# Grand Unified Theory of the paranormal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710 "2005-10-11T04:10:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/41 "2005-10-13T02:06:12Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Warning, [PDF.](http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf) > > The [link](http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html#how_to_find) that includes that link. > > An experienced poster/mod is prodding his opponent for a cite that is so basic to the debate that he should be ashamed he doesn’t know exactly where to look for it and hasn’t provided it himself. > > C’mon, **tomndeb** there is a _right way_ to debate in which start from common ground and actually help your opponent to make the best arguments possible and counter them in a respectful and productive manner. Sheesh. Thanks again. I have presented this link a dozen times. The skeptics never seem to be able to find, read, or understand any of it. I think it is just a denial strategy. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/42 "2005-10-13T02:14:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Projeting to the 10th degree here. > > Fact is, the believers are the ones that fought tooth and nail to keep believing in paranormal explanations for phenomena that eventually was explained properly. When the threat of burning at the stake came in disuse, your side lost the best argument they had. > > For example: lightning was considered a divine power, but after Ben Franklin, no one thinks it has a supernatural explanation. > And checking reality, the information for the Lancet is fascinating, but the problem is that the research shows that very few of the people resuscitated had the NDE, right out of the bat, it can not be denied that is not a universal phenomenon, being that it is capricious in nature, the fact that the ones that experienced NDE got a change of attitude regarding death is not strange. The phenomenon is real, but it does not mean what you want it to be. It is not capricious in nature, only not understood properly, some people remember years later, some know something happened but can’t tell what. The fact they don’t all experience doesn’t take away from those that do in any manner. Yes, the phenomenon is real, the research shows what it is, you don’t need to give meaning, it already has meaning. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/43 "2005-10-13T02:28:38Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Understanding how Freudian Psychology succeeded as a meme is a necessary but not sufficient condition of understanding how phenomena that are currently labeled “paranormal,” or subgroups thereof, continue to garner belief yet be rejected by Scientific Consensus. > > Now I think I have an insight into how this all happens. In short, you are going to have both false positives and false negatives in any belief system as to the elements thereof conforming to Reality. And the reason for that is that is… complicated. > > The trouble with the concept of Reality or, as I like to term it, That Which Is, is illuminated by Godel’s proof that any mathematical system cannot be both complete and consistent. We cannot verbally access the concept of “Reality” and _project_ our confidence in that system’s making sense, “playing nice.” We cannot do so and hope to be without error. > > Hence, the Scientific Mind points to NDEs and says, “Dreams, illusions, hallucinations–not real.” Alien abduction experiences are just hallucinations associated with sleep paralysis. Not part of Reality. Ah hah! Gotcha! The assumption being that we can point in confidence to Reality and see its contents. The assumption is false. > > The second and incorrrect way is to call the phenomenon “unreal” and forget about it. Dreams, NDEs, alien abduction experiences, etc., are all “unreal” since they are “mere” mental phenomena. And we can blow off mental phenomena as stuff that just happens in your head. And thus it’s “unreal.” Circular reasoning 101. > > (What the atheist-materialists simply cannot allow, however, is for any of the above phenomenon to impinge upon what they _do_ consider real, and they will fight tooth and claw and downright dirty to deny that NDEs can be veridical or that alien abuductions have any associated physical effects. These are empirical matters, and I won’t argue them here, since that’s how these discussions get nasty. I want to focus on the philosophical issues.) > > At the end of the day, the atheist-materialists feel they have captured their opponents flag if they can label his phenomena “unreal.” My **big point** here is to say that _real inquiry and discussion_ begins there, not stops. > > Back to the OP’s question, rephrased: Why do so many people believe in phenomena that are “unreal”? Following my advice above, I would divide that question into two parts. One, within the set of those beliefs, what claims are completely unfulfilled on their own terms? Two, what claims _are_ completely fulfilled on their own terms? > > For example, NDEs. We can investigate whether the claims of veridicity (is that a word?) are coherent. But even if we conclude that they are not, there is still the phenomenon of people feeling like they’re going to a new world, seeing their deceased relatives, experiencing total peace, etc. And if they experience that, then mustn’t we conclude that there _is_ (or was) an Afterlife, if only for them as individuals, since the requirements for that concept’s realization have been fulfilled? > > In short, give up the dull dagger of “real/not real,” and true inquiry begins. I appreciated your post. I’m not sure what you mean by a set of beliefs completely unfullfilled, or fullfilled on their own terms. Can you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/44 "2005-10-13T02:50:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am actually open to the possibility that there is a spiritul component to NDEs. However, since so much of his information is false, I see no reason to do his work for him. No matter how poor a poster your opponent is, if you are going to “fight ignorance” and set a good example to others as to posting practices, you’ll have to hold yourself to a higher standard. Especially since you’re a mod, right? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/45 "2005-10-13T03:22:24Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > It is not capricious in nature, only not understood properly, some people remember years later, some know something happened but can’t tell what. The fact they don’t all experience doesn’t take away from those that do in any manner. Yes, the phenomenon is real, the research shows what it is, you don’t need to give meaning, it already has meaning. Only 18% reported it, and even less reported a deep NDE, still capricious. The phenomenon indeed fits the more prosaic explanations, no need for mumbo jumbo. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/46 "2005-10-13T03:32:07Z")
I have held to a higher standard. I have rationally disputed **lekatt** ’s lies on numerous occasions. I have no burden to do his work for him. If you choose to jump in, that is your prerogative, but unless you can point out where I have behaved dishonestly, you are simply trying to pick a fight that I really see no point in pursuing. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/47 "2005-10-13T03:40:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **tomndebb** : We are not starting from common ground. lekatt begins with the lie that science is out to deny spirituality. I don’t think that it is so much a _lie_ as it is a misconception held by both **lekatt** and the many posters who scoff at the idea that science is interested in being open to possibilities. I don’t believe that anything is “paranormal.” Either it is _natural_ or it doesn’t exist. There are plenty of natural things that haven’t been explained by science yet. Maybe some things simply just don’t exist after all. Maybe others aren’t yet verifiable. But if scientists are exploring the possibility of Dark Matter and String Theory, I would think they may have learned _something_ about preconceived notions. > [@](#): > > **Aeschines** : In short, give up the dull dagger of “real/not real,” and true inquiry begins. You’ve nailed it! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/48 "2005-10-13T03:46:22Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I have presented this link a dozen times. The skeptics never seem to be able to find, read, or understand any of it. I think it is just a denial strategy. Here is an example of **lekatt** ’s dishonesty: he has _mentioned_ the article from _The Lancet_ just over a dozen times (often misstating or overstating the conclusions drawn in it), but he has never posted a link to it and he has never identified the article by name. For someone who is so familiar with the article (although there is circumstantial evidence that he has actually only read outtakes printed on other web sites or _Reader’s Digest_ and never read the article), it is typical of his methods of argumentation that he has never provided the actual citation even though he pretends that he has done so. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/49 "2005-10-13T03:58:17Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Thanks again. > > I have presented this link a dozen times. The skeptics never seem to be able to find, read, or understand any of it. I think it is just a denial strategy. What exactly do you think this study proves? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/50 "2005-10-13T04:09:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have held to a higher standard. I have rationally disputed **lekatt** ’s lies on numerous occasions. I have no burden to do his work for him. If you choose to jump in, that is your prerogative, but unless you can point out where I have behaved dishonestly, you are simply trying to pick a fight that I really see no point in pursuing. I already told you what I think you did wrong. You badgered **lekatt** for a cite in such way that someone new to the debate might suspect that no _Lancet_ study ever existed. The “common ground” whereof I spoke is an understanding to whatever bare facts we can agree upon, including the existence of journal articles. To fiddle around with such matters is just to obfuscate the debate and generally obstruct the “fight against ignorance.” There’s no “fight picking”–I called you on something specific. Agree or disagree, as you wish. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/51 "2005-10-13T04:14:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Here is an example of **lekatt** ’s dishonesty: he has _mentioned_ the article from _The Lancet_ just over a dozen times (often misstating or overstating the conclusions drawn in it), but he has never posted a link to it and he has never identified the article by name. For someone who is so familiar with the article (although there is circumstantial evidence that he has actually only read outtakes printed on other web sites or _Reader’s Digest_ and never read the article), it is typical of his methods of argumentation that he has never provided the actual citation even though he pretends that he has done so. You may very well be right. We dealt with this topic in a recent Pit thread. **Lekatt** has shown that he wants to participate in every thread about this topic. Either the opposing side conforms to his level of posting in the debate, which you condemn, or you “sponsor” a higher-level debate in which ignorance is fought and all that. Those seem like the two main choices to me. Putting my money where my mouth is, I’ve engaged this topic on a different, philosophical level and am willing to debate it there if people are interested in a fair and gentle[wo]manly fashion. Debate if you feel so inclined. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/52 "2005-10-13T04:15:03Z")
> [@](#): > > I already told you what I think you did wrong. You badgered lekatt for a cite in such way that someone new to the debate might suspect that no Lancet study ever existed. Then you are simply wrong. I asked **lekatt** to support a claim. Given his propensity for false statements, it was the most ethical request I could make. (Note that he not only failed to support his claim, he has now lied about having done so repeatedly in the past. That is the point of challenging a poster who has a proven record of dishonesty, regardless the minor point on which the discussion turns.) ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/53 "2005-10-13T04:59:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Then you are simply wrong. I asked **lekatt** to support a claim. Given his propensity for false statements, it was the most ethical request I could make. (Note that he not only failed to support his claim, he has now lied about having done so repeatedly in the past. That is the point of challenging a poster who has a proven record of dishonesty, regardless the minor point on which the discussion turns.) Let’s accept all this. I have generally found you to be quite fair and reaonable as a poster and a mod, so I have no reason to doubt you. The fact still remains that any debate here about the “paranormal” turns into a bitter battle between **lekatt** and everyone else. My point still stands that, if we are to fight ignorance and have a fruitful discussion, then the “ **lekatt** is at fault” point, however true, must be transcended. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/54 "2005-10-13T05:25:38Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > OK, you will remain skeptics as long as you don’t research the experiences on your own. Keep saying that and eventually it’ll be true. > [@](#): > > Don’t be mad if I don’t believe in your hallucinations causing these changes. I think the example I posted was pretty good. If something impacts me, why does it then follow that it has to be real? Is Van Gogh’s _Wheat field with crows_ real, evidenced by the fact that I found it very powerful? Give me a reason to agree that the ‘profound impact’ indicates that they’re real. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/55 "2005-10-13T06:23:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If something impacts me, why does it then follow that it has to be real? Is Van Gogh’s _Wheat field with crows_ real, evidenced by the fact that I found it very powerful? Give me a reason to agree that the ‘profound impact’ indicates that they’re real. Yeah, well, see my post. What does “real” mean? That’s a big semantic, espitemological, and ontological question that you can’t just blow off. The picture _is_ real: it’s a painting stuck on a wall, reproduced in many a book, no doubt viewable on the Net. It’s even an interpretation of a “real” wheat field in the 1890s, isn’t it? In what ways is it “real” and “not real”? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/56 "2005-10-13T06:36:52Z")
It’s not really real until it has been loved so much that the fur has been rubbed off. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/57 "2005-10-13T06:58:47Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The picture _is_ real: it’s a painting stuck on a wall, reproduced in many a book, no doubt viewable on the Net. I’m not questioning the existence of the _painting_, nor of the existence of strips of celluloid and actors. Of course actors have to play out a scene for it to be filmed, just as an artist is probably going to sketch and visualize a scene. When you watch a movie, you generally agree to pretend that what your watching is a product of reality as you experience it instead of the work of a catered, artistically lit production based on a script and featuring extremely rich, handsome people who are being paid tons of money to pretend they’re not being paid tons of money to do whatever they’re doing on the screen. I was addressing, by analogy, the comments of the doctor. That’s the focus. > [@](#): > > It’s even an interpretation of a “real” wheat field in the 1890s, isn’t it? I think so. But I don’t know (and it may be unknowable, as I don’t think his letters reveal it one way or the other) if Van Gogh ever saw a scene like the one he depicts in the painting. I think it’s equally possible that he did and that he did not. > [@](#): > > In what ways is it “real” and “not real”? I liked my movie example better, but here is what I was saying: the fact that somebody was touched by a movie or painting is not evidence that it the things depicted _as they are purported to have happened_ (in the movie or painting). They may have, but the issue I’m addressing is not about the nature of reality as much as it is about what we accept as evidence. The man’s opinion is not backed up by the part of his remark intended as support. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/58 "2005-10-13T07:02:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It’s not really real until it has been loved so much that the fur has been rubbed off. Thank Og for _serious debate_, eh? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/59 "2005-10-13T09:23:23Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The trouble with the concept of Reality or, as I like to term it, That Which Is, is illuminated by Godel’s proof that any mathematical system cannot be both complete and consistent. We cannot verbally access the concept of “Reality” and project our confidence in that system’s making sense, “playing nice.” We cannot do so and hope to be without error. That’s rather a mangled application of GIT, if I may say, and in any case I don’t really recognise that descritpion of “Reality” as being _mine_, at least. The axiom which most reasonable people agree on is that where an ordinary or natural explanation suffices, extraordinary or supernatural explanations are unnecessary. There is simply **no** evidence of the required calibre which makes these latter explanations necessary. It is _very_ strange that no such phenomenon can be replicated by careful planning, to the extent that the most reasonable conclusion is that they are just not there to be found. > [@](#): > > I, along with serious investigators like Jacque Valee, don’t believe the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the corrrect explanation for UFOs and alien abduction phenomena. But they can’t be blown off as mere “dreams,” either.) Why not? What evidence of the required calibre sidesteps such an explanation? > [@](#): > > they will fight tooth and claw and downright dirty to deny that NDEs can be veridical or that alien abuductions have any associated physical effects. No, I will _ask, implore, beg and beseech_ you to produce evidence of the required calibre, since I would be as impressed as any to find a verifiable way of seeing the afterlife. Heck, I’d jump in a frozen lake or recreate the film _Flatliners_ myself if I thought I’d demonstrably see the objects deliberately left on top of the wardrobe to test whether NDE’s are veridical. > [@](#): > > My big point here is to say that real inquiry and discussion begins there, not stops. Well, I guess you’d better step to it investigating all the other things which scientific tests have falsified, if failure to find any compelling reason to shift the paradigm is just the start of the project. > [@](#): > > And if they experience that, then mustn’t we conclude that there is (or was) an Afterlife, if only for them as individuals, since the requirements for that concept’s realization have been fulfilled? Only if we want to equate the word “Afterlife” with “powerful dream”. In which case, I’ve seen the Afterlife often, notably when I’ve taken acid. > [@](#): > > In short, give up the dull dagger of “real/not real,” and true inquiry begins. “Real” is just a word. The _actual facts of each case_, which you seem unwilling to discuss, **is** true enquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/60 "2005-10-13T10:45:31Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The axiom which most reasonable people agree on is that where an ordinary or natural explanation suffices, extraordinary or supernatural explanations are unnecessary. I don’t agree that most reasonable people agree. I also wouldn’t know what an “extraordinary” or “supernatural” explanation is, as opposed to any other type. That sounds like a matter of sheer arbitrary opinion. Personal taste, if you will. > [@](#): > > It is _very_ strange that no such phenomenon can be replicated by careful planning, to the extent that the most reasonable conclusion is that they are just not there to be found. NDEs, obviously, can be produced with with great regularity. No one says they “can’t be found.” It’s their nature that is at issue. Alien abduction phenomena, too, are reported with such regularity that, despite the fact they can’t be reproduced in the lab (I don’t know if sleep paralysis can either), no one says that the phenomena themselves don’t exist. Again, it’s their nature that is at issue. > [@](#): > > No, I will _ask, implore, beg and beseech_ you to produce evidence of the required calibre, since I would be as impressed as any to find a verifiable way of seeing the afterlife. I don’t get your point here. You might very well have an NDE at some point in your life, and, like nearly 100% (I have seen cites for only one or two counterexamples, in that Hallucinatory NDE link) of those who experienced them (believers and atheists alike) you might come back and say, “It was real, it was more than a dream.” And in that case I suppose your worldview will change via that personal experience. > [@](#): > > Heck, I’d jump in a frozen lake or recreate the film _Flatliners_ myself if I thought I’d demonstrably see the objects deliberately left on top of the wardrobe to test whether NDE’s are veridical. People aren’t (apparently) convinced because of the _fact_ that their NDEs are proved veridical, but by the experience itself. > [@](#): > > Well, I guess you’d better step to it investigating all the other things which scientific tests have falsified, if failure to find any compelling reason to shift the paradigm is just the start of the project. That’s not a response to what I wrote. I’m saying that if scientists determine that phenomena “exist” but “are not real,” as with NDEs, then that “not real” assessment does not by any means allow us to dismiss the phenomenon as unimportant or lacking meaning. > [@](#): > > Only if we want to equate the word “Afterlife” with “powerful dream”. In which case, I’ve seen the Afterlife often, notably when I’ve taken acid. Straw man. Even Susan Blackmore, who says that NDEs are not evidence for the Afterlife, recognizes that their nature is vastly different than that of ordinary dreams. > [@](#): > > “Real” is just a word. The _actual facts of each case_, which you seem unwilling to discuss, **is** true enquiry. Ah, but “actual facts” is just a phrase. We’re back to epistemology, ontology, semantics. Can’t dodge it, can’t escape it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=4)