Veridical perception in OBE's

[SciFiFanatic101]

There has been some experimentation dedicated to the issue of veridical perception in the out of body literature,specifically in Monroe's Journeys when he correctly described a Van de Graff generator when visiting in the OBE state some friends of his,although he had problems when Charles Tart did a study with him in describing the building where the study was taking place,Also Frederick Aardema dedicates a chapter on veridical perception in his book Explorations in Consciousness where he underlies the difficulties of visual perception due to reality fluctuations.Admittedly he had some success with tactile perception.There is also the study Tart did with Miss Z when she correctly identified the five numbers written on a piece of paper placed on the shelf above her,although Tart couldn't exclude cheating as an explanation.Blackmore cites an experiment done by Keith Harary when he projected to another room where three of his pet kittens were standing,their behavior changing as soon as he appeared before them.In spite of that,Blackmore considers this no more than coincidence.
With this in mind,how does Sam Parnia expect NDEers who have an OBE to correctly describe the writing or drawings above them when even seasoned OBErs like Aardema or Monroe have problems with the reality fluctuations of the OBE state.Also,has anybody heard of Jurgen Ziewe?Some say he is the most adept at stabilizing the OBE environment and in clearly communicating with the entities therein,probabably due to his intensive meditation practice.

 

[Max_B]

There has been some experimentation dedicated to the issue of veridical perception in the out of body literature,specifically in Monroe's Journeys when he correctly described a Van de Graff generator when visiting in the OBE state some friends of his,although he had problems when Charles Tart did a study with him in describing the building where the study was taking place,Also Frederick Aardema dedicates a chapter on veridical perception in his book Explorations in Consciousness where he underlies the difficulties of visual perception due to reality fluctuations.Admittedly he had some success with tactile perception.There is also the study Tart did with Miss Z when she correctly identified the five numbers written on a piece of paper placed on the shelf above her,although Tart couldn't exclude cheating as an explanation.Blackmore cites an experiment done by Keith Harary when he projected to another room where three of his pet kittens were standing,their behavior changing as soon as he appeared before them.In spite of that,Blackmore considers this no more than coincidence.
With this in mind,how does Sam Parnia expect NDEers who have an OBE to correctly describe the writing or drawings above them when even seasoned OBErs like Aardema or Monroe have problems with the reality fluctuations of the OBE state.Also,has anybody heard of Jurgen Ziewe?Some say he is the most adept at stabilizing the OBE environment and in clearly communicating with the entities therein,probabably due to his intensive meditation practice.

Observing the past to make predictions about future observations has been really useful. Even though the understanding we obtain is just an approximation, it's still really useful.

Classic NDE OBE's, particularly those apparently recalling verifiable information from a period of cardiac arrest, have a lot of recurrent features, suggesting that it will be possible to put together another set of approximations that will help us to understand these experiences too.

Studies like AWARE are making these useful observations. On its own, AWARE has probably contributed very little to our understanding. But taken together with other relevant observations from a wide range of different studies, we may eventually be able to put together some some new approximations, that allow us at least some ability to predict and thus understand these experiences better than we do today.

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

I think(although I may be wrong) that future NDE research and more importantly widespread acceptance of the phenomenon itself hinges on the AWARE study's conclusions.If in one hundred or so trials no positive results are found,then there is reason to assume that the "dying brain hypothesis" will gain much more traction within the scientific community.

 

[Max_B]

...future NDE research and more importantly widespread acceptance of the phenomenon itself hinges on the AWARE study's conclusions...

Nobody is doubting the phenomena as far as I'm aware... there is just a dispute about the 'cause' (if that's the right word), and absolutely nobody has a satisfactory mechanism. I seriously doubt that AWARE is as important as you believe, I think its almost impossible for these hospital studies to achieve much, because they are so in conflict with the environment within which they are conducted. Although I don't doubt that AWARE's failure to produce any hits on targets will be seized upon by those with alternative ideas. All the more reason not to put all your eggs in the AWARE basket too.

 

[Arouet]

I think(although I may be wrong) that future NDE research and more importantly widespread acceptance of the phenomenon itself hinges on the AWARE study's conclusions.If in one hundred or so trials no positive results are found,then there is reason to assume that the "dying brain hypothesis" will gain much more traction within the scientific community.

The problem with AWARE however is that the rooms where sightings could potentially occur did not report any NDEs. AWARE 1 can't really be used for or against.

But I think some people are being a bit harsh on AWARE. As many have mentioned, these are tricky to execute. This was just the first attempt. They are working on AWARE II. These experiments take time to carry out, so unfortunately it may take awhile before the protocols are optimized. Hopefully they will have the chance to do so.

 

[JCearley]

The problem with AWARE however is that the rooms where sightings could potentially occur did not report any NDEs. AWARE 1 can't really be used for or against.

It's certainly being used as an against (even though the NDE community already stated at the outset the protocol couldn't help in the first place.)

I think(although I may be wrong) that future NDE research and more importantly widespread acceptance of the phenomenon itself hinges on the AWARE study's conclusions.If in one hundred or so trials no positive results are found,then there is reason to assume that the "dying brain hypothesis" will gain much more traction within the scientific community.

They already operate on that conclusion.

 

[malf]

It's certainly being used as an against (even though the NDE community already stated at the outset the protocol couldn't help in the first place.)

I'm sure Parnia would say his protocol was driven by what the "community" was claiming for veridical NDEs.

 

[Arouet]

It's certainly being used as an against

So that's one wrong statement to correct.

(even though the NDE community already stated at the outset the protocol couldn't help in the first place.)

There's another...