Please, help, I cannot find my post

[qbeac]

Hello moderators, I had placed a post in the “Scepticism and debunking” titled “Scientific method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences”

... but then I thought it was better to place it in the “Mind & Brain Sciences” section. But now I cannot find it there.

When I moved it, I tried to erase it from the “Scepticism and debunking” section, and I deleted the three posts, but could not delete completely the first one because the web did not allow me to do that... so now, the thread in the “Scepticism and debunking” section is empty (except for a short message I left in the first post).

Please, do you know where the posts are, or if they have been moved or cancelled?

Thanks. qbeac.

 

[Astronuc]

This one?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95866

Click on your userid or go to your profile and then click on "Find all posts by ##$#", where$### is userid.

 

[hypnagogue]

Hi qbeac, sorry for the confusion. The thread you posted in the Mind & Brain Sciences forum was deleted but the mentors have been discussing this matter further. Your thread can be posted here, but we request that you post it in the Skepticism & Debunking forum, and also that you not include the frequent links to the forum in which the material for the thread was originated. The links are extraneous and unnecessary (not to mention, unreadable by anyone who doesn't know Spanish!). Posting the material on its own should be sufficient for everyone here to read over it and offer feedback.

If you do not have a copy of the text you used in the original thread, I can PM it to you so you can perform the proper edits and post it in the Skepticism & Debunking forum.

 

[qbeac]

This one?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95866
Click on your userid or go to your profile and then click on "Find all posts by ##$#", where$### is userid.

Hi Astronuc, thanks for the info, but no, that's not the one I mean, that's the old one I tried to erase, but when I tried, I could not delete completely the first post... and that's why it is still there.

The thread I mean is similar to that one (I mean it has the same title), but it has three posts with text in them, and I placed it in the “Mind & Brain Sciences” section.

 

[Astronuc]

Yep, as hypnagogue indicated, if you can't find it by the method I metioned, then it has been deleted - but I would assume one is notified of a deleted post.

If one has concerns about a post, it is best to check with the Supermoderators of the particular forum by PM.

 

[quantumdude]

but I would assume one is notified of a deleted post.

As a matter of policy, we only send notifications when posts are deleted under the rules on Overly Speculative Posts, in which case the notification consists of an invitation to post to the Independent Research Forum. It is really not possible for us to send notifications for any and all deleted posts.

If one has concerns about a post, it is best to check with the Supermoderators of the particular forum by PM.

Any Staff member can be contacted, because we can all find deleted posts equally easily. When we follow the "find all posts by #####" procedure, the deleted posts show up for us, as well as the still-extant posts.

I say this because it is not necessarily the leaders of a particular forum who delete posts within that forum.

 

[Lisa!]

Any Staff member can be contacted, because we can all find deleted posts equally easily. When we follow the "find all posts by #####" procedure, the deleted posts show up for us, as well as the still-extant posts.

You mean Only deleted posts by the staff, of course! I mean when someone delet his own post, you can't see it anymore.

 

[qbeac]

Hello moderators, I would like to ask you something about the best place to place my previous post. I few days ago there was a confusion, because I first put it in the “Scepticism and debunking”, then I thought it was better to change it to the “Mind & Brain Sciences”… etc… you told me later you preferred me to put it in the “Scepticism and debunking”, etc… and it finally got deleted. Anyway, it was a confusion.

But now I would like to put it back again and that’s why I would like to ask you first where should I put it? Also, I will try not to include too many links to the original debate in Spanish.

In my opinion, I would prefer to put it in the “Mind & Brain Sciences” because of several reasons:

- The post is about human consciousness: mind, brain, emotions, perceptions, nervous system, eyes, etc.
- I would like to debate this subject from a strict scientific perspective, and I would like for health care professionals or students (doctors, nurses, etc.) to have the opportunity of participating in this debate, as well as other types of professionals (physics, etc.).
- There are quite a few rigorous articles about this subject which have been published recently in different scientific and medical journals. Perhaps you are not interested in this subject, but let me just give you a few examples, so that you may see what I mean:

1.- Dr. Pim van Lommel’s study about NDE (he is a cardiologist), published in The Lancet in 2001 (complete text):
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
2.- Dr. Pim van Lommel. The Lancet HOME website (this is the same article as above, but in the original website of The Lancet, but you would have to register and I don’t know if also pay for the article?):
http://www.thelancet.com/search/search.isa
3.- Dr. Pim van Lommel. Reply to Shermer:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm
4.- Interview with Dr. Bruce Greyson (psychiatric) about an experiment he is undertaking in the operating rooms of the Hospital of the University of Virginia:
http://readthehook.com/stories/2004/09/08/facetimeDrNeardeathGreyson.html
5.- Roger Penrose (physicist and mathematician) and Stuart Hameroff (medical doctor), "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness”.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html
6.- What Emergency Department Staff Need to Know About NDEs
Debbie James (from the MD Anderson Cancer Center). Topics in Emergency Medicine.
Jan-Mar 2004.Vol.26, Iss. 1; pg. 29, 6 pgs
Nursing Center [Centro de Enfermería] (MEDLINE, Pubmed):
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684
7.- NDE: a concept analysis as applied to nursing. (MEDLINE, Pubmed)
J Adv Nurs. 2001 Nov;36(4):520-6.
Simpson SM. Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11703546
8.- Etc.

So, please, do you mind if I place it in the “Mind & Brain Sciences”, since its main topics are: Psychology, Neuroscience, Consciousness Studies, A.I., Philosophy of Mind...?

Thanks. qbeac.

 

[hypnagogue]

Hi qbeac, you're right that your intended topic of discussion is well-categorized as a sort of mind/brain science topic. However, it is also a very "fringey" kind of topic about a phenomenon whose existence, in some senses, is highly contested and not yet well verified. This is the primary reason we request that you post it in Scepticism & Debunking, as it is something of a standard policy here that more "fringey" kinds of topics in the sciences go in that forum and the other forums be reserved for more mainstream objects of scientific study and discourse. Rest assured that in the Scepticism & Debunking forum, appearances to the contrary, your thread will receive a fair and balanced treatment.

 

[qbeac]

Hello hypnagogue:

Thanks for your clarifications. However, I believe that “fringey” is a very subjective word, not too scientific and based on the knowledge on the specific subject of the person who says it. For instance, in my opinion it is not “fringey” at all :) . Also, I am worried that in that section it won’t get the attention it deserves from the health care professionals, since it is out of its natural section and many people may just miss it.

Besides that, the mind is probably one of the parts of the human body which is less understood. Therefore, there are many more theories and hypothesis than certainties. And many of the subjects that are being treated in that section are also being contested some way or another or simply not well understood. For instance, why should topics like these ones be included there and not mine?

“You are subscribed to this thread Anomalous, extraordinary, or otherwise interesting conscious experiences”
“Deja Vu?”

Concerning its existence being contested, that is not so. Its existence is very well scientifically documented. What raises doubts is its real nature, whether they are real or imaginary experiences. And that is precisely the reason for this post: to debate from a scientific point of view which is its real nature, and above all whether we may be able to find that out following scientific procedures, which we believe we can.

With regards to its existence, take a look, for example, at these two articles whose links I indicated above (there are many more):

What Emergency Department Staff Need to Know About Near-Death Experiences
Debbie James. Topics in Emergency Medicine.
Jan-Mar 2004.Vol.26, Iss. 1; pg. 29, 6 pgs
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=493684

SAMPLE:

Caring for patients in the emergency department is more challenging today than at any time in the past. Healthcare providers must stay abreast of constant changes in technology and therapy, as well as new developments in resuscitation. They must also possesses strong interpersonal skills to help them work with different family dynamics and crisis situations. But there is MORE! Researchers report that 1 in 3 patients who encounter a close brush with death will have a near-death experience (NDE). This article will provide the reader with a foundation of knowledge regarding the NDE which will promote the establishment of a caring environment and encourage disclosure. A review of the literature will reflect the most current research in this area. Factors that influence disclosure and nondisclosure will be included. This article concludes with suggested interventions for care of the emergency department patient who has had an NDE.​

So, even if these experiences were only imaginary (a product of the mind), they would still be of interest for Human Science. Another article:

Near death experience: a concept analysis as applied to nursing.
J Adv Nurs. 2001 Nov;36(4):520-6.
Simpson SM. Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805, USA. suzanne.simpson@parkview.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11703546

BACKGROUND: A concept is a thought or complicated mental illustration of a phenomenon. Concepts are essential in research development as they are described as the building blocks of theory. The occurrence of near death experiences (NDEs) is not an innovative subject. Parallels have existed as early as the Bible and Plato's Republic. The NDE was given further consideration in 1975 by Dr Raymond Moody who initiated an interest from the general public and researchers alike, with his book Life after Life. METHOD: This paper will use the strategy of concept analysis to find a working definition for the concept of the NDE and the implications it has for nursing. CONCLUSION: This paper will attest that the number of people who have claimed to have a NDE is phenomenal and overwhelming. In addition, it claims that the numbers of those who have experienced this phenomenon may be underestimated because of the persons' feeling of insecurity in talking with others about their paranormal incident. Therefore, it is vital that nurses become aware of the NDE and how to support the client who has had the experience. The following paper will summarize the different stages of a NDE, the consequences that one experiences, both positive and negative, and nursing implications.

PMID: 11703546 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

​

Now then, if you still believe it should be placed in the “Scepticism and debunking”, I am not saying I’ll agree with it, but I’ll accept it, since I am not the moderator.

Thanks for your time. qbeac.

P.S. I am from Spain, so I don’t know what “fringey” means, but I bet you is not too scientific. Am I right? ;)

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello hypnagogue:

Thanks for your clarifications. However, I believe that “fringey” is a very subjective word, not too scientific and based on the knowledge on the specific subject of the person who says it. For instance, in my opinion it is not “fringey” at all :) . Also, I am worried that in that section it won’t get the attention it deserves from the health care professionals, since it is out of its natural section and many people may just miss it.

Then don't you think it is rather strange that you chose an internet website with the name of PHYSICS FORUMS to try and reach out to "health care professionals"? Are there not more suitable site and forums around the internet for this, especially if you are that concerned about getting as wide of an audience?

Secondly, at some point, the moderators will have to make a decision based on what is given. You chose to post a highly specific subject matter on a website that has a major focus on other subject matter than the one you are trying to "advertize". So of course we have to rely on a more general aspect of the subject since there is a high probability that there is a very small number, if any, of people who would be an expert in that field of study. Which again brings me back to my first point.

Zz.

 

[qbeac]

Hello ZapperZ:

It is true that the name of this site is Physics, and I was kind of surprised to see it also had sections for other fields of science as well as a specific section to talk about “Mind & Brain Sciences”, so that’s why I thought this topic fitted in it. In Spain we have debated this topic in the Medicine sub-forum, in the Physics sub-forum and in the Math sub-forum of a Science forum, because it is a very wide topic which includes many different aspects of science. For instance, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are a physic-mathematician and a doctor, and they both have worked together as a team in their theory of consciousness (ORCH-OR).

Now then, you are the moderators and you decide what to do with the topics which are debated in this forum. In my personal opinion this is a very interesting subject, and some people may also think the same way. Also, I believe this is a good forum, I have just discovered it but it looks very good, it works well, it has moderators, which is important, etc. So, just let me know what you prefer to do about it and we’ll do it that way.

Thanks. qbeac.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello ZapperZ:
It is true that the name of this site is Physics, and I was kind of surprised to see it also had sections for other fields of science as well as a specific section to talk about “Mind & Brain Sciences”, so that’s why I thought this topic fitted in it. In Spain we have debated this topic in the Medicine sub-forum, in the Physics sub-forum and in the Math sub-forum of a Science forum, because it is a very wide topic which includes many different aspects of science. For instance, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are a physic-mathematician and a doctor, and they both have worked together as a team in their theory of consciousness (ORCH-OR).

You missed my point. I was not asking if it has any relevance to physics (that is still questionable in my book). Your whole point of having it out of the S&D forum was to reach a larger audience working in the health field. I did not realize that professionals in such fields seek out a "physics" forum. I just find it puzzling that you are using this forum to do that. I would think there are other more suitable avenue. I certainly would not post things about the physics of superconductivity in a medical forum if I want to reach an audence working in that field, even when I can argue that it has relevance to the medical profession. Those two are not connected.

Zz.

 

[qbeac]

Hello ZapperZ:

When I found this forum I was not looking for a “physics” forum, I was looking for a “science” forum, but you may have indexed the word “science” in your website header (is that how you say it?), because the Google shows this forum as a “science” forum. I entered in it, I saw the name on top of it was “physics”, I hesitated a bit, I took a closer look at the different sections, and saw it was not only about “physics”, but about many other scientific fields (engineering, biology, etc.), including the brain …. so that’s what happened.

But I rather ask you directly: is there any problem for me posting this post in this forum? Just let me know and we’ll do that.

Thanks. qbeac.

 

[hypnagogue]

Concerning its existence being contested, that is not so. Its existence is very well scientifically documented. What raises doubts is its real nature, whether they are real or imaginary experiences.

I'm aware of this; that's why I qualified my statement by saying its existence, in some senses, is not verified. OBE as a kind of conscious experience is certainly uncontroversial, but not OBE as an actual separation from the objective body. Sorry, I could have been a little clearer with my wording.

Anyway, here is how I think we'll handle this. You may post the thread in Mind & Brain Sciences, but only if you maintain strict scientific rigor and do not make any assumptions or unsubstantiated conclusions that OBEs are actually instances of 'paranormal' phenomena. (From what I recall, your thread was about methodology and did not make any assumptions along these lines so it should be OK, but please take extra care to ensure this consideration is complied with.) Also, depending on what course the thread takes, it may be moved to Skepticism & Debunking at a later date.

Also, please do not include links to the originating forum. They are superfluous and, being that they are in Spanish, we cannot read them to see if they are objectionable or not. Any relevant information from those forum discussions that you wish to point out should be written into the thread itself (in English).

 

[Moonbear]

I would just like to add to hypnagogue's comments about the appropriate forum for the topic. If your only intent is to "debunk" claims that OBEs are paranormal, or to determine if they are paranormal, then the thread will likely wind up in Skepticism and Debunking anyway, so might as well start out there. If you would like to delve into scientific studies regarding this as a manifestation of the conscious experience, or even further into possible neural mechanisms, sticking to a premise that they are of organic origin, then Mind and Brain Sciences will be appropriate.

I will also address your other concern regarding finding the appropriate audience for your topic. First, we have very few actual clinicians here, and if you're looking for advice on medical questions, they mostly hang out in the biology forum. However, if you're looking for advice on scientific methodology, those of us who are involved in research visit numerous forums here. Skepticism and Debunking addresses a wide range of topics and is likely to be viewed by a broader audience who have an actual interest in debunking/investigating paranormal claims. Mind & Brain Sciences also has a mixed audience, but you're more likely to encounter neuroscientists there who will want to discuss the neural basis for the experience rather than methodologies to debunk paranormal claims.

Think about the direction you want your thread to take and what sort of discussion you desire, and select the forum that seems best suited to it. If the discussion ends up more appropriate for the other forum, we may move it, as hypnagogue already stated.

 

[qbeac]

Hello moderators, Astronuc, Hipnagogue, Tom Mattson, ZapperZ, Lisa! and Moonbear, thanks for your comments.

I'm aware of this; that's why I qualified my statement by saying its existence, in some senses, is not verified. OBE as a kind of conscious experience is certainly uncontroversial, but not OBE as an actual separation from the objective body. Sorry, I could have been a little clearer with my wording...(...)...

Hi Hipnagogue, no problem at all! It was not my intention to be hard on you either. Sorry if I was. I just wanted to point out that certain aspects of this subject are delicate and we must treat them very carefully.

On the other hand, it seems clear that this is a controversial, delicate and complex subject. We are almost getting into the debate itself, and that’s probably not the intention of this thread (Feedback & Announcements). We also must consider that it might not be possible to summarize in a few words certain aspects of this subject without running the risk of unintentionally saying what we didn’t mean to say. To enter in all the aspects of this subject could take its time. That would be the debate itself! Therefore, I am going to think about it during the next few days and get back to you.

For right now I would simply like to manifest in advance my personal position about the way I would like to debate this subject.

My intention is not to engage into a philosophical discussion about these types of experiences. That could be done, and it might be very legitimate and useful to do in the appropriate time and place, but I don’t want to do that now. My intention now and in this forum is to analyze this subject from a rigorous scientific perspective. My intention is also to delve into the real truth behind this matter (whatever it may be) keeping in mind two conditions: a) To follow exclusively the Scientific Method, and b) To keep an open mind (and the definition of an “open mind” could be part of the debate itself). Finally, my intention is to clearly differentiate personal beliefs (which all are very respectful) from Scientific conclusive proof.

If I had to choose a sentence to define my position and my intentions about this subject and with this debate, this would be it:

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led."

--Thomas Jefferson (1812)
​

If the Staff of this forum agrees with that sentence as a statement of principles for this debate, I will post here. If they don’t, I will go somewhere else.

Take care. qbeac.

 

[Moonbear]

qbeac, so far, we have agreed that your topic would be okay to post here (meaning at Physics Forums). Either the Mind & Brain forum, or the Skepticism & Debunking forum are appropriate locations, depending on your intentions for the thread. The reason it was previously deleted was not the subject, but the numerous links to an outside forum, including links to sites with content written in Spanish, which we could not verify (while we have an international membership here, we all communicate in English on this forum).

Of course, we cannot promise any thread will remain open indefinitely if it takes a direction of pseudoscience, so I will urge you to stick to what you have indicated here of addressing this from an entirely scientific perspective if you wish to present it on these forums.

 

[ZapperZ]

If I had to choose a sentence to define my position and my intentions about this subject and with this debate, this would be it:

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led."

--Thomas Jefferson (1812)
​

If the Staff of this forum agrees with that sentence as a statement of principles for this debate, I will post here. If they don’t, I will go somewhere else.

Take care. qbeac.

Against my better judgement, I WILL respond to this.

You seem to have a naive view that good intention is all there is necessary. Well guess what, it isn't. Not only what you say is important, but HOW you say it is as important. An open forum such as this requires constant moderation. If all you care about is the freedom to say whatever you ant, then try the Usenet for a few days and see what happens. Can you practice your "... bold in the pursuit of knowledge..." when you are drowned with background noises and crackpots joining in the fun?

We had to find the most effective means to run an open forum such as this. It is the reason why the guidelines are imposed, and it is the reason why there are moderators to monitor the situation. A free-for-all and post-whatever-you-like forum has never produced anything of value. Is this what you prefer?

Just having great intention isn't enough. It is naive to think it is. Bold pursuit of knowledge is "grand", but HOW one makes such bold pursuit is important also. What is left out from that quote are all the dirty details on how to effectively do such a thing. You then confuses such rules and decisions as stiffling such "bold pursuits". All I can say is "Oy Vey!"

Zz.

 

[qbeac]

Hi ZapperZ, I do agree with you. Perhaps what’s happening here is a lack of understanding, or maybe that we are not interpreting each other correctly. Maybe you are emphasizing one side of the story and me the other one.

You are talking about the harmful effects of an excess of freedom, for example: Usenet, which I have also suffered myself. So, I totally agree with you on that. That’s an obstacle for the advancement of science.

In my case, I am talking about the harmful effects of an excess of biased censorship, for example: Several so called “scientific forums”, which I have also suffered myself. That’s an obstacle for the advancement of science.

In those types of forums, some people rush to conclusions without even spending two seconds to examine the evidence presented on the table. And that’s not scientific either.

Therefore, let’s try to find together a healthy equilibrium in between those two extremes. And since this subject is a touchy one, I thought it would be appropriate to inform you, the moderators, about which are my intentions with this debate (see my previous posts). If I did not explain myself correctly, my intention is to find a healthy equilibrium, but since this is a kind of subjective term (each person may interpret that in a slightly different way), let’s at least agree on a common ground (statement of principles or something like that) and build up from there through honest dialogue.

So, as I said, let me take a few days to think this over and I will get back to you.

Un saludo. qbeac.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hi ZapperZ, I do agree with you. Perhaps what’s happening here is a lack of understanding, or maybe that we are not interpreting each other correctly. Maybe you are emphasizing one side of the story and me the other one.

You are talking about the harmful effects of an excess of freedom, for example: Usenet, which I have also suffered myself. So, I totally agree with you on that. That’s an obstacle for the advancement of science.

In my case, I am talking about the harmful effects of an excess of biased censorship, for example: Several so called “scientific forums”, which I have also suffered myself. That’s an obstacle for the advancement of science.

I can't say that is the case for physics. I have yet to see "advancement of science" for physics done in a "scientific forum". So I'm not terribly impressed by such claims. Maybe it is different for other fields of study.

In those types of forums, some people rush to conclusions without even spending two seconds to examine the evidence presented on the table. And that’s not scientific either.

Therefore, let’s try to find together a healthy equilibrium in between those two extremes. And since this subject is a touchy one, I thought it would be appropriate to inform you, the moderators, about which are my intentions with this debate (see my previous posts). If I did not explain myself correctly, my intention is to find a healthy equilibrium, but since this is a kind of subjective term (each person may interpret that in a slightly different way), let’s at least agree on a common ground (statement of principles or something like that) and build up from there through honest dialogue.

And I would wish that each time some forum issue a clear guideline on the outset that people don't start behaving as if they are the champion of "free speech" or "intellectual freedom" on which the whole future of scientific advancement depends.

Zz.

 

[qbeac]

Hi ZapperZ, well, why don't we see all these details and different shades of this subject in the open and balanced debate… and again, I rather not get into the specifics right now because there are indeed quite a few things to say about it.