Proof of life after death?

[Eteponge]

Well, it's obvious to me now more than ever that no series of strong cases of Veridical NDEs/OBEs, no matter how well documented or solid they may seem, are ever free of accusations (whether provable or not) of conscious fraud or subconsciously picking-up-on-things beforehand, no matter how solid or well conceived they may seem. Just like how a determined lawyer can make a strong witness doubt their own testimony and memory (even if it's true), a hardened skeptic can do the same with practically any paranormal case, regardless of what the actual truth may be regarding it.

Let me see if I can bring myself to your level of thinking, and present to you what *I* would say to a believer if indeed I were a Hardend Skeptic, tell me if I do a good job by the way...

Veridical Perception during NDEs/OBE? The answer is, they could have, in all of the numerous well documented cases of NDErs/OBErs out there who obtained Veridical Perception during their experiences, no matter how unlikely given the specific circumstances and situations, no matter of their reputations and sincerity, they all could have obtained the information beforehand either through conscious fraud or subconsiously picking-up-on-things, and just made some very lucky guesses, and their physiological induced "OBEs" coincidentely were fairly accurate, but that's all it was, a coincidence, an anamoly. The experiencer, and the doctors, nurses, paramedics, family, friends, etc, who corroborated the story all could have been remembering the details wrong, making them appear to be more accurate than they truely were. Veridical Evidence where the experiencer met deceased relatives they did not know was dead or had never met before or were never told about? More of the same.

You see? There's nothing there that cannot be explained away, even if I cannot prove it actually happened that way! See? I could play the role of close-minded prosecutioner rather than open-minded investigator if I wanted to. A seasoned prosecuter can make any case look bad, it's a mere game.

Now, can any of this actually be proven to have happened in every single case? Nope. Can any of this actually be disproven to have happened in every single case? Nope. And depending upon the debating skills of the believer or skeptic, they can each cast doubt on each other's side being the more unlikely outcome, regardless of whatever the truth of the matter is. So really, the whole thing is moot.

I agree with the late Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, a founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research, who is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," which Carl Sagan then popularized as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", when he said...

"Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too. But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations." - Macello Truzzi

Also, as for saying my critique of Augustine's Article was inadaquetely, I noticed you only mentioned the part where I talked about his "silly nitpicking and unsupported assumptions", and glossed over the following points I pointed out that are indeed good critiques of his work...

Eteponge

The problem with these arguments, is that it never deals with Numerous Veridical Perceptions where the people wander *outside* of the operating room and overhear conversations and see what people are doing outside of that room that turn out to be accurate! Some observe things happening miles away! Or even the DBV cases where NDErs appeared to loved ones far away at the time of clinical death.

Not to mention very accurate visual descriptions that take place in the operating room such as what the surgeons they have never met looked like, the unusual proceedors used, and like the NDE guy who saw the color tie someone was wearing, and how one NDEr had visually seen a surgeon flapping his arms in a weird manner that happened to be a personal habit of his, etc, etc, etc. He never deals with specific unexplainable stuff like that, and the few times he does, it's purely speculative "coulda, woulda, shouldas" masqueraded around as undeniable fact.

It also doesn't bother to explain how Pam Reynolds accurately described the instruments she had never seen before being used on her, nor about how she saw and met a dead relative that she didn't know at the time was dead! He never deals with stuff like that. Uses a lot of fancy talk, but ignores the death blow evidences like that.

There is also the study of the doctor who got numerous NDErs with no prior medical knowledge who had an NDE and had them describe their own resusitation while out of body, and numerous people who did not have an NDE with no prior medical knowledge and have them do the same, and the NDErs were all accurate and the non-NDErs were not!

Pam Reynolds Case:

* Augustines cleverly IGNORES the fact that Pam Reynolds' Veridical NDE CONTINUED into clinical death and beyond until she was resucitated. He tries to cleverly side-step this fact that the Veridical NDE CONTINUED after that point.

* Augustine cleverly omits that Pam Reynolds accurately visually saw the instruments being used on her from above, and that the instruments used were very unique and wild looking, not something you would normally imagine a "bone saw", etc, to look like. The surgeons in an interview I saw (The BBC Documentary) clearly stated that the instruments were kept hidden and covered up until the actual operation took place, and that Pam had blinders on her eyes during the operation. In addition, one NDE Researcher tried and tried to find a picture of this instrument to verify what Pam saw, and he eventually had to send off for a picture of one because it was so hard to find information on it.

As Michael Prescott pointed out...

"Augustine argues that Reynolds, not fully sedated, overheard enough of the conversation around her to form a mental picture of the procedures that were being followed. But this hardly explains how she was able to describe the appearance of surgical instruments used on her, some of which were quite unusual. Augustine says that some NDErs may pick up this information from TV medical dramas - apparently unaware that "control groups" of TV watchers, when asked to imagine how an operation would look, never display the accuracy of NDErs.

His main source for the Reynolds critique is an article by G.M. Woerlee. Ian Lawton responds to Woerlee, observing,

However, most crucially of all - and maintaining their typical selectiveness - none of [the skeptics] has even tried to explain how [Pam Reynolds] was able to “see” the saw used to open up her skull. Remember that this had an unusual design that a non-expert could not be expected to guess at, and that Pam also described its accompanying “interchangeable blades” in a “socket-wrench case”. Remember too that her eyes were firmly closed, lubricated and taped shut throughout the operation, and that the saw was being used on the top of her head, which would in any case have been out of range of her normal eyesight.

Lawton also cites a psychiatrist, whose contribution is too lengthy to be quoted. Read it for yourself.*"

* Pam Reynolds also met a deceased cousin during her NDE that she did not know at the time was deceased, but found out later that he was.

Augustine made no attempt to adaquetely explain these.

Blind NDEs:

* Kenneth Ring's book on the otherhand, showcases many startling examples of Blind NDErs seeing things they couldn't have possibly known, seen or otherwise. Augustine's article cleverly attempts to pick apart a specific case, but he cleverly ignores more evidential corroborative cases that wouldn't fit into the mold in which he was arguing.

Regardless, he argues that one case was color-blind, rather than being amazed that someone who was born blind could see at all.

As Darby pointed out...

"He entirely and completely ignores the most impressive case in the book where a woman goes blind and then reports seeing her husband and ex-husband standing at the end of a corridor in the emergency room. It as well is anecdotal, but it is certainly stronger than the 'corroborative case' that he attacks."

Those are very good critiques because these are things Augustine wouldn't touch, but they were there in the cases, and he wouldn't directly deal with them adaquetely.

As for the whole Occam's Razor thing, despite my failure to convey what I was trying to get across regarding it, my pal Winston Wu did an excellent article where he tackled the subject indepth...

Quote:

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm

Argument # 3: The Occam’s Razor rule

Stated as: “When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”

This argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force alternate explanations to paranormal ones, even if those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts. Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims. It was popularized by scientist Carl Sagan in his novel turned movie “Contact”, where Jodie Foster quotes it while during a conversation with a theist to defend her belief that God doesn’t exist. (Ironically, at the end of the movie it is used against her in a public interrogation by a National Security Agent.) However, an analysis on the facts and assumptions of this argument reveals some obvious problems.

1) First of all, Occam’s Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It was not intended to be used to evaluate claims of the paranormal as skeptics today use it for. As Phil Gibbs points out in “Physics FAQ”: (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/)

“To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended……..

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.”

Even Isaac Newton didn’t use Occam’s Razor like the skeptics of today do. His version of it was

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” (see same Physics FAQ)

Obviously, he was referring to explanations to explain natural phenomena, not paranormal or supernatural phenomena!

2) Second, what is “simpler” is often relative. As Phil Gibbs points out in the same Physics FAQ:

“Simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do.”

3) Third, even if we take Occam’s Razor at face value the way skeptics use it, just because one explanation is more likely doesn’t mean that it’s always the correct one. For example, if I toss a die, it is more likely that I will roll numbers 1-5 than a 6. But that doesn’t mean that a 6 will never come up. Therefore, occasionally an unlikely explanation can be expected to be true sometimes. However, skeptics treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an absolute rule and use it as a label for denying any paranormal claim, no matter how valid.

4) Fourth, skeptics have used Occam’s Razor so religiously that they misuse it by inventing false accusations and denying the facts in order to force a simpler more natural explanation. For example, if someone had an amazing psychic reading at a psychic fair (not prearranged) where they were told something very specific that couldn’t have been guessed by cold reading, skeptics would start inventing false accusations such as: “Someone who knew you must have tipped off the psychic in advance”, “A spy in the room must have overheard you mention the specific detail before the reading”, “You must have something in your appearance that reveals the detail”, “You must have remembered it wrong since memory is fallible”, etc. Even if none of these accusations are true, skeptics will still insist on it simply because it’s the simpler explanation to them. Likewise, if someone during an NDE or OBE hears a conversation or witnesses something many miles away and later upon verification, it turns out to be true, the skeptics will say that the simpler explanation is that the patient knew about the detail or conversation beforehand but forgot it. A skeptic did that to me once when I brought up how a psychic was able to tell me that I had a tragic period in my life when I was 9 years old, without any other information or clue from me other than my birth date. He kept insisting that I gave her clues which allowed her to predict that, even though I guaranteed him that I didn’t. Examples like these suggest that skeptics are willing to support a false explanation rather than a paranormal one due to their bias.

Also, since your argument seems to have shifted to the whole "All that we have to support paranormal claims is anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable and invalid evidence" and "Memory is malleable and unreliable, people can remember a highly edited version of what occurred, making anecdotal evidence unreliable, therefore, memory is invalid evidence for any paranormal experiences" arguments, I'll post excerpts from Winston Wu's Article tackling these very accusations...

Quote:

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm

Argument # 5: The “anecdotal evidence is invalid” argument.

Stated as: “All that we have to support paranormal claims is anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable and invalid evidence.”

Corollary: “Anecdotal evidence is worthless as scientific evidence.”

The “anecdotal evidence is invalid” argument is perhaps the one most often used by skeptics, and also the core philosophical difference between believers and skeptics. In fact, this issue is often the impasse point that the debates between believers and skeptics reach. The term “anecdote” technically refers to an unpublished story or personal testimony. But in this case, it refers to any eyewitness account or claim of a paranormal nature without hard evidence to corroborate it.

This classification is one of the main categories that skeptics put paranormal evidence into in order to dismiss it. (Another category being the “unreplicable / uncontrolled” group that scientific experiments supporting psi are often put into. See Arguments # 17, 1 cool Skeptics who use this argument often claim that the evidence we have for paranormal claims is largely anecdotal and therefore worthless as scientific evidence. They also claim that anecdotal evidence is invalid because it is largely untestable and subject to error. Some skeptics will even go so far as to say that anecdotal evidence is zero evidence. Not surprisingly though, skeptics tend to quote anecdotal evidence when it supports their side! (another double standard) Therefore it appears that classifying evidence as “anecdotal” is simply a dimissal tactic to try to discredit evidence that skeptics can’t explain away.

There are many factual and critical problems with this tactic.

1) While it may be true that most of the paranormal evidence is largely anecdotal in nature, by no means is it true that they are worthless or invalid. The fact is that most anecdotes, personal accounts, and what we remember check out most of the time or at least point to something real. Rarely is it ever based on nothing at all. For example, if someone told me that there was a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit at the local mall taking photos with kids, the odds are that if I went to the mall to verify it, it would check out most of the time (and if the Santa dressed man isn’t there at the time, he was there earlier at least). Or, if I went to the supermarket and asked the staff what aisle number the bread was at, most of the time the aisle he would tell me would be the one that has bread. Likewise, if I was inside a building and someone came in and said it was raining outside, most of the time it would check out. Either it would be raining now, or the wet floor would show that it was raining earlier. Similarly, when someone tells me what the ending is of a movie or book, it usually always checks out when I watch the movie or read the book. It’s that simple! There are countless examples like this that I could use, most of which are very mundane. Obviously, these types of simple ordinary everyday anecdotes point to something real. Now, since the skeptical philosophy about anecdotes doesn’t hold up when applied to simple mundane examples, why should it be used to evaluate paranormal experiences and claims? It makes no sense at all.

One argument I use that always gets these skeptics goes like this. I ask them about a country they’ve never been to before, such as France for example. And I state it like this: “Since you’ve never been to France before, and you have no real evidence that it exists other than anecdotes you heard, do you assume then that it doesn’t exist for now? After all, the photos, videos, and souvenirs from that country could all be forgeries, you just don’t know do you?” The skeptic will usually reply with “But I can fly to France and verify that it exists.” And that answer totally misses the point, so I then counter with the key question “Yeah but UNTIL you go to France, do you assume for NOW that it doesn’t exist, based on your skeptical philosophy that anecdotal evidence is invalid?” That stumps them EVERYTIME! They NEVER have a response to that one.

Suffice to say, if these skeptics truly believed that anecdotal evidence in general is invalid, then they could not function in life, for they would not believe anything told. They would refuse directions when they are lost, they would disbelieve every story told to them during their family reunions (even by the most honest and credible of their family members), invalidate all reports given to them in their workplace, etc. They know it too, and most likely do not live that way. Therefore, as mentioned before, this is all just a word game play to them, not about seeking the truth.

2) Anecdotal is not considered zero evidence or worthless by our society. Anyone with common sense who isn’t detached from society knows this. Courts consider eyewitness testimony as admissible evidence (though not proof). Employers consider reference letters, character references of friends and former employers, and background checks to be evidence of a job candidate’s performance. Marketing people conduct surveys to get important useful information about the market. A degree of anecdotal evidence is relied upon in everyday society. Obviously, if anecdotal evidence was of zero value, it wouldn’t be like this. But it is, so this demonstrates that these philosophical skeptics are all about playing a closed-minded philosophical word/labeling game, rather than being realistic about anything. Yet when confronted with reality, they continue to just throw labels and semantics out at them, until those who know better simply ignore them. It’s obvious that they either lack the most basic common sense, are in denial, or playing a deliberate game of philosophy.

Factors measuring degree of reliability in anecdotal evidence

3) What these pseudo-skeptics don’t realize is that not only is anecdotal evidence mostly reliable with regard to everyday things, but its degree of validity is can be measured based on several factors.

a) The number of eyewitnesses, testimonials and claims.

b) The consistency of the observations and claims.

c) The credibility of the witnesses.

d) The clarity of and proximity of the observation.

e) The state of mind of the witnesses.

Here is an elaboration on these variables that determine the degree of reliability of anecdotal evidence, and how they have been more than adequately met for many paranormal phenomena.

a) The number of eyewitnesses, testimonials and claims. The more eyewitnesses, testimonies, and claims there are, the greater the weight of evidence. Anyone knows that, and almost everyone operates that way, except pseudo-skeptics of course. Now, if there was only one claim in the world of a psychic experience, that wouldn’t be much. But if a considerable number of people told me the same thing including people I know and trust, then I might think that there could be something to it. And if has to do with a sizable proportion of the world population throughout history, then that’s incredibly significant. To put it simply, something is MORE likely to be true the more people attest to it. It’s not an absolute rule of course, just a general tendency overall. In the case of psychic experiences, surveys show that two-thirds of Americans claim to have had them, which is a significant number ranging over two hundred million in this country alone, not counting the rest of the world! Even the skeptical organization CSICOP admits this stat in articles on their website such as http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/alternative.html and http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00047.html

b) The consistency in the observations and claims of witnesses. The consistency in the reports we get is also a significant factor that people consider. People trust consistency because it makes lying or mistake much less likely. Of course, consistency in observations and experiences does not mean that what was perceived was really what occurred, but it helps rule out fraud for the most part and points us in the right direction. This criteria is also met for some paranormal phenomena. In multiple witness sightings of ghosts and UFO’s for instance, there are accounts of several or more people witnessing the same thing and describing the same details. Even more striking is consistency among people who don’t know each other nor live near one another. For example, in the case of NDE’s, we have great consistency among experiencers in the form of seeing their body below them, moving through a tunnel, going to a great light of love that some call God, going through a life review, returning with permanent life changes, etc.

c) The credibility of the witnesses. The credibility of those making the reports and claims is also relevant. Factors that influence credibility include integrity, character, whether they’ve been known to lie before, education and expertise, mental stability, how well we know them personally (obviously you would place more value in the claim of someone you know and trust as opposed to a stranger), etc. We definitely have anecdotal evidence from this group for various paranormal/psychic phenomena. That is indisputable. Doctors and scientists of esteemed reputations have attested to miracles or paranormal phenomena. Trained radar personnel and Air Force observers have observed UFO’s both on radar and in the sky. Accomplished quantum physicists have found quantum evidence that make psychic phenomena more plausible, such as the discovery that particles behave differently when observed as opposed to unobserved, the nonlocality and connectedness of twin particles that are split, etc. (see Fred Alan Wolfe’s Taking the Quantum Leap and Michael Talbot’s The Holographic Universe) Prominent Psychiatrists such as Dr. Brian Weiss, author of Many Lives, Many Masters, have discovered and documented clinical evidence that past life memories are real and can be verified. Besides experts, people that we know and trust also claim to experience or observed things of a paranormal nature. Note that I’m not saying that an appeal to authority means that it’s right, only that it carries more weight as a general rule.

d) The proximity and clarity of the observation. How close and clear an observation or experience takes place also an important factor. If someone thinks they see Bigfoot as a speck in the distance, then it could be dismissed as almost anything. However, if they saw Bigfoot at close-up point-blank-range, then it would be much more compelling and harder to dismiss. For the person to be mistaken at point-blank-range, he/she would have to be either lying or greatly hallucinating and in need of help. Otherwise, the skeptics should do some serious thinking about their beliefs! Again, this criteria has been met for some paranormal phenomena such as Bigfoot, UFO’s and apparitions, which have been reportedly seen at point-blank-range in crystal clarity. Any research into will reveal lists of testimonials of this close-up nature.

e) The state of mind of the witness at the time. Another variable is the mental state of the witness, which include factors such as their alertness level, fatigue level, intoxication level, emotional level, fear and panic level, etc. This criteria has also been satisfied for paranormal/psychic phenomena because many of the witnesses were sober, awake and sane at the time of their observations and experiences.

f) What the witnesses/experiencers stand to gain from their testimony or claim. Whether the witnesses profit in any way is also a factor to consider, since it would put doubt on their sincerity if they have ulterior motives which might skew their objectivity. On the other hand, if they have nothing to gain then they are less likely to be manipulating us unless it was out of their genuine belief. This is especially so if they’ve suffered ridicule and damage to their reputation for their claims. The latter has been true for both paranormal experiencers as well as those who made new discoveries that validated paranormal phenomena. Esteemed scientists and experts in their fields have risked their reputations to share their discoveries. These include physicist David Bohm (a protйgй of Einstein and author of Wholeness and the Implicate Order) who postulated consciousness related quantum physics theories that contradicted the reductionist views of the universe, Miami Chair of Psychiatry Dr. Brian Weiss (author of Many Lives, Many Masters) who endured ridicule and criticism from his peers for his clinical reports and discoveries in past life regression, and others.

Now of course not all of the evidence for every paranormal and psychic phenomena have met all these criteria, but many of them have met some or all of them. Therefore we can conclude that the evidence for them is overwhelmingly strong, and certainly not zero evidence like pseudo-skeptics claim.

Ordinarily, anecdotal evidence this strong is accepted as valid evidence in most circumstances, so why not in regard to paranormal or psychic phenomena, especially when it’s so common? The reason is because skeptics and certain scientists don’t think these things are possible, therefore they assume that the fallibility of anecdotes must be the cause. In my experience with skeptics though, no matter how much better evidence you give them, they will still find excuses to reject them, even if it means imposing double standards, denying facts or preferring false explanations over paranormal ones. It is apparent that closed-minded skeptics aren’t looking for evidence, but ways to shut it out to protect their views. After all, if they’re really looking for evidence, then why would they shut it out every time it comes up?

Even arch skeptic Bob Carroll of The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com) says that while anecdotal evidence may not be proof, but it helps point us in the right direction. (http://www.skepdic.com/comments/ndecom.html) This isn’t saying of course, that we should believe every anecdotal claim out there. That would be foolish. This is just saying that just because an anecdotal claim doesn’t fit one’s world view, doesn’t mean that it must be due to mistake, fraud or hallucination. The bottom line here is that although lots of people saying something doesn’t mean it’s true, (the ad populum argument) it at makes it MORE likely to be true compared to if no one at all said it was true.

It can also be said that the skeptic’s subjective dismissal of another’s experience is just as unreliable as any anecdotal evidence. Greg Stone, a consciousness expert and fierce knowledgeable debater on my discussion list, makes some intriguing points about how skeptics treat anecdotal evidence:

(referring to the writings of Skeptic Paul Kurtz):

“I suggest that rather than rejecting the eyewitness accounts of so many as unreliable, that he understand that his offhand subjective dismissal of another’s experience is equally unreliable. What is missing is his attempt at understanding what is -- based upon the accounts. That they are laden with the complexity of personal observation does not mean the underlying phenomena are not actual and real. The confusion of the scientist in sorting out complex evidence does not itself render the phenomena unreal...it only means the scientist lacks the insight or tools to do the work. Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place.”

Argument # 6: The memory malleability argument

Stated as: “Memory is malleable and unreliable. People can remember a highly edited version of what occurred, making anecdotal evidence unreliable. Therefore, memory is invalid evidence for any paranormal experiences.”

A similar skeptical tactic to try to further discredit anecdotal evidence (covered above in Argument # 5) is to attack the reliability of people’s memory. Skeptics argue that since memory is malleable, then the memory of paranormal experiencers is unreliable and therefore not to be trusted as valid evidence. This is related to the concept of False Memory Syndrome. Skeptics also try to justify it by using Occam’s Razor, claiming that inaccurate memory is a more probable and simpler explanation than any paranormal one. However, two significant problems with this argument reveal that is not only weak, but inapplicable as well, making it one of the least convincing of the skeptical arguments.

1) The main problem with this is that although memory isn’t perfect and doesn’t work like a tape recorder, the majority of what sane people remember IS reliable and can be checked out and verified. (See Argument # 5) This is easily demonstrable. I could make a long list of things I did yesterday, last week, or even last year. And I could also make a long list of events that happened from yesterday to years ago. The vast majority of these things (I would bet over 95 percent of them) could easily be verified by other people, records/receipts, news articles of the events, etc. No one of course remembers every detail of every second of their life, but what we DO remember tends to be accurate and can be verified. This simple fact is severely damaging to the false memory dogma of this argument. Of course, there are bound to be a few details that are fuzzy that I may not remember correctly, but these are addressed in the second point below.

2) Where memory tends to be unreliable the most is in the area involving details that the brain considers too insignificant to remember (which is the category that most things go into such as the colors of the cars you saw on the way to work this morning, number of steps on a staircase, etc.). Thousands of details we perceive everyday which our minds consider useless and insignificant are discarded. Unfortunately for skeptics and debunkers, paranormal experiences don’t fit into this category because they tend to be significant, shocking, and revealing. As we all know, significant life-altering events in our lives make the biggest impression in our memory and tend to be remembered immediately with clarity, not years afterward. Since paranormal/psychic experiences belong in this category, this further damages this already weak argument even more. In fact, people describing shocking or traumatic events from long ago tend to say, “It was years ago, but I can still see it as if it were happening right now.” These memories are often the same way years later as they were the day they occurred. This means that the memory is consistent and reliable. It’s not like I just thought of an event from years ago that made no impression on me back then and suddenly realize upon reflection that it was paranormal! Therefore memories of paranormal events are not likely to be created by memory malleability. Such was demonstrated in my own case when a psychic who sensed from my “vibrations” that there was a tragic period in my life when I was 9 years old. When a skeptic challenged the reliability of my memory of it, which only occurred a year and a half ago, I easily met his challenge by showing him a post I wrote up about it the day after it occurred, which contained the SAME details that I remember now. (it’s ironic these days when science and technology helps us prove skeptics wrong!)

Therefore, based on the two points above, the memory malleability argument is not only too weak to use to dismiss significant paranormal claims but also inadequate and inapplicable as well.

Argument # 7: “Automatic dismissal of paranormal claims as either due to 1) Mistake; 2) Lying; or 3) Hallucinating.”

Stated as: “Since paranormal phenomena is impossible, those who claim to have seen or experienced anything of a paranormal or psychic nature must be either 1) Mistaken; 2) Lying; or 3) Hallucinating.”

Skeptics who can’t explain away a paranormal event often classify witnesses as either mistaken, lying, or hallucinating. This again reflect bias and prejudgment on their part. Skeptics don’t really know that a claimant must fit one of the above categories, they simply put them there to keep their mental model paradigms intact. This is further evidenced by the fact that many skeptics will continue to insist on one of these three categories even when they are shown to be either impossible or too unlikely to consider.

I know none of this will convince you, I'm merely posting this for others who may find it useful.

[Eteponge]

*Withdrawn due to rethinking myself*

[Marshal67]

Eteponge

You know what? I'm out of this debate. I'm starting to see why my pals Winston Wu and Michael Prescott have stopped debating with Skeptics on message forums after doing so for years, it's pointless. There is absolutely no way to win, they have so many coulda-woulda-shoulda accusations that can neither be confirmed nor denied, cop-out gambits, and doubt-throwing trump cards up their sleeves, that it is truely a mere game and not a pursuit of the actual truth of the matter. Its open-minded investigators versus cynical close-minded prosecutioners. Just like how a determined lawyer can make a strong witness doubt their own testimony and memory (even if it's true), a hardened skeptic can do the same with practically any paranormal case, regardless of what the actual truth may be regarding it.

On the other hand, on some paranormal message forums I've been on, there have been some very respectful open-minded skeptics who have made many valid points without being condenscending and rude and cynical. I have nothing but undying respect for those skeptics. Here, and other places I've been however, the right word to use for them is "septic". Good day.

Hmmm, harsh words. Yes ED has Eletists. But we also have skeptics who are willing to learn and think outside the box. Mind you, we also have a fair deal of pricks, I can be one at times. But, would anyone be here if not for the desire to know the unknown? The is the religion sub-forum after all. There is obviously some desire there, and uncertainty.

[Eteponge]

The previous post I made above was quite rude and prideful and arrogent of myself and I apologize for that. I just get frustrated when I have to act as a one-man-army in these debates because no one else I know around here has the same level of knowledge as me to debate these subject matters on here.

I'll swallow my pride this time and conceed that I do need to do faaar more indepth research into this subject matter in order to present a far more convincing case.

I also conceed that scientifically, the most that can be said about these numerous well documented cases is that due to the Veridical Perception gained during OBE and the Veridical Evidence gained during NDE, it warrents further serious scientific study and inquiry, but it cannot at this present time be said that it concludes the existence of a "Soul/Spirit" or an "Afterlife". BUT it can be considered as circumstantial and anecdotal evidence in favor of such a hypothesis, especially on a personal belief level, but it does not objectively prove that such is the case as of yet, and needs further indepth research backing it. (Although there have been some very convincing studies done on the phenomenon already.)

Also, to answer the question asked earlier, Dr. Pim Van Lommel in his peer reviewed paper in The Lancet, argued that the evidence suggests that the brain might be the receiver of consciousness rather than the producer of consciousness, and that was the extent of his hypothesis with the data at hand. The Lancet is a mainstream leading medical journal by the way, not a "quack journal".

The believers will focus on the numerous impressive hits, while the skeptics will focus on the misses, and neither will come to a mutual conclusion. The believers have very convincing explainations for the misses, while the skeptics have their own explainations for the hits.

However, I would like to point out that post hoc assumptions such as "Maria could have possibly seen the tennis shoe on the third floor ledge several weeks prior if she was driving by the hospital, and that is my reason for not accepting the case as paranormal" is an entirely unprovable accusation that is truely an argument from ignorance (you don't know if she was even in the general area or had ever been to the hospital before her cardiac arrest, and even if she had, if the shoe had actually been there at the time and even if she had looked up in that general direction), and is just as unlikely to have happened, at least to me, as the paranormal explaination is to you.

I'm guessing the reason for choosing such a highly unlikely alternative explaination in the Maria case of which there is no concrete evidence to suggest it actually happened that way, is that choosing this explaination, no matter how unlikely it sounds, is more rational to the Skeptic than the paranormal explaination. While it's possible that could have happened, there is no evidence or indication that it actually did happen that way, and seems very very situational, and too many things would have had to fall into place for it to have happened that way, and there's not enough information to suggest that.

The other story I quoted about a shoe on the roof case however, where the woman saw a red shoe on the actual top part of the roof of a hospital building while OBE, the "driving by" method wouldn't work with that perticular explaination, as it would not be visible on the street below. The only explaination that would work here is if she went up onto the roof herself prior to her OBE (and this doesn't jive because from what I read of the case when she was rush omitted to the hospital it was her first time being there), but I could be wrong on that, but still, no evidence she ever went up there prior to the experience, but you cannot rule it out either.

[Eteponge]

Now I know why I loved reading Keith Augustine's Article before, all of the truely KICK a** "weird" NDEs he found in publications and presented in his article.

Regardless of what you believe regarding NDEs, Thai NDErs have the most KICK a** AWESOME NDEs ever, being judged in front of Yama, the God of Death...

I ... found myself in the judgment hall of Yama's palace. I knew that they were ready to judge me for my sins. A giant rooster appeared who told Yama that I had killed him. He emphasized that I had tried to kill him again and again. The rooster also said that he remembered me exactly. An entire flock of roosters also [appeared] and testified that I had killed them, as well. I remembered my actions, and I had to admit that the roosters had told the truth. Yama said that I had committed many sins, and sentenced me to many rebirths both as a chicken, and many other types of birds as well.... But, quite suddenly, an enormous turtle appeared. It screamed at Yama, saying "Don't take him; he is a good human, and should be allowed to live." Yama answered the turtle "What did he do to help you?" [ellipses original] (Murphy, "Thailand" 167).

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Awesome, awesome, awesome. X333

[Boxy]

Eteponge

Now I know why I loved reading Keith Augustine's Article before, all of the truely KICK a** "weird" NDEs he found in publications and presented in his article.

Regardless of what you believe regarding NDEs, Thai NDErs have the most KICK a** AWESOME NDEs ever, being judged in front of Yama, the God of Death...

I ... found myself in the judgment hall of Yama's palace. I knew that they were ready to judge me for my sins. A giant rooster appeared who told Yama that I had killed him. He emphasized that I had tried to kill him again and again. The rooster also said that he remembered me exactly. An entire flock of roosters also [appeared] and testified that I had killed them, as well. I remembered my actions, and I had to admit that the roosters had told the truth. Yama said that I had committed many sins, and sentenced me to many rebirths both as a chicken, and many other types of birds as well.... But, quite suddenly, an enormous turtle appeared. It screamed at Yama, saying "Don't take him; he is a good human, and should be allowed to live." Yama answered the turtle "What did he do to help you?" [ellipses original] (Murphy, "Thailand" 167).

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Awesome, awesome, awesome. X333

Great Buddhallah, that makes me happy 4laugh

And to support one of your points:

Eteponge

The Lancet is a mainstream leading medical journal by the way, not a "quack journal".

The Lancet is the medical journal that released the civilian death estimate in Iraq around 600,000. It's almost universally accepted as being one of the premier medical journals in the world.

[Eteponge]

Boxy

Eteponge

Regardless of what you believe regarding NDEs, Thai NDErs have the most KICK a** AWESOME NDEs ever, being judged in front of Yama, the God of Death...

I ... found myself in the judgment hall of Yama's palace. I knew that they were ready to judge me for my sins. A giant rooster appeared who told Yama that I had killed him. He emphasized that I had tried to kill him again and again. The rooster also said that he remembered me exactly. An entire flock of roosters also [appeared] and testified that I had killed them, as well. I remembered my actions, and I had to admit that the roosters had told the truth. Yama said that I had committed many sins, and sentenced me to many rebirths both as a chicken, and many other types of birds as well.... But, quite suddenly, an enormous turtle appeared. It screamed at Yama, saying "Don't take him; he is a good human, and should be allowed to live." Yama answered the turtle "What did he do to help you?" [ellipses original] (Murphy, "Thailand" 167).

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Awesome, awesome, awesome. X333

Great Buddhallah, that makes me happy 4laugh

Here is another example...

Satwant Pasricha provides us with the following case from one of the largest surveys of non-Western NDEs conducted so far:

"Don't send me back, just give me some work to do right here," cried Chhajju Bania, 34, crouching before Yamaraj, the god of death who sported a flowing white beard and sat on a high chair.

He looked around and saw a little old lady, apparently a clerk, wielding a pen; several clerks leafed through books.

"You have brought the wrong Chhajju," said a clerk. "Push him back and bring the right one." (Riti).

Here an NDEr is seated near Yamaraj, the Hindu god of death, whose appearance also corresponds to the god's portrayal in Hindu tradition. Hindu religious figures are prominent in NDEs from India: "Almost every person [Pasricha] interviewed here ... met either Yamaraj or his emissaries" (Riti).

From Kevin Williams' NDE Website on Hindu NDEs:

Subjects of Indian near-death experiences frequently report being taken to the after-death realm by functionaries who then discover that a mistake has been made and send the person back, whereupon he or she revives.

Vasudev Pandey

Vasudev Pandey was interviewed in 1975 and again in 1976. He was born in 1921 and had nearly died in his home of what he described as "paratyphoid disease" when he was about 10 years old. Vasudev had been considered dead and his body had actually been taken to the cremation ground. However, some indications of life aroused attention, and Vasudev was removed to the hospital where doctors tried to revive him, using "injections," with eventual success. He remained unconscious for 3 days and then became able to describe the following experience (as narrated to us in 1975):

"Two persons caught me and took me with them. I felt tired after walking some distance; they started to drag me. My feet became useless. There was a man sitting up. He looked dreadful and was all black. He was not wearing any clothes. He said in a rage [to the attendants who had brought Vasudev] "I had asked you to bring Vasudev the gardener. Our garden is drying up. You have brought Vasudev the student." When I regained consciousness, Vasudev the gardener was standing in front of me [apparently in the crowd of family and servants who had gathered around the bed of the ostensibly dead Vasudev]. He was hale and hearty. People started teasing him saying, "Now it is your turn." He seemed to sleep well in the night, but the next morning he was dead."

In reply to questions about details, Vasudev said that the "black man" had a club and used foul language. Vasudev identified him as Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. He said that he was "brought back" by the same two men who had taken him to Yamraj in the first place. Vasudev's mother (who had died before the time of the interview) had been a pious woman who read scriptures that included descriptions of Yamraj. Vasudev, even as a boy before his near-death experience, was quite familiar with Yamraj.

Durga Jatav

Durga Jatav, a man approximately 50 years old, was interviewed in November, 1979, and again 3 months later. About 30 years before, he had been ill for several weeks, suffering from what had been diagnosed as typhoid. When his body "became cold" for a couple of hours, his family thought he had died. He revived, however, and on the third day following this he told his family he had been taken to another place by 10 people. He had tried to escape, but they had then cut off his legs at the knees to prevent his escape. He was taken to a place where there were tables and chairs and 40 or 50 people sitting. He recognized no one. They looked at his "papers," saw that his name was not on their list, and said, "Why have you brought him here? Take him back." To this Durga had replied, "How can I go back? I don't have feet." He was then shown several pairs of legs, he recognized his own, and they were somehow reattached. He was then sent back with the instructions not to "stretch" (bend?) his knees so that they could mend. (Durga's older sister, who was also interviewed, corroborated his account of his apparent death and revival.)

Durga's sister and a neighbor noticed a few days after he revived that marks had appeared on his knees; there had previously been no such marks there. These folds, or deep fissures, in the skin on the front of Durga's knees were still visible in 1979. There was no bleeding or pain in the knees other than the discomfort engendered by Durga's following the "instructions" to keep his knees in a fixed position. X-ray photographs that we had taken in 1981 showed no abnormality below the surface of the skin.

Durga had not heard of such experiences before his own near-death experience. He did not see his physical body from some other position in space. He said that afterward the experience seemed like a dream; nevertheless, he claimed that it had strengthened his faith in God.

One informant for this case (the headman of the village where Durga lived) said that at the time of Durga's experience another person by the same name had died in Agra (about 30 km away); however, neither Durga nor his older sister were able to confirm this statement.

Chhajju Bania

Chhajju Bania was interviewed in 1981, at which time he was about 40 years old. His near-death experience had occurred some 6 years earlier. He became ill with fever and his condition deteriorated until he was thought to have died, at which time his relatives began preparing his body for cremation. However, he revived, and he gave the following account of his experience as he remembered it afterward:

"Four black messengers came and held me. I asked, "Where are you taking me?" They took me and seated me near the god. My body had become small. There was an old lady sitting there. She had a pen in her hand, and the clerks had a heap of books in front of them. I was summoned ... One of the clerks said, "We don't need Chhajju Bania (trader). We had asked for Chhajju Kumhar (potter). Push him back and bring the other man. He (meaning Chhajju Bania) has some life remaining." I asked the clerks to give me some work to do, but not to send me back. Yamraj was there sitting on a high chair with a white beard and wearing yellow clothes. He asked me, "What do you want?" I told him that I wanted to stay there. He asked me to extend my hand. I don't remember whether he gave me something or not. Then I was pushed down [and revived]."

Chhajju mentioned that he later learned that a person called Chhajju Kumhar had died at about the same time that he (Chhajju Bania) revived. He said that his behavior had changed following his near-death experience, particularly in the direction of his becoming more honest.

Chhajju's wife, Saroj, remembered her husband's experience, but her account of what he told her about the near-death experience differed in some details from his statement. For example, she said he had told her (about reviving) that at the place to which the four men had taken him there "was a man with a beard with lots of papers in front of him" (not an old lady). The bearded man said, "It is not his turn. Bring Chhajju Kori (a weaver)" (Not Chhajju Kumhar). Other discrepancies between the two accounts concerned unimportant details. Saroj remembered her husband telling her that he had not wanted to leave "there" and that he had been "pushed down" before he revived.

Mangal Singh

Mangal Singh was interviewed in March, 1983, when he was 79 years old. He described his near-death experience, which had occurred approximately 5 or 6 years earlier. Unlike most subjects who have had near-death experiences, he was not ill at the time, or did not consider himself to be so. He gave the following description of his experience:

"I was lying down on a cot when two people came, lifted me up, and took me along. I heard a hissing sound, but I couldn't see anything. Then I came to a gate. There was grass, and the ground seemed to be sloping. A man was there, and he reprimanded the men who had brought me, "Why have you brought the wrong person? Why have you not brought the man you had been sent for?" The two men [who had brought Mangal] ran away, and the senior man said, "You go back." Suddenly I saw two big pots of boiling water, although there was no fire, no firewood, and no fireplace. Then the man pushed me with his hand and said, "You had better hurry up and go back." When he touched me, I suddenly became aware of how hot his hand was. Then I realized why the pots were boiling. The heat was coming from his hands. Suddenly I regained consciousness, and I had a severe burning sensation in my left arm."

The area developed the appearance of a boil. Mangal showed it to a doctor who applied some ointment. The area healed within 3 days but left a residual mark on the left arm, which was examined.

In response to questions, Mangal said that he thought that he might have been sleeping at the time of the experience, but he was not sure of this. He was unable to describe the appearance of the persons figuring in the experience. It seemed to be less visual than auditory and tactile. He did remember that the senior "official" had picked up a lathi (a heavy Indian staff) with which he intended to beat the lesser "employees" before they ran away. Another person had died in the locality at or about the time he revived, but Mangal and his family made no inquires about the suddenness of this person's death and did not even learn his name.

"Never the spirit was born, the spirit shall cease to be never. Never was time it was not, end and beginning are dreams." - The Bhagavad Gita (Hindu Scripture)

[Boxy]

Isn't it good to know that bureaucratic mix-ups are rectified in the afterlife? mrgreen

Good to know there's still obscure stories in the world, and even more obscure people telling them, Eteponge.

[ReverofeviL]

Eteponge

You know what? I'm out of this debate. I'm starting to see why my pals Winston Wu and Michael Prescott have stopped debating with Skeptics on message forums after doing so for years, it's pointless. There is absolutely no way to win, they have so many coulda-woulda-shoulda accusations that can neither be confirmed nor denied, cop-out gambits, and doubt-throwing trump cards up their sleeves, that it is truely a mere game and not a pursuit of the actual truth of the matter. Its open-minded investigators versus cynical close-minded prosecutioners. Just like how a determined lawyer can make a strong witness doubt their own testimony and memory (even if it's true), a hardened skeptic can do the same with practically any paranormal case, regardless of what the actual truth may be regarding it.

So the only reason for debating is winning? You cant debate to strengthen your own beliefs or to keep having people challenge your veiws? People are stupid and aren't going to give up a belief no matter how many times its disproven or actual hard facts are up against it.

I am amazed what my first post turned into and how far away from the initial topic it became. Since this was was a religious debate, obviously no type of proof exists to give to non believers of this specific topic. The closest to proof, which hardly is a comparison at all, exists in the form of the death experiances people have had and the research behind them. Duh, we all know that. But no amount of in-depth expanations will change someones belief if that belief comes from within, and if they are open minded enough to challenge that belief with the opposing veiw and still believe.

Key word belief. I had asked for everyone's beliefs. It is their personal opinion and opinions arent always based on facts. They are often based on feelings, faith, morals, ect. If the whole point of an afterlife and religion is not following earthly logic and laws of physics, than no earthly logic or law of physic will be an acceptable substitution in making one believe. The same goes for the other side. No account of a spiritual experiance will make those who trust in science change their minds.

[Eteponge]

ReverofeviL

Eteponge

You know what? I'm out of this debate. I'm starting to see why my pals Winston Wu and Michael Prescott have stopped debating with Skeptics on message forums after doing so for years, it's pointless. There is absolutely no way to win, they have so many coulda-woulda-shoulda accusations that can neither be confirmed nor denied, cop-out gambits, and doubt-throwing trump cards up their sleeves, that it is truely a mere game and not a pursuit of the actual truth of the matter. Its open-minded investigators versus cynical close-minded prosecutioners. Just like how a determined lawyer can make a strong witness doubt their own testimony and memory (even if it's true), a hardened skeptic can do the same with practically any paranormal case, regardless of what the actual truth may be regarding it.

So the only reason for debating is winning? You cant debate to strengthen your own beliefs or to keep having people challenge your veiws? People are stupid and aren't going to give up a belief no matter how many times its disproven or actual hard facts are up against it.

I am amazed what my first post turned into and how far away from the initial topic it became. Since this was was a religious debate, obviously no type of proof exists to give to non believers of this specific topic. The closest to proof, which hardly is a comparison at all, exists in the form of the death experiances people have had and the research behind them. Duh, we all know that. But no amount of in-depth expanations will change someones belief if that belief comes from within, and if they are open minded enough to challenge that belief with the opposing veiw and still believe.

Key word belief. I had asked for everyone's beliefs. It is their personal opinion and opinions arent always based on facts. They are often based on feelings, faith, morals, ect. If the whole point of an afterlife and religion is not following earthly logic and laws of physics, than no earthly logic or law of physic will be an acceptable substitution in making one believe. The same goes for the other side. No account of a spiritual experiance will make those who trust in science change their minds.

I withdrew that post, I wish everyone would stop quoting it.

[Kalil Chernov]

Eteponge

I also conceed that scientifically, the most that can be said about these numerous well documented cases is that due to the Veridical Perception gained during OBE and the Veridical Evidence gained during NDE, it warrents further serious scientific study and inquiry, but it cannot at this present time be said that it concludes the existence of a "Soul/Spirit" or an "Afterlife". BUT it can be considered as circumstantial and anecdotal evidence in favor of such a hypothesis, especially on a personal belief level, but it does not objectively prove that such is the case as of yet, and needs further indepth research backing it.

I'll agree with that statement. The main difficulty, of course, arises in designing a study that can rule out the myriad alternate explanations for the phenomenon. Better minds that I have tried...

[Eteponge]

Kalil Chernov

Eteponge

I also conceed that scientifically, the most that can be said about these numerous well documented cases is that due to the Veridical Perception gained during OBE and the Veridical Evidence gained during NDE, it warrents further serious scientific study and inquiry, but it cannot at this present time be said that it concludes the existence of a "Soul/Spirit" or an "Afterlife". BUT it can be considered as circumstantial and anecdotal evidence in favor of such a hypothesis, especially on a personal belief level, but it does not objectively prove that such is the case as of yet, and needs further indepth research backing it.

I'll agree with that statement. The main difficulty, of course, arises in designing a study that can rule out the myriad alternate explanations for the phenomenon. Better minds that I have tried...

Now, if the following research case had been properly controlled, it would probably be considered absolute concrete proof that OBE can gain Veridical Perception...

"I know of one event that came very close to providing scientific proof of autoscopy. The only reason it did not qualify as scientific proof is because the proper controls weren't used at the time it occurred. Dr. Charles Tart was experimenting with a subject who would have spontaneous out-of-body experiences. A remote five-digit number was placed out of view of the subject. She had an out-of-body experience and successfully read the five-digit number. The subject was then able to return to her body and successfully tell Dr. Tart what the number is. This provides strong circumstantial evidence that consciousness can transcend the physical body." - Kevin Williams, NDE Researcher

Another example that I need to get further research on is this one...

"Robert Morris at the Psychical Foundation of North Carolina spent two years investigating OBEs. A volunteer subject Keith 'Blue' Harary, who claimed to have been having out of body experiences since childhood, was able to lie down in a sealed laboratory room and project himself to another house twenty yards away. While there he was able to read letters and report accurately on which experimenters were sitting there and where they were sitting."

And I need to research the cases provided by my friend Michael Prescott...

"The clinical testing of OBEs - in which strain gauges were triggered at a distance, apparently by the test subject's roving presence, and in which an animal reacted consistently as if the subject were in the room when he was reportedly having an OBE while asleep in the next room - would have to be debunked. Remote viewing, which yielded some spectacular hits (as well as major misses) in the Stargate program, would have to be debunked."

An excerpt from Charles Tart's article, "Who Might Survive Bodily Death?"

Out-of-Body Experiences

"There are other phenomena that begin to bear more directly on the survival question, even if they have not been investigated nearly as well. For example, out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs). Years ago, I was very fortunate to meet a young woman who, since childhood, had OBE experiences routinely, many nights of the week. In fact as a child, she thought that it was normal that you go to bed, you fall asleep, you have a dream, you float up near the ceiling for a few seconds, you have another dream, and you wake up and go to school. Isn't that what sleep is about? I was able to have her spend four nights in my sleep laboratory. She had electrodes attached to her head to measure her brain waves. That meant that she could not get our of bed without making the recording machine in the next room spray ink all over the walls! After she was ready to go to sleep, I would go off to another room and randomly select a five-digit sequence, and write it on a piece of paper. Then I would go in and put it up on a shelf near the ceiling by a clock, so that even a person walking around in the room could not read it. I told her "If you get out of your body, not only do I want you to wake up afterwards and tell me about it, but try to read the number and take a look at the time, so we get the timing down right." Well, she had a total of seven or eight OBEs. During these she was in a brain wave state that I had never seen before. I have looked at a lot of records of people sleeping and dreaming, and this was like the dreaming state Stage One EEG, except there was a lot of slowed down alpha rhythm. I even showed it to the world's foremost EEG expert on sleep and we had 100 percent agreement. He said "It looks weird to me, too." I wish we had actually known what it meant. But she certainly was not near death.

On all nights but one, though, she said, "I'm sorry. I floated out of my body, but I was on the other side of the room, and I could not look at the number before I got back into my body." On the one occasion when she said she saw the number, she correctly reported that it was 25132. Now that is odds of a hundred thousand to one to guess that on a single try (Tart, 196 cool . I would have thought that, in a rational world, people all over the country would say, "Let's find the people who can do this, and let's study them extensively." But as you know, it did not happen."

[Eteponge]

Ah, I found a very interesting source of information describing the various OBE Experiments...

http://www.parapsych.org/out_of_body_experiences.htm

Out-Of-Body Experiences (OBE or OOBE)
Mario Varvoglis, Ph.D.

Sometimes referred to as "astral projection" in esoteric literature, out-of-body experience ("OBE" or "OOBE" wink is a more neutral term to describe the sensation of feeling as if consciousness, or the self, is located somewhere other than where the body is physically located.

Some psychologists tend to view OBEs as simply a form of hallucination. For example, British psychologist Susan Blackmore refers to it as a particular "cognitive map," an alternative mental model, in which the mind acts as if it were experiencing the world not from the usual perspective -- that of the body -- but from some other location. In line with this interpretation, considerable work has been undertaken to explore whether people having OBEs have any particular psychological characteristics that would account for such hallucinatory experiences.

On the other hand, there are some scientific experiments in which the person having the out-of-body experience seems to actually perceive distant events or targets, as if their consciousness is truly located in that distant location.

An intermediate position between the two extreme interpretations - true relocalization of the mind vs. mere hallucination - is that the OBE is a particularly powerful altered state of consciousness which both induces a subjective impression of mind-body separation, and greatly enhances the person's clairvoyant psi capacities. Experiments such as Tart's were not designed to distinguish between this hypothesis and the «projection» idea, but other studies have attempted to address this distinction.

In the mid-1970s, Dr. Robert Morris and his colleagues conducted an interesting experiment with psi researcher Keith Harary as subject. Like Miss Z, Harary - at the time a psychology student - seemed able to voluntarily induce an OBE. His kitten, enclosed in a cage and constantly filmed, was to act as a biological detector of Harary, who would attempt to 'project' his consciousness into the cage from a distant room. Indeed, it was found that the kitten's agitation - its movements in the cage - was significantly reduced specifically at the moments at which Harary had been instructed to project his consciousness into the cage. Over time, however, the kitten's "baseline agitation" decreased, and its reactions to Keith Harary seem to have declined - perhaps as it became habituated to the experimental conditions (i.e., being locked in a cage!)

Of course, just as Tart's experiment could be interpreted in terms of ESP, so too the early results of this study could be interpreted in terms of mundane psi: perhaps Harary simply entered a mental state in which he exerted a calming influence upon his cat, i.e., through a form of bio-psychokinesis. A more stringent test would be for the person having the OBE to both report distant events, and to be "detected" at the distant location.

The late Karlis Osis, of the American Society for Psychical Research, sought to determine whether a physical instrument could detect a psychic's "astral body" at the time he was attempting to view a hidden target through his astral vision. Osis installed a strain gauge (which detects extremely subtle physical movements) in front of an optical device in which a graphic "target" was concealed. The setup was such that the image could only be perceived face-on - from the place where the strain-gauge was located; otherwise, from a different angle, a viewer would only see overlapping lines. The psychic Alex Tannous, who was not told about the strain gauge, was asked to attempt to project in front of the optical apparatus, and describe what he saw. Osis found that the strain gauge registered significantly more movement in those trials in which Tannous gave correct descriptions of the target. The implication may be that some facet of Tannous' mind was indeed "projecting" in front of the optical apparatus.

It is still possible to entertain the idea that in such experiments there is no true "projection," but rather a combination of successful ESP trials and unintentional PK activity. The ideal experiment for astral projection would probably necessitate not just ESP tasks and mechanical or biological detectors, but also several human observers who could independently attest to the presence of the subject's "astral body" at the moment at which projection is being attempted.

In the meantime, as suggested by psi researcher Carlos Alvarado, a primary objective would be to pay much more attention to the phenomenology of the OBE, as described by those who actually have these experiences; we may discover that terms like OBE or astral projection cover a wide range of different phenomena, and that no single explanation can account for them all.

EDIT:

Found a second source for this as well...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0120993/obefull.html

[Brodie Asturias]

Well, I don't believe in life after death. Certainly, they can revive people who are 'dead' up to five minutes after their death or something before they get too brain damaged, but still. Your heart skips a beat and you're going to feel it.

Anyway, when deprived of oxygen, the brain does all sorts of crazy things. Some people are going to experience funny things. That is all life after death experiences are. Nothing more. People are dumb.