That’s what I was going to suggest, but that would be a rather more expensive setup.
Yes, it would. But hey, it ain’t my money!
Hehe - 1st thing i thought of when i heard this was ‘Lekatt !!!’
I was going to post a thread, but couldnt decide wheather to direct it specificaly at our fav NDE’er or not.
So where is he/she ?
Got a feeling he’s taking a break from debating this topic, kinda self-imposed at the strong suggestion of the mods, IIRC.
There was a study a few years ago that did something like this. They put a laptop (or maybe a tablet) PC on a shelf above the operating table and rotated images on it. I don’t have the time to look it up right now, but I think I cited it in a previous thread in which I “debated” lekatt. Anyway, in that study, no patients reported an NDE when the laptop was running. So, they never got to ask anyone if they saw the pictures. That would take care of the blinding, but, as Mangetout ponits out, that does up the cost quite a bit.
Was just doing some googling:
list of people involved: http://tinyurl.com/3lqvn9
original press release by UoS: http://tinyurl.com/3sc2y3
The studies are being funded by:
The UK Resuscitation Council - who seem pretty cool,
The Horizon Research Foundation - who look a bit fluffy,
The Nour Foundation in the United States - who are based on some teachings of an Iranian ‘mystic’ and scolar…
Dr Sam Parnia lays out his stall here: http://tinyurl.com/4o5ok4
“The occurrence of NDE and out of body experiences in cardiac arrest would support the view that mind, ‘consciousness’ or the ‘soul’ is a separate entity from the brain. However, large studies are now needed to test and verify this.”
‘test and verify’ ???
I smell a bias…
There’s a world of ambiguity in “accurately described by patients”. “I saw something round, and a triangle…” “So you saw the sailboat in the moonlight, right?” Hopefully the protocol will take care of this, but I doubt it.
BTW, I like your choice of words in the OP, “will this proposed study be the nail in the coffin…”
I didn’t see such a dogmatic statement about “ooBs”* overall. He seems to be referring to the hovering-over-the-operating-field subset of near-death folks, and saying that these claims would be disproven if his three-year study didn’t turn up anyone who remembered looking down and seeing the pictures.
You’re right in that he should have said something to the effect that this would be strong evidence that this particular phenomenon doesn’t occur, instead of “it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories.”
It still reeks of the bizarre that scientifically trained people would be involved in such an elaborate and silly scheme to show that (temporary) spirits are or are not drifting overhead during tense moments of resuscitation. Can we expect an expanded trial to show whether patients who cross the line and cannot be revived can see the pictures, too? “In this part of the experiment, physicians and nurses held hands around the operating table and asked the departed to knock three times if they could see the waterfall and leaping platypus” :rolleyes:
*“ooBs” is an apt acronym, when you think about it.
Well, probably, but I’m afraid most of my ideas wouldn’t make it past any ethics commission… 
More seriously, though, a lot of the issues expected to crop up can probably be controlled for later in the analysis – if OOBEs actually occurred, one would expect them to be more or less continuously spread out through the population (or maybe its OOBE-eligible segment: could be that only Christians can experience them, due to the rest of the lot having no soul, or what have you – it gets a bit of a guessing game if OOBEs are indeed real), and thus one hospital reporting an extraordinary amount of cases, while others don’t report more than chance level statistics, would make the data of that hospital highly suspicious.
Still, this leaves attack angles for both sides, but then again, those trawling for such flaws are unlikely to be convinced either way, anyway.
Go with the idea of setting up a laptop to show a random picture every hour or half hour and record which one it showed. Obviously this should be placed where the lab staff can’t see it, and where the ‘spirit’ can, if possible. (Step 1: raise it above their heads, with the screen facing upwards. Step 2: wildly speculate about where the spirits would appear…)
Also, to avoid “sailboat in the moonlight” crap, I would strongly suggest having each picture consist of one large basic shape, in a single primary color. Think zener cards here: circle, square, five-pointed star, ‘plus sign’ cross, wavy lines, maybe an equilateral triangle and an infinity sign and a few others too to fill things out. Show them all in a half a dozen colors and you could get thirty or fifty shapes/color combos that are not subject to leading answers or interpretation.
Very possibly. I looked up the Doctor (Parnia, not Who) and found this link and this one. These don’t mean he won’t be unbiased, but they do cast doubt on his objectivity in the study.
No lekatt-baiting in this thread, please. This is a discussion of possible scientific methods of determining the existence of NDEs and OBEs.
Are you just playing logic games (completely respectable activity), or do you really want me to defend my assertion that it wasn’t a dream?
I dislike getting this personal, but …
I am not a naturally logical person, so I have learned to be actively logical; I learned how to analyze my experiences and perceptions very early. I always know when I have been dreaming.
Besides, I had high fevers a lot as a kid; I got most of the childhood illnesses.
This illness (whatever it was) occurred at a lost stage of development; I had fully developed language, but minimal exposure to social definitions of reality.
I think I experienced an OBE; that OBEs are natural events; that, as people are socialized, they learn to deny (or re-interpret) such events.
The former, I think.
How is this study going to work, exactly?
Are they going to deliberately induce cardiac arrest in volunteer test subjects? A bit against medical ethics, I would have thought.
Or is it going to be patients undergoing surgery? Are they intending to tell them about it in advance? “If you die on the table, we’ll try to bring you back, but meanwhile please look at the pictures on top of the shelf.” That won’t exactly put patients at their ease, will it. I certainly wouldn’t want to be operated on by a doctor anxious to perform such a test.
Or maybe the patients won’t be told about it beforehand. Maybe they will just wait to see if they report an OBE, then ask them “did you happen to notice any pictures on the shelf” In which case failure to note or remember specific pictures won’t show anything.
Indistinguishable and j666, you’re a bit off topic and your exchange is not going to promote the discussion. Just let it drop.
[ /Modding ]
Ok.
(Just as a side question, what does “Super Moderator” mean? (When did you get the promotion?))
It means he was rocketed to Earth as a baby from a doomed planet, of course !
As far as the OP goes; I don’t think anything but time and the mysticism crowd finding something else to fantasize about will be the “nail in the coffin” for NDEs. It’s not like believers in such things have ever responded to disproof. And the likelihood of any negative results getting much coverage is small anyway.
And as for the chance that the study will “provide evidence of a paranormal nature”, I find that very, very unlikely. If for no other reason that I find it unlikely that this will be the one study that, unlike all the others, actually produces evidence of anything “paranormal”. I feel like someone watching the latest of a long string of people who think that they can walk on water marching towards a river, and someone asks me if I think that this guy will be the one to pull it off. Nope; I expect another drowning victim.
Interesting thought – they should definitely monitor the mortality rates in the participating hospitals… (“Let’s just give him a little more time before we bring him back… Oh, too late.”)
They mentioned “resuscitation chambers.” I think they use those when you get back from a long space journey and your body is brought out of the cryogenic chamber, but I’m not sure. Maybe they use them when folks have flatlined.
This study won’t disprove OoBEs as a whole, of course. However, it can cast very strong suspicion on individual ones, especially ones in which people report seeing the operating table from above. If we find that every single OoBE in which people report seeing the operating table from above has the patient “seeing” inaccurate information when the experience occurs under study conditions, it’s very likely we can extrapolate from the studied experiences to similar unstudied experiences. That is, we can say (stipulating the findings above) that patience who experience an OoBE on the operating table in which they see themselves from above are probably hallucinating. And unless there’s a reason to think that operating-table OoBEs are different from other OoBEs where people see themselves from above, we can make a similar extrapolation to other OoBEs.
Daniel