(Resurrecting) The Living Dead

A lot of interest (judging by my email Inbox) about a fresh story in Britain's The Sunday Times, regarding the new 'Near-Death Experience' (NDE) research experiment which is testing to see if cardiac arrest patients can view 'hidden targets' while undergoing the out-of-body experience (OBE) component of an NDE:

Parnia’s study is aimed solely at OBEs in cases of cardiac arrest. It uses a technique known as “hidden target”. In the participating hospitals he is placing pictures on high shelves so that they will be invisible both to patients and staff. But anybody floating near the ceiling would see them. A substantial number of accurate reports of the pictures would seem to establish the reality of OBEs. There are numerous problems with this. Parnia’s study does not have enough money to put laptops on the shelves generating random pictures to ensure that cheating is impossible. Furthermore, previous hidden-target experiments by, among others, Parnia himself and Dr Penny Sartori at Morriston Hospital in Swansea have failed to produce a single positive result. In fairness, this may be because the last thing that a floating dying person, with Jesus behind him and his body being pounded in front of him, will notice is some odd picture left on a shelf. This leaves believers in OBEs with an evidential mountain to climb.

This story isn't exactly news - Dr Sam Parnia has been working on this angle for a number of years (I think there was an article about it in Issue 2 of Phenomena when I worked for them way back), and I reported on the renewed collaborative effort back in September here on TDG. What is news is the treatment it got in a major newspaper - serious, considered, and balanced coverage! Not surprising though, given the writer is Bryan Appleyard, one of the more intelligent journalists out there when it comes to topics at the edge of science. Appleyard has in the past criticised scientism, and has rightly pointed out that science is just one part of the totality of life (hey, anybody that can get called "a pompous kook" by P.Z. Myers is alright with me).

The article is in-depth and covers a lot of ground - Appleyard even talks to physicist Henry Stapp about the quantum mechanics-consciousness crossover. There's some things I would take issue with (e.g. once again saying Henrik Ehrsson "induced OBEs" in his recent research...err, no), but apart from those few instances it's one of the best presentations of 'fringe' research that you're likely to see in the mainstream media.

Also: Robert McLuhan has discussed the article at Paranormalia, and as usual it's worth checking out.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
pacificwhim's picture
Member since:
21 June 2007
Last activity:
4 years 12 weeks

Greg, I went back and read the 2005 ID piece by Appleyard that sent Myers and his commenters into a typically Randiesque frenzy of sarcasm and eye-rolling superiority. Not a thing wrong with it if you read it honestly, as a piece commenting on the nature of ID. He wasn't supporting the fundamentalist concept of ID; merely explaining it. Yet because a piece on intelligent design, the single idea that most sends pseudoskeptics into a foaming frenzy, appears in the London Times, they freak.

This just proves once again that it's not about evidence. It's not about reason. It's not about true skepticism. It's that these people simply cannot tolerate any non-reductionist/materialist or frontier science topic being discussed with anything other than scorn and derision. If you're a writer, and you're not poking merciless fun at psi, survival, ID and UFOs and the people who investigate them, then you're an anti-reason true believer who's as stupid and/or delusional as they are.

These folks simply cannot tolerate the respectful or reasoned discussion of fringe topics, in the same way that a vampire cannot tolerate sunlight.

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
8 hours 57 min

"That, in a nutshell, is the mainstream position. What Braithwaite means by the “dying-brain account” is simply that NDEs are just what happen when the brain starts shutting down; they may, indeed, be an evolved mechanism to console the psyche by distracting it from the unimaginable and intolerable prospect of its own extinction."

Interesting...anybody else see the glaring contradiction in this statement?

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
2 days 6 hours

By 'glaring contradiction' you mean the difficulty in accounting evolutionary processes responsible for a supposed mechanism that has really no evolutionary advantage at all? A soothing death is a trait that does not really benefit the species, and by the time you experience it, you've done with the whole 'gene-transmit job' (i.e. reproduction), so I don't see how that could give your offspring an advantage over their competitors.

-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie