Parapsychology Experiment
Fiona
educated guess? I am currently conducting a study at the University of
Edinburgh over the WWW to test this hypothesis.
Participants will be asked to try to imagine what picture will be shown to
them over the WWW at a later date to see if, overall, participants guess
the correct picture more often than would be expected by chance.
If you would like to be a participant in this experiment, you should email
me at fi...@moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk with an account of a premonition that you
have had at some point in your life and that you feel you can't explain
via the normal five senses or as an educated guess. I will then send you
full details of the experiment.
I look forward to receiving your replies.
Fiona.
----------
Dr Fiona Steinkamp
Dept of Psychology
The University of Edinburgh
7 George Square
EDINBURGH
EH8 9JZ
UK
Uncle Al
>
> Can people foresee future events without using the normal five sense or an
> educated guess?
No. Zero content. Talk with James Randi.
The future doesn't exist, either as a construct (Copenhagen
Convention) or as a path through established alternatives (Many Worlds
Hypothesis). Physical reality makes it up as it goes along.
> I am currently conducting a study at the University of
> Edinburgh over the WWW to test this hypothesis.
You are a bunko artist.
Where were Lady's Diana's stable of expensive psychics, fortune
tellers, and astrologers when they were struck unemployed by her
death? Where were the soothsayers just prior to 11 September 2001?
Do they play the horses, the stock market, lotteries...? Where is the
beef? No cat, no cradle. Nothign but bullshit.
> Participants will be asked to try to imagine what picture will be shown to
> them over the WWW at a later date to see if, overall, participants guess
> the correct picture more often than would be expected by chance.
Pathetic. Is the experiment at least double-blind? Have you already
chosen the pictures? Does the picture chooser have access to the
guess list?
Pathetic and corrupt. Read up on "Clever Hans."
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
piet Jansen
--
Darn! an evil hen.
Fiona <fi...@moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
9u5iiq$5hr$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
Charles Gregory
: > Can people foresee future events without using the normal five sense or an
: > educated guess?
: No. Zero content. Talk with James Randi.
What James Randi demonstrates adequately is that no one has any "power" to
deliberately and willfully see the future. His efforts do not disprove the
existence of the rare natural phenomenon of people inexplicably obtaining
extraordinary knowledge of future events. A research project that intends
to measure a percentage of successes in a large sample may actually have
some credible results (though not necessarily useful in furthering
understanding of the mechanisms involved).
Randi keeps the frauds and charlatans from trying to sell you your future
on a platter. He does a good job. But too many people read this with the
sort of logic that says rain does not exist because your old fashioned
travelling 'rainmaker' was known to be a con artist.
: The future doesn't exist, either as a construct (Copenhagen
: Convention) or as a path through established alternatives (Many Worlds
: Hypothesis). Physical reality makes it up as it goes along.
Hardly. Each action has a consequence. Whether or not we view the future
as something 'separate' to be touched or viewed, it can be *calculated*,
and there is no doubting that the brain possesses some remarkable
computational powers. Let's not just rule anything out right yet.
: > I am currently conducting a study at the University of
: > Edinburgh over the WWW to test this hypothesis.
: You are a bunko artist.
Actually, the U. of E. has a very credible and scholarly parapsychology
department. Maybe they are chasing rainbows, but at least they are doing
so in a proper scientific manner.
: Where were the soothsayers just prior to 11 September 2001?
I mentioned this before - a news item about a man who normally waved
goodbye to his brother every morning, but on the 11th, he gave his brother
a big long hug, almost as if some part of him knew that day would be
different. Just because the frauds who claim "powers" were (naturally)
dead wrong, does not mean that *nothing* happened.....
: Pathetic. Is the experiment at least double-blind? Have you already
: chosen the pictures? Does the picture chooser have access to the
: guess list?
Good questions. Why not leave off the judgement until she replies, and
tells you whether proper controls are in place?
: Pathetic and corrupt. Read up on "Clever Hans."
Read up on manners.
Tien Yen
Nicely stated
Corey
and Dames have challenged Randy on the air but Randy chickened out. Randy
doesn't really have the million dollars as I predicted months ago. Not that
I'm very impressed with Ed's predictions (God damn safety deposit box full
of worthless gold)! This should piss off some of the Randy worshipers in
this group heh heh.
Some OB'ers claim to be able to retrieve information from their
surroundings. Cards up on a ledge for example. I believe them because I have
had a few short OBE' S so I no its for real. I've even managed to get too
the card I had on a ledge but unfortunately it was to dark to see. When your
having an OB you have to be very careful to see just what is actually there
or you will see what you imagine. Its like walking a tight rope.
"Fiona" <fi...@moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9u5iiq$5hr$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
Happy Dog
> Actually, the U. of E. has a very credible and scholarly parapsychology
> department. Maybe they are chasing rainbows, but at least they are doing
> so in a proper scientific manner.
But they have yet to discover how to reproduce any experiment that reveals
the existence of the paranormal.
erf
Happy Dog
> I think you are looking for a remote viewer like Major Ed Dames. Art Bell
> and Dames have challenged Randy on the air but Randy chickened out. Randy
> doesn't really have the million dollars as I predicted months ago. Not
that
> I'm very impressed with Ed's predictions (God damn safety deposit box full
> of worthless gold)! This should piss off some of the Randy worshipers in
> this group heh heh.
Not really. I've heard this lie so many times that it doesn't bother me any
more. Where did you register your "prediction"?
erf
Carole
Happy Dog <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9_HN7.18881$Ju6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Look at life ...what do we know about it? ...Not much!!
What is the meaning of life?
What do we know about time and space? Absolutely nothing!!
What existed before time began?
What is at the edge of the universe?
The paranormal? Give me a break.
We don't even understand the "normal".
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
>
Charles Gregory
: > Actually, the U. of E. has a very credible and scholarly parapsychology
: > department. Maybe they are chasing rainbows, but at least they are doing
: > so in a proper scientific manner.
: But they have yet to discover how to reproduce any experiment that reveals
: the existence of the paranormal.
Setting aside the point that some research institutions claim to have
actually done so, I would simply point out that experiments are not
designed to 'reveal the existence' of something, but to reveal whether it
can exist under specific conditions. With the marked lack of understanding
that we have for things 'paranormal', it is hardly surprising that science
has not yet discovered the correct set of conditions to reproduce the
phenomena with any greater frequency that the rare occurences that arise
on their own. Though interestingly enough, certain relationships have been
observed between the mindset/attitude of the test subjects and their
results. One might argue that this is a 'positive' result, but for me it
has all the scientific value of noticing that people get hit by lightning
on golf courses with slightly greater frequency than other locations.
Happy Dog
> : But they have yet to discover how to reproduce any experiment that
reveals
> : the existence of the paranormal.
>
> Setting aside the point that some research institutions claim to have
> actually done so, I would simply point out that experiments are not
> designed to 'reveal the existence' of something, but to reveal whether it
> can exist under specific conditions. With the marked lack of understanding
> that we have for things 'paranormal', it is hardly surprising that science
> has not yet discovered the correct set of conditions to reproduce the
> phenomena with any greater frequency that the rare occurences that arise
> on their own. Though interestingly enough, certain relationships have been
> observed between the mindset/attitude of the test subjects and their
> results. One might argue that this is a 'positive' result, but for me it
> has all the scientific value of noticing that people get hit by lightning
> on golf courses with slightly greater frequency than other locations.
But, just like with your analogy, there are possible prosaic explanations
for almost every paranormal event observed. After centuries of trying to
find a consistently reproducible effect, nada. The only thing constant is
people's hope that there is something there. Not unreasonable at all. But,
still yet, hope is all we got.
erf
Janice
> > : Where were the soothsayers just prior to 11 September 2001?
> >
> > I mentioned this before - a news item about a man who normally waved
> > goodbye to his brother every morning, but on the 11th, he gave his brother
> > a big long hug, almost as if some part of him knew that day would be
> > different. Just because the frauds who claim "powers" were (naturally)
> > dead wrong, does not mean that *nothing* happened.....
On the morning of September 11 I had the strange thought that I might be
saying goodbye to my husband for the last time, that he might be in a car
accident. Turned out I was dead wrong. But how many such false
premonitions are ever collected and reported for contrast?
--
Well, I know my banana is older than the rest.--Paul McCartney
My homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html
The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html
Charles Gregory
: But, just like with your analogy, there are possible prosaic explanations
: for almost every paranormal event observed.
Not really. This statement is true more for the average 'believer' who
tries to turn one of life's many coincidences into a 'paranormal event',
when it really has no qualities that cannot be explained by unusual (but
normal) mechanisms. When I speak of paranormal events, I refer to outright
'impossibilities' - a child dreaming of a car crash in great detail and
being proven right mere hours later.
: After centuries of trying to find a consistently reproducible effect,
: nada.
Give it time. We still don't *really* 'make' lightning, but we have
learned the specific conditions under which we can trigger it and make it
strike our experimental apparatus. Hopefully we will sometime soon make
the same advance in learning to 'trigger' paranormal events. Indeed, some
claim to have already done so. But they offer no real insight.
: The only thing constant is people's hope that there is something there.
AND the reports of precognition with unquestionable accuracy. Notice i do
not say 'unquestionable reports'. One should always test for falsehood in
situations like this. But where I have had the chance to observe the
predictions and results first-hand I have seen some startling
coincidences, far beyond anything that I could reasonably expect as a
'guess' or 'blind luck'.
Corey
according to Art Bell and Ed Dames over the air. Then Art Bell said Randy!
bawk bawk bawk!
I registered my prediction on this news group 6-12 months ago. I didn't use
any ESP, just a little common sense. A prediction to me is something like -
the twin towers in New York are going down tomorrow. Predictions of the
future are rarely clear cut or reliable.
>
Happy Dog
> > Not really. I've heard this lie so many times that it doesn't bother me
> any more. Where did you register your "prediction"?
> >
game",
That isn't an excuse. They tried to change the rules to suit their liking.
Randi's money, Randi's rules. Do you have a problem with them? It's a long
used tactic of cranks to try to change the rules and then say that Randi ran
away because he wouldn't agree to their terms.
> according to Art Bell and Ed Dames over the air. Then Art Bell said
Randy!
> bawk bawk bawk!
>
> I registered my prediction on this news group 6-12 months ago. I didn't
use
> any ESP, just a little common sense.
Then it's not a paranormal event. So why mention it?
erf
Happy Dog
> Happy Dog (happ...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> : But, just like with your analogy, there are possible prosaic
explanations
> : for almost every paranormal event observed.
>
> Not really. This statement is true more for the average 'believer' who
> tries to turn one of life's many coincidences into a 'paranormal event',
> when it really has no qualities that cannot be explained by unusual (but
> normal) mechanisms. When I speak of paranormal events, I refer to outright
> 'impossibilities' - a child dreaming of a car crash in great detail and
> being proven right mere hours later.
This happens by coincidence alone on a frequent basis. Unless you can prove
that it regularly happens more often than it should by coincidence alone, it
isn't much help for the paranormal cause.
>
> : After centuries of trying to find a consistently reproducible effect,
> : nada.
>
> Give it time. We still don't *really* 'make' lightning, but we have
> learned the specific conditions under which we can trigger it and make it
> strike our experimental apparatus. Hopefully we will sometime soon make
> the same advance in learning to 'trigger' paranormal events. Indeed, some
> claim to have already done so. But they offer no real insight.
They offer no real proof. It's the same stuff that's been observed for
millenia and called a variety of different names. And, still, the best
explanation lies in the peculiarities of the human mind.
>
> : The only thing constant is people's hope that there is something there.
>
> AND the reports of precognition with unquestionable accuracy. Notice i do
> not say 'unquestionable reports'. One should always test for falsehood in
> situations like this. But where I have had the chance to observe the
> predictions and results first-hand I have seen some startling
> coincidences, far beyond anything that I could reasonably expect as a
> 'guess' or 'blind luck'.
I've seen magicians do this as well. I've seen people misread the evidence
and come to the conclusion that they've witnessed the real thing. Maybe
somebody has. It would be nice. But there isn't any reproducible evidence
that can be examined to an extent that prosaic explanations can be ruled
out.
erf
Charles Gregory
: > ........When I speak of paranormal events, I refer to outright
: > 'impossibilities' - a child dreaming of a car crash in great detail and
: > being proven right mere hours later.
: This happens by coincidence alone on a frequent basis.
Sorry, I just got finished saying that it *doesn't*. Your statement
attempts to include the many cases where a kid wakes up and says
"something awful happened to Grandma" and then they find out that Grandma
had an accident, in which case, yes, coincidence is an adequate theory.
But when a child describes a road they've never seen in detail, the
position of a car that went off that road, it's make and model, the people
who were in it, whom she had never seen, and so on, then the details pass
beyond the range of any ordinary 'guess' or even the most bizarre
coincidence. The only argument to make against reports like these is to
question the *truth* of the report - whether it was mangled by willing
believers with added detail. And sooner or later when you get the report
directly from the person who experienced the event, or experience it
yourself, you can rule out that possibility, and make a very good
judgement of whether 'coincidence' is a reasonable explanation.
: Unless you can prove that it regularly happens more often than it
: should by coincidence alone, it isn't much help for the paranormal
: cause.
Actually, statistical stuff is a good way to do research - it's more
likely to be repeatable. But the cases I speak of are of the type where
a single case on its own exceeds any rational expectation for a random or
coincidental event.
: > But where I have had the chance to observe the
: > predictions and results first-hand I have seen some startling
: > coincidences, far beyond anything that I could reasonably expect as a
: > 'guess' or 'blind luck'.
: I've seen magicians do this as well.
No, you've seen magicians *fake* it, and there is always a way to explain
the fakery. This is a reason I do'nt try to argue about 'remote viewing'.
There is always a way to 'fake' the 'psychic power'. Only in cases where a
person has no control over a future event but nonetheless makes discrete
predictions regarding that event, do we have something 'real' that we know
a magician cannot do.
A magician will always find a way to either hide his prediction until
after the real event (so that he can plant the prediction) or he will make
a prediction about an event that he can actually control, even though it
may seem 'impossible' for him to do these things. That is what makes for a
good magic act. :-)
: I've seen people misread the evidence and come to the conclusion that
: they've witnessed the real thing.
Yes, *I* have. Everyone has. If nothing else, once you have seen the "real
thing" (tm), there is that ambiguity in subsequent events where you try to
weigh whether the event was another paranormal event or just a weird
coincidence that time.
: Maybe somebody has. It would be nice.
Well, I have. And yes, it is "nice" when for some strange reason it just
works and you "know" something in time to take action and make your life,
or that of a close friend, better.
: But there isn't any reproducible evidence that can be examined to an
: extent that prosaic explanations can be ruled out.
Strictly speaking, this will be true for a very long time. Consider this:
I have in my possession an object that was broken by 'psychokinetic'
power. But it is just a broken object. The breakage is consistent with
having just smashed it in an ordinary fashion. You need to have witnessed
the event that caused the breakage, and trust the witnesses report, for it
to really be 'evidence' for anything. Thus it will be a long time before
we have any 'evidence' for the paranormal. Not because it is not being
gathered, but because it is not being trusted.
And I can't fault the people who distrust that evidence because of the
wide range of quacks and fakes. just way to many to be trusting.
I will bide my time, hope for some insight from my personal experiences,
and hope that someday some (more) physicists take an interest and
constriuct credible experiments to detect the mechanisms that cuase these
phenomena.
Bronia
I actually believe that some people can *see* future events but I do
not think that an experiment as you conceive it will confirm this or
otherwise.
The problem here is that in your experiment you can only convey a
picture of something, not the actual event. Also I believe the event
must be rather a *strong*, a *salient* one to be percieved by ESP.
I was once foretold a few salient events in my life by a gypsy woman I
met at high noon in Los Christianos some15 years ago. She did not want
any money for this. She said that there was something unusual about me
and virtually begged me to *read my hand*. Right there on the
pavement. She did not read it though. She held it in a very stange way
and stared ahead.
She told me I should be going on a long journey in an immediate
future. She was specific about that it was not my return flight to the
UK, nor my planned subsequent trip to Germany. It would be much
further. On my return to the UK, one of the first things my boss asked
me to do was to fly with him to Columbus, Ohio. Completely out of the
blue.
The second thing was that I should meet a pretty lady who would love
me very much, very, very much. Well ,I was meeting pretty ladies all
the time but none of them was really in love with me. So I tested her
on details. How old she would be. Forty, she replied. Then paused and
said. More like forty one. Well, I met the lady about a year later and
indeed, I had never been so totally loved before. The lady became my
wife some five years later. The strange thing about this was that the
forecast took place on a pavement in front of the house where my wife
moved to live about a year later. And yes, she was 41 when I met her.
The gypsy even accounted for the additional year between the day of
the forecast and the day I met my wife some 100km away from the place.
There were other events forecast but I would prefer not to go into
details.
The second case also relates to a forecast by a gypsy women. That
happened in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. She forecast my wife to be that
her son would have a serious accident next week. My wife asked: which
one?The gypsy replied: the middle one. And that a motocycle will be
involved (although the son did not own nor did he drive a
motocycle).The next week a heavy motobike fell on that boy from a
considerable height He fought for his life two weeks in intensive
care. BTW the son lived some 150km away on another island.
In both of those cases the personal contact between the gypsy and the
*client* seemed to be important. In fact in my particular case I felt
as if my future had already happened and that the gypsy was actually
*seeing* the events.
I have written these experiences here as , out of respect to my
wife´s feelings, I do not enter in e-mail contact with women. So
please do not email me.
Saludos, Bronia.
....
Happy Dog
> But when a child describes a road they've never seen in detail, the
> position of a car that went off that road, it's make and model, the people
> who were in it, whom she had never seen, and so on, then the details pass
> beyond the range of any ordinary 'guess' or even the most bizarre
> coincidence. The only argument to make against reports like these is to
> question the *truth* of the report - whether it was mangled by willing
> believers with added detail. And sooner or later when you get the report
> directly from the person who experienced the event, or experience it
> yourself, you can rule out that possibility, and make a very good
> judgement of whether 'coincidence' is a reasonable explanation.
I agree that this wouldn't be coincidence. However, the evidence that this
actually occurs is almost non existent. Lots of anecdote but almost no real
proof.
> : > But where I have had the chance to observe the
> : > predictions and results first-hand I have seen some startling
> : > coincidences, far beyond anything that I could reasonably expect as a
> : > 'guess' or 'blind luck'.
>
> : I've seen magicians do this as well.
>
> No, you've seen magicians *fake* it, and there is always a way to explain
> the fakery.
Actually not, as any good magician will tell you. It is, often, impossible
to tell how a trick was done.
> A magician will always find a way to either hide his prediction until
> after the real event (so that he can plant the prediction) or he will make
> a prediction about an event that he can actually control,
Correct. And, again, the evidence that anyone claiming to be the real thing
just isn't very good.
> : I've seen people misread the evidence and come to the conclusion that
> : they've witnessed the real thing.
>
> Yes, *I* have. Everyone has. If nothing else, once you have seen the "real
> thing" (tm), there is that ambiguity in subsequent events where you try to
> weigh whether the event was another paranormal event or just a weird
> coincidence that time.
>
> : Maybe somebody has. It would be nice.
>
> Well, I have. And yes, it is "nice" when for some strange reason it just
> works and you "know" something in time to take action and make your life,
> or that of a close friend, better.
I'm afraid that you'll have to have a bit more evidence than that.
>
> : But there isn't any reproducible evidence that can be examined to an
> : extent that prosaic explanations can be ruled out.
>
> Strictly speaking, this will be true for a very long time. Consider this:
> I have in my possession an object that was broken by 'psychokinetic'
> power. But it is just a broken object. The breakage is consistent with
> having just smashed it in an ordinary fashion. You need to have witnessed
> the event that caused the breakage, and trust the witnesses report, for it
> to really be 'evidence' for anything. Thus it will be a long time before
> we have any 'evidence' for the paranormal. Not because it is not being
> gathered, but because it is not being trusted.
No fantastic claim should be "trusted". And the reason that evidence of the
paranormal is near the top of the untrustworthy heap is its rich history of
poor results and con artists. Something like psychokinesis could be proved
in a heartbeat if somebody could do it under strictly controlled condidions.
It has nothing to do with trust.
erf
John McDonnell
Years ago I went on my lunch hour to a "tea room", a small storefront
enterprise in the downtown area of the city where I worked. I was in
my early 20s and did it as a lark with some girls from the office
where I worked. We all had lunch there and then got our leaves read.
It's been so long that I don't remember much about the experience.
There was no immediate flash of recognition, no dazzling revelations
about my life. However, what's strange is that I wrote about the
lady's predictions in a diary I kept at the time. Several years ago,
25 years after the fact, I found the diary and read her predictions.
She was right about several major things that happened in my life. For
instance, she said that the states of New Jersey, Florida, and
Michigan would figure prominently in my life. I have lived in two of
those states and visited the other extensively. It all happened years
after the time I got my leaves read. She also predicted that I would
get married, and how many children I would have, and was right about
those items. There were other details I don't want to reveal, but it
was amazing to me that she got so many things right about my later
life.
>....
John McDonnell
100 Best Sites for Research (http://www.reallyusefulsites.org/)
For Customer Service Ideas (http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/6100/cs.htm)
Happy Dog
> I had an interesting experience with someone predicting my future.
> Years ago I went on my lunch hour to a "tea room", a small storefront
> enterprise in the downtown area of the city where I worked. I was in
> my early 20s and did it as a lark with some girls from the office
> where I worked. We all had lunch there and then got our leaves read.
> It's been so long that I don't remember much about the experience.
> There was no immediate flash of recognition, no dazzling revelations
> about my life. However, what's strange is that I wrote about the
> lady's predictions in a diary I kept at the time. Several years ago,
> 25 years after the fact, I found the diary and read her predictions.
> She was right about several major things that happened in my life. For
> instance, she said that the states of New Jersey, Florida, and
> Michigan would figure prominently in my life. I have lived in two of
> those states and visited the other extensively. It all happened years
> after the time I got my leaves read. She also predicted that I would
> get married, and how many children I would have, and was right about
> those items. There were other details I don't want to reveal, but it
> was amazing to me that she got so many things right about my later
> life.
How many things did she get wrong? Can you prove that you wrote your diary
25 years ago? If you can, I'd take it to a credible parapsychological
investigator.
arf
|-|erc
Happy Dog wrote in message ...
>How many things did she get wrong? Can you prove that you wrote your diary
>25 years ago? If you can, I'd take it to a credible parapsychological
>investigator.
>arf
>
It wouldn't prove anything, the states and number of children could
have been subconsciously embedded so he did those things.
I applied to be tested by the Randi Org that offers a million
dollars for proof, alas received no reply.
Herc
Happy Dog
> >How many things did she get wrong? Can you prove that you wrote your
diary
> >25 years ago? If you can, I'd take it to a credible parapsychological
> >investigator.
>
> have been subconsciously embedded so he did those things.
Possible. But unlikely. It would be more than interesting if he could
prove the authenticity of the diary.
> I applied to be tested by the Randi Org that offers a million
> dollars for proof, alas received no reply.
Tested for what? Did you send a notarized application (like the rules
require)?
erf
|-|erc
Yeah you don't know how embarresing it is getting a JP to go over
the application, held my hand up to swear truth and all.
Pretty sure they got it because they replied by email to a query
but after the mailed application they wouldn't even do that.
Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
Man my life was so simple when I was an atheist. Basically I can
interact with the world which I think is sentient. My proposed test
was to say aloud a question, flick on a tv to a random channel
to see it answered. I can do it with number plates, opening
a book to random page, sign adds, any symbol, it goes on
and on. Usually I just think it but I tested it with voice ok. I even
'asked the tv' can I demonstrate it in public - 'ofcoarse'.
My * ** *** post has a few examples though I blurred the
examples for a different claim that it is coordinate by the media.
For a year it was just symbolic cues, birds flying in a tick formation,
opening a book to an angel holding a baby, opening a book
to "Michael knew he was omnipotent",
forgotten, then actors and singers samples came into perfect
context, for about a year, then only a few days ago I had a
full half hour conversation, just thinking questions and scrolling
through 30 pages of horse race results, looking at the name
of the first horse. bizzare. I thought about copying all the names
and seeing how much of my questions I could recall but never
bothered, I might have a look.
Herc
uh this is a cross post, I'll paste the examples.
Before you make any rash judgement on my psychological state I
assure you I am merely open minded...
what's the probability of coincidence : I stand in front of
the tv and say aloud 'is there a camera mounted in the tv?',
I flick onto an SBS movie and the immediate voice 'yeah and
they're spying on you'. you've known me a long time, this
is no bull. not every time, maybe a third, or once a day
I get perfect context answer, should be 1 in a hundred, don't
have the file I wrote with a dozen matches. after i have sex
the tv shows applause :P watching news with my head on a
45 degree angle and they show a motorcycle cam on a 45
degree slope aligned with me. i post in a newsgroup the
word 'Aussie' and the first time in five years that day there's
3 commercials 'aussie, aussie', 'go aussie'. Fight with
me mudder, commercial 'atlast someone understands'. they
like flashing blondes just as i look, or as i sit to eat
'is that for me'. Write in the pretender newsgroup, flick
onto becker - picture of a kid in a leather jacket and the
cafe lady says 'I really like you Jarod but we can only
be friends'. Tried to demonstrate it on the internet,
a guy gives me a question, flick on the tv and get
'he's looking for a way' - pricks. I ask 'who are you?',
no answer but a groovy xmen cartoon keeps me tuned, it finishes
With your allowance we will guide your development
We are the X-Men
Happy Dog
> >> dollars for proof, alas received no reply.
> >
> >Tested for what? Did you send a notarized application (like the rules
> >require)?
>
Happy Dog
> >> dollars for proof, alas received no reply.
> >
> >Tested for what? Did you send a notarized application (like the rules
> >require)?
> >erf
> >
>
> Yeah you don't know how embarresing it is getting a JP to go over
> the application, held my hand up to swear truth and all.
> Pretty sure they got it because they replied by email to a query
> but after the mailed application they wouldn't even do that.
> Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
> local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
I find this very surprising. I have yet to see them stonewall an applicant
unless they become abusive. (Only a very few have.) What, exactly, did you
propose as a test? I read the overview of your claim but I don't know how
you propose to test it and what will constitute a pass or failure.
arf
PS I don't know what NG you're posting from but, if it isn't
misc.health.alternative, please snip it as this is off topic there.
George Black
>
> Happy Dog
> >"|-|erc" <he...@c-h-e-s-s.com> wrote in message
> >> >How many things did she get wrong? Can you prove that you wrote your
> >diary
> >> >25 years ago? If you can, I'd take it to a credible parapsychological
> >> >investigator.
> >>
> >> It wouldn't prove anything, the states and number of children could
> >> have been subconsciously embedded so he did those things.
> >
> >Possible. But unlikely. It would be more than interesting if he could
> >prove the authenticity of the diary.
> >
> >> I applied to be tested by the Randi Org that offers a million
> >> dollars for proof, alas received no reply.
> >
> >Tested for what? Did you send a notarized application (like the rules
> >require)?
> >erf
> >
>
> Yeah you don't know how embarresing it is getting a JP to go over
> the application, held my hand up to swear truth and all.
> Pretty sure they got it because they replied by email to a query
> but after the mailed application they wouldn't even do that.
> Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
> local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
rubbish bagged.
It must be embarrasing to try this sort of bullshit in front of a JP
especially as we have notary publics in both NZ and Australia.
Its just another kook!
|-|erc
Happy Dog
>I find this very surprising. I have yet to see them stonewall an applicant
>unless they become abusive. (Only a very few have.) What, exactly, did
you
>propose as a test? I read the overview of your claim but I don't know how
>you propose to test it and what will constitute a pass or failure.
>arf
I don't have the file, it did involve some judgement, I proposed a measure
of 'in context' applied to a tv response once per day until it was
statistically sufficient, on either my own questions or from a selection.
Its not a perfect procedure. It *often* works, like 100 times more often
than a random response should. Usually I tell it to f off, so today for
instance I see a Berocca add on a bus, I think 'do I need vitamin C
my next stimulus will answer' and the next car is an orange taxi :)
thanks for your interest.
Herc
|-|erc
please do go on
Louis Ruiz
patterns in your energy field. If she worked for you that is what
matters.did you learn alot about the experience?
"John McDonnell" <jay...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0d5hr$513$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Peter Bowditch
>Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
>local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
No problem being in Australia, Herc.
The Australian Skeptics have their own prize (it's only $100,000, but
it's still worth winning).
The rules are simple:
1) Tell us what you are going to do.
2) Tell us the conditions under which you can do it. For example, if
it only works on Fridays in rooms with red flock wallpaper we will
book a suite at Madame Heloise's House of Happiness (I have a frequent
flocker card).
3) Do it.
4) Bank the cheque (note Australian spelling).
As I am on the committee, I will not be eligible for the $20,000
spotter's fee for introducing you (although it would come in mighty
handy) so you will be able to keep the whole $100,000 for yourself.
Details at http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/chalenge.htm
We don't have a committee meeting in January, but if you can get the
stuff to us by 13 February you should be able to get that new Lexus in
March.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
|-|erc
>"|-|erc" <he...@c-h-e-s-s.com> wrote:
>
>>Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
>>local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
>
>No problem being in Australia, Herc.
>
>The Australian Skeptics have their own prize (it's only $100,000, but
>it's still worth winning).
>
>The rules are simple:
>
>1) Tell us what you are going to do.
>
>2) Tell us the conditions under which you can do it. For example, if
>it only works on Fridays in rooms with red flock wallpaper we will
>book a suite at Madame Heloise's House of Happiness (I have a frequent
>flocker card).
>
>3) Do it.
>
>4) Bank the cheque (note Australian spelling).
>
>As I am on the committee, I will not be eligible for the $20,000
>spotter's fee for introducing you (although it would come in mighty
>handy) so you will be able to keep the whole $100,000 for yourself.
>
>Details at http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/chalenge.htm
>
>We don't have a committee meeting in January, but if you can get the
>stuff to us by 13 February you should be able to get that new Lexus in
>March.
>
cheers, i guess 5% of the Randi prize will do for a deposit.
Herc
|-|erc
the first post:
wanna make a few bucks
:D :D :D :D
George Black
Why, do you need reinforcement?
Happy Dog
> btw, i just thought 'am i gonna win', flicked to alt.tv.x-files to
> the first post:
Please tell us exactly what you are going to do to win. This is the second
time of asking.
arf
Happy Dog
applicant
> >unless they become abusive. (Only a very few have.) What, exactly, did
> you
> >propose as a test? I read the overview of your claim but I don't know
how
> >you propose to test it and what will constitute a pass or failure.
>
What, you lost it? And then forgot what you proposed?
> it did involve some judgement, I proposed a measure
> of 'in context' applied to a tv response once per day until it was
> statistically sufficient,
Can you describe EXACTLY what you propose? What will constitute a win or
failure?
arf
|-|erc
I dig how these people's names fit my by name by nature theory
Black is black, Spot the Dog.
I'll be proving the existence of God, a defining moment of history.
I don't know exactly, it will have to be a long sequence of partial
tests involving an analysis of the responses, might try tv, horse
names and opening books because for each of these the sample
text is diverse. Or we could wait for a thunder storm when I'm
in a bad mood and listen to it in sequence with my moans!!
There would have to be an agreed confidence - statistically proven
vs absolute proof, if 10 out of 20 arrows hit a target 50 yards
away you can say there is less than 0.01% chance that the
arrows were not aimed.
Herc
can't chat all day, I've got a beard to grow.
Corey
woman had no brain waves, blood flow or heart beat for an hour but was
having a near
death OB. While going through a serious operation. All documented, she was
a recent guest
on Art Bell on Dec. 6 2001. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html heh
heh!
What do the skeptics have to say.
I
George Black
brain surgery for only an hour.
Gotta be the fastest surgeon around!
And on Art Bell. Well of course he is an impecable scource. Not
Corey
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3C2BF1B2...@ihug.co.nz...
The burden of proof is on you if your trying to deny the operation happened.
This is a well documented impeccable case. Next!
Peter Bowditch
>> Here is concrete proof that the brain is just a tool of the conscious. This
>> woman had no brain waves, blood flow or heart beat for an hour but was
>> having a near
>> death OB. While going through a serious operation. All documented, she was
>> a recent guest
>> on Art Bell on Dec. 6 2001. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html heh
>> heh!
>>
>> What do the skeptics have to say.
>Wow. You mean to say that some-one was undergoing coronary surgery or
>brain surgery for only an hour.
>Gotta be the fastest surgeon around!
>
>And on Art Bell. Well of course he is an impecable scource. Not
No. What he is saying is that someone appeared on Art Bell while being
brain-dead. That sounds a lot more likely to me.
George Black
>
> George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> Here is concrete proof that the brain is just a tool of the conscious. This
> >> woman had no brain waves, blood flow or heart beat for an hour but was
> >> having a near
> >> death OB. While going through a serious operation. All documented, she was
> >> a recent guest
> >> on Art Bell on Dec. 6 2001. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html heh
> >> heh!
> >>
> >> What do the skeptics have to say.
> >Wow. You mean to say that some-one was undergoing coronary surgery or
> >brain surgery for only an hour.
> >Gotta be the fastest surgeon around!
> >
> >And on Art Bell. Well of course he is an impecable scource. Not
>
> No. What he is saying is that someone appeared on Art Bell while being
> brain-dead. That sounds a lot more likely to me.
George Black
So Where's the evidence?
We have an operation taking place.
And its on the blather (the 'recollections' of the patient) that this
claim is made and looks pretty much like a cold reading by the claimant
|-|erc
I'm afraid Corey the onus is on you. Media fudges
information all the time, major networks may spend
months leading up to a single slip, they get a
kick out of it.
Neurons quickly die without oxygen, try exhaling and
holding your breath 20 seconds. There are some cases
reported of several hours without blood flow at low
temperatures. Recently we have found that neurons
can repair, an amiable trait.
Herc
Ian H Spedding
weir...@earthlink.net says...
People are *assuming* that the OBE happened while she was undergoing
the procedure. How do we know? How do we know that the OBE didn't
occur either during the period when the patient was being "prepped"
for surgery or during the period when she was recovering from it?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
An optimist is someone who thinks the future is uncertain.
Corey
"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.169654436...@news.lineone.net...
For one thing, when they do the operation the doctors are careful not to let
the patient see the instruments that will be used. She watched the operation
and later described the tools and procedures used by the doctors.
pz
"Corey" <weir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Those tools and procedures are *not* secret, you know. They may not
wave a scalpel in front of the patient's face before the op, but
everyone knows what a scalpel looks like. Nowadays, too, you can tune in
to the Learning Channel and watch operations in progress.
--
pz
Corey
"pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:pzm-F99624.1...@news.onvoy.com...
I don't know about you but if I had at most a month to live and was making a
last ditch effort to save my life with at best a dicey procedure. Would my
last thoughts be "gee I wonder if I should study in order to pull off some
sort of hoax". Not likely.
Plus how could she know what they were talking about while her blood was
drained.
pz
"Corey" <weir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Really? When I go in for a medical procedure, I make a point of looking
it up. It doesn't take that much time, and it's always good to be
informed.
>
> Plus how could she know what they were talking about while her blood was
> drained.
She didn't.
--
pz
Corey
Oh so you do agree with me. I knew I could convince a bright bunch of
skeptics like you.
lorz
If the OBE happened during prep or recovery, what would that then mean?
Wouldn't it still be an OBE?
Why would that matter, in other words?
David Mitchell
<snip>
> > > >
> > > Here is concrete proof that the brain is just a tool of the conscious.
> This
> > > woman had no brain waves, blood flow or heart beat for an hour but was
> > > having a near
> > > death OB. While going through a serious operation. All documented, she
> was
> > > a recent guest
> > > on Art Bell on Dec. 6 2001. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html
<snip>
> >
> > People are *assuming* that the OBE happened while she was undergoing
> > the procedure. How do we know? How do we know that the OBE didn't
> > occur either during the period when the patient was being "prepped"
> > for surgery or during the period when she was recovering from it?
> >
>
> If the OBE happened during prep or recovery, what would that then mean?
> Wouldn't it still be an OBE?
> Why would that matter, in other words?
Because the whole point of the post was it was supposed to have happened
while she was brain dead.
Really, lorz, if you're going to join a thread part-way through, the
least you could do is read the previous posts.
Or even the one you replied to.
--
=======================================================================
= David - Visit www.thehungersite.com
= Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing
=======================================================================
Corey
"David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C30AFFB...@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
This case happened around ten years ago and is well documented. Many of the
things she remembered happened when their was no blood flow to the brain.
All of the so called skeptics are too lazy to research or are in a state of
denial.
Ian H Spedding
lo...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.169654436...@news.lineone.net...
[...]
> > People are *assuming* that the OBE happened while she was undergoing
> > the procedure. How do we know? How do we know that the OBE didn't
> > occur either during the period when the patient was being "prepped"
> > for surgery or during the period when she was recovering from it?
>
> If the OBE happened during prep or recovery, what would that then mean?
> Wouldn't it still be an OBE?
> Why would that matter, in other words?
The original report was being quoted as evidence that consciousness is
somehow independent of the brain. If the OBE had occured when the
patient's brain was "flatlined" they would have a point. As I said
before, though, how do we know?
Corey
She was flatlined!
But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical
tests - her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was
absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly, while in this
state, she encountered the "deepest" near-death experience of all Atlanta
Study participants. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html
Did you fail to go to the link, or are you flatlined?
lorz
"David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C30AFFB...@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > >
> > > > Here is concrete proof that the brain is just a tool of the
conscious.
> > This
> > > > woman had no brain waves, blood flow or heart beat for an hour but
was
> > > > having a near
> > > > death OB. While going through a serious operation. All documented,
she
> > was
> > > > a recent guest
> > > > on Art Bell on Dec. 6 2001. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > People are *assuming* that the OBE happened while she was undergoing
> > > the procedure. How do we know? How do we know that the OBE didn't
> > > occur either during the period when the patient was being "prepped"
> > > for surgery or during the period when she was recovering from it?
> > >
> >
> > If the OBE happened during prep or recovery, what would that then mean?
> > Wouldn't it still be an OBE?
> > Why would that matter, in other words?
>
> Because the whole point of the post was it was supposed to have happened
> while she was brain dead.
I know. But I still don't see the point of the question. If the OBE happened
during prep or recovery would it not be considered an OBE to you? Whether
she was brain-dead or not doesn't seem to matter. After all, many here have
OBE's and were not brain-dead at the time. (That we know of... be nice)
> Really, lorz, if you're going to join a thread part-way through, the
> least you could do is read the previous posts.
Are you scolding me? I understood the post. Perhaps you didn't understand
mine?
<snip>
lorz
And as I have asked Ian, if she were pre-op or in recovery but still was
correct in her OBE observances would that mean nothing?
David Mitchell
>
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C30AFFB...@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
> > lorz wrote:
> > >
> > > "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Here is concrete proof that the brain is just a tool of the
> conscious.
<snip>
> > > > People are *assuming* that the OBE happened while she was undergoing
> > > > the procedure. How do we know? How do we know that the OBE didn't
> > > > occur either during the period when the patient was being "prepped"
> > > > for surgery or during the period when she was recovering from it?
> > >
> > > If the OBE happened during prep or recovery, what would that then mean?
> > > Wouldn't it still be an OBE?
> > > Why would that matter, in other words?
> >
> > Because the whole point of the post was it was supposed to have happened
> > while she was brain dead.
>
> I know. But I still don't see the point of the question. If the OBE happened
> during prep or recovery would it not be considered an OBE to you? Whether
> she was brain-dead or not doesn't seem to matter. After all, many here have
> OBE's and were not brain-dead at the time. (That we know of... be nice)
It's not about OBE's, see below.
>
> > Really, lorz, if you're going to join a thread part-way through, the
> > least you could do is read the previous posts.
>
> Are you scolding me? I understood the post. Perhaps you didn't understand
> mine?
I was scolding you ;-)
The whole point of the post was "Here is concrete proof that the brain
is just a tool of the conscious."
It's not whether she had an OBE or not, it's whether her brain was
"alive" at the time.
The original poster is proposing that this incident provides proof that
it is possible to be conscious even while the brain is "dead".
lorz
OK. But I still want to know if you believe that the OBE in itself was
literal even if she weren't brain dead being that her observances while she
was unconscious, at the least, were correct.
Sorry to change the "point" but I am interested in what you, as well as Ian,
pz, Janice and others would consider this "OOB experience" otherwise. Even
if her brain was *not* dead. Did she just dream the events correctly?
lorz
> lorz wrote:
> >
> > "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3C30AFFB...@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
> > > lorz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > >
<snip>
>
> >
> > > Really, lorz, if you're going to join a thread part-way through, the
> > > least you could do is read the previous posts.
> >
> > Are you scolding me? I understood the post. Perhaps you didn't
understand
> > mine?
>
> I was scolding you ;-)
I'm telling the Queen! :Ş
>
> The whole point of the post was "Here is concrete proof that the brain
> is just a tool of the conscious."
Guess I was making a new point?
Ian H Spedding
weir...@earthlink.net says...
[...]
> > The original report was being quoted as evidence that consciousness is
> > somehow independent of the brain. If the OBE had occured when the
> > patient's brain was "flatlined" they would have a point. As I said
> > before, though, how do we know?
[...]
> She was flatlined!
>
> But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical
> tests - her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was
> absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly, while in this
> state, she encountered the "deepest" near-death experience of all Atlanta
> Study participants. http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html
>
> Did you fail to go to the link, or are you flatlined?
No, I read the report but you're missing the point. Let me try again.
In any surgical procedure which involves the patient being completely
anaesthetised there is a period before the actual operation when the
patient is unconscious and being prepared for surgery.
After the operation there is a period when the patient is unconscious
until they come out of the anaesthetic.
As I said, in both these periods the patient is unconscious but not
"flatlined" so it's *possible* the OBE happened during one of them.
People are assuming that the OBE happened during the operation because
the patient appeared to describe details of the procedure but she
could have picked some of that up elsewhere. Someone might have told
her what was going to happen or she might have seen similar operations
on TV or in the movies, for example.
The point is, she can tell us *what* she experienced - and I accept
that - but not *when* she experienced it. Although some details of
her account match what happened in the operating theatre there is no
way to exclude the possibility that she learnt about it some other
way.
In the end this is just another anecdote. It's intriguing but there
are just too many unanswered questions for it to prove anything about
OBEs.
Corey
Corey
The only reason the story is significant is the fact that information was
retrieved by the patient while flatlined. This infers that the brain had
nothing to do with what happened. Maybe their isn't enough information on
that page. Their is also a book available wich goes into more detail.
Instead of dismissing it as a fraud, maybe you should get more information.
Ian H Spedding
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.169b1cb0f...@news.lineone.net...
> > In article <0p0Y7.331586$er5.7...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>,
> > lo...@bellsouth.net says...
> > >
> > > "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.169654436...@news.lineone.net...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > People are *assuming* that the OBE happened while she was undergoing
> > > > the procedure. How do we know? How do we know that the OBE didn't
> > > > occur either during the period when the patient was being "prepped"
> > > > for surgery or during the period when she was recovering from it?
> > >
> > > If the OBE happened during prep or recovery, what would that then mean?
> > > Wouldn't it still be an OBE?
> > > Why would that matter, in other words?
> >
> > The original report was being quoted as evidence that consciousness is
> > somehow independent of the brain. If the OBE had occured when the
> > patient's brain was "flatlined" they would have a point. As I said
> > before, though, how do we know?
> >
> > Ian
>
> And as I have asked Ian, if she were pre-op or in recovery but still was
> correct in her OBE observances would that mean nothing?
Well, operations like this are often recorded on video. If her
account of what happened matched what was on the tape with a high
degree of accuracy - say she reported whole passages of dialogue
verbatim - then that would be very significant. What would also be
significant, of course, is if her story included events that didn't
happen because, regardless of the apparent matches, this would suggest
it was imagination rather than experience.
pz
No, not very. She *was* in the room, and she's not deaf. Who knows how
much unconscious perceptual processing is going on in an anesthetized
brain?
> What would also be
> significant, of course, is if her story included events that didn't
> happen because, regardless of the apparent matches, this would suggest
> it was imagination rather than experience.
--
pz
Ian H Spedding
says...
> In article <MPG.169dc47d6...@news.lineone.net>,
> Ian H Spedding <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <FNEY7.151849$BX4.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
> > lo...@bellsouth.net says...
[...]
> > > And as I have asked Ian, if she were pre-op or in recovery but still was
> > > correct in her OBE observances would that mean nothing?
> >
> > Well, operations like this are often recorded on video. If her
> > account of what happened matched what was on the tape with a high
> > degree of accuracy - say she reported whole passages of dialogue
> > verbatim - then that would be very significant.
>
> No, not very. She *was* in the room, and she's not deaf. Who knows how
> much unconscious perceptual processing is going on in an anesthetized
> brain?
True, except that she was not just anaesthetised. Her body
temperature had been lowered, blood supply to the brain halted and,
according to observation by EEG and auditory evoked potential, the
cerebral cortex and brain stem were unresponsive. This suggests that
the brain was as inactive as it is possible to be short of being
completely dead. Under those circumstances it seems unlikely that she
could have been aware of what was happening in the operating theatre
by any normal means. This leaves us with two possibilities: either it
was an actual disembodiment of her consciousness or, which is more
likely, it was a dream-like experience which happened during the pre-
op or post-op phases.
Ian H Spedding
weir...@earthlink.net says...
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.169ce714f...@news.lineone.net...
[...]
> > The point is, she can tell us *what* she experienced - and I accept
> > that - but not *when* she experienced it. Although some details of
> > her account match what happened in the operating theatre there is no
> > way to exclude the possibility that she learnt about it some other
> > way.
> >
> > In the end this is just another anecdote. It's intriguing but there
> > are just too many unanswered questions for it to prove anything about
> > OBEs.
[...]
> The only reason the story is significant is the fact that information was
> retrieved by the patient while flatlined. This infers that the brain had
> nothing to do with what happened. Maybe their isn't enough information on
> that page. Their is also a book available wich goes into more detail.
> Instead of dismissing it as a fraud, maybe you should get more information.
I don't dismiss this case as a fraud because I see no reason to assume
that any deliberate deception was involved.
You're right, though, there isn't enough information on that page. I
did a Google search but mostly what came up were a lot of NDE and
related sites which simply repeated the story uncritically. Apart
from a paper by Susan Blackmore on NDEs generally I couldn't find any
scientific discussion of the data by people other than Michael Sabom
or Raymond Moody. This suggests to me that, at the moment, these
accounts are not, in themselves, compelling evidence of anything
paranormal happening.
You claim that it is a "fact" that the patient obtained information
while "flatlined". I am saying that, based on the information we
have, we can't be that certain. The only way to test whether or not
something odd is happening would be to go back to the source
material; take a number of these accounts and compare them with
recordings of the operations, looking for both matches and
discrepancies. Even this would not be persuasive, though, because it
would be difficult to exclude the possibility that the patients had
acquired some knowledge of surgical procedures previously.