# 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:** 4
**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, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/61 "2005-10-13T11:11:06Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. Well, let’s take some examples. You are on jury duty, and the defendant argues that the explanation for the CCTV pictures showing him murdering the victim, and accompanying genetic forensic evidence, is that it was his long lost identical twin whose birth was conspiratorially covered up. We cannot necessarily prove that _wrong_, we must “arbitrarily” choose one explanation or another. Would you agree that the defendant’s explanation is _extraordinary_? > [@](#): > > 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 … And why should they _not_ be considered neuropsychological, in absence of any evidence of the required calibre which indicates such a mode of explanation to be incorrect? > [@](#): > > 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. I can assure you that I have had personal experiences, even _religious_ experiences, which changed my worldview at the time - it was only gradually that I came to incorporate them into my current physicalist position But people, sadly, become deluded all the time. I would not say that the schizophrenic _didn’t hear voices_, but neither of us would consider a non-neuropsychological explanation more probable, agreed? > [@](#): > > People aren’t (apparently) convinced because of the fact that their NDEs are proved veridical, but by the experience itself. Like the schizophrenics and their voices. The veridical-or-not evidence is _crucial_ to our consideration of their nature. > [@](#): > > 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. Absolutely agreed. So we must all try to make it crystal clear that we’re _not_ asking “Are these things a glimpse of the honest-to-goodness Afterlife, then?” when we discuss NDE’s, unless evidence of a radically different calibre emerges in future. > [@](#): > > 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. _Powerful_ dreams, I said. Make that _very very powerful_, even _temporal-lobe-epileptic powerful_, if it’s more acceptable. > [@](#): > > Ah, but “actual facts” is just a phrase. We’re back to epistemology, ontology, semantics… …case law, science, evidence, Ockham’s Razor and unnecessary entities. ---
**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, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/62 "2005-10-13T11:44:52Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, let’s take some examples. You are on jury duty, and the defendant argues that the explanation for the CCTV pictures showing him murdering the victim, and accompanying genetic forensic evidence, is that it was his long lost identical twin whose birth was conspiratorially covered up. We cannot necessarily prove that _wrong_, we must “arbitrarily” choose one explanation or another. Would you agree that the defendant’s explanation is _extraordinary_? That word is OK, but “extremely unlikely” seems to me to be the path of mental least resistance. “Extraordinary,” semantically speaking, seems to be used most often to describe one’s personal opinion about matters: one’s degree of being impressed, etc. It has uses in other phrases, of course: extraordinary measures, etc. I don’t agree that there is a well-though-out, well-defined type of evidence called “extraordinary evidence.” That has parlance only in the skeptic’s vocabulary. > [@](#): > > And why should they _not_ be considered neuropsychological, in absence of any evidence of the required calibre which indicates such a mode of explanation to be incorrect? The problem is that it “neurophysiological” is just a fancy way of saying “the brain does it”; applying the term gives us the warm feeling of having added information without actually doing so. NDEs and AAs are beguiling in their difference from ordinary experience combined with internal coherence (they are not chaotic like dreams) and similarity across experiencers. They require a deeper explanation that simply “the brain does it.” Everything the brain requires one, for that matter. > [@](#): > > I can assure you that I have had personal experiences, even _religious_ experiences, which changed my worldview at the time - it was only gradually that I came to incorporate them into my current physicalist position. I would be curious to hear about them and how you gradually processed them. Can you share a bit? > [@](#): > > But people, sadly, become deluded all the time. The deep question here is in precisely what sense NDEers are “deluded.” If their experience convinces them, how are they being fooled? We see how schizophrenics are fooled because their beliefs and behaviors clash as crudely against their environment as seemingly possible. I’ve talked at length and on several occasions with a schizophrenic. The state is simply revealed as “wrong” and “out of harmony.” It is ugly and sad. He knew he was fucked up, too. That is one important qualitative difference between a mental illness and the NDE experience. NDEers are empowered by their “delusion.” [quote] I would not say that the schizophrenic _didn’t hear voices_, but neither of us would consider a non-neuropsychological explanation more probable, agreed? [quote] Right, the brain does it. We can say dopamine is involved. I worked in the drug industry and on a psych meds project. You look these thing up the the PDR and they’re all “mechanism of action unknown.” Just sayin’. > [@](#): > > The veridical-or-not evidence is _crucial_ to our consideration of their nature. Agreed. And I agreed to your experiment of having the patients check for numbers in their rooms. Their not seeing anything would not be desirable, of course, but their seeing wrong numbers consistently would be a big minus. And I believe that their seeing numbers aright would change your view, non? > [@](#): > > Absolutely agreed. So we must all try to make it crystal clear that we’re _not_ asking “Are these things a glimpse of the honest-to-goodness Afterlife, then?” when we discuss NDE’s, unless evidence of a radically different calibre emerges in future. If someone has a coherent, stable experience, then that’s counts as “real” in my philosophy. For example, dreams are not stable. I can’t enter the same dreamworld every night. But if I could, then it would be a “real” world that I had to deal with, wouldn’t it? Even if it was all in my head. > [@](#): > > _Powerful_ dreams, I said. Make that _very very powerful_, even _temporal-lobe-epileptic powerful_, if it’s more acceptable. But is “powerful dream” the best choice of words to describe it? And do we even understand what dreams are for that matter? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > …case law, science, evidence, Ockham’s Razor and unnecessary entities. And things that keep rapping on the door in the middle of the night when they have no right to do so… ---
**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, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/63 "2005-10-13T12:18:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. I see your point, and agree in general, but since the SDMB is a community I think it is accceptable{maybe nessecary} to challenge the posting style and honesty of frequent posters, especially when those posters insert their view in numerous threads on the same subject. I prefer debates that provide information and thoughtful insight rather than unfounded prejudice claims. It is reasonable to expect a person making a claim to provide support, in fact it is this boards tradition, which any member who is a frequent poster should know. If every debate turns into a bitter battle perhaps\*\* lekatt\*\* should modify his approach and is deserving at least in part of some of the criticism. ---
**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, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/64 "2005-10-13T12:34:10Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > [NDE’s] require a deeper explanation that simply “the brain does it.” And so do dreams, optical illusions and even so demonstrably physical a mechanism as memory formation. That’s why I said a neuropsychological **mode** of explanation. > [@](#): > > I would be curious to hear about them and how you gradually processed them. Can you share a bit? [Sure](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2826106). Note that this was when I first arrived here a few years ago, when I had still not yet formulated my position in as much detail, but I’m sure you’ll find it interesting nonetheless. > [@](#): > > The deep question here is in precisely what sense NDEers are “deluded.” If their experience convinces them, how are they being fooled? They are convinced of some _external_ element of their experience, in the same way that schizophrenics (or some, at least - let’s try to avoid “some/all” nitpickery here, since we both largely trust each other’s honesty) _really really think_ that the voices come from “outside”, that they are emphatically inot\* effectively talking to _themselves_. Again, if I dream that I’m on Concorde then I would be _deluded_ if I believed that I _had been on Concorde_. > [@](#): > > That is one important qualitative difference between a mental illness and the NDE experience. NDEers are empowered by their “delusion.” Yes, but not important in terms of whether they constitute evidence requiring a non-neuropsychological mode of explanation. We could similarly examine temporal lobe epileptics and _their_ delusions, positive and ‘cosmic’ as many of them are. > [@](#): > > You look these thing up the the PDR and they’re all “mechanism of action unknown.” Just sayin’. Of course, just as the mechanism of gravity and biological life has not yet been _fully_ explained: they are still not “paranormal”. Science has not _completed_ the natural explanation of the entire universe and everything in it including all human experiences and abilities, for then we could close down every university department on Earth as redundant. > [@](#): > > And I believe that their seeing numbers aright would change your view, non? Yes - at least, it would require some _revolutionary_ paradigm shift involving quantum entanglement or something (if I didn’t just go ahead and believe I was in the Matrix!). While still “natural” or “physical”, these are certainly just as _extraordinary_ in my book so, yes, their effect would be equivalent to me considering them as evidence of an Afterlife or other “supernatural” entity. > [@](#): > > If someone has a coherent, stable experience, then that’s counts as “real” in my philosophy. For example, dreams are not stable. I can’t enter the same dreamworld every night. But if I could, then it would be a “real” world that I had to deal with, wouldn’t it? Even if it was all in my head. People have _recurring dreams_ all the time. Again, we seem to be juggling dictionaries over whether dreams are “real” if they are purely neuropsychological phenomena. I’m sure I could accommodate either into my position, as could you, so it’s really not that important - I’ll go along with your choice for the sake of argument. > [@](#): > > But is “powerful dream” the best choice of words to describe it? Come, is it not serviceable? I’ll offer flowery prose for you to critique if I must, but I’m not much of a poet. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And things that keep rapping on the door in the middle of the night when they have no right to do so… You will kindly keep my grandmother out of this. ---
**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, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/65 "2005-10-13T14:12:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And so do dreams, optical illusions and even so demonstrably physical a mechanism as memory formation. That’s why I said a neuropsychological **mode** of explanation. OK, so you want to say the brain “does” NDEs. Fine, the brain does 'em. And once we know how consciousness works, then we’ll really know something about NDEs, I guess. And once we know how matter works. Not to put words in your “Reply to Thread,” but I sense that the difference between your manner of thought and my own is that you feel you can point to that matter “out there” and say, “See, plain as day how it works!” I just don’t feel that. Matter, mind, our understanding of things and the degree to which our concepts mirror the Truth (which we can say as a word but can never point to directly, as an object)–these are all fluid, tricky, crafty. Hence my example about Freud. Dammit, that stuff really seemed real 50 years ago! Universal Newtonian time was just a _given_. Skinner had the mind totally sussed–it’s just reflexes and learned responses, man! And so on. You know what my biggest fear is? You know what would be the biggest joke? One day I have an NDE and _I’m the only one on the whole planet who’s had one_ who immediately and unequivocally sees it as a bullshit hallucination. That would be irony. > [@](#): > > Note that this was when I first arrived here a few years ago, when I had still not yet formulated my position in as much detail, but I’m sure you’ll find it interesting nonetheless. No doubt. I’ll study up. > [@](#): > > They are convinced of some _external_ element of their experience, in the same way that schizophrenics (or some, at least - let’s try to avoid “some/all” nitpickery here, since we both largely trust each other’s honesty) _really really think_ that the voices come from “outside”, that they are emphatically inot\* effectively talking to _themselves_. Actually, am I mistaken in thinking that schizophrenics generally perceive the voices as being “real” and not the self but nevertheless “in their head”? That’s nitpicky, but I have a problem with the internal/external dichotomy here if internal is assumed to be a subset of “not real.” Also, the internal and external interact and influence each other concretely. It’s tough to draw a boundary. > [@](#): > > Again, if I dream that I’m on Concorde then I would be _deluded_ if I believed that I _had been on Concorde_. But the thing is dreams don’t delude us–they’re “marked” in some mysterious way as dreams. I think to say that NDEers are “deluded” or “mistaken” in some way you have to demonstrate a disharmony between the content of their experience and something that we trust. If someone had an NDE and said that they saw me living in Alaska in the present and wasn’t that neat, then that would be a disharmony. They would indeed be deluded. But just to say they’re deluded because they came to believe in the Afterlife which we _know_ doesn’t exist, then that’s question-begging. > [@](#): > > Yes, but not important in terms of whether they constitute evidence requiring a non-neuropsychological mode of explanation. I’m not sure I’m track with the “mode of explanation” concept. I don’t think there “are” such modes. > [@](#): > > We could similarly examine temporal lobe epileptics and _their_ delusions, positive and ‘cosmic’ as many of them are. How are they fooled, a prerequisite for the delusion label? > [@](#): > > Yes - at least, it would require some _revolutionary_ paradigm shift involving quantum entanglement or something (if I didn’t just go ahead and believe I was in the Matrix!). While still “natural” or “physical”, these are certainly just as _extraordinary_ in my book so, yes, their effect would be equivalent to me considering them as evidence of an Afterlife or other “supernatural” entity. Well then, we have our experiment. > [@](#): > > People have _recurring dreams_ all the time. Again, we seem to be juggling dictionaries over whether dreams are “real” if they are purely neuropsychological phenomena. I’m sure I could accommodate either into my position, as could you, so it’s really not that important - I’ll go along with your choice for the sake of argument. I have recurring dreams, too. I’ve had dreams that hinted at stable worlds of mentality. I one experience that pretty much _commanded_ me to believe that worlds of pure mind exist (I see mind and matter as not being opposites at all, but simply different mathematical constructs–the same substance, as it were). No point there, I guess–just an observation. ---
**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, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/66 "2005-10-13T14:45:43Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. You’ve conflated two separate issues, here, with a direct bearing on the ability of science to pursue an explanation. At this point, there is no evidence that NDEs can be _produced_. There is no method by which a condition can be created in which the outcome _will_ be an NDE. The study in _The Lancet_ had to go out and poll numerous hospitals to seek out large numbers of people who underwent (externally identical) physical events and were only able to find reports of NDEs among 18% of the respondents. That is not _producing_ NDEs and _that_ limits the ability of researchers to identify the actual phenomenon. I am not claiming that there is no way to examine NDEs. (I liked the computer monitor facing the ceiling idea mentioned a couple of weeks ago.) I am simply pointing out that part of scientific inquiry includes replication and we do not (yet?) have a way to reliably replicate the phenomenon. ---
**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, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/67 "2005-10-13T14:51:50Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, so you want to say the brain “does” NDEs. Fine, the brain does 'em. Glad we agree. > [@](#): > > And once we know how consciousness works, then we’ll really know something about NDEs, I guess. And once we know how matter works. I’d suggest that we _do_ largely know how matter works, and that NDE’s and other physically-correlatable phenomena tell us how consciousness works as much as the other way around. > [@](#): > > I sense that the difference between your manner of thought and my own is that you feel you can point to that matter “out there” and say, “See, plain as day how it works!” I just don’t feel that. How would you explain the astonishingly accurate _predictions_ our “how it works” explanations yield for matter (at least)? > [@](#): > > Dammit, that stuff really seemed real 50 years ago! Universal Newtonian time was just a given. Skinner had the mind totally sussed–it’s just reflexes and learned responses, man! And so on. And then evidence came along for which their explanations were not simply incomplete but radically incorrect. Veridical NDE’s would show today’s cognitive science to be the latter. Non-veridical NDE’s would only show it to be the former. > [@](#): > > Actually, am I mistaken in thinking that schizophrenics generally perceive the voices as being “real” and not the self but nevertheless “in their head”? I guess it depends on how well acquainted they are with psychiatry and mental illness as a whole. Certainly, some of the poorly educated ones I have known simply cannot accept that it is all in their head. > [@](#): > > That’s nitpicky, but I have a problem with the internal/external dichotomy here if internal is assumed to be a subset of “not real.” Also, the internal and external interact and influence each other concretely. It’s tough to draw a boundary. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the title of the thread anymore here, are we? > [@](#): > > If someone had an NDE and said that they saw me living in Alaska in the present and wasn’t that neat, then that would be a disharmony. They would indeed be deluded. But just to say they’re deluded because they came to believe in the Afterlife which we know doesn’t exist, then that’s question-begging. But they _could_ be in Alaska at that moment - their spirit or pattern or whatever could have travelled there while their waking consciousness was diminished. And the schizophrenic’s voices _could_ be real: other spirits or patterns literally talking to them from “Beyond”. Yet again, we must ask ourselves what modes of explanation, what _paradigm_, we accept without evidence of the calibre required to radically shift it. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I’m track with the “mode of explanation” concept. I don’t think there “are” such modes. Well, I’ve given my identical twin example, and I’m not sure I can think of a better one. I could try a _different_ one, I guess. Shall we discuss 19th century vitalism, or something? > [@](#): > > How are they fooled, a prerequisite for the delusion label? Only the NDEr’s who think they are literally looking at themselves in the present (from above or wherever) are ‘fooled’. The soldier who realised that, because the African physically lying on top of him wasn’t visible, it could not have been a genuine external perspective, was not “fooled”. Nor was James Randi when he realised the bedsheets he’d ‘seen’ were not on his physical bed. > [@](#): > > Well then, we have our experiment. Agreed. Again, it seems such an _odd_ place for what I consider to be the last bastion of the “paranormal” to stand, but I will concede with good grace if the experiments reveal a verifiable external perspective (_ie._ words and numbers can literally be viewed where the physical eyes can’t see them). Note also that _cheating_ is very easy in this case (just tell the guy _later_ what the words and numbers were), so I’ll need the experiments to be closely scrutinised by people I trust (Sue Blackmore would do). ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/68 "2005-10-13T23:12:04Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Glad we agree. The brain does NDEs, but what does the brain? That’s what we oughtn’t pretend to know. > [@](#): > > I’d suggest that we _do_ largely know how matter works, and that NDE’s and other physically-correlatable phenomena tell us how consciousness works as much as the other way around. We know how matter works to a degree, but we have no idea what percentage (as it were) of the total knowledge we have. My guess: Small. And the philosophical question of what matter _is_ is open. We’ve argued about that before, as you know. > [@](#): > > How would you explain the astonishingly accurate _predictions_ our “how it works” explanations yield for matter (at least)? We understand matter in terms of mathematical models, about which we also disagree. A lot of our understanding is also not fundamental but simply at the we-learned-this-through-trial-and-error level. > [@](#): > > And then evidence came along for which their explanations were not simply incomplete but radically incorrect. Dear **Sentient** , please partake of the **Meat** of my argument (hah, I jest!). I said that Freudian psychology was crappy science from the get-go and not in keeping with the scientific method. Any disagreement? The question is why it _seemed_ true at the time. My point here is not that the scientific method is flawed and allows false positives, though it does, but that Freudian psychology was “true” in its time, and the fluid forms our individual and group consciousnesses take can make it so and make it not so, as the era may present itself. A counter to this may be, “But matter–boron and helium–are the same across all eras.” Well, virtually so. There was no matter during several of the “eras” of the Big Bang (according to our current myth), but yes. I say, there are different orders of stability possible and readily apparent in That Which Is, and differing degrees of replicability-difficulty of phenomena (incandescent light turns on, NDE, difficult piano concerto, and so on). Which all fits my (and many others’) idea of That Which Is as a mathematical construct. And the Afterlife is, quite simply and elegantly, the persistence of the concept (including the concept of the physical body–there is no different “spirit” unless we call the concept/pattern removed from the set called “Earth Life” “spirit”) of an individual person. > [@](#): > > Veridical NDE’s would show today’s cognitive science to be the latter. Non-veridical NDE’s would only show it to be the former. Not sure what you mean by the latter sentence, but the fact that some NDEs have been verifiably veridical (you dispute the claim, recognized) is icing on the cake for “my side.” False and deluded NDEs, however, would be shit spread on the cake, if you’ll pardon the phrase. Despite your “Hallucinatory NDEs” link, I say that such cases are a miniscule, weensy percentage of the total (and I disagree with 80% of the examples in that article as proof against). But we have our experiment to sort things out, don’t we? > [@](#): > > I guess it depends on how well acquainted they are with psychiatry and mental illness as a whole. Certainly, some of the poorly educated ones I have known simply cannot accept that it is all in their head. No, but to be clear, I mean that schizophrenics, whether they believe the voices are “real” or not, actually experience the voices as clear voices IN their heads–real, loud, not-the-self, but nevertheless inside. Generally? > [@](#): > > Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the title of the thread anymore here, are we? I think we are. A general theory of the paranormal will have to be a general theory of everything, I should think. We’ve got a lot of work to do, you and I. [/quote] But they _could_ be in Alaska at that moment - their spirit or pattern or whatever could have travelled there while their waking consciousness was diminished. [/quote] And if they concluded I was living there, it would be a “disharmonious experience” in that they ended up thinking something that wasn’t true. That would not mean that the experience was worthless, however. For example, they might have seen a picture of Alaska that was largely accurate but nevertheless wrong in some respects. [quote] And the schizophrenic’s voices _could_ be real: other spirits or patterns literally talking to them from “Beyond”. [quote] Actually, that is something well worth considering. Schizophrenics might be tuned into a “bad place” full of low vibrations, scraps of consciousness, etc. We are accustomed to thinking of “spirits” as entire consciousnesses like our own, but it may be that mind can be fragmentary. For example, in AA experiences, the aliens are sophisticated eidolons, but they do not exhibit what we would deem full sentience. [quote] Yet again, we must ask ourselves what modes of explanation, what _paradigm_, we accept without evidence of the calibre required to radically shift it. [quote] I don’t have a “paradigm.” (I hate that word by the way–it really means series of verb tenses, but then people jumped on the phrase “paradigm shift” and the rest is jargon history.) My guiding light is Reason. 😉 [quote] Well, I’ve given my identical twin example, and I’m not sure I can think of a better one. I could try a _different_ one, I guess. Shall we discuss 19th century vitalism, or something? [quote] Isms are pointless, except as a way of telling someone quickly how one thinks. A semantic tool. > [@](#): > > Only the NDEr’s who think they are literally looking at themselves in the present (from above or wherever) are ‘fooled’. You say they’re fooled because they _can’t_ be having that experience. But they’re not fooled unless the information they receive is disharmonious with their overall situation. > [@](#): > > The soldier who realised that, because the African physically lying on top of him wasn’t visible, it could not have been a genuine external perspective, was not “fooled”. Dunno. Can’t put thoughts in his mind and don’t know what he experienced, but most on my side of the debate would not find the example very strong. He could have simply been envisioning the situation without even being OBE. That’s what Sue Blackmore’s experience seems to have been, yet she thinks she can invalidate every NDE and OBE with that tool. Etc. > [@](#): > > Agreed. Again, it seems such an _odd_ place for what I consider to be the last bastion of the “paranormal” to stand, Oh dear me there’s a big assumption there. > [@](#): > > but I will concede with good grace if the experiments reveal a verifiable external perspective (_ie._ words and numbers can literally be viewed where the physical eyes can’t see them). Ja, bring it on! And I in turn will consider it a BIG MINUS if people have confidence they’ve seen the numbers clearly but get them wrong. > [@](#): > > Note also that _cheating_ is very easy in this case (just tell the guy _later_ what the words and numbers were), so I’ll need the experiments to be closely scrutinised by people I trust (Sue Blackmore would do). Ms. Intellectual Honesty herself. I read about your experiences. Fascinating! Would you mind talking about them, or would that be a rehash. Actually, what you had to say about them I found not to conflict much at all with my own understanding of Reality. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/69 "2005-10-14T01:38:08Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The deep question here is in precisely what sense NDEers are “deluded.” If their experience convinces them, how are they being fooled? If their experience involved observations which were proven false, they were fooled. If they are convinced their experience could only be produced by actual spiritual OBE, but their experience can be reproduced through drugs or other means, they were fooled. > [@](#): > > We see how schizophrenics are fooled because their beliefs and behaviors clash as crudely against their environment as seemingly possible. (Any particular reason you picked schizophrenia?)Not all the time, you sometimes find people who seem normal and rational until they confide that they are the last hope of the Jedi. > [@](#): > > I’ve talked at length and on several occasions with a schizophrenic. The state is simply revealed as “wrong” and “out of harmony.” It is ugly and sad. He knew he was fucked up, too. Not all schizophrenics are aware that they are mentally ill. > [@](#): > > That is one important qualitative difference between a mental illness and the NDE experience. NDEers are empowered by their “delusion.” Whether a schizophrenic is empowered by their delusion or not depennds on the delusion. People who believe that they are the reborn Christ certainly feel empowered. Paranoid delusions are also empowering. There is a massive conspiracy of the government/big business/extraterrestrials/demons/etc. They have sunk tendrils into all parts of society. The schizophrenic is the only smart enough to see the conspiracy and the only one capable of fighting. EG Francis E Dreck Esquire was convinced of the existence of a World Wide Frankenstein Government Gangster Conspiracy and that he was “Your only hope for a future”. He went from being a retired man living off of his brother, to the only one brilliant enough to see the mind control antennas, the Men In Black, and the evil plot of Czarina Franklin Delano “Rosenfeld”, and the only one who could fight the conspiracy and save the world. I’d say that’s pretty darn empowering. Re Atheist Materialist The first explanation I look for is material. I will not accept a non-material explanation until all other possibilities have been ruled out. However, I’m no atheist. If I am an atheist, I’d like to know why I didn’t eat or drink today, and why I spent all that time praying in Hebrew. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/70 "2005-10-14T08:58:04Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The brain does NDEs, but what does the brain? What does the stomach, or the eye, or the skin? Evolution, of course. > [@](#): > > we have no idea what percentage (as it were) of the total knowledge we have. My guess: Small. And on a scale of “total happiness”, we’re uncertain how happy we are, and in “total uncertainty” we’re uncertain how uncertain we are. I suggest that “total knowledge” is a category error. > [@](#): > > And the philosophical question of what matter is is open. We’ve argued about that before, as you know. I can’t remember that argument, but I would have argued that general relativity and high energy physics provide far better answers than “philosophy”. > [@](#): > > We understand matter in terms of mathematical models, about which we also disagree. But those predictions are _accurate_, against all the _a priori_ odds. > [@](#): > > A lot of our understanding is also not fundamental but simply at the we-learned-this-through-trial-and-error level. If that were the case, the predictions would not be so accurate. > [@](#): > > I said that Freudian psychology was crappy science from the get-go and not in keeping with the scientific method. Any disagreement? No - I was addressing behaviourism and Newtonian gravitation, which were radically impugned by _eg._ neonatal subitising ability, slow atomic clocks, bent starlight _etc._ > [@](#): > > There was no matter during several of the “eras” of the Big Bang (according to our current myth), What? Matter [was](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis) there for those 14 billion years. And the Big Bang is not a myth - yet again, the [evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB) falsifies the alternatives. > [@](#): > > I say, there are different orders of stability possible and readily apparent in That Which Is, and differing degrees of replicability-difficulty of phenomena (incandescent light turns on, NDE, difficult piano concerto, and so on). Can you offer a test which could prove that hypothesis false? It sounds pseudoscientific to me. > [@](#): > > And the Afterlife is, quite simply and elegantly, the persistence of the concept (including the concept of the physical body–there is no different “spirit” unless we call the concept/pattern removed from the set called “Earth Life” “spirit”) of an individual person. Well, you go for it. I’ll stick with cognitive science, thanks. > [@](#): > > Not sure what you mean by the latter sentence Dreams are not yet completely explained by cognitive science. Very[sup]N[/sup] powerful dreams aren’t either. But we don’t seek non-neuropsychological explanations for _normal_ dreams or, heck, [memories](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/528617.stm). > [@](#): > > Despite your “Hallucinatory NDEs” link, I say that such cases are a miniscule, weensy percentage of the total I disagree. > [@](#): > > No, but to be clear, I mean that schizophrenics, whether they believe the voices are “real” or not, actually experience the voices as clear voices IN their heads–real, loud, not-the-self, but nevertheless inside. Generally? Yes, as Ramachandran says in _Phantoms in the Brain_ - they _really really think_ someone else is talking to them. > [@](#): > > A general theory of the paranormal will have to be a general theory of everything, I should think. No, I meant that _non-veridical_ NDE’s are not “paranormal” unless _all_ dreams or memories were “paranormal”. Of course, if you don’t think there is any such thing as the paranormal, then we either agree entirely or we’re on yet another semantic carousel. > [@](#): > > And if they concluded I was living there, it would be a “disharmonious experience” in that they ended up thinking something that wasn’t true. This is crucial. **WHY DON’T YOU THINK IT’S TRUE?** It _might_ be true that your pattern literally travelled to Alaska in your dream (just as it literally hovers near the ceiling in a veridical NDE), but for some reason you _assume_ that you didn’t. Why do you consider that _less likely_ than the proposition that it was _just_ a dream? > [@](#): > > Actually, that is something well worth considering. What?? Schizophrenics are literally _hearing fragments of other people’s utterances or thoughts_? I hear the sound of an oncoming train in the distance. > [@](#): > > I don’t have a “paradigm.” You at least have a “basis of probabilities”, since you consider the identical twin case “extremely unlikely”. That is what I mean by the word. > [@](#): > > Isms are pointless Very well, shall we discuss the 19th Century proposition that biological science hadn’t explained the _life_ of living things, the _elan vital_, but only the _behaviour_ of living things? > [@](#): > > You say they’re fooled because they _can’t_ be having that experience. But they’re not fooled unless the information they receive is disharmonious with their overall situation. Then how do you explain the _absence_ of the African, or the _difference_ in the bedsheets, or the _inconsistencies_ in supposedly veridical NDE testimonies when you really get down to them? > [@](#): > > He could have simply been envisioning the situation without even being OBE. As could everyone, even NDEr’s. > [@](#): > > Oh dear me there’s a big assumption there. I said it _seems_ that way - I’m not assuming it. I would hope I could tell you my opinion without _you_ assuming that I am setting forth a demonstrable proposition. > [@](#): > > And I in turn will consider it a BIG MINUS if people have confidence they’ve seen the numbers clearly but get them wrong. Or, like Pam Reynolds, they can’t even get the shape of the equipment right. > [@](#): > > I read about your experiences. Fascinating! Would you mind talking about them, or would that be a rehash. Actually, what you had to say about them I found not to conflict much at all with my own understanding of Reality. I **am** talking about them, as far as I’m concerned. ---
**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 14, 2005, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/71 "2005-10-14T12:33:08Z")
Since Pam Reynolds surgery has been attacked I would like to supply a few quotes of what she actually said. She gave this “report” to the doctors after they brought her back to life. Her body was dead, the blood removed from her head during the time she is “seeing” this. The whole thing is at: [http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html](http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html) > [@](#): > > The next thing I recall was the sound: It was a Natural “D.” As I listened to the sound, I felt it was pulling me out of the top of my head. The further out of my body I got, the more clear the tone became. I had the impression it was like a road, a frequency that you go on … I remember seeing several things in the operating room when I was looking down. It was the most aware that I think that I have ever been in my entire life …I was metaphorically sitting on [the doctor’s] shoulder. It was not like normal vision. It was brighter and more focused and clearer than normal vision … There was so much in the operating room that I didn’t recognize, and so many people. > > I thought the way they had my head shaved was very peculiar. I expected them to take all of the hair, but they did not … > > The saw-thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle, but it didn’t … And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case … I heard the saw crank up. I didn’t see them use it on my head, but I think I heard it being used on something. It was humming at a relatively high pitch and then all of a sudden it went Brrrrrrrrr! like that. > > Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I’m not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that … I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn’t like the respirator … I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not readily recognize. > > There was a sensation like being pulled, but not against your will. I was going on my own accord because I wanted to go. I have different metaphors to try to explain this. It was like the Wizard of Oz - being taken up in a tornado vortex, only you’re not spinning around like you’ve got vertigo. You’re very focused and you have a place to go. The feeling was like going up in an elevator real fast. And there was a sensation, but it wasn’t a bodily, physical sensation. It was like a tunnel but it wasn’t a tunnel. Dr. Fenwick describes the state of the brain during a NDE: > [@](#): > > “The brain isn’t functioning. It’s not there. It’s destroyed. It’s abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences … an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won’t remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [a NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories … This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact.” and Dr. Dossey said: > [@](#): > > “The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the quality of the oneness in the universe.” - Larry Dossey, MD ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/72 "2005-10-14T12:44:41Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Her body was dead, the blood removed from her head during the time she is “seeing” this. Not necessarily. It could have been a dream remembered from the time when she was _entering_ that state. > [@Pam](#): > > The saw-thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle _But it didn’t_. There were glaring [inconsistencies](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#OBE%20discrepancies) in her description of a Midas bone saw. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/73 "2005-10-14T12:59:13Z")
And to clarify, when I say a “remembered dream” I mean what her visual cortex supplied as an imaginary accompaniment to what she could _hear_ (through her ear plugs - they really only protect from loud noises like the drill rather than render you completely deaf) in her not-quite-standstill-yet state. ---
**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 14, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/74 "2005-10-14T13:41:17Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Not necessarily. It could have been a dream remembered from the time when she was _entering_ that state. > _But it didn’t_. There were glaring [inconsistencies](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#OBE%20discrepancies) in her description of a Midas bone saw. Skeptics will grab any straw available and make up the rest. The time line has been researched many, many times and what she remembers happened after she was dead. She accurately described the instrument as would any lay person who had never seen it before. What I quoted was only a small part. I hope most people will read the whole of it. I know skeptics are not really concerned with truth only with protecting their precious beliefs. And as to whether her vortex supplied anything or not is only opinion. I wore earplugs for seven years at a manufacturing job and you couldn’t hear anyone talk without removing them. But I am sure you will think up more reasons, and more reasons, all of them as lame as the ones you offered. Here is another one, watch how more excuses are manufactured. > [@](#): > > I am an emergency room nurse. About a year ago we received a patient by ambulance in full cardiorespiratory arrest. No pulse, no effective cardiac rhythm ( refractory ventricular fibrillation ). Patient had been in arrest for at least 15 minutes prior to arival. CPR/ACLS in progress on arrival. > > To make a long story short, we worked him for about 25 minutes without positive response. The physician in charge stated that we would defibrillate one more time and if no response we would stop. One last shock, and his heart converted to a beating rhythm, and continued to impove from there, later being admitted to intensive care. > > AT NO POINT DURING HIS STAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WAS HE CONSCIOUS. Most of the time he was technically dead. > > The next day, one of the ICU nurses called down and told us the patient wanted to see several of the ER staff. He named several of us by name, and described us to the ICU nurses. He said he wanted to see us in person “to make sure he wasn’t going crazy”. > > During a slow time later that night we went upstairs and he called us by name without introductions. He told a story of floating out of his body, just below the ceiling, watching us attempt resuscitation. He said he knew our names from when we called out to each other while working on him. One thing I found especially fascinating was that he said when we defibrillated ( shocked ) him, he would be pulled back into his body for a few seconds, then end up back floating by the ceiling a few seconds after. The last time we defibbed him he was pulled back in and became unconscious. At this point he had a pulse and improved. > > We have talked quite a bit about it here. Some of the staff think maybe he was actually semi-conscious the whole time, his brain remaining oxegenated and at least partly functional due to effective CPR. Something akin to anesthetized surgical patients retaining the sense of hearing and being able to relate the conversations of the operating team after they have been awakened. > > Others in the group here believe it was a NDE. We reason that this would explain the out-of-body viewpoint and the retention of sight and cognitive abilities by the patient even though he was to all intents and purposes dead when we were together in the ER. There is no other way he could have known our names, either, as his family was not allowed in the room during the resuscitation. > > None of us have any experience in this matter and when I stumbled on this newsgroup I thought I’d post and see what you all thought. I could post a hundred of these just as good, and then there are the veridical NDEs, those that have been verified by researchers. The truth will win. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/75 "2005-10-14T13:50:26Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > She accurately described the instrument as would any lay person who had never seen it before. No she didn’t. > [@lekatt](#): > > Here is another one, watch how more excuses are manufactured. I’ll let _your own article_ manufacture them for me: > [@nurse](#): > > Some of the staff think maybe he was actually semi-conscious the whole time, his brain remaining oxegenated and at least partly functional due to effective CPR. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/76 "2005-10-14T14:29:45Z")
And, **Aeschines** , a small modification to the experiment occurs to me which makes it far more cheatproof and easy to carry out, but yields a similarly firm conclusion either way. What if, as in the case of the woman mishearing the surgeon refer to the “mayo” next to the bed and seeing in her NDE an item of _mail_ next to the bed, surgeons were told to deliberately say things during their procedure like “hey, her hair’s turned green” or “someone get that sheep out of here”, or other strange events with no basis in fact. If the NDEr returned and said they’d seen these things happen, their account could be categorically labelled “hallucinatory”, agreed? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/77 "2005-10-14T14:31:03Z")
Sorry, [“mayo”](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#OBE%20discrepancies) link. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/78 "2005-10-14T15:10:41Z")
> [@lektt](#): > > Since Pam Reynolds surgery has been attacked I would like to supply a few quotes of what she actually said. She gave this “report” to the doctors after they brought her back to life. > [@lekatt](#): > > The time line has been researched many, many times and what she remembers happened after she was dead. > > She accurately described the instrument as would any lay person who had never seen it before. What I quoted was only a small part. I hope most people will read the whole of it. I know skeptics are not really concerned with truth only with protecting their precious beliefs. Now this is what lekatt claimed after I posted the link to Dr. Woerlee’s discussion of Ms. Reynold’s experience: > [@lekatt](#): > > They never tell the truth, Pam did not say the things listed in this account. Pam said she was watching over the shoulder of the doctor, plus many more things in describing the tools and such during the time she was dead. These accounts are either deliberate lies or written by people who never studied the case. If you think I am wrong read the real account Interestingly, having claimed that Ms. Reynolds “did not say the things listed in this account,” we find that the quotations provided in the account **lekatt** produced are identical to the ones quoted in the article he dismissed. In fact, we can note from Dr. Woerlee’s article that Dr. Woerlee is quoting them directly from Dr. Sabom’s book which **lekatt** ’s article relies upon (although **lekatt** ’s source does not bother to actually cite the book, simply mentioning Dr. Sabom’s name and then providing a quotation). So, when we consider who “never tells the truth” because they are concerned “only with protecting their precious beliefs,” I am afraid that the evidence _as presented by **lekatt** _ leans very much in the direction opposite his claims. * * * Now, just to be clear on one point: I am not yet persuaded _in either direction_ regarding NDEs or any other experience outside the normal (or material or whatever word we can all not agree is accurate at any given moment). I have encountered odd events that do not seem to be easily reconciled with our current state of knowledge and I am willing to consider sources of information that we have not yet discovered. However, I am not willing to jump on every odd claim as “true,” particularly when its proponents have a propensity for lying. ---
**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 14, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/79 "2005-10-14T16:24:45Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > No she didn’t. > I’ll let _your own article_ manufacture them for me: Let me answer this one: If the patient had been semi-conscious and heard the conversations he still would not have been able to describe and doctors and put names to the descriptions. I will quit trying to debate on these things, you are not interested in finding solutions only in belittling others and calling them names, the same goes for Tom’s post. Pam was not quoted accurately by the skeptic except in your skeptic minds and eagerness to bully others. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/80 "2005-10-14T17:20:05Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Let me answer this one: If the patient had been semi-conscious and heard the conversations he still would not have been able to describe and doctors and put names to the descriptions. Yes, he could, when he recognised their _voices_. > [@](#): > > I will quit trying to debate on these things, you are not interested in finding solutions only in belittling others and calling them names, the same goes for Tom’s post. Pam was not quoted accurately by the skeptic except in your skeptic minds and eagerness to bully others. I have not called you any names here, and the quotes of Pam which we are examining were _supplied by your articles!_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=5)