Dr Lloyd Rudy veridical NDE OBE... Smithy's article now available.

I ain't got any problem with him commenting - on my own OBE anyway.
I can understand why you would say that. But lots of us who have been here a while have followed your posts with interest and are well aware of the details of your "OBE." Paul who has been here for a million years has evidently taken no interest in other member's experiences. Any yet his first response after reading yours is maybe that you are so mixed up that you overlayed your own memories with an experience. It just pisses me off. It is idiocy. It is not true skepticism in any sense of the word. It is just debunk, debunk, debunk. All the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I can understand why you would say that. But lots of us who have been here a while have followed your posts with interest and are well aware of the details of your "OBE." Paul who has been here for a million years has evidently taken no interest in other member's experiences. Any yet his first response after reading yours is maybe that you are so mixed up that you overlayed your own memories with an experience. It just pisses me off. It is idiocy. It is not true skepticism in any sense of the word. It is just debunk, debunk, debunk. All the time.

Thanks, and I'm very sympathetic to what you've written, but for every Paul, there are a loads of other people reading skeptiko who never contribute. They make their own judgements privately, based on what they read. Paul, Linda etc know that as well as I do. Closing down highly skeptical discussion of members actual unexplained experiences, when they are good, solid experiences, isn't in Skeptiko's interest as far as I can see. The silent readers are quite capable of reading, and making up their own mind...

As for memories, Pauls right, they can get mixed up, past police investigations and incorrect identification of suspects by victims provide really good examples of this.

But in my case (and as you point out) I can't see any real validity behind Paul's suggestion, as I explained in my earlier post. I have three other witnesses who didn't experience my dream, but just heard my description of it before we visited the property. They all verified the main features of my dream, matched the state of the property. Finding the whole experience quite bizzare and unexplainable.
 
Last edited:
well we wouldn't have driven over to the property to check on it if I hadn't had the dream. My brothers and father all recall I had a dream about the scene of the break in, which was the prompt to drive over. The dream itself took place at night, I can remember the orange sodium street lights which lit the scene, the banging of the green yard gate in the wind, and the darkness of the yard, and the blackness of the kitchen door opening, which woke me up in terror.
I don't doubt you had the dream. I just wonder how well the details matched.

We visited the property the following morning in daylight, because of the dream I had. We never actually visited the property under those night conditions. I can still remember standing in front of the kitchen table, telling dad about the dream as he was eating his breakfast, and insisting we drive over to it, because the dream had such a different feel to it. Both my two brothers and father remember the basic details of the dream I told before we drove over to the property. They all know that's the reason we drove over.
When was the last time you were there before the dream?

~~ Paul
 
I can understand why you would say that. But lots of us who have been here a while have followed your posts with interest and are well aware of the details of your "OBE." Paul who has been here for a million years has evidently taken no interest in other member's experiences.
As I said, no good ever comes of critiquing members' personal experiences.

~~ Paul
 
I don't doubt you had the dream. I just wonder how well the details matched.


When was the last time you were there before the dream?

~~ Paul

According to the witnesses, the main details of the scene which I described to them from my dream were bizzarely accurate, compared with what they found when they visited the scene.

Which would be that the house had been broken into, rear kitchen door had been forced wide open and could not be seen from the yard, the little kitchen window was smashed and open, and the rear yard gate was open and banging in the wind.

Dad hadn't checked on the property for some time... So it could have been weeks, or months, since I previously visited it, I don't know.
 
According to the witnesses, the main details of the scene which I described to them from my dream were bizzarely accurate, compared with what they found when they visited the scene.

Which would be that the house had been broken into, rear kitchen door had been forced wide open and could not be seen from the yard, the little kitchen window was smashed and open, and the rear yard gate was open and banging in the wind.
Well, it certainly is interesting. I have no mundane explanation to offer.

~~ Paul
 
Thanks, and I'm very sympathetic to what you've written, but for every Paul, there are a loads of other people reading skeptiko who never contribute. They make their own judgements privately, based on what they read. Paul, Linda etc know that as well as I do. Closing down highly skeptical discussion of members actual unexplained experiences, when they are good, solid experiences, isn't in Skeptiko's interest as far as I can see. The silent readers are quite capable of reading, and making up their own mind...

As for memories, Pauls right, they can get mixed up, past police investigations and incorrect identification of suspects by victims provide really good examples of this.

But in my case (and as you point out) I can't see any real validity behind Paul's suggestion, as I explained in my earlier post. I have three other witnesses who didn't experience my dream, but just heard my description of it before we visited the property. They all verified the main features of my dream, matched the state of the property. Finding the whole experience quite bizzare and unexplainable.

I think what sceptics should consider a bit more, is that all of science is ultimately subjective - people have to design experiments, and interpret the results. If we just dismiss people's experiences with stock answers, where do we draw the line - even people in white coats can have OBE's!

David
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I think what sceptics should consider a bit more, is that all of science is ultimately subjective - people have to design experiments, and interpret the results. If we just dismiss people's experiences with stock answers, where do we draw the line - even people in white coats can have OBE's!

David

Not clear what you're suggesting here. We've spent a lot of time discussing experimental design and results interpretation.

You often make the point that science can be unreliable (and I don't think you'll find any disagreement). You then seem to imply that because of that we should accept other, even less reliable, methods interms of figuring things out.

You haven't said it directly, but you seem to imply it so often that I'm hoping you can clarify. Let's accept that science can be flawed and unreliable and that careful skepticism should be applied in interpreting the results. What should that imply for any other method?
 
Not clear what you're suggesting here. We've spent a lot of time discussing experimental design and results interpretation.
Yes but ultimately scientists come along and report what they have done, and what happened - just as someone comes along and reports an NDE, OBE or whatever. We need a clearer idea as to when we say "I don't believe you" or "I believe you think you had that experience, but...".

I mean, everything is ultimately subjective.

David
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Yes but ultimately scientists come along and report what they have done, and what happened - just as someone comes along and reports an NDE, OBE or whatever. We need a clearer idea as to when we say "I don't believe you" or "I believe you think you had that experience, but...".
I think it's pretty clear that an unreproducible story is not as reliable as reproducible experiments. Which is not to say that the experiments are completely reliable.

~~ Paul
 
I think it's pretty clear that an unreproducible story is not as reliable as reproducible experiments. Which is not to say that the experiments are completely reliable.

~~ Paul
I was trying to get at something deeper. We (and I include myself) tend to believe the results of experiments, but disbelieve unusual accounts that people report.

However, ultimately every experiment relies on people - the machines may have been designed wrongly, or those that use them may be blind to all manner of issues. Talking about an experiment is ultimately equivalent to talking to someone about their unusual experiences!

I used to believe almost everything that scientists asserted. But now I think many are delusional (a different sort of delusion, perhaps - a delusion brought on by group-think and money).

How do we weed out the delusional from those of sound mind, when ultimately everything is subjective?

David
 
Last edited:
Other NDE stories have nothing to do with this one. You cannot reject alternative explanations just because you like some pattern in the stories.


You are conflating the reporting with the interpretation. In this case, there is no interpretation offered by the doctors except for one comment by Rudy. The interpretation is coming from the forum members.

~~ Paul

Paul said ....."there is no interpretation offered by the doctors except for one comment by Rudy."

No there was more than one Rudy comment 1. "He (the patient ) described the scene...things that there is no way he knew, I mean he didn't wake up and see all of this, he was out....for a day or two ....while we recovered him in intensive care (NOTE) Intensive care. The patient was obviously very ill.

2. "So what does that tell you, what that his soul up there ? "

3. "It has convinced me that there's something out there"
 
I was trying to get at something deeper. We (and I include myself) tend to believe the results of experiments, but disbelieve unusual accounts that people report.

However, ultimately every experiment relies on people - the machines may have been designed wrongly, or those that use them may be blind to all manner of issues. Talking about an experiment is ultimately equivalent to talking to someone about their experiments!
Unless, of course, you actually witness the experiments.

I used to believe almost everything that scientists asserted. But now I think many are delusional (a different sort of delusion, perhaps - a delusion brought on by group-think and money).

How do we weed out the delusional from those of sound mind, when ultimately everything is subjective?
Build technology that utilizes the science.

~~ Paul
 
Paul said ....."there is no interpretation offered by the doctors except for one comment by Rudy."

No there was more than one Rudy comment 1. "He (the patient ) described the scene...things that there is no way he knew, I mean he didn't wake up and see all of this, he was out....for a day or two ....while we recovered him in intensive care (NOTE) Intensive care. The patient was obviously very ill.
This is not an interpretation other than to insist that the patient couldn't have woken up. He offers no hypothesis.

2. "So what does that tell you, what that his soul up there ? "
This is the comment I was thinking of.

3. "It has convinced me that there's something out there"
This is not really an interpretation, but I'll give it to you.

~~ Paul
 
Unless, of course, you actually witness the experiments.
Well you are rarely aware of all the details - imagine visiting the LHC!
Build technology that utilizes the science.

~~ Paul
I agree, but a lot of science isn't subject to this test. Cosmology, sections of medical science, neurology (partly), Climate Change, high energy physics, etc.

Even the famous GR correction factor for navigation satellites, is disputed in the sense that it can be derived in other ways (which reminds me, where has Lone Shaman gone?).

David
 
Well you are rarely aware of all the details - imagine visiting the LHC!
That would be fun!

I agree, but a lot of science isn't subject to this test. Cosmology, sections of medical science, neurology (partly), Climate Change, high energy physics, etc.
Agreed, and so we are all a bit more skeptical about some of their results.

Even the famous GR correction factor for navigation satellites, is disputed in the sense that it can be derived in other ways (which reminds me, where has Lone Shaman gone?).
Good question. He hasn't posted since June 27.

~~ Paul
 
For the nth time, there is no trust issue, because neither doctor has ventured an hypothesis for what happened. Everyone here is just assuming the usual supernatural NDE explanation and then hollering at me for making other suggestions. If you would like to make no assumptions whatsoever, then we cannot reach even a tentative conclusion about what happened.

~~ Paul

But I was not talking about the reports from the two doctors, of whom you say that you trust them. My problem with you is your overall distrust of people. And that bothers me (and others) greatly.

Anyway, your distrust was in some sense helpful, because we contacted again Dr Cattaneo, the cardio surgeon who assisted Dr Lloyd Rudy, and saw it all happen as described in our paper. To our specific question he responded that as was normally the case, the tapes were removed from the patient's eyes before he was being wheeled out to the ICU . Yet, it was absolutely out of the question that due to that removal the patient could see immediately. He was so loaded up with anaesthetics and sedatives that he remained deeply unconscious for quite some time. So your contention that he could have seen the yellow notes by normal means, does not hold.

But, I have no illusion as regards your most likely response to this: "how do we know that this Dr Cattaneo speaks the truth so many years after it happened?" That would be strange, by the way, because you had just said, for the nth time, that there is no trust issue...

Besides, skeptics have always that particular way out: "it happened too long ago, therefore...."
But, even if it did not happen too long ago, then they will have another trick on their sleeves to explain away a case that they don't like. Because that type of skeptics, and it seems to me you are one of them, Paul, does NOT want to accept reality other than their own.
 
Last edited:
But I was not talking about the reports from the two doctors, of whom you say that you trust them. My problem with you is your overall distrust of people. And that bothers me (and others) greatly.
Similarly, it bothers me that people have so much faith in anecdotes.

Anyway, your distrust was in some sense helpful, because we contacted again Dr Cattaneo, the neurosurgeon who assisted Dr Lloyd Rudy, and saw it all happen as described in our paper. To our specific question he responded that as was normally the case, the tapes were removed from the patient's eyes before he was being wheeled out to the ICU . Yet, it was absolutely out of the question that due to that removal the patient could see immediately. He was so loaded up with anestetics and sedatives that he remained deeply unconscious for quite some time. So your contention that he could have seen the yellow notes by normal means, does not hold.
Assuming our current understanding of anesthesia is correct. But I'm perfectly happy with the possibility that someone mentioned the Post-Its to him later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness

An interesting question for Cattaneo would be whether the anesthetics were stopped during the 20--25 minutes when the patient was supposedly dead.

But, I have no illusion as regards your most likely response to this: "how do we know that this Dr Cattaneo speaks the truth so many years after it happened?" That would be strange, by the way, because you had just said, for the nth time, that there is no trust issue...
You appear to believe that the only way he could be wrong is if he is lying. But, of course, he could simply be mistaken. He may be trustworthy but wrong.

But, even if it did not happen too long agp, then they will have another trick on their sleeves to explain away a case that they don't like. Because that type of skeptics, and it seems to me you are one of them, Paul, does NOT want to accept reality other than their own.
And this criticism somehow doesn't pertain to everyone else.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Similarly, it bothers me that people have so much faith in anecdotes.

In the case of NDE's trustworthy anecdotes are almost the only thing we can go by.

When there are enough of that kind of anecdotes, the evidence will accumulate, and the phenomena in question become a fact of life. That's how it went with the phenomenon of NDE itself. In the seventies...? just a funny anecdote... But when the number of anecdotes accumulated over the years, even skeptics had to acknowledge that the phenomenon is a fact. The only thing one is arguing about is the question of how to interpret them.

Assuming our current understanding of anesthesia is correct. But I'm perfectly happy with the possibility that someone mentioned the Post-Its to him later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness

An interesting question for Cattaneo would be whether the anesthetics were stopped during the 20--25 minutes when the patient was supposedly dead.

As said by them, the instrumentation went on for quite a while after the heart had stopped.

Yes, you are perfectly happy with the possibility that someone mentioned the post-its to him later....
Ever thought of the possibility that those post-its were not considered relevant by anyone involved, so were never brought up, except by the patient?

You appear to believe that the only way he could be wrong is if he is lying. But, of course, he could simply be mistaken. He may be trustworthy but wrong.

O sure, naturally he may be wrong after all. But ever thought of the fact that a specific event can make such an impression that you never forget it in any detail? I do remember quite precisely certain facts that happened to me when I was a kid of six, and that is about 70 years ago. An event, such as occurred to Lloyd Rudy and Cattaneo made such an impression on them that quite apparently they had NOT forgotten it, in all its details

And this criticism somehow doesn't pertain to everyone else.

~~ Paul

To you it does, because you are constantly moving the goal posts. Typical for skeptics who, at all costs, want to stick to their own beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Similarly, it bothers me that people have so much faith in anecdotes.


Assuming our current understanding of anesthesia is correct. But I'm perfectly happy with the possibility that someone mentioned the Post-Its to him later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness

An interesting question for Cattaneo would be whether the anesthetics were stopped during the 20--25 minutes when the patient was supposedly dead.


You appear to believe that the only way he could be wrong is if he is lying. But, of course, he could simply be mistaken. He may be trustworthy but wrong.


And this criticism somehow doesn't pertain to everyone else.

~~ Paul

I agree that as we don't know for sure how anesthetics work, we don't really know the effect of a loss of blood flow within the brain on their action.

If as I suspect, anesthetics affect consciousness, by allowing electrons stored in protein microcavities to tunnel out of them, in such a way that these electrons normal operation is disrupted. Then loss of blood flow might conceivably prevent fresh supplies of anaesthetic from getting to their target during cardiac arrest.

This might allow a sudden and temporary return to normal operation for these protein structures during cardiac arrest. Allowing consciousness to return, in a sudden way, quite differently to the slower return we usually see as the body slowly reduces the levels of anaesthetic by respiration.

Unfortunately this would probably do nothing to overcome the lack of sensory input during the cardiac arrest. But it would be a way of explaining why localised third party fields might be able to re-exert an influence over the anaesthetised patients brain at this particular period of time.
 
Back
Top