[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Okay. That was the best you could do. Now we can make progress.
You said you would and could post links to the sort of peer-reviewed research I asked for. In reality, the best you could do was to pose an editorial written by one of the researchers, which was NOT was you said you would and could do. It appears, although I don’t want to assume, that you genuinely cannot see the difference between a peer-reviewed research study and an editorial, as long as they’re written by the same person.
Your lack of distinction between the two makes it impossible, apparently, for you to keep your word about what you would do.
And post 425 contained zero links. If you’re referring to your original list of 53 or whatever links, I was only able to find one peer-reviewed study among them, and then only by digging three layers deep into one of the links. If you’re referring to your repeated anonymous anecdotes, those are not studies.
So we’re on the same page at last. You cannot provide peer-reviewed studies that support your claim. As I stated a long time ago (and I believe you agreed), that seriously weakens your assertion that mainstream science is increasingly accepting the nonphysical nature of consciousness.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have a lot of time now. No one ever said a personal experience was a study, no one. What I called studies, were studies, they probable would not meet the criteria you expect, but they did show a non-local consciousness. They are not anonymous anecdotes, they are events of great value to the experiencer that changed their lives for the better. We just don’t agree. I accept personal experiences as valid unless I have some reason to doubt them. People who have NDEs come back to life more honest and willing to love than ever before. I see no reason for them, especially thousands of them, to lie about what happened. As for mistaken, no, not that either, just too many of them in agreement. Now as for scientists, those doing the research became believers in the process, they were not before. Skeptics like Karl Jansen and Susan Blackmore has softened their skepticism in recent years with the results of the studies. I get telephone calls from doctors asking about the experiences they have seen on their operating tables. Yes, I believe the tone is changing, because as more people truly examine the evidence they will see it is good evidence. All I have time for now.