The Science Of Life

[Martin]

Put concisely, it's absurd to propose that an event is cause by an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable form of energy, for which, numerous attempts to prove its existence have proved fruitless, when there is a perfectly good sientifically demonstrable and detectable explanation for similar events elsewhere.

but when an event still happens and thousands like it are happening all over the world and through time in various places and to various people - obviously the events exist, they are being witnessed and experienced. As for being undetectable - well no we can detect some energy by crude mechanical instruments - and we know don't we that the EM spectrum is energy vibrating at different frequencies - is there a beginning and an end to this EM spectrum or is it infinite at either end?.

The best instrument to use though happens to be a human one. A medium (as the scientists do at the Windbridge institute and as they do in the many Spiritualist churches and halls all over the world).

An answer which is not an answer to the point I was making.  Your deliberate avoidance is obvious.

I'll say it agian.

It's absurd to propose that an event is caused by an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable form of energy, for which, numerous attempts to prove its existence have proved fruitless, when there is a perfectly good sientifically demonstrable and detectable explanation for similar events elsewhere.

Nobody is suggesting that there are no reports of observations around the world. But it is more reasonable to assume that these events are the result of mecahnisms that we know about rather than mechanisms we don't.   Whenever supernatural claims are studied under laboratory conditions they cannot be shown to happen.  So yes we have reports, lots of them, but no it doesn't mean that these things exist.  Sailors reported mermaids for years, but it doesn't mean that it's reasonable to believe that mermaids exist - instead we should be intensely sceptical, because we have good reasons to be so.  It's the only open-minded response.

[Jan]

oh dear ... 'mecahnisms that we know about rather than mechanisms we don't' - really?
If that were the case then it stands to reason that we would not need to investigate more about them now would we

And as for being 'open minded'  - ahhhhh - I think we are done here now Martin - don't you?

(any more posts like that and I might start to think you fancy me  )

[Martin]

You need to be able to make a repeatable observation under controled conditions in order to investigate.

Until you can, then it's just like claiming there's a teapot between Mars and Jupiter. It doesn't mean that the teapot doesn't exist, it means that you have no good reason to assume it does.  And where there are obvious, natural explanations for something, it is unreasonable to assume that a supernatural explanation is the answer.

If I see a golf bouncing down the fairway, and I can't see who hit it, it is not reasonable to assume that it was pushed by invisible fairies, it's more reasonable to assume that it was hit by someone because gold balls do move because people hit them.

If I hear voices in my head it is not reasonable to assume that some dead person is talking to me, it's more reasonable to assume that my brain is playing tricks on me, because people's brains do play tricks on them such that they hear voices in their heads.

[Jan]

Martin - we have been through all this before (repeatable observation under controled conditions in order to investigate) - and websites have been suggested/shared for you to check out as well as the suggestion that you go yourself to a spiritualist church to experience what goes on. If you don't wish to do that or checkout the websites - then there is nothing more I can say to you than I have already said (hence me saying that I think we are done here now Martin). You just going on like this with the same old same old isn't really taking this thread anywhere is it.

Now you seem like a reasonable catch for any man or woman on a similar wavelength to you-  but I am happily married and ... not really on your wavelength

[Martin]

Martin - we have been through all this before (repeatable observation under controled conditions in order to investigate) - and websites have been suggested/shared for you to check out as well as the suggestion that you go yourself to a spiritualist church to experience what goes on. If you don't wish to do that or checkout the websites - then there is nothing more I can say to you than I have already said (hence me saying that I think we are done here now Martin). You just going on like this with the same old same old isn't really taking this thread anywhere is it.

Now you seem like a reasonable catch for any man or woman on a similar wavelength to you-  but I am happily married and ... not really on your wavelength

Jan, to my knowledge you have presented no website which shows a supernatural event which can be repeated under controlled conditions. If you say you have, then please pick one website which has your very best conclusive evidence, and post it here. (I predict that you won't  ).

Until you can show me that good evidence of that sort exists, there is no more point in me going to a spiritualist church than there is in me going to a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.   That's not closed mindedness - it's common sense.

You are addressing me, as you always do, as someone who really should be checking out stuff that you can't give good evidence for (just like creationists).  On the other hand, I have challenged you to check out the so-called evidence you present on the basis of good scientific technique, something you have consistently refused to do.

You'll be happy to know that I agree with you, that the thread isn't going anywhere.  That's primarily because, on this thread to which you gave the title 'The Science of Life', you haven't presented any scientific evidence.

[Jan]

Jan, to my knowledge you have presented no website which shows a supernatural event which can be repeated under controlled conditions. If you say you have, then please pick one website which has your very best conclusive evidence, and post it here. (I predict that you won't  ).

I already suggested for you to check out the Windbridge institute site on post 10 for the information on what is being studied/evidence/experiments etc. Perhaps you missed that one? If you have any questions/queries about Windbridge they do have email addresses so you can contact them if you want to.

(ps - you got that prediction wrong didn't you eh  )

Until you can show me that good evidence of that sort exists, there is no more point in me going to a spiritualist church than there is in me going to a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.   That's not closed mindedness - it's common sense.

One of the main  points of a spiritualist church is to actually give people personal validation that life continues after physical death. Unless you go and experience it for yourself, you cannot really have that personal validation. The common sense approach would be to actually go and check it out for yourself. They won't bite Martin - they are just ordinary people are spiritualists. I have been to lots of services and I have my conclusive evidence - but all I can do is share the fact that I have had this evidence over and over (which is personal to me). For you to have the validation - you need to go yourself - that is the point.

You are addressing me, as you always do, as someone who really should be checking out stuff that you can't give good evidence for (just like creationists).  On the other hand, I have challenged you to check out the so-called evidence you present on the basis of good scientific technique, something you have consistently refused to do.

that is because Martin that I already have all the evidence I need personally to convince me that I am on the right track - both personal validation and those website links plus books I have read. Go and check out that Windbridge institute site - and I mean check it out properly - go on - I challenge you to do so. Don't come back until you have done so properly!

You'll be happy to know that I agree with you, that the thread isn't going anywhere.  That's primarily because, on this thread to which you gave the title 'The Science of Life', you haven't presented any scientific evidence.

lol - no I haven't presented any scientific evidence on the 'science of life' have I. What I have done is shared a link in the OP about Dr Rupert Sheldrakes theory on morphic fields and the understanding there is more to life than DNA because of how life structures are formed - plus we seem to have continued with the 'discussion' on 'paranormal phenomenon').

[Martin]

I already suggested for you to check out the Windbridge institute site on post 10 for the information on what is being studied/evidence/experiments etc. Perhaps you missed that one? If you have any questions/queries about Windbridge they do have email addresses so you can contact them if you want to.

But that's not what I asked for is it?  I asked for a website which shows a supernatural event which can be repeated under controlled conditions. My prediction came true!

One of the main  points of a spiritualist church is to actually give people personal validation that life continues after physical death. Unless you go and experience it for yourself, you cannot really have that personal validation. The common sense approach would be to actually go and check it out for yourself. They won't bite Martin - they are just ordinary people are spiritualists. I have been to lots of services and I have my conclusive evidence - but all I can do is share the fact that I have had this evidence over and over (which is personal to me). For you to have the validation - you need to go yourself - that is the point.

But you see Jan, that isn't helpful to your case. If I can only experience these things in an environment set up for convincing people (like a spiritualist church) rather than somewhere where an independent person can run controlled tests, then it points even more conspicuously to those causes I mentioned earlier.  The suggestibility of humans, a tendency of humans to fake things, a biased non-impartial view of the evidence etc.  In a similar way, I don't need to go to an evangelical rally to know that people's fillings turning to gold is dodgy evidence. 

that is because Martin that I already have all the evidence I need personally to convince me that I am on the right track - both personal validation and those website links plus books I have read. Go and check out that Windbridge institute site - and I mean check it out properly - go on - I challenge you to do so. Don't come back until you have done so properly!

Then you aren't open-minded by your own admission.  I'm glad we've finally established that.  Don't  tell me where I can or can't come by the way. It's rude.

lol - no I haven't presented any scientific evidence on the 'science of life' have I.

I'm glad you and I agree on something.

[Jan]

But that's not what I asked for is it?  I asked for a website which shows a supernatural event which can be repeated under controlled conditions. My prediction came true!

Oh I thought that you wanted to actually see what was being studied regarding supernatural events. If you want to actually see an event for yourself - then you would need to go to a spiritualist church or a ghost hunt or something of that ilk. Any recordings of supernatural events shown on sites such as youtube can be open to scrutiny - much can be faked when making little film recordings.

Your prediction as far as I understand was to do with me 'presenting a website' and you 'predicting that I wont' - when actually I did. I gave you what I understood you were looking for.

But you see Jan, that isn't helpful to your case. If I can only experience these things in an environment set up for convincing people (like a spiritualist church) rather than somewhere where an independent person can run controlled tests, then it points even more conspicuously to those causes I mentioned earlier.

Firstly Martin - its not for me (or my 'case') that you would be visiting a spiritualist church - it would be for your own benefit.
Secondly - what do you mean by 'set up'? It is just a church environment. The people that go to a spiritualist church - there are a mixture of them. Some are regulars and some are completely new to it all. The mediums job is to give validation or evidence. The congregation can take the messages on board or dismiss them. Most usually get something from them. I have seen some in tears because of the detail given (obviously that can be a deeply personal and emotional experience for those involved - and they go away with what they came for). For the experiments side -  'somewhere where an independent person can run controlled tests' - well that is what is being done at Windbridge by scientists.

The suggestibility of humans, a tendency of humans to fake things, a biased non-impartial view of the evidence etc.  In a similar way, I don't need to go to an evangelical rally to know that people's fillings turning to gold is dodgy evidence.

being at a spiritualist church is nothing like what is shown on TV of evangelical rallies - but then how would you know - you haven't been - not even once!

Then you aren't open-minded by your own admission.

Martin - I have to be open minded, to actually keep an open mind about not being sure about something when that is the case. If I am not sure about something I usually say so and keep open to the possibility of its existence. This though - well for me to go back to your way of thinking now would be like  believing in a flat earth - when I am fairly certain that the earth is spherical (though not a perfect sphere).


 

Don't  tell me where I can or can't come by the way. It's rude.

ah I see you don't like it when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine 

I'm glad you and I agree on something.

and you can respond to part of my post and take it out of context too 

[Martin]

Oh I thought that you wanted to actually see what was being studied regarding supernatural events...
...Your prediction as far as I understand was to do with me 'presenting a website' and you 'predicting that I wont' - when actually I did. I gave you what I understood you were looking for.

No I wanted to see stuff studied under scientific conditions, that means with verified controls and proper peer review,  I wanted to see repeatable evidence that could be taken by any laboratory and verified.  But it isn't there.  Please don't suggest that this is not what I've been asking for!  My prediction was proved correct. You gave it your best shot and it wasn't up to scratch.

Firstly Martin - its not for me (or my 'case') that you would be visiting a spiritualist church - it would be for your own benefit.

No it wouldn't be! Why should I go somewhere where controlled conditions are not possible to verify something that could only be proved by controlled conditions? What would convince me is if  such things were studied, peer reviewed and repeated, by people who are properly critical of the techniques used. 
 

Secondly - what do you mean by 'set up'? It is just a church environment. The people that go to a spiritualist church - there are a mixture of them....

'Just a church environment' can cover a multitude of meanings. I'm sure those who claim their fillings are turned to gold and those who claim their legs are lengthened could refer to their churches as 'just a church environment'.  But here's my point again - just in case you missed it.  If it is somewhere where supernatural events are supposed to happen and there are no controls in place, then it is worthless as evidence for the supernatural.  I could go and watch Paul Daniels, I probably wouldn't be able to explain any of his tricks, but it would not convince me that he can do magic.  If someone is going to present a 'phenomenon' then such a presentation is worthless unless they are prepared to submit to scientifically controlled conditions.  Nobody can be certain that it isn't a trick because nobody can properly examine it.

The people who go to your church may be very nice people.  I don't doubt that they are kind and considerate. But, because they are presenting supposed 'phenomena', and attempting to convince others, those claims need to be examined, and a church environment is not the place to do that.  Until they subject their claims to impartial analysis by qualified people, those claims are only as good as claims that a teapot orbits between Mars and Jupiter - completely unverifiable. Oh yes, you may get people coming to your church who are  initially sceptical and leave convinced, and that is undoubtedly why you want to encourage others to come, but no amount of people, convinced in uncontrolled demonstrations, is of any consequence to the facts. If Paul Daniels didn't say his 'phenomena' were  tricks, he'd be able to convince people they were supernatural too.
Even if I were to come to your church and I became convinced, it would only show that I was exercisising poor judgement.  The only way those claims ought to be taken as convincing is if they are repeated by people with the qualifications to properly and critically examine them like any other phenomenon.

This is what you don't seem to be getting, Jan.  You are pretending that these 'phenomena' conclusively exist, but whenever they are properly studied they are shown to be unreproducible.  The Windbridge institute that you pretend is a scientific institute, publishes its material in it's own journals, not in scientific journals.  The creationists do the same, they can't actually produce material that will stand up to scrutiny, so they publish their own journals to give their lies the semblance of authenticity!  Those journals are there in order to avoid critical analysis, not to encourage it!

being at a spiritualist church is nothing like what is shown on TV of evangelical rallies - but then how would you know - you haven't been - not even once!

I wasn't commenting on the style of presentation - they may be entirely different, what I'm commenting on is the nature of the claims - they are quite comparable.

Martin - I have to be open minded, to actually keep an open mind about not being sure about something when that is the case.

You have shown and admitted that you are not open minded.  If you were, you would admit the possibility that you are mistaken, and, given the evidence against your beliefs, you would want to investigate under more controlled conditions. QED.

ah I see you don't like it when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine

I have never told you not to post.  I wouldn't want to, because your posts just prove my points.

[Jan]

No I wanted to see stuff studied under scientific conditions, that means with verified controls and proper peer review,  I wanted to see repeatable evidence that could be taken by any laboratory and verified.  But it isn't there.  Please don't suggest that this is not what I've been asking for!  My prediction was proved correct. You gave it your best shot and it wasn't up to scratch.

keep your hair on now Martin - you should have been clearer in what you were asking for - and no you didn't predict correctly at all. If you truly want personal evidence/validation I think you would go and get it. As it stands I don't believe you do.

No it wouldn't be! Why should I go somewhere where controlled conditions are not possible to verify something that could only be proved by controlled conditions? What would convince me is if  such things were studied, peer reviewed and repeated, by people who are properly critical of the techniques used. 

no Martin - I don't believe you would be convinced. I have given you links and told you to go and do some investigating yourself, but it would seem that is too much trouble.
 

'Just a church environment' can cover a multitude of meanings. I'm sure those who claim their fillings are turned to gold and those who claim their legs are lengthened could refer to their churches as 'just a church environment'.  But here's my point again - just in case you missed it.  If it is somewhere where supernatural events are supposed to happen and there are no controls in place, then it is worthless as evidence for the supernatural.  I could go and watch Paul Daniels, I probably wouldn't be able to explain any of his tricks, but it would not convince me that he can do magic.  If someone is going to present a 'phenomenon' then such a presentation is worthless unless they are prepared to submit to scientifically controlled conditions.  Nobody can be certain that it isn't a trick because nobody can properly examine it.

well as you are unfamiliar with what goes on in a spiritualist church you would not know.

When you are given incredible and accurate information from a medium who does not know you yet he comes out with information about your life, your loved ones in spirit, names, places, events, shared memories, little details too - and all you can say is 'wow'  - that is 100% better evidence than any online video can offer!

The people who go to your church may be very nice people.  I don't doubt that they are kind and considerate. But, because they are presenting supposed 'phenomena', and attempting to convince others, those claims need to be examined, and a church environment is not the place to do that.  Until they subject their claims to impartial analysis by qualified people, those claims are only as good as claims that a teapot orbits between Mars and Jupiter - completely unverifiable.

you seem to be rather obsessed with a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter - and yes I have given you a website with impartial analysis by qualified people - have you looked at it properly yet. My guess is no you haven't!

Oh yes, you may get people coming to your church who are  initially sceptical and leave convinced, and that is undoubtedly why you want to encourage others to come, but no amount of people, convinced in uncontrolled demonstrations, is of any consequence to the facts. If Paul Daniels didn't say his 'phenomena' were  tricks, he'd be able to convince people they were supernatural too.

would he really?

Even if I were to come to your church and I became convinced, it would only show that I was exercisising poor judgement.  The only way those claims ought to be taken as convincing is if they are repeated by people with the qualifications to properly and critically examine them like any other phenomenon.

I don't think you live near me but if you did you would be welcome to tag along. How would you know if you were or were not exercising poor judgement if you didn't go to check it out? Simple - you would not. No experience so all you can do is assume.

The Windbridge institute that you pretend is a scientific institute, publishes its material in it's own journals, not in scientific journals.  The creationists do the same, they can't actually produce material that will stand up to scrutiny, so they publish their own journals to give their lies the semblance of authenticity!  Those journals are there in order to avoid critical analysis, not to encourage it!

http://www.windbridge.org/publications.htm

send them an email with your concerns - and let me know what they say won't you? Their email addy is on their site.

You have shown and admitted that you are not open minded.  If you were, you would admit the possibility that you are mistaken, and, given the evidence against your beliefs, you would want to investigate under more controlled conditions. QED.

have I? really?

and what is the 'evidence' against my beliefs please?

I have never told you not to post.  I wouldn't want to, because your posts just prove my points.

I think you know that I was giving you a taste of your own medicine (your rudeness). Why would my posts prove your point? For someone who is supposed to be scientific you do have quite an imagination with all the assuming going on in your head.

All I have tried to do is show you that there is much out there, but you don't really have any intention of digging further (apart from burying your own head a little further in the sand with each post you make!). I think you would rather have a dig at me instead eh Martin - you seem to delight in that, but it is water off a ducks back to me as I have seen it all before. Not to worry. Like I said - if you go and investigate further with an open mind it would really be of benefit to you (not me - I have already investigated - properly).

There was a video clip I was trying to find which I had received in an email newsletter. I think it is in one of these but I can't be 100% certain as it could have been shared on a facebook group.

http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/index.html

The clip did show an experiment done with a number of mediums who had to each give a reading to a person behind a screen. The mediums were 'wired up' to monitoring equipment whilst the experiment took place. If I manage to find the clip I will share it as it probably comes under the 'I wanted to see stuff studied under scientific conditions, that means with verified controls and proper peer review,  I wanted to see repeatable evidence that could be taken by any laboratory and verified'
title. I say probably because for you Martin - I do have my doubts on whether or not you would accept it as such.  I would probably be wasting my time and energy!

And again we have a thread that was meant for sharing information derailed by Martin. Are you happy now Martin?

[Martin]

No I wanted to see stuff studied under scientific conditions, that means with verified controls and proper peer review,  I wanted to see repeatable evidence that could be taken by any laboratory and verified.  But it isn't there.  Please don't suggest that this is not what I've been asking for!  My prediction was proved correct. You gave it your best shot and it wasn't up to scratch.

keep your hair on now Martin - you should have been clearer in what you were asking for - and no you didn't predict correctly at all. If you truly want personal evidence/validation I think you would go and get it. As it stands I don't believe you do.

Here's  what I asked for (relevant section in bold):

Jan, to my knowledge you have presented no website which shows a supernatural event which can be repeated under controlled conditions. If you say you have, then please pick one website which has your very best conclusive evidence, and post it here. (I predict that you won't  ).

You failed to provide it and you know it.

There's no point in me continuing to investigate the links you provide.  We must be into double figures now and each link has proved to be unsatisfactory in so many ways.  As these threads have moved on, you've made it obvious that you aren't interested in looking at the links you post with a critical eye.  That's because you have a closed mind.   

As for derailing the thread - it takes two - and it was never about sharing scientific information (as you were trying to claim).

[Jan]

No I wanted to see stuff studied under scientific conditions, that means with verified controls and proper peer review,  I wanted to see repeatable evidence that could be taken by any laboratory and verified.  But it isn't there.  Please don't suggest that this is not what I've been asking for!  My prediction was proved correct. You gave it your best shot and it wasn't up to scratch.

keep your hair on now Martin - you should have been clearer in what you were asking for - and no you didn't predict correctly at all. If you truly want personal evidence/validation I think you would go and get it. As it stands I don't believe you do.

Here's  what I asked for (relevant section in bold):

Jan, to my knowledge you have presented no website which shows a supernatural event which can be repeated under controlled conditions. If you say you have, then please pick one website which has your very best conclusive evidence, and post it here. (I predict that you won't  ).

You failed to provide it and you know it.

There's no point in me continuing to investigate the links you provide.  We must be into double figures now and each link has proved to be unsatisfactory in so many ways.  As these threads have moved on, you've made it obvious that you aren't interested in looking at the links you post with a critical eye.  That's because you have a closed mind.   

As for derailing the thread - it takes two - and it was never about sharing scientific information (as you were trying to claim).

Martin - it seems the links I provide will always be 'proved to be unsatisfactory' for you because they take you out of your comfort zone so its unlikely that you even bother to read them anyway and I am wasting my time actually bothering to share the links in the first place. I could add more but what would be the point? You twist my words and your behaviour in posting can be quite aggressive, bombastic and belittling - for someone who comes across as a reasonable and quiet man in real life (though I think we have only met the once so its possible I have got that wrong)

Carry on as you are - there is no real point in us continuing with this now is there

[Martin]

Martin - it seems the links I provide will always be 'proved to be unsatisfactory' for you because they take you out of your comfort zone so its unlikely that you even bother to read them anyway and I am wasting my time actually bothering to share the links in the first place.

No, the links you have provided have been proved to be unsatisfactory because none of them point to a repeatable experiment under controlled conditions.  That's all I've been asking for and you've failed to provide it.   My prediction came true - mind you I cheated a bit, because I knew that such an experiment hasn't been preformed or reviewed under controlled conditions.

In fact, my 'comfort zone' as a scientist is to marvel at new discoveries.  I am fascinated by the experiment which may have recorded particles travelling faster than the speed of light for instance.  If there were a controlled experiment which showed conclusively that people have a consciousness after death, I would be fascinated.  Over the years on Faithspace, I think I have reliably demonstrated my credentials as someone who is happy to think outside the box, to questions the status quo etc.  So there can be no credibility in your claim that I am taken outside my comfort zone.

No, you make that claim because you want to argue back, and you have nothing of substance to argue with.

You are indeed right that you're wasting your time sharing links which don't show controlled experimentation, when what you have been asked for is a link which does show controlled experimentation.  You're wasting my time with those links too.

[Jan]

No, the links you have provided have been proved to be unsatisfactory because none of them point to a repeatable experiment under controlled conditions.  That's all I've been asking for and you've failed to provide it.   My prediction came true - mind you I cheated a bit, because I knew that such an experiment hasn't been preformed or reviewed under controlled conditions.

Actually Martin I provided you with links in the past (NDE etc)  and a suggestion for you to check out the info on the Windbridge site. I also suggested that you should go and do some proper investigating yourself (because it is not for me it is for yourself that you would be doing it). If I give you a clip to watch - what would it prove? You would immediately start to pull it to pieces because video evidence can be manipulated and faked. If you want to get involved in some scientific experiments yourself then you know how to go about it don't you? Get in touch with those doing the experiments or set up some experiments yourself with others. Other than that we have what has been documented on the Scole experiments and on the Windbridge site - there are more sites to check out as this kind of investigation is going on - experiments are being repeated.

I did manage to find the clips I was talking about - experiments with mediums. They can be viewed on this link.
http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/mentalmediums.htm

You will have to scroll down to find the actual experiments taking place as there are some other clips just before.

Regarding fakes and stuff done for entertainment purposes - I used to watch a program called 'Most Haunted' which was supposed to be about investigating haunted places. It got to the stage where myself and hubby would just laugh at the antics going on - spoons being thrown about, odd noises and gasps - stuff done just for the camera and not really a true investigation. Their night vision camaras appeared to just be cameras with a green filter over them to make them appear like they were night vision. Knowing that this kind of thing can and does go on for TV purposes and ratings does not make me think 'oh well - it must all be a load of rubbish then' - why do I not think that? Well because for one thing it is pretty obvious what is going on and because of all the other info and experiences I have had in my life.

In fact, my 'comfort zone' as a scientist is to marvel at new discoveries.  I am fascinated by the experiment which may have recorded particles travelling faster than the speed of light for instance. 

I am fascinated by this too. For so long scientists seemed so certain that nothing can travel faster than light. Even now some are coming up with theories of why this seems to be happening - some theories involve the particles traveling through 'another' dimension. Fancy that eh - 'another' dimension    - I guess the main thing though is that they are willing to investigate it further rather than pretending it can only be a 'trick of the light' 

If there were a controlled experiment which showed conclusively that people have a consciousness after death, I would be fascinated.  Over the years on Faithspace, I think I have reliably demonstrated my credentials as someone who is happy to think outside the box, to questions the status quo etc.  So there can be no credibility in your claim that I am taken outside my comfort zone.

It would seem from the Windbridge institute site and others that experiments going on all the time Martin. You can get in touch with them to find out more if you want to. If you feel that what they are doing isn't up to your standards of 'controlled and repeatable' experiments - then why not set something up yourself?

No, you make that claim because you want to argue back, and you have nothing of substance to argue with.

Is that what you think - that I want to 'argue' back - lol. All I am doing is sharing info, which I enjoy doing - it is up to you whether you take it on board or not, but it is also up to you to find out more for yourself as it is for each of us. It is not my job to prove to you anything - you need to get that proof for yourself, whether that is personal proof or proof obtained from those 'controlled and repeatable' experiments.

You are indeed right that you're wasting your time sharing links which don't show controlled experimentation, when what you have been asked for is a link which does show controlled experimentation.  You're wasting my time with those links too.

well I found the links I was looking for and I added  the website where they can be found. If you don't like the experiments or you don't think they are up to your standards - you are quite at liberty to run your own.

[Martin]

Actually Martin I provided you with links in the past (NDE etc)  and a suggestion for you to check out the info on the Windbridge site.

And neither of these links led me to a properly controlled, properly peer reviewed scientific experiment. 

There is nothing about near death experiences which should lead one to conclude that anything other than the brain is involved.

The Windbrige Institute publishes in non-scientific journals.

You, asking me, to do some investigation is a laugh.  I have investigated lots of the links you've posted much more critically than you have!  Your closed mind leads you to avoid questioning, when the report fits your faith position.