What would Oliver Sacks say about the afterlife now? |291|

#61
It seems quite significant to me that all those who actually do the hard research come away as believers and all those who sit on their backsides thinking they are being scientific by ignoring their findings, refuse to.
Yes good point but I wonder what Sam Parnia believes now after the Aware study results. As I understand it the results were disappointing.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Doug

Parnia's position is that consciousness continues (for a period) after the brain has stopped working based on where we are now with the research. Two years ago he said that he doesn't believe we become annihilated and that we are re-united with deceased loved ones etc. But you won't often hear him say that as it invoked savage criticism from the "death is the end and don't you dare say it's not, crowd"

The results were disappointing only because the OBE was not able to tested properly. No one had an OBE in research area.
 
#63
The results were disappointing only because the OBE was not able to tested properly. No one had an OBE in research area.
...and if I might add, the follow ups took far too long. The stats in the study showed that far too many had died before they could be interviewed.

We know from the Dutch study that the longer NDE experients were in cardiac arrest, the deeper seems to be their experience. Unfortunately the longer patients are in cardiac arrest, the faster they 'generally' seem to die following resuscitation.

The rediculously long period of time it took to interview many patients for the study, therefore meant many of the most significant (deeper) experiences were probably lost.
 
#64
It seems, at least to me, that they focused too much on the "biggest NDE study [yet]" hook and "recruited" an excess of patients. The vast mayority of them were clearly unviable, so why bother?

The methodology required simplification and depuration, which is something that they indirectly acknowledged by modifying the use of the targets in AWARE II.
 
#65
It seems, at least to me, that they focused too much on the "biggest NDE study [yet]" hook and "recruited" an excess of patients. The vast mayority of them were clearly unviable, so why bother?

The methodology required simplification and depuration, which is something that they indirectly acknowledged by modifying the use of the targets in AWARE II.
So perhaps another study using different methodology might give some really hard evidence.
 
#66
They should get more clarity in their results by installing the portable targets during the resuscitations of their "recruited" patients. Also, logic dictates that to avoid the issues of the first study only patients that were attended in areas where the set up was successfully in place should be "recruited".

I am not sure what would constitute "hard" evidence, at least "hard" enough to change the paradigm in one disruptive blow, but three to five hits should be able to rock the boat; even two should be able to generate a big buzz.
 
Last edited:
#67
They should get more clarity in their results by installing the portable targets during the resucitations of their "recruited" patients. Also, logic dictates that to avoid the issues of the first study only patients that were attended in areas where the set up was successfully in place should be "recruited".

I am not sure what would constitute "hard" evidence, at least "hard" enough to change the paradigm in one disruptive blow, but three to five hits should be able to rock the boat; even two should be able to generate a big buzz.
Yes, "hard evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, but it would be enough to give the existing paradigm a real shake up.
 
#68
I guess most us will have seen Dr Tony Cicoria's NDE, the bolt from the blue. He talked it over with Sacks (Sacks published it in his book, too) who wanted to put it down to brain pathology. Cicoria remains convinced it was a real OBE (real as in real separation).

I have no reason to doubt he's reporting it exactly as he remembers it and I find it a fascinating example. The getting hit, seeing the lightning flash, being thrown backwards ...and then going forwards and standing there looking at the dangling phone. The mother in law running down the stairs screaming (Cicoria thinks she's going to engage him but she can't see him and runs right past oblivious)

He turns around to see where she's going and see's his poleaxed body lying on the floor, fifteen feet or so away. " Oh shit.. I'm dead ! "
He tries to communicate with the people who are now attending to his lifeless body but they can't hear him or see him so he decides to leave the area.

The sceptics of course, don't accept this experience as being real. So lets go for the confabulation theory. He imagined all this. Why is he (like all the other attested OBEs) unable to communicate with the people around his body ? I can't see why a confabulation would not allow him fulfil this basic desire and have the people talk back to him, if it's wish fulfilling fantasy. Just a few thoughts

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/23/a-bolt-from-the-blue
 
#70
I guess most us will have seen Dr Tony Cicoria's NDE, the bolt from the blue. He talked it over with Sacks (Sacks published it in his book, too) who wanted to put it down to brain pathology. Cicoria remains convinced it was a real OBE (real as in real separation).

I have no reason to doubt he's reporting it exactly as he remembers it and I find it a fascinating example. The getting hit, seeing the lightning flash, being thrown backwards ...and then going forwards and standing there looking at the dangling phone. The mother in law running down the stairs screaming (Cicoria thinks she's going to engage him but she can't see him and runs right past oblivious)

He turns around to see where she's going and see's his poleaxed body lying on the floor, fifteen feet or so away. " Oh shit.. I'm dead ! "
He tries to communicate with the people who are now attending to his lifeless body but they can't hear him or see him so he decides to leave the area.

The sceptics of course, don't accept this experience as being real. So lets go for the confabulation theory. He imagined all this. Why is he (like all the other attested OBEs) unable to communicate with the people around his body ? I can't see why a confabulation would not allow him fulfil this basic desire and have the people talk back to him, if it's wish fulfilling fantasy. Just a few thoughts

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/23/a-bolt-from-the-blue
Fascinating case, I had not read of that before, thanks for the link.
 
#71
Reports from mediums and clairvoyants who have a good track record of producing veridical data.

AP
I recently read a column about what mediums say about the other side. Not everyone has a Eben Alexander or Anita Moorjani experience. More likely strongly held beliefs are retained, or at least some of them . One story related a family member contacted a deceased relative through a medium. The medium reported this relative was reluctant to communicate because while alive he didn't believe in mediums. He did engage in the communication however out of the emotional attachment he held.
There is quite a bit of anecdotal reports that strongly held beliefs survive the trip to the other side. It's possible Christopher Hitchens may still be an atheist in some fashion.
I know Alex has used done a medium reading with a random volunteer sitter in which neither the medium or Alex knew anything about the deceased target. It had very effective results. As I remember the target contacted the medium before Alex did. I think it would be entertaining if Alex or someone here contacted Dr. Oliver Sacks and asked him how he's doing and what does he think now? Maybe they could dredge up Hitchens and see how stodgily he's hung on to his 'God is not Great' argument. I'd be willing to bet instead of a mea culpa, one would get a nuanced defense.
 
Top