JR one million dollar challenge

MooseJam

This came up in another forum, aren't there psychics round these parts ?, why not go for the million dollars ?

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/

Oryx

MooseJam wrote: »

This came up in another forum, aren't there psychics round these parts ?, why not go for the million dollars ?

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/

A. This gets asked here every few months. Not an original suggestion by oh, at least 4 years.
B. Randi is only interested in celebrity psychics now.
C. Im winning the lotto tonight anyway.

MooseJam

Ha should have guessed it was asked before, well if I was a psychic I'd get out there and make myself a celebrity as a million quid isn't to be sneezed at, I don't think you have to be a huge celebrity just have been mentioned in the papers or the like, I'd get on to the star and have them publish an article about me

Oryx

MooseJam wrote: »

Ha should have guessed it was asked before, well if I was a psychic I'd get out there and make myself a celebrity as a million quid isn't to be sneezed at, I don't think you have to be a huge celebrity just have been mentioned in the papers or the like, I'd get on to the star and have them publish an article about me

Ah been there, done that. I somehow think JR has someone more of the calibre of Sylvia Brown in his sights. I doubt he even knows where lil ol Ireland is.

DANNY22XX

great thread but if i was psychic i would give it a go,maybe the new law against conmen in the psychic feild is based the same idea,,

i wonder if there is a list of who have failed,,,

Oryx

DANNY22XX wrote: »

great thread but if i was psychic i would give it a go,maybe the new law against conmen in the psychic feild is based the same idea,,

i wonder if there is a list of who have failed,,,

He used to write about those he tested (everyone has failed, obviously). But to be honest theres been as much cynicism about his testing criteria as he holds for psychics.

MooseJam

DANNY22XX wrote: »

great thread but if i was psychic i would give it a go,maybe the new law against conmen in the psychic feild is based the same idea,,

i wonder if there is a list of who have failed,,,

#

whats this new law ?

Oryx

MooseJam wrote: »

#

whats this new law ?

Here ya go.

Zillah

I think the average "psychic" (forgive the quotes but I have to) will not maintain that their power is potent enough, consistent enough or effective enough to withstand scientific enquiry. Most psychics say they can sense emotions, associations...all that sort of "light" stuff. You can't test for those sort of things, especially if even the psychic admits its not a consistent power.

Thats not to say they do have powers, but it does mean that they're incapable of proving it to Randi even if they're actually gifted.

Now, that said, lying idiots like Sylvia Browne and Uri Gellar can go drown themselves in the Liffey for all I care, bloody charlatans.

BigglesMcGee

It wouldnt be hard to take part in Randis test at all.

If a person really had powers its very easy to convince a reporter, then tv interview and then a few scientists and then Randi will be interested.

We all know the real reason Randi hasnt parted with the prize .... dont we?

MooseJam

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

We all know the real reason Randi hasnt parted with the prize .... dont we?

tell me more !

BigglesMcGee

MooseJam wrote: »

tell me more !

Because it would be easy to prove supernatural powers under scrutiny if they really existed. But for some strange reason noone has been able to.

ShellBell1

DANNY22XX wrote: »

i wonder if there is a list of who have failed,,,

Uri Geller failed the test, but he insisted afterwards that the conditions set for his testing were inappropriate. In any case, there's a lot of bad blood between Geller and Randi, forsaking any balanced conclusion to be achieved. I would have to witness Geller in person to decide if he was faking it or not. There are many reports of his tricks being successfully debunked, but I'd have to see for myself really.. For someone who has amassed considerable wealth from supposedly 'faking it' over the course of 30 years (or whatever it is), that really is some feat, though.

That Scottish medium Derek Ogilvie said last year that he was taking up the Randi challenge. Yet, I never heard about its outcome.. I'm guessing he failed!

Zillah

ShellBell1 wrote: »

Uri Geller failed the test, but he insisted afterwards that the conditions set for his testing were inappropriate.

Conditions for success and failure are agreed upon by the applicant and Randi before they begin to ensure that just such a ridiculous excuse would be obviously the cheap shot it is.

ShellBell1

Zillah wrote: »

Conditions for success and failure are agreed upon by the applicant and Randi before they begin to ensure that just such a ridiculous excuse would be obviously the cheap shot it is.

Yes, I have heard of conditions being agreed upon by both parties beforehand. I simply said that Geller had said afterwards that the conditions for testing were inappropriate. Maybe he is pretty much chancing his arm with that suggestion, maybe he isn't?? Dunno.

Unless you were actually present at one of these Randi tests yourself, you can only speculate what goes on, or at best, base your opinion on what Randi says of his tests. He could be taking cheap shots too? How are we to know for sure in his case as well?

Either of them are likely to be fraudulent. We can only surmise what happens based on secondhand information which, frankly, isn't the most reliable at times..

BigglesMcGee

I know several people (including myself) who can bend spoons ala Gellar.

And noone claims it is supernatural. Its a trick and a pretty easy one at that.

ShellBell1

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

I know several people (including myself) who can bend spoons ala Gellar.

And noone claims it is supernatural. Its a trick and a pretty easy one at that.

I've always been aware that 'ordinary folk' (!) can bend spoons very easily. 'Spoon bending parties' are especially popular in America. Spoon bending isn't terribly productive. God, who f*cking cares anyway? Silly crap. F*ck Randi, f*ck Geller, and f*ck spoon bending.

F*ck it all!!

BigglesMcGee

ShellBell1 wrote: »

I've always been aware that 'ordinary folk' (!) can bend spoons very easily. 'Spoon bending parties' are especially popular in America. Spoon bending isn't terribly productive. God, who f*cking cares anyway? Silly crap. F*ck Randi, f*ck Geller, and f*ck spoon bending.

F*ck it all!!

Issues?

amazingemmet

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

I know several people (including myself) who can bend spoons ala Gellar.

And noone claims it is supernatural. Its a trick and a pretty easy one at that.

Spork bending is where its at.

Zillah

ShellBell1 wrote: »

Unless you were actually present at one of these Randi tests yourself, you can only speculate what goes on

I don't need to speculate, I can extrapolate. Randi is a scientist and a sceptic. I can therefore extrapolate that his test would follow the scientific method which has shown itself to be the most reliable method for finding correct answers about the world.

Either of them are likely to be fraudulent.

No, its possible they could both be fraudulent. Not "likely". Gallar is a man who claims to have psychic powers and actively seeks to financially profit from those claims. He is very likely to be fraudulent. Randi is a sceptic and a scientist who seeks to debunk people who make false claims about their abilities. He is unlikely to be fraudulent.

Oryx

Zillah wrote: »

Randi is a sceptic and a scientist who seeks to debunk people who make false claims about their abilities. He is unlikely to be fraudulent.

...although you could that he is more likely to be fraudulent in an effort not to hand over a million dollars and have to completely alter his mindset... not saying thats the case, but you could argue it all the same.

DAEDULUS

KtK wrote: »

...although you could that he is more likely to be fraudulent in an effort not to hand over a million dollars and have to completely alter his mindset... not saying thats the case, but you could argue it all the same.

then surely he wouldnt offer it in the first place?

???

There seems to be this idea that sceptics and in particular Randi are dogmatic and 'closed minded'. It's a totally false premise. 99% of th sceptics I know are totally open to the idea of psychic powers and all other paranormal things if someone would present compelling evidence. They are all extraordinary claims and extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. And remember kids... the plural of anectdote is anecdotes, not evidence!

iamhunted

im sure this topic has been discussed a zillion billion catrillion times on this forum. OK, well not that many, but more than once.

The problem I have with randis offer is how exactly can anyone prove anything paranormal? You'd have to being him to somewhere where there is apparent paranormal activity and have it happen right in front of him and then have it all happen in such a way that you could prove it could only have been paranormal. thats a damned tall order.

This is more down to cheap publicity imo - offer a million quid for something thats impossible to prove (at present - you never know what the future holds) and then when it cant be proved say it doesnt exist. Yeah, very very open minded alright.

iamhunted

Im still waiting for science to prove where my mind is, but that doesnt mean I dont have one.

Zillah

iamhunted wrote: »

Im still waiting for science to prove where my mind is, but that doesnt mean I dont have one.

Maybe instead of sitting back waiting for science to be so condescending, you go read a book on neuroscience and see the insurmountable evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.

The problem I have with randis offer is how exactly can anyone prove anything paranormal?

There are many people who claim to be able to perform amazing feats at will, such as read thoughts, move objects with their mind or divine knowledge from supernatural sources. If they're not lying they should be able to prove it. This is why Randi's challenge so obviously exposes charlatans like Uri Gellar.

KtK wrote: »

...although you could that he is more likely to be fraudulent in an effort not to hand over a million dollars and have to completely alter his mindset... not saying thats the case, but you could argue it all the same.

He's volunteered the money and his hands are tied by science. If someone can prove their paranormal powers he'll have to give them the money.

And scientists change their mindsets all the time. But those mindsets are changed by evidence, not wild claims supported by no evidence.

El_mariachi

iamhunted wrote: »

im sure this topic has been discussed a zillion billion catrillion times on this forum. OK, well not that many, but more than once.

The problem I have with randis offer is how exactly can anyone prove anything paranormal? You'd have to being him to somewhere where there is apparent paranormal activity and have it happen right in front of him and then have it all happen in such a way that you could prove it could only have been paranormal. thats a damned tall order.

This is more down to cheap publicity imo - offer a million quid for something thats impossible to prove (at present - you never know what the future holds) and then when it cant be proved say it doesnt exist. Yeah, very very open minded alright.

Not exact a tall order. If your claiming to produce an effect (telekinesis, dowsing, mind reading etc.) it would be easy to observe the effect occurring.
First you must eliminate the possibility of cheating (both conscious and unconscious) for example in testing telekinesis placing the target to be move in a glass bottle so the subject can't blow on it. If the effect is happening through a paranormal means it would be pretty easy to prove.
The JREF tests are agreed upon by both parties all the way through, no change can be made to the protocol unless both parties agree. What conditions mean a failure or a success are also agreed upon.

You can also request Randi not attend the test (a JREF representative will conduct the test) to stop his negative vibrations.

The fact no one can prove any paranormal power does not bode well for their existence. But if someone could offer some substantial proof (say reading a persons mind perfectly, on demand) a lot of people would take claims a little more seriously.

Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain.

Oryx

El_mariachi wrote: »

Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain.

As someone who is beginning to study psychology (as an amateur, not a student) could you recommend what to read to find out more about that theory above?

I think its clear from what I post here that I am a believer in certain elements of the paranormal. However, I have a rational brain (mostly) and if by some weird chance I was creating these effects myself, I would want to know how Im doing it and whats going on. This is why Ive begun to learn about psychology, to see if what I do has a purely psychological basis, or not. Further study of the mechanisms of the brain would complement that.

DANNY22XX

i have emailed the said parties to see if they could send some more info on the subject.plus i ask for our very own little test for here ,,,so its up to you who would you like to be in charge of the test,,when i get the details i will send them to the chosen parties,,as i have been informed the test is open to all and who conduct it ,,,,plus there has to be an audience and video present if some can pass they would have to reproduce the activity for them,,so whos up for it,,
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
the list so far,,,,

El_mariachi

KtK wrote: »

As someone who is beginning to study psychology (as an amateur, not a student) could you recommend what to read to find out more about that theory above?

I think its clear from what I post here that I am a believer in certain elements of the paranormal. However, I have a rational brain (mostly) and if by some weird chance I was creating these effects myself, I would want to know how Im doing it and whats going on. This is why Ive begun to learn about psychology, to see if what I do has a purely psychological basis, or not. Further study of the mechanisms of the brain would complement that.

Not a psychology buff but I'd imagine any book on neuro-science. All also the fact personality, memory and behaviour can be changed by damage to the brain.

But there are several well studied psychlogical effect that explain many apparent paranormal effects.
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html
http://skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html
http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html
http://skepdic.com/wishfulthinking.html
http://skepdic.com/placebo.html
http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

i have emailed the said parties to see if they could send some more info on the subject.plus i ask for our very own little test for here ,,,so its up to you who would you like to be in charge of the test,,when i get the details i will send them to the chosen parties,,as i have been informed the test is open to all and who conduct it ,,,,plus there has to be an audience and video present if some can pass they would have to reproduce the activity for them,,so whos up for it,,
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
the list so far,,,,

Are you claiming to have a testable paranormal power?
You are of course aware that one of the rules of the challenge is that you must have some media exposure.(TV, radio, Newspaper).
And that the JREF won't cover travel expenses.

As an unofficial test me and a friend would be well up for testing you.
Unfortunatly we don't have a million dolars to offer:(

DANNY22XX

WHAT ABOUT AN OFFICIAL TEST ,,,OHHH yeah i have the contacts for radio and tv so that will be ok ,,,plus as you may not realise randi has students who carry out his work all over the world,,,even ireland,,
i dont claim to have paranormal powers but i would be intrested in who does make claims so are you and your friend up for that,,,i can get on it right away,,if you wish

El_mariachi

Yea we're well up for up it. We could conduct a fairly scientific test if you could provide something paranormal. We could record and log the test.
However I have to be clear, we have no connections to the James Randi Educational Foundation what so ever. We are not even members. This test would have no official bearing on an application for the prize.

Oryx

El_mariachi wrote: »

Yea we're well up for up it. We could conduct a fairly scientific test if you could provide something paranormal. We could record and log the test.
However I have to be clear, we have no connections to the James Randi Educational Foundation what so ever. We are not even members. This test would have no official bearing on an application for the prize.

Now all you guys need is a willing guinea pig. Good luck with that.:)

DANNY22XX

i am not direspecting anyone here i just would like to see someone from here to burst the experiment wide open if thats possible,poeple are saying no or there is no way it cn be done because of randis protocol,,but if someone claims they can see billy,,or mary at the door and they can pass real info for a test subject,ie a person of choice,plus if they can move things with their mind,,why not show it,,,

BigglesMcGee

Can i suggest that Irish Skeptics conduct the test at one of their meetings.

Also that perhaps there are a series of tests. Possibly of a few people with different abilities. Id love to watch.

Im sure everyone present could donate €20 or so for a prize if succesful. There would be a huge turnout for it i would think.

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

i am not direspecting anyone here i just would like to see someone from here to burst the experiment wide open if thats possible,poeple are saying no or there is no way it cn be done because of randis protocol,,but if someone claims they can see billy,,or mary at the door and they can pass real info for a test subject,ie a person of choice,plus if they can move things with their mind,,why not show it,,,

Well our protocol would be agreed on by both parties as well as the terms for success and failure. All correspondence and results would be published on a argeed upon venue.

DANNY22XX

El_mariachi wrote: »

Yea we're well up for up it. We could conduct a fairly scientific test if you could provide something paranormal. We could record and log the test.
However I have to be clear, we have no connections to the James Randi Educational Foundation what so ever. We are not even members. This test would have no official bearing on an application for the prize.

well your in the south east as am i it shouldnt be to difficult,,,but it would make a great topic for discussion and maybe just maybe get us a little closer to find what the gap is in our research in this feild

DANNY22XX

El_mariachi wrote: »

Well our protocol would be agreed on by both parties as well as the terms for success and failure. All correspondence and results would be published on a argeed upon venue.

its my job venue managment so a venue is no probs,

DANNY22XX

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Can i suggest that Irish Skeptics conduct the test at one of their meetings.

Also that perhaps there are a series of tests. Possibly of a few people with different abilities. Id love to watch.

Im sure everyone present could donate €20 or so for a prize if succesful. There would be a huge turnout for it i would think.

well said biggles i know the dublin para con is coming in oct why not have it there you can have the skeptic and the belivers ,im sure the P.I.G.guys would be up for that,

iamhunted

Zillah wrote: »

Maybe instead of sitting back waiting for science to be so condescending, you go read a book on neuroscience and see the insurmountable evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.

i think you'll find science still debates where the brain resides. Theres a lot of discussion on the subject. Condescending indeed.

There are many people who claim to be able to perform amazing feats at will, such as read thoughts, move objects with their mind or divine knowledge from supernatural sources. If they're not lying they should be able to prove it. This is why Randi's challenge so obviously exposes charlatans like Uri Gellar.

Is his challange just for psychics then? not the paranormal in general. I could have sworn it was to "demonstrate paranormal abilities".

He's volunteered the money and his hands are tied by science. If someone can prove their paranormal powers he'll have to give them the money.

And scientists change their mindsets all the time. But those mindsets are changed by evidence, not wild claims supported by no evidence.

read my other post - proving the paranormal isnt an easy thing to do - well nigh impossible imo. that though, doesnt mean the 'paranormal' doesnt exist (obviously doesnt mean it does exist either).

iamhunted

El_mariachi wrote: »

Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain.

for gods sake people, really. thats just so debatable. - afaik, there is as yet no undisputable proof that the brain and mind are separate. just one of those things science has theories about but no absolute proof. Bit like the big bang theory.

I fear for the world you know when people just believe everything they're told.

El_mariachi

iamhunted wrote: »

for gods sake people, really. thats just so debatable. - afaik, there is as yet no undisputable proof that the brain and mind are separate. just one of those things science has theories about but no absolute proof. Bit like the big bang theory.

I fear for the world you know when people just believe everything they're told.

Pray tell were exactly is the mind then?
Your probably thinking of the soul which is a completely different thing all together.

Your right there is no indisputable proof for anything except in math and logic.
However there is really good evidence for hypotheses.

Theory in the scientific sense of the word does not mean random idea.
The word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Remember evolution and gravity are theories but it is acceptable to say the fact of gravity or the fact of evolution.

Also technically its still called the round earth theory and the helio-centric theory.

Its rather far fetched to always assume every scientist is lying when they show evidence contrary to your person beliefs.

stevenmu

Well I really like the idea of some experiments being run through the forums here, if that's what's being suggested. I know I suggested before running a remote viewing experiment but I got a bit tied up in trying to figure out the maths and probability and what any given result would actually mean. And I suspect you might face the same problems here, trying to create a protocol that gives a conclusive and measurable result. Any ideas what experiments you would like to do and what protocols you would use?

stevenmu

One test I would suggest, as I believe it can provide clear and measurable results, and should be relatively simple to replicate, is the ganzfeld tests conducted by the koestler parapsychology unit, there's a link here describing the method. (they've changed their site since I last looked so I can't find the detailed papers and results they've gotten.

edit: one thing I remember though was while they compared results for different types of people, artists vs accountants etc, I don't think they contrasted results for people who believe they have a paranormal ability vs those who do not, which I think could prove interesting.

El_mariachi

stevenmu wrote: »

Well I really like the idea of some experiments being run through the forums here, if that's what's being suggested. I know I suggested before running a remote viewing experiment but I got a bit tied up in trying to figure out the maths and probability and what any given result would actually mean. And I suspect you might face the same problems here, trying to create a protocol that gives a conclusive and measurable result. Any ideas what experiments you would like to do and what protocols you would use?

The protocol depend entirely on the nature of the claimed ability.
For example the remote viewing could quite easily be tested.
Place three items in a location that the subject agrees on.
and simply get them to identify the items.
Repeat several times to get a good sample of results.
if you were to use a set number of items say for example ten different ones.
the subject who be expected to get 1/10 or 10% guesses correct.
so a successful demonstration would need a significantly larger precentage say 40%.

iamhunted

El_mariachi wrote: »

Pray tell were exactly is the mind then?
Your probably thinking of the soul which is a completely different thing all together.

Your right there is no indisputable proof for anything except in math and logic.
However there is really good evidence for hypotheses.

Theory in the scientific sense of the word does not mean random idea.
The word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Remember evolution and gravity are theories but it is acceptable to say the fact of gravity or the fact of evolution.

Also technically its still called the round earth theory and the helio-centric theory.

Its rather far fetched to always assume every scientist is lying when they show evidence contrary to your person beliefs.

No - im thinking of the mind. if the mind and soul are the same - well thats a completely different theory.

I made the statement that I was waiting for science to tell me where my mind was (so obviously I dont know myself so cant answer your question). I was being told science knows the mind is in the brain - Im just saying science doesnt actually know that.

For example, if I lost my memory, a scientist couldnt say 'dont worry, I know where your subconcious mind is, I'll dig those memories back out for you.' If science knew just where the mind resided, then someone could do that. Ergo you cant really say "Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain."

Its rather far fetched to believe someones unproven theory because they class themselves as a 'scientist' - one may as well just believe everything one is told and not think for oneself.

El_mariachi

iamhunted wrote: »

No - im thinking of the mind. if the mind and soul are the same - well thats a completely different theory.

I made the statement that I was waiting for science to tell me where my mind was (so obviously I dont know myself so cant answer your question). I was being told science knows the mind is in the brain - Im just saying science doesnt actually know that.

For example, if I lost my memory, a scientist couldnt say 'dont worry, I know where your subconcious mind is, I'll dig those memories back out for you.' If science knew just where the mind resided, then someone could do that. Ergo you cant really say "Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain."

Its rather far fetched to believe someones unproven theory because they class themselves as a 'scientist' - one may as well just believe everything one is told and not think for oneself.

well concider the fact that injury to the brain and defects in the make up of the brain effects what you would class as the mind, memories, personality, bevehaviour language motor function.
Many of the areas in the brain which control these faculities are known but not well mapped.
Emotional responses as well as sensory ones can be detected by an EEG.
Also Just because a doctor is unable to fix certain injuries does not mean the theory is invalid. (medically the brain is very hard to repair). That logic is the same a s saying i cannot fix this clock therefore it does not run on clockwork.
Evidence is out there if you would just look at the research.
I wouldn't call it an unproven theory that the mind is a product of the brain.
But If what you say is true, were is the mind?
So why is it you believe in the unproven theory of ghosts and what not when haunting have been disproven again and again?
But really the mind/body debate is much more suited to another discussion.

???

Wow this thread moved fast!!! If paranormal effects are real they're fairly easy to test for. No physical effect can be untestable or impossible to be explain using science. I'd be very interested in getting involved in the testing.

The mind/brain things... The two theories (used loosly) are that the mind is a physical and chemical product of the brain or that the mind is seperate to the brain (dualism). Dualism is totally discredited and very few people believe it outside of religous neurologists who need a seperate "soul" to fit in with their faith. As El_mariachi said the theory is easily testable. If you suffer brain damage does your 'mind' (personality/reasoning/memory) change and the answer is a definite yes. If the mind is seperate to the brain then their would be no change. Claims that the mind resides in the brain and gets damaged as well are unscientific and untestable. They are only proposed by the aforementioned religous people who require the mind be part of the soul and not the body.

ShellBell1

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Issues?

I'm going to take a little break and calm down

Oryx

??? wrote: »

Wow this thread moved fast!!! If paranormal effects are real they're fairly easy to test for. No physical effect can be untestable or impossible to be explain using science. I'd be very interested in getting involved in the testing.

The mind/brain things... The two theories (used loosly) are that the mind is a physical and chemical product of the brain or that the mind is seperate to the brain (dualism). Dualism is totally discredited and very few people believe it outside of religous neurologists who need a seperate "soul" to fit in with their faith. As El_mariachi said the theory is easily testable. If you suffer brain damage does your 'mind' (personality/reasoning/memory) change and the answer is a definite yes. If the mind is seperate to the brain then their would be no change. Claims that the mind resides in the brain and gets damaged as well are unscientific and untestable. They are only proposed by the aforementioned religous people who require the mind be part of the soul and not the body.

This probably needs splitting to another discussion but I have a completely unproven, unscientific idea with regard to the brain, mind issue. Consider the brain to be the physical machine that carries out the actions of the mind (rather than vice versa, as science sees it). We utilise and are, to an extent, energy. I take a wild leap and consider the mind to be an energy that inhabits the same space, but is not the brain itself. Allow then another huge reach, that the energy of the mind controls the brain in some way yet to be understood. Then, if the brain is damaged, or the unknown connection between the mind and brain is disconnected, then the mind is still intact, but the instruction of the will is not passed to the physicality of the brain. Far fetched, ill give you, as I said, Im a spiritualist, not a scientist. But I find it an interesting theory. If it were true it would explain a lot about soul, and the mind surviving death.