Mod+ 276. DR. ALAN HUGENOT, IANDS AND THE FUTURE OF NDE RESEARCH

Alex

Administrator
#81
I didn't realize Alan Hugenot was a board member. I don't see him listed on the IANDS website in that capacity. IANDS has an awkward mix of researchers and experiencers. Many of the experiencers don't like the researchers. Many of the researchers don't want to be tainted by association with experiencers. I think that's why this year's conference has separated the two groups by essentially having two conferences. The IANDS conference doesn't have a peer review process for scientifically themed papers that are presented there. It's really more of a fund raiser for the organization. Most of the people who buy tickets don't want anything too "sciencey".

IANDS is basically more of an educational organization and support group, rather than a scientific or research based organization. It lets experiencers know they aren't alone. I think it does the same thing for researchers, although they have become much less involved over the years.
re Alan... the folks at IANDS introduced me to him as a board member, but I didn't really check beyond that.

re research, I think there are going to be real NDE researchers at the conf (I've spoken to at least one), but you may be right re the divide.
 
#82
So given that we know people report these OBE's, and that is the point where objects might be seen - the study proves nothing :(

David
One person heard the audible sound from the automated external defibrillator which allowed both the duration and timing of his experience to be pinpointed.

Quote:
One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest. Dr Parnia concluded: “This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml#.VDa5LhaOqSo.
 
#83
re Alan... the folks at IANDS introduced me to him as a board member, but I didn't really check beyond that.

re research, I think there are going to be real NDE researchers at the conf (I've spoken to at least one), but you may be right re the divide.
Bruce Greyson will be there, so yes, there are "real researchers", but there is no peer review process for scientific papers presented at IANDS conferences. Two years ago. one "researcher" presented a talk which was basically bad mouthing the keynote speaker (Eben Alexander). That "PhD" researcher used Esquire, The Huffington Post, and Time Magazine as his primary references. It was not a scientific talk, but it was framed as one which was pretty sad. So you never know what you'll get in terms of the scientific quality of the talks. To be fair, since that conference they do have someone to vet the scientific talks, but it wouldn't be peer review like at a scientific conference.

I think Bruce Greyson would have been a better candidate to talk about AWARE.
 
#84
So given that we know people report these OBE's, and that is the point where objects might be seen - the study proves nothing :(

David
It was not possible to test the OBE hypotheses via the high up on the wall shelves method, no. However, there were two OBE's reported in areas without boards fitted, one containing verifiably gained information and timed to have occurred more than 3 minutes into a cardiac arrest, which is currently unexplainable.
Fenwick regards the case of Mr A as solid evidence for the ability of the mind to function when the brain is not working.
 
#86
No, a group NDE is when all involved are actually near-death. In this case it was due to a lightning striking all at once.
Yes there were a group of bush fire-fighters in Australia who experienced something like that. They were all nearly killed by smoke as the fire past over them (They were dug into shallow or slight hollows with fire blankets over them) .

They had OBE's I read, and recognised each other again but in the OBE state. I know I've read this but I can't remember where....sorry. If it comes to me I'll stick it up.
 
#87
Can anyone suggest a better model other than sticking upside down pictures on a ceiling.

They could do a lot of different things than just having a picture up on a shelf. Since most of the NDE'rs seem to focus on their own body, in amazement, during a OBE/NDE, they should create some sort of focus-point near, or on, the body of the patient. Like having a small spotlight with bright coloured lights (a random colour, like pink, purple, etc) pointed at the lower parts of the patients body during resuscitation. Or by pulling a colourful blanket (like pink or puke-green or similar) over the lower part of the body that doesn't need need exposure for the resuscitation.

Or have a small projector connected to a computer that projects randomized picture/movieclips on the wall/floor. For example; having the projector blinking a image of one of the Zener cards on the floor/wall would surely bring attention to it. I think they need to do something like this to really get the attention of those OBE/NDE'rs. As I said, the body is the focus-point - or the immediate area around it. Looking for a picture on a shelf is probably not the first thing a OBE'er do.

 
#89
#92
Below is a link to the proposal for the AWARE II study.

When they respond to cardiac arrests, they are going use equipment to monitor oxygen levels in the brain and tablet computers to display images above the patient and facing upwards. It sounds like a good follow up to the first study.

(The site seems to be down temporarily as I am posting this but this link has worked in the past..)
http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=17129
 
Last edited:
#94
If you argue that the mind and consciousness is not physical or material, you can not argue for science to verify it, it's like asking science to create a model that can read my mind.

Once you accept the mind is not material, you have to also accept that it's outside the scope of empirical science to grasp it.
However, that does not prevents that the psychic research exists and that it have drawn certain conclusions about apparitions, mediumship, etc. About NDEs, I do not think it's impossible to collect cases of NDEs with veridical information and probably not obtainable by the five senses, inference, luck or memory.

The problem is that there are many variables in this area, not that consciousness is not physical.
 
Last edited:
#95
,
However, that does not prevents that the psychic research exists and that it have drawn certain conclusions about apparitions, mediumship, etc. About NDEs, I do not think it's impossible to collect cases of NDEs with veridical information and probably not obtainable by the five senses, inference, luck or memory.

The problem is that there are many variables in this area, not that consciousness is not physical.
I agree, however I can't seem to understand how it plays a part in empirical science or how empirical science can validate it.
 
#96
Below is a link to the proposal for the AWARE II study.

In addition to displaying images on tablet computers above the patient and facing upwards, when they respond to cardiac arrests, they are going to use brain oxygen monitoring equipment. It sounds like a good follow up to the first study.

(The site seems to be down temporarily as I am posting this but this link has worked in the past..)
http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=17129
Do people in OBE's or NDE's (assuming these are related) see things on computer screens? Certainly CRT screens are like TV screens - they refresh at a rate that fools the brain - but might not fool a disembodied consciousness. I think LED screens are always on, but anyway, I even wonder about all pictures - these are not the same as actual objects. We really know nothing about what 'seeing' in an OBE actually is!

The real problem with the first study seems to be that they didn't get any patients with OBE's - it would be unfortunate if in the second study they fixed that problem, but supplied things that were not visible from an NDE!

My feeling is that it might be easier to study people who can OBE easily, and see if we could obtain proof that they were seeing stuff that they could not see naturally.

David
 
Last edited:
#97
I have two thoughts on this subject. First, the scientific community (IMHO) is like any other club....you have to agree with the politically correct view of things, or you can't join the club. Since the prevailing view of science is a materialistic one, I think it will take at least a generation for this view to change (that is, if we don't descend into another dark age, where violence and religious fanaticism prevail).

Secondly, I come from a family of scientists, and I've had an NDE and several OBE's, about which I remained silent for years. ( I was afraid of being labeled "crazy"...which was a family theme since I have one half-brother who is schizophrenic.) I've also had the experience of merging with a being of light...and for me this experience was not associated with any "religious" overtones. As a result, I'm not really too concerned with wordy definitions about who or what this "being of light" was, since the experience was ineffable.
 
#98
Do people in OBE's or NDE's (assuming these are related) see things on computer screens? Certainly CRT screens are like TV screens - they refresh at a rate that fools the brain - but might not fool a disembodied consciousness. I think LED screens are always on, but anyway, I even wonder about all pictures - these are not the same as actual objects. We really know nothing about what 'seeing' in an OBE actually is!
You raise some interesting points, I've often asked myself similar questions. I don't think we know whether photons are involved, so an image on a display screen might be of no consequence - I don't know, it's just one more unanswered question.

There's also the emotional content, a piece of text or string of numbers is all very well for verification purposes, but what if the person in the OBE is more interested in a bunch of flowers or a piece of clothing, things which might give some emotional reaction. I know some of the images in the AWARE study were chosen because of such factors, but I'm not sure whether an image of something has as much impact as the something itself. In our world we are indeed affected by images, especially moving ones, but I'm not sure to what extent that applies during an OBE.
 
#99
,

I agree, however I can't seem to understand how it plays a part in empirical science or how empirical science can validate it.
It's already been validated empirically. The thing is that materialists have their own version of what is empirical. Surprisingly this is something that Wikipedia currently has a correct synopsis of. lol

a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4][page needed] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.
 
It's already been validated empirically. The thing is that materialists have their own version of what is empirical. Surprisingly this is something that Wikipedia currently has a correct synopsis of. lol

a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4][page needed] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.
Where is the empirical evidence of the mind?
 
Top