Hi everyone,
My name is Troy. I am a graduate student in History at a major university. I have had an interest in the paranormal for as long as I can remember. As a child, I read books about ghosts and enjoyed shows like “Unsolved Mysteries.” In high school, my library had an encyclopedia of the paranormal, “Mysteries of Mind, Space and Time,” or something to that effect, where I first learned about psychical research. Shortly after, I became a member of several paranormal and skeptic message boards, but I was always more of a lurker than a poster. (Incidentally, one of those boards was the JREF board, so I have been reading posts by Paul and Ian, for example, for almost twelve years now.) At the same time, I started to read more in the parapsychological literature, though I still consider myself to be under-read. As far as interests go, I am most fascinated by the early history of psychical research and NDE’s.
To lay my metaphysical cards on the table, I have always been attracted to idealism as a philosophical and spiritual orientation. Unlike others here, I was not brought up in a particular religious tradition. Nevertheless, being interested in the paranormal meant that I would at some point encounter mysticism, and when I did, I was fascinated by the altered states of consciousness that can be brought about by rigorous contemplative exercises. The mystics seemed to have access to a ‘gnosis,’ which made plain the ultimate state of reality: a non-dual state brimming with consciousness. Of course, I could not prove, nor could the mystics themselves (unless siddhis exist and they used one), that these experiences weren’t brain-based illusions, but reading about them had a profound effect on me.
As far as where I now stand, I would have to say that I am an agnostic, slightly leaning toward the reality of psi phenomena. I used to be more of a firm proponent, but several things have recently tempered my enthusiasm. One was a thread on the old board where it became apparent that studies about brain activity during cardiac arrest and C.P.R that Pim van Lommel cited in his book and in one of his articles actually contradicted his argument. I e-mailed several top NDE researchers and never got a reply, except from one saying that although he did not have the time to go into an in-depth explanation, he agreed that van Lommel was wrong, and was surprised he wrote what he did. Another was that Stephen Braude allegedly made some errors in his appraisal of Peter Lamont’s book on D.D. Home. Of course, researchers make mistakes , but these lapses drove home the point that if I wanted to get as close to the truth as possible I needed to go to the original reports. (I am aware of the, quite frankly, massive lapses in some of the popular skeptical literature, so this is definitely a double-edged sword, with one edge longer than the other.) This is a painstaking undertaking, but it is something I need to do to be intellectually honest. Unfortunately I don’t have too much time to devote to this project. In the interim, I read bits and pieces whenever I can, look forward to hearing more about the preliminary results from AWARE, and look forward to reading discussions on this board.