted by: michael duggan | July 22, 2010 at 04:39 PM
I'm sorry to hear that your father isn't well, Leo.
"but he could of open his eyes and saw it from his vantage point when the doctors and nurses weren't looking."
No, the images are hidden in such a way that no one in the room can see them, whether or not their eyes are open.
Even the doctors and nurses don't know what the images are.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 22, 2010 at 05:40 PM
"Oh, the woo-woos and the skeptics should be friends"
I love your song, Michael! You've managed to offend both sides with equal hilarity.
I was in a production of Oklahoma in high school (more than a few years ago) and your lyrics bring back sweet memories. In particular, the first time I ever kissed a girl was in one of the rehearsals. Aaah—that was nice!
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 22, 2010 at 07:40 PM
For those of you who may have missed the Oklahoma connection in my last post, Michael's lyrics were to the tune of a song from that musical show.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 22, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Leo, my thoughts are with you. I hope all is well.
Posted by: Sandy | July 22, 2010 at 08:15 PM
getting back to the AWARE study, listen to the latest Skeptico podcast (as somebody alerts us to above) where Alex Tsakiris looks beneath the surface, and does not like what he sees..it is a study doomed to fail (in fact that is what Tsakiris titles his podcast) and Sam Parnia is indeed slanting the whole study that way, and I have to say after hearing what Tsakiris says, and looking at what Parnia himself says, I agree with Tsakiris - this study has set-up to fail written all over it.
Posted by: Larry | July 22, 2010 at 11:11 PM
I read the Skeptiko piece, and also the comments in the thread that follows. Some of the commenters were very critical of Alex Tsakiris' position and felt that Sam Parnia was being unfairly maligned. They also pointed out that some undoubtedly pro-NDE people are participating in the AWARE study.
To me, the most interesting point that Alex raised was whether the images had been positioned in such a way that no one (discarnate or not) would be likely to see them. Unfortunately I don't know the answer to this, because I don't know exactly where the images will be placed, how close to the ceiling they will be, etc. I'm not sure this information is available anywhere; details of the study seem hard to come by.
If there is some serious flaw in the methodology, then of course the results will not prove anything. I would assume that such a large study, involving 25 medical facilities around the world, would not be ineptly designed.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 23, 2010 at 01:40 AM
You know there is one big, big advantage to being a Survivalist in these endless debates- the Skeptics only have 50 years or so to win their argument.
We have until the end of freakin' time.
So, hey, we can afford to be patient. Let's not convince them all now- hell no. It's more fun to stretch this thing out for a couple billion years. Plus, we can sneak around and scare them in the afterlife- in a playful way- imagine your one of those guys fresh dead wondering what the hell........... and here comes Michael Prescott, just to rub it all it a little! Ha ha! They'll have all of forever to realize how wrong they were!
This is going to be sweet.
Posted by: Tharpa | July 23, 2010 at 07:31 AM
"To me, the most interesting point that Alex raised was whether the images had been positioned in such a way that no one (discarnate or not) would be likely to see them... Unfortunately I don't know the answer to this, because I don't know exactly where the images will be placed, how close to the ceiling they will be, etc. I'm not sure this information is available anywhere; details of the study seem hard to come by." -MP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7621608.stm says high shelves only visible from the ceiling.
I was reading a book by Sam Parnia about his time at Southampton hospital in a bookshop about a year ago, and as I recall, he was aware of the danger of reflections from windows or clocks etc. It’s well-thought out.
Posted by: Ben | July 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM
The Big Three
1. Psi Phenomena
- Thousands of experiments with strong replications of weak positive psi effects.
2. Life after death
- Cross Correspondences
- Newspaper and book tests
- Accurate Verdical out of body accounts with strong corroboration
- Apparitions and crisis apparitions
etc..........
3. Cosmic Consciousness(GOD)
- Fine tuning evidence
-Order in the universe
Posted by: Leo | July 23, 2010 at 01:43 PM
Tharpa, best post ever
Posted by: Cyrus | July 23, 2010 at 05:37 PM