NDErs who witness events in other rooms....

Anonymou5 said:
What I mean is that I often find people making this claim as an argument for the validity of NDE's. For example;
"First and most importantly, there are many well documented cases where the NDEer while out of body were able to see specific details and hear conversations in other rooms and far away places that they couldn’t have known about beforehand, and yet upon returning to the body find that what they saw or heard was in fact verified to be accurate and true."

I see that claim being made a lot during my research. What I am looking for is the "well documented" part. Where are these documents?

I've been through the NDERF website, and I am collecting anecdotes which I plan on contacting Dr. Long for more information.

However the problem that I have with the NDERF website is that first anyone can submit an NDE, and secondly even if an NDE'r claims to have seen such and such occur in another room, we can't just take them at their word.

For example take the case of Viola Horton;

Those are some pretty amazing claims, but why didn't Raymond Moody interview the brother-in-law, or at the very least the husband and daughter, to corroborate this story? Both Viola and her husband have now passed away, and presumably the brother-in-law might be too. If this account were true, Raymond Moody missed a golden opportunity to provide one of the greatest documented cases of verified out of body perception. For now, all we have is Viola's word. Which for some of us just isn't enough.

So to sum up, what I mean by resources is simply well documented corroborated sources.



Don't be so paranoid man, I'm just asking for help in research. I'm not here trying to peddle the bs argument that we need to move the goal post every time something doesn't jive well with our paradigms.

But there, you just did it again, you said: "Also bear in mind these are far from the only cases with similar characteristics."

Thats what I'm talking about in my OP. Where are these cases that everyone keeps talking about?

Like I said, I'm not a debunker. My thinking towards this is that of any other claim. For example if a woman claims she was raped by a certain person, we don't just say "Well she said it, so it must be true boys, lock him up and throw away the key!". No we do what we can to verify the claim.

That's all I'm asking for, verification.
Click to expand...

Well yes, you are correctly identifying the typical problems with stories that appear in the "anecdote cloud." This is why I am mentioning the AWARE study, because it at least attempts a formal protocol. We can never really know what the flow of information was outside of a controlled structure, and then there are the kind of issues revolving around the fact that people might know the kinds of things their relatives might say in this situation and so on.
 
Kai said:
Well yes, you are correctly identifying the typical problems with stories that appear in the "anecdote cloud." This is why I am mentioning the AWARE study, because it at least attempts a formal protocol. We can never really know what the flow of information was outside of a controlled structure, and then there are the kind of issues revolving around the fact that people might know the kinds of things their relatives might say in this situation and so on.
Click to expand...
No, that's an attempt at debunking. Unless you instinctively disbelieve someone who says 'that bridge was built in 1911', or 'the weather forecast for tomorrow is rain', you're claiming ECREE for NDE accounts.
 
tim said:
Contact Janis Holden at IANDS she has compiled a list of nearly a hundred.
Click to expand...
I just posted a link to her handbook. I've not read it yet, but I think it is chapter 9 that covers the veridical cases. I'd guess it would be a summary with some examples.

Cheers,
Bill
 
gabriel said:
No, that's an attempt at debunking. Unless you instinctively disbelieve someone who says 'that bridge was built in 1911', or 'the weather forecast for tomorrow is rain', you're claiming ECREE for NDE accounts.
Click to expand...

If it was critically important to know whether the bridge was built in 1911 or whether it is likely to rain tomorrow, I would consider such statements as prima facie only. I would find the town planning documents on the bridge and the architectural documents on the sort of stone used, and its weathering properties, etc. Those things take us out of the anecdote cloud.
 
Kai said:
If it was critically important to know whether the bridge was built in 1911 or whether it is likely to rain tomorrow, I would consider such statements as prima facie only. I would find the town planning documents on the bridge and the architectural documents on the sort of stone used, and its weathering properties, etc. Those things take us out of the anecdote cloud.
Click to expand...
There is no cloud. There are testimonies which are consistent but impossible to corroborate. The lack of corroboration is not an error in the account, it's an inevitable aspect of personal experience. Testimonies that are veridical serve only to push the accusation of anecdote to a third person, no matter how expert that individual may be. In the modern world the majority of NDEs take place in hospitals, because that's where the IC units are. Inevitably, any supporting testimony will come from medical professionals.
 
gabriel said:
There is no cloud. There are testimonies which are consistent but impossible to corroborate. The lack of corroboration is not an error in the account, it's an inevitable aspect of personal experience. Testimonies that are veridical serve only to push the accusation of anecdote to a third person, no matter how expert that individual may be. In the modern world the majority of NDEs take place in hospitals, because that's where the IC units are. Inevitably, any supporting testimony will come from medical professionals.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware where they take place, but that doesn't make the information flow prone to formal examination, except in a controlled experimental environment (and even there one has to be very careful).
 
Kai said:
Yes, I'm well aware where they take place, but that doesn't make the information flow prone to formal examination, except in a controlled experimental environment (and even there one has to be very careful).
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that you think Ian Stevenson's 40 year research study on reincarnation was useless, is that right?

Cheers,
Bill
 
Kai said:
Yes, I'm well aware where they take place, but that doesn't make the information flow prone to formal examination, except in a controlled experimental environment (and even there one has to be very careful).
Click to expand...
You're claiming ECREE. It's your prerogative, but formal examination is not something NDEs lend themselves to at this stage of the process. AWARE is an early attempt at a protocol but the best we can do is map testimonies at the present time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
gabriel said:
You're claiming ECREE. It's your prerogative, but formal examination is not something NDEs lend themselves to at this stage of the process. AWARE is an early attempt at a protocol but the best we can do is map testimonies at the present time.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm claiming "ECREE" because the claim behind it is irregular with respect to the rest of nature.
 
Last edited:
gabriel said:
Not so much paranoid as jaded. There is no reason to accept every case at face value, which is not to say none are valuable. Things that set off alarm bells include, does the testimony fit the general perception of NDEs, does the person have anything to gain professionally or socially by giving their account, is there a clear religious agenda being played out, does the person sound like a flake or a hoaxer. These things may sound subjective, but it's fairly easy to spot people who've latched onto the NDE meme, or are not playing with a full deck.

Verifying claims is important, but sometimes we have to accept the conditions under which the account is collected does not lend itself to third party verification. That doesn't mean the person is lying until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think it's very important to verify. At this point many people are aware of the typical NDE, and can easily concoct a story, if merely for the benefit of attention. I have personally met compulsive liars who merely lie because they can and people believe them.

Verification is important because it provides us with an added source to rule out lying. Once we rule out lying we can begin to examine whether there was some other manner in which the person could have attained such information. For example the case of Viola Horton, there was no way she could have heard her brother in law make rude comments about her impending death. However, like I mentioned earlier, the failure to interview the brother-in-law regarding Viola's account is in my opinion one of the greatest missed opportunities by Raymond Moody.

Kai said:
Well yes, you are correctly identifying the typical problems with stories that appear in the "anecdote cloud." This is why I am mentioning the AWARE study, because it at least attempts a formal protocol. We can never really know what the flow of information was outside of a controlled structure, and then there are the kind of issues revolving around the fact that people might know the kinds of things their relatives might say in this situation and so on.
Click to expand...

I don't really believe proving these things under controlled lab conditions is a reasonable standard for these cases. For me if an NDE'r claims to have witness events/conversations that were physically impossible for them to witness, and then we interview the people who the NDE'r claimed to witness about the accuracy of the claim, I think that would be a reasonable standard.

The reason I say this is again referring back to Viola Horton's account. The comment that the brother-in-law made was very rude. It's not something that he would be openly talking about having said in a way that would get back to Viola. Viola claims that he denied having said it out of pure embarrassment at first, but later admitted that he did say it. But like I said, to my knowledge there is no interview with the brother-in-law.
 
Anonymou5 said:
I don't really believe proving these things under controlled lab conditions is a reasonable standard for these cases. For me if an NDE'r claims to have witness events/conversations that were physically impossible for them to witness, and then we interview the people who the NDE'r claimed to witness about the accuracy of the claim, I think that would be a reasonable standard.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They lend themselves to the kind of investigations Ian Stevenson used when studying reincarnation cases. I'm all in favor of the formal protocol, but we can't control whether the dying patient will take note of and report the arbitrary numbers placed for them. We may have to settle on evidence that is "suggestive of" the phenomena.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Kai said:
If it was critically important to know whether the bridge was built in 1911 or whether it is likely to rain tomorrow, I would consider such statements as prima facie only. I would find the town planning documents on the bridge and the architectural documents on the sort of stone used, and its weathering properties, etc. Those things take us out of the anecdote cloud.
Click to expand...

We are already out of the anecdote tipping point, Kai. It's just "you and yours" that don't want to know.
 
Anonymou5 said:
I think it's very important to verify. At this point many people are aware of the typical NDE, and can easily concoct a story, if merely for the benefit of attention. I have personally met compulsive liars who merely lie because they can and people believe them.

Verification is important because it provides us with an added source to rule out lying. Once we rule out lying we can begin to examine whether there was some other manner in which the person could have attained such information. For example the case of Viola Horton, there was no way she could have heard her brother in law make rude comments about her impending death. However, like I mentioned earlier, the failure to interview the brother-in-law regarding Viola's account is in my opinion one of the greatest missed opportunities by Raymond Moody.



I don't really believe proving these things under controlled lab conditions is a reasonable standard for these cases. For me if an NDE'r claims to have witness events/conversations that were physically impossible for them to witness, and then we interview the people who the NDE'r claimed to witness about the accuracy of the claim, I think that would be a reasonable standard.

The reason I say this is again referring back to Viola Horton's account. The comment that the brother-in-law made was very rude. It's not something that he would be openly talking about having said in a way that would get back to Viola. Viola claims that he denied having said it out of pure embarrassment at first, but later admitted that he did say it. But like I said, to my knowledge there is no interview with the brother-in-law.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with that then. I do think it's a reasonable standard, and it's the standard that most of the rest of science uses. In other words, discovering things under information control. The trouble is, that these stories seem to *disappear* when you chase them down to formal confirmation.
 
Anonymou5 said:
I think it's very important to verify. At this point many people are aware of the typical NDE, and can easily concoct a story, if merely for the benefit of attention. I have personally met compulsive liars who merely lie because they can and people believe them.

Verification is important because it provides us with an added source to rule out lying. Once we rule out lying we can begin to examine whether there was some other manner in which the person could have attained such information. For example the case of Viola Horton, there was no way she could have heard her brother in law make rude comments about her impending death. However, like I mentioned earlier, the failure to interview the brother-in-law regarding Viola's account is in my opinion one of the greatest missed opportunities by Raymond Moody.



I don't really believe proving these things under controlled lab conditions is a reasonable standard for these cases. For me if an NDE'r claims to have witness events/conversations that were physically impossible for them to witness, and then we interview the people who the NDE'r claimed to witness about the accuracy of the claim, I think that would be a reasonable standard.

The reason I say this is again referring back to Viola Horton's account. The comment that the brother-in-law made was very rude. It's not something that he would be openly talking about having said in a way that would get back to Viola. Viola claims that he denied having said it out of pure embarrassment at first, but later admitted that he did say it. But like I said, to my knowledge there is no interview with the brother-in-law.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that Moody did interview the brother in law. And it didn't and never would make any difference to what the sceptics have to say. Viola Horton was a just a normal middle class housewife not particularly religious. I don't see why she would make any of that stuff up.
 
Here are a few challenges NDEs offer the status quo:

Experiencers typically say their religious expectations did not reflect their NDE perception
Believers and non-believers identify the source/light/God
Ostensibly good people sometimes have bad NDEs
Ostensibly bad people find redemption and forgiveness
People return to life long after medics have given up on them
NDErs report incidental details corroborated by doctors
NDErs claim to have met close relatives they did not know existed but are subsequently proven

None of those are accounted for by science or mainstream religion. Hoaxers, liars and meme pushers would adopt mainstream interpretations of the data to fulfil an agenda. Such accounts exist but they are not representative of the majority.
 
Kai said:
I'd have to disagree with that then. I do think it's a reasonable standard, and it's the standard that most of the rest of science uses. In other words, discovering things under information control. The trouble is, that these stories seem to *disappear* when you chase them down to formal confirmation.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessary at this point.

For example, I have accompanied my dad to various of his operations for a shoulder injury he had. I have had the experience of having to wait long hours in the waiting room, or some family room while my dad was in surgery. Usually my mother was with me as well. When you're waiting hours you do many things to get your mind off the surgery, and how much time you have to wait. A lot of very unique events and conversations happened during those times when we were waiting for my dad to finish up in surgery.

He was never near death or anything, I'm just using it to illustrate the point that if my dad would have had one of these experiences and came back and told me that he saw one of these unique events, I wouldn't turn around and say "Oh yea, let's see you do that again under lab conditions!".

tim said:
I'm fairly sure that Moody did interview the brother in law. And it didn't and never would make any difference to what the sceptics have to say. Viola Horton was a just a normal middle class housewife not particularly religious. I don't see why she would make any of that stuff up.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure Moody interviewed the brother in law? I haven't seen anything suggestive of it. I could care less about the skeptics, and their point of views on this stuff any more than I could care about some right wing biblical nut bag's opinion on homosexuality. Their mind is already made up, they're not looking at this stuff to see if something new can be discovered.

I do have to say that although it would appear that Viola had no motive to make it up at face value, you can never underestimate some people's desire to simply be noticed. That is why having a witness corroboration is important, because even if they are just doing it for attention, at least we know it's not some made up story. If it checks out, then they can have all the attention they ever want. They'd be entitled to that.
 
Anonymou5 said:
I don't think that's necessary at this point.

For example, I have accompanied my dad to various of his operations for a shoulder injury he had. I have had the experience of having to wait long hours in the waiting room, or some family room while my dad was in surgery. Usually my mother was with me as well. When you're waiting hours you do many things to get your mind off the surgery, and how much time you have to wait. A lot of very unique events and conversations happened during those times when we were waiting for my dad to finish up in surgery.

He was never near death or anything, I'm just using it to illustrate the point that if my dad would have had one of these experiences and came back and told me that he saw one of these unique events, I wouldn't turn around and say "Oh yea, let's see you do that again under lab conditions!".
Click to expand...

Oh sure, but you can't have certainty under those circumstances that the information was accurate, that it could not be overheard, that it was remembered / related correctly / that people aren't lying or embellishing, etc etc. But as I say, when you force this towards information control, the evidence so far is that these perceptions mysteriously disappear. I haven't entirely given up the hope that there may be something to these perceptions, but I find that pattern deeply disconcerting, because it has the signature of something that is surviving on a complex juggling act of parallel rumors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top