AWARE Update - Peer Review Complete

#21
I think Psi being performed by a comatose body would make me lean in favor of the survival hypothesis.

It's not air tight, but if Psi is stronger and more focused when the brain is down...
That's what Dean seems to argue:

"I was invited to write an article on this topic for Missouri Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Missouri State Medical Association. You can read the journal online here: http://www.omagdigital.com/publication?i=177483. See the Sept/Oct issue for the beginning of a series of articles on NDEs.

My article was published in a 2014 issue, so it isn't available online yet. The bottom line of my argument was that the primary anomalies associated with NDEs are reports of veridical perceptions that could not have been known or inferred from the perspective of the patient.

For someone who is not familiar with clairvoyance, this type of report could be taken as evidence that the mind has literally separated from the body (i.e., gone OBE). The literal interpretation is consistent with survival of consciousness. But veridical reports of distant events is virtually the same as what we know as clairvoyance-in-the-living. So the OBE aspects of NDEs do not necessarily imply an actual separation from the body, and hence NDEs can be interpreted as a particularly vivid form of clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally."
 
#22
I think Psi being performed by a comatose body would make me lean in favor of the survival hypothesis.

It's not air tight, but if Psi is stronger and more focused when the brain is down...
Right. This is what I'm saying. In an ideal situation, it might give some prima facie to survival, but unless I am mistaken, and Linda perhaps can correct me here if I'm wrong, I don't think this study is formally monitoring for the "brain being down"...it is retrospectively interviewing arrest victims, who (I assume) were undergoing aggressive resuscitation attempts.
 
#24
I could cope with the survival of consciousness in some sense. But survival of me, as me, seems the least plausible scenario of all. But I wouldn't worry: AWARE results will not be sufficient to deliver us unto the horns of that dilemma.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#26
That's what Dean seems to argue:

"I was invited to write an article on this topic for Missouri Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Missouri State Medical Association. You can read the journal online here: http://www.omagdigital.com/publication?i=177483. See the Sept/Oct issue for the beginning of a series of articles on NDEs.

My article was published in a 2014 issue, so it isn't available online yet. The bottom line of my argument was that the primary anomalies associated with NDEs are reports of veridical perceptions that could not have been known or inferred from the perspective of the patient.

For someone who is not familiar with clairvoyance, this type of report could be taken as evidence that the mind has literally separated from the body (i.e., gone OBE). The literal interpretation is consistent with survival of consciousness. But veridical reports of distant events is virtually the same as what we know as clairvoyance-in-the-living. So the OBE aspects of NDEs do not necessarily imply an actual separation from the body, and hence NDEs can be interpreted as a particularly vivid form of clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally."
Assuming this is Radin, I have to admit I think he's being overly restrictive in his thinking. Does he think leaning toward Super-Psi lends some kind of scientific credibility to his own research b/c otherwise I find this an odd conclusion to reach.

OBEs don't make much sense from a brain=mind perspective. Maybe some kind of field effect, but at first glance this seems doubtful to me.

If anything, someone who accepts remote viewing might consider the body being a construction/incarnation of mind. In mystical language - the soul is not in the body, but rather the body is in the soul.

Now maybe that soul doesn't last for long, or individuality is an illusion anyway and we're all One Mind or somesuch, but trying to use any kind of Psi to argue for mind=brain seems like a very odd direction to go in.
 
#27
Assuming this is Radin, I have to admit I think he's being overly restrictive in his thinking. Does he think leaning toward Super-Psi lends some kind of scientific credibility to his own research b/c otherwise I find this an odd conclusion to reach.

OBEs don't make much sense from a brain=mind perspective. Maybe some kind of field effect, but at first glance this seems doubtful to me.

If anything, someone who accepts remote viewing might consider the body being a construction/incarnation of mind. In mystical language - the soul is not in the body, but rather the body is in the soul.

Now maybe that soul doesn't last for long, or individuality is an illusion anyway and we're all One Mind or somesuch, but trying to use any kind of Psi to argue for mind=brain seems like a very odd direction to go in.
It was posted by him on his blog. It's definitely him.
 
#28
I think it's a sensitive moment for the subject, because realistically I would say that the AWARE outcome is probably as good as it's going to get for scientific evidence in relation to NDEs.
 
#29
I think it's a sensitive moment for the subject, because realistically I would say that the AWARE outcome is probably as good as it's going to get for scientific evidence in relation to NDEs.
I think NDEs present a challenge for pure reductionism. But for the afterlife, well, I don't know
 
#30
I think it's a sensitive moment for the subject, because realistically I would say that the AWARE outcome is probably as good as it's going to get for scientific evidence in relation to NDEs.
I disagree. AWARE was a first attempt, a test bed for future research based on one aspect of NDEs and attracted criticism from its inception. It relies on the experiencer being able and motivated sufficiently to view images placed in elevated positions that were not easy to reach for living persons. I thought the chances of a positive outcome based on what we know about the protocols, was remote. At this stage a more flexible strategy is needed, one based on multiple evidence sources, like overheard conversations, inaccessible observation (not simply elevated images), and similar percipient centred outcomes.
 
#31
I disagree. AWARE was a first attempt, a test bed for future research based on one aspect of NDEs and attracted criticism from its inception. It relies on the experiencer being able and motivated sufficiently to view images placed in elevated positions that were not easy to reach for living persons. I thought the chances of a positive outcome based on what we know about the protocols, was remote.
What would you propose instead, Gabriel? (that can output to the scientific community).

I think it's about the best design which, for practical and ethical purposes, could realistically be done with humans near to death.
 
#32
The problem with "overheard conversations" and the like is that there's just so many ways in which that cannot be brought under control. That would actually return us to the "pre-aware" era of talking about the phenomenon, imo.
 
#33
The problem with "overheard conversations" and the like is that there's just so many ways in which that cannot be brought under control. That would actually return us to the "pre-aware" era of talking about the phenomenon, imo.
There are too many variables in NDE testimony to base an experiment on one aspect, which is not born out in all accounts, or in the same way from accounts that have an OBE element. It's interesting as far as it goes, but it should not have more weight resting on the outcome than the NDE data that's built so far.
 
#35
There are too many variables in NDE testimony to base an experiment on one aspect, which is not born out in all accounts, or in the same way from accounts that have an OBE element. It's interesting as far as it goes, but it should not have more weight resting on the outcome than the NDE data that's built so far.
There may be many variables to NDEs, but *experiments* work best by excluding as many as possible, or by holding them constant in favor of one. If this cannot be done, it becomes difficult to draw conclusions that are (scientifically) worthwhile. Hence the need for what the percipient might in principle view or hear to be a controlled circumstance. Kudos to aware for at least trying to do this. it was never going to be an easy gig.

Again, if there is a better *controllable* test of the psi-claim in NDEs, I'd like to here what people think that would be.
 
#36
Let's hear the outcomes and the experimental protocols before we judge. As of now, I'm with experiencer Mary Neal on the difficulties of devising a suitable test, but we shall see.
 
Last edited:
#37
It's just hard to see where it can go from here...that's all.
At least in terms of something approaching evidence of psi in NDEs.
 
#38
It's just hard to see where it can go from here...that's all.
At least in terms of something approaching evidence of psi in NDEs.
The Aware study will continue indefinitely until the data is sufficient to sway the argument one way or the other, as far as I understand.
 
Last edited:
#40
Right. This is what I'm saying. In an ideal situation, it might give some prima facie to survival, but unless I am mistaken, and Linda perhaps can correct me here if I'm wrong, I don't think this study is formally monitoring for the "brain being down"...it is retrospectively interviewing arrest victims, who (I assume) were undergoing aggressive resuscitation attempts.
Part of the study was also monitoring "brain being down" in some centres. There were two abstracts presented - one on the auditory and visual recollections, and one on the cerebral oximetry. There may have been a few subjects who were monitored and who had auditory or visual memories, but Pania did not make note of this in either abstract. Maybe a fuller report will be able to merge some of this data.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Top