Article: The Gospel According to Dixon #17: Make-Believe

[Karl Frederick]

Thank you once again, Dixon, for revealing a path on the journey to truth finding. This write up by Sam Harris is an intelligent and educated response to Dr. Alexander's experience of heaven.

I think there's more to this story, and offer this for your further consideration:
https://www.skeptiko.com/sam-harris-...ience-science/

[Dixon]

I think there's more to this story, and offer this for your further consideration:
https://www.skeptiko.com/sam-harris-...ience-science/

Karl, thanks for the additional info. I read it with interest, even the dry technical parts. Of course, I haven't the expertise to even begin to assess the validity of Alexander's arguments from brain structure/function. I do note that he doesn't say here that his doctors agree that his cortex was totally shut down. In fact, he himself says "...it is unlikely that even deeper layers of the cortex were still functioning in more than isolated pockets of small networks" [emphasis added by me]. So, if his claim really was that the cortex had totally shut down, he himself seems to have backed off from that a little. In any case, it seems that we have a "he said vs. he said" argument between Alexander and the brain expert Harris consulted. I will be interested to hear the consensus of the experts in the field when others weigh in.

Even if we assume that his cortex was totally shut down, does that mean his experience involved contact with some objectively existent realm, rather than being "all in his head" (whether in the cortex or some more primitive part of the brain)? I would argue that that is not the most parsimonious interpretation of the facts, especially in view of the wide variation of reported details of NDEs, which are substantially shaped by people's religious beliefs and cultural influences, as well as the obvious wish-fulfillment aspects--unconditional love from a young woman who just happens to be stunningly gorgeous? Woohoo! Hollywood couldn't have written it better. I hereby predict that we'll see a movie about this. (Ever wonder why humanoid messengers/avatars in these scenarios are so often physically beautiful? Doesn't that speak to the subjective, wish-fulfillment nature of the experience?)

Alexander cites the perceived "ultra-reality" of his experience as if to imply that that supports his interpretation of it as more than subjective. If that is so, shouldn't we also accept the objective reality of everything perceived as "ultra-real" in every drug trip, psychotic episode, and spontaneous rapture anyone's ever had? If so, we're stuck with thousands of different worlds, some of them nightmarish.

One more thing: the article you linked to was entitled "Sam Harris Won’t Debate Dr. Eben Alexander on Near-Death Experience Science" in big red caps. It seems to me the writer intended to imply that Harris was afraid to debate Alexander. But Harris's explanation (basically lack of time and a feeling that the claim was too unsupported to deserve debate) was entirely reasonable. So much for sensationalistic journalism.

[Sara S]

Dixon:
My first reaction to your post was to suggest that, for a more balanced opinion, you should read the book first, rather than the rebuttals....but maybe that doesn't matter much, I dunno.......and I did find the Sam Harris article a bit snarky and egocentric, which always makes me doubt scientific validity. Haven't got the energy just yet to read your other citations here, but I will........

Sara

Sara, I just read the Newsweek article ....

[Dixon]

My first reaction to your post was to suggest that, for a more balanced opinion, you should read the book first, rather than the rebuttals..

.
I read the Newsweek article by Alexander first. I have a bookshelf full of books and a stack of magazines that have been waiting years to be read. There's no way I'm gonna find time to read every book that purports to contain world-shaking information, especially since nearly all of them turn out to be claptrap. But I do try to find a fair summary of a person's claims and evidence before coming to any but the most tentative conclusions. How about you, Sara? Have you ever read a whole book on the subject of experiences like NDEs by a skeptic?

...I did find the Sam Harris article a bit snarky...

Harris did express considerable outrage that a major news magazine devoted a credulous, unbalanced cover story to bizarre, grandiose claims based on crappy logic. Your seeing that as "snarky" may say more about you than it does about Harris.

...and egocentric...

Alexander says "But that belief, that theory, now lies broken at our feet. What happened to me destroyed it...", and you call Harris egocentric? Would it be possible for someone to make a good, articulate argument against something you want to believe without your judging them as egocentric?

[CSummer]

Rereading your original article, Dixon, I realize I have a couple thoughts to share. One is that we seem to have different definitions for the word "belief" when used in the context of religious beliefs, etc. To me, it's simply accepting something we've been told to be true in the absence of direct evidence or rational proof. To me, if you have such evidence or proof, then it's not a matter of belief; it's something you know to be true (or at least you could say that).

Having grown up in close contact with "believers" (fundamentalist "Christians"), it occurred to me at a young age that people confused "knowing" and "believing." But I saw - and see - it as their way of making sense out of their experiences or out of existence. I came to see that buying into someone else's explanation for the way things are or what is beyond my understanding can be a dangerous or irresponsible thing to do, so I avoid doing it. But I see this as only one of many ways we can keep ourselves distracted from uncomfortable feelings or unmet needs, so it seems I could have some empathy and compassion for those whose believing is difficult for me to understand. I certainly have my own alternative ways of keeping myself distracted. And can I, as a product and member of an addictive society point the finger of disdain at my fellow addicts, just because their addictions don't work for me?

I get from what you wrote that you accept as true or valid only what your rational mind can make sense of or validate (correct me if I'm mistaken). To me, that would seem quite limiting given that I've had at least a few experiences that my rational mind can't really explain. Like when I had a strong sense of a friend being in danger and finding out later she'd had a stroke at that time; or walking from a campsite to my car after spending a night by a lake in New York state and feeling indescribably ecstatic and connected to everything - for no apparent reason. True, it doesn't indicate anything other than I had that experience, yet my rational mind has no way of making sense out of it.

There is a third alternative beyond believing or knowing, which is being open to other possibilities - even those I cannot experience directly or rationally prove. I find this useful when I hear or read accounts of NDEs in which the person sharing the experience tells of things they were aware of that they couldn't have perceived with their senses. An example would be Anita Moorjani's account of her NDE that included a "hearing" a conversation that took place outside her room and down the hall a ways while she was in a coma (which was verified after she came out of the coma). Or children who tell a story of something that they experienced in a previous life (or someone's previous life) and that story is found to have a factual basis. Such accounts seem to expand my sense of what could be possible, and I don't feel a need to either believe or prove them wrong. Are NDEs merely something people have experienced inside their impaired brains? Perhaps everything we experience is just something happening inside our minds - or wherever the locus of our consciousness really is. Is it possible we can be overly attached to what we can experience through our senses or that our rational minds can make sense of - as a way of avoiding having to admit we don't know, that our human faculties are finite and limited? I prefer to stay open to the possibility that consciousness - what I could potentially be aware of or experience - is not limited to what my very human mind can comprehend or understand.

CSummer

[Sara S]

Gee, Dixon, I have so much respect for your intelligence and cleverness that I can only think your post here must be a sort of underhanded example of "snarky".......

.
I read the Newsweek article by Alexander first. I have a bookshelf full of books ..

[Dixon]

Gee, Dixon, I have so much respect for your intelligence and cleverness that I can only think your post here must be a sort of underhanded example of "snarky".......

Sara, you're one of my biggest supporters; I wouldn't knowingly cause you distress. I'm a bit mystified as to what part of my post you found snarky. Maybe it was my negative characterization of the Newsweek article and Alexander's claims? I wouldn't call that snarky; it just seems like accurate descriptions to me. Your mileage may vary.

[Geoff Johnson]

...Poor naive suckers like me get involved in discussions on the assumption that the person is really interested in whether their belief is true, only to be subjected to frustrating and sometimes nasty, insulting defense mechanisms until we get tired of painfully banging our heads against their armor and give up...

I largely agree with you, Dixon; but speaking as Miss Manners, I suggest that you reconsider whether your personal search for truth really justifies inquiring about other people's faith and beliefs, only to find fault with them.

[Dixon]

I largely agree with you, Dixon; but speaking as Miss Manners, I suggest that you reconsider whether your personal search for truth really justifies inquiring about other people's faith and beliefs, only to find fault with them.

Geoff, I'm sorry I took so long in responding to you. As usual, I'm way behind on everything.

You are one of many who have a problem with people's "finding fault" with others' beliefs. Such people seem to consider it a personal attack to suggest, however politely, that they're wrong about something. But how can we find what's true without finding what's false ("finding fault")? Truth-seeking involves separating the wheat from the chaff; you can't do it without identifying some claims as false. Furthermore, truth-seeking requires being open to being shown you're mistaken about something. Another's critique of your belief may be mistaken, in which case that will be shown by a reasoned dialogue, or it may be true, in which case you should thank them for correcting you. Either way, "finding fault" with your belief is an act of love, based on the assumption that you're a truth seeker and would therefore like to be corrected whenever you're wrong. When I find fault with others' beliefs, I'm following the Golden Rule; I want them to likewise critique my beliefs, as I assume I'm wrong about some of them. This is how we collaborate in getting to better approximations of truth. We can't get that sort of collaboration from those who agree with us!

UNDERSTAND: Seeing someone's "finding fault" with your beliefs as obnoxious is evidence of closed-mindedness on your part. Do you assume you couldn't possibly be wrong? Or, do you acknowledge that you could be wrong but, for some reason, resent people's showing you when you are? (I'm using the word "you" here in a general sense, rather than singling you out, Geoff.)

Which do you think is more respectful: My thinking you're wrong and not mentioning it, or my thinking you're wrong and telling you that, so you have a chance to respond and show me that you're right (and also a chance to be corrected if you are, in fact, wrong)? I would MUCH rather have people tell me when they think I'm full of shit, and feel much more respected by their doing that, as long as they're not doing it in a way that's gratuitously snotty, and as long as they're as willing to be changed by the dialogue as they want me to be.

Again (just for emphasis): Polite, open-minded finding of fault in someone's position is an act of love and truth-seeking. To see it as a personal affront is an indication of closed-minded defensiveness on your part. Do you want to know what's true, even if that differs from what you currently believe? If so, how do you expect to find out what's true unless someone "finds fault" with your current belief?

Anyone interested in deeper discussion of these issues is invited to read my previous column "Let's Argue!"

[Hummingbear]

You are one of many who have a problem with people's "finding fault" with others' beliefs. Such people seem to consider it a personal attack to suggest, however ...

I'm an outlier on the social bell curve: like you, I welcome argument as a form of engagement. But first, to be effective, we must recognize that this is not how most people feel.

You assume that beliefs can be divided into "true" and "faulty." This is how some sciences work--physics and chemistry, perhaps. Outside of these specialties, that's a false dichotomy. People believe things about themselves, and those beliefs tend to be self-fulfilling. The world of living things, human culture, and especially the noösphere (realm of thought) are far more complex than any Aristotelian judgment can describe. If you say "the world is terrible" you can find endless examples of why this is so. If I say "the world is beautiful," I can likewise find endless examples. The fault is not in our beliefs, but in our expectation of what it means to believe something.

So instead of true/false judgments about beliefs, I prefer "useful/obstructive." Since beliefs affect how we interact with the world, decide what interaction you want first, then choose the beliefs that help implement that. Anything else would be wrong--for you. But not for someone who has different intentions.

[podfish]

Such people seem to consider it a personal attack to suggest, however politely, that they're wrong about something. ..... Either way, "finding fault" with your belief is an act of love, based on the assumption that you're a truth seeker and would therefore like to be corrected whenever you're wrong

Sorry, Dixon, but you just pointed out the flaw in your own argument. As Hummingbear says, most people don't fit your assumption. That doesn't mean you can't continue pointing out that people are wrong, just that your justification is based on a faulty premise. So if you are indeed answering Geoff's request that you consider justification (which is of course your prerogative to do or not) you haven't made your case.

[Shandi]

I like your explanation of how beliefs can't be divided into true and faulty, but rather "useful/obstructive", although we know that some beliefs about our planet have been proven false, through scientific evidence, which you point out as physics and chemistry. What people believe about themselves is different, or their view of the world in general. Our beliefs about ourselves do usually become self-fulfilling. And, as you said, we can always point to examples to enforce our beliefs, while not accepting anything that disproves them.

What I question is that people actually decide what interaction they want, before they choose their beliefs. I think that people's beliefs come from their early programming, until such time as it becomes problematic, and they realize that it's their beliefs conflict with what they want in their life. As a former Catholic, my (programmed) beliefs hit the wall with the birth control issue. And my new belief came about in a matter of minutes.

In my lifetime I've heard some pretty outrageous, illogical beliefs, but I knew there was no way to convince these people that their beliefs were faulty. Many had to do with God or a spiritual orientation. I'm sure that many people believe that our recent light rain had to do with a meditation, rain dance, or visualization. I knew someone who thought he caused catastrophes, like plane crashes. I realize that goes beyond beliefs, into delusions. But I think that many illogical beliefs are just that....delusions. I wouldn't get into a discussion with people in this category since I believe it would be a waste of time. And, as you said, most people don't welcome argument(debate) as a form of engagement.

I'm an outlier on the social bell curve: like you, ...

[Gus diZerega]

Some of us have made dramatic changes in our beliefs due to events we had never imagined beforehand. I am one. I have talked with Dixon many times and there is no budging him even though he extrapolates from experiences unlike any I have had to those he has never had but I have. But in the interests of fun, here is a video beginning in Toronto television studio that suggests the world is a great deal stranger than skeptics of our time will allow themselves to admit.

[The video below can only to be watched on the YouTube website. To do so, pop open the video player by clicking the link below and then click on the small YouTube logo in the bottom right of that window. Barry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lGPT2J1cc

The book about all this, Conjuring Up Philip. an imaginary 'spirit' is sadly out of print, but I gulped hard and bought a used copy, and it's worth the money I paid.

Or we're all frauds and/or fools.

...As a former Catholic, my (programmed) beliefs hit the wall with the birth control issue. And my new belief came about in a matter of minutes....

[Hotspring 44]

RE:

But in the interests of fun, here is a video beginning in Toronto television studio that suggests the world is a great deal stranger than skeptics of our time will allow themselves to admit.

Spoof using Bedford levitator (?)...
...I would not be surprised...
...Yes I am skeptical of that video being a spoof in of it's own right.
What 'reasonable' 'proof' is there which scientifically illustrates that video it is not likely a “spoof”?


Also, RE:

I have talked with Dixon many times and there is no budging him even though he extrapolates from experiences unlike any I have had to those he has never had but I have.

We all “believe” and “disbelieve” what we do of either or the other in our individual lives, but to make actual “scientifically” 'proven' true or false is something that involves others using generalized agreed upon 'guidelines'; whereas the proof is exactly being able to produce the exact same experience with the same means as what was stated as "fact".

In almost all difficult to do experimental cases due to a lack of physical hardware (or in some cases the real threat of actual persecution which have historically prevented and has been responsible for destroying the means of such provability); as far as the hardware aspect, less the persecution:
the Hadron Collider comes to mind as one example why the 'facts' at one point in time were out of reach of such "proof" (of "theory"); until there comes a way to develop and comprehensibly use the instrumentation which was unavailable previously. :

The Large Hadron Collider
The LHC is the largest machine in the world. It took thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians decades to plan and build, and it continues to operate at the very boundaries of scientific knowledge.

Some say that “the the truth is much stranger than fiction”; but right now I am thinking that the existing 'facts' weather we 'believe' we 'know' them or not can rapidly become moot when one comes to the realization that in the whole scheme of things (not just a few or in some cases many cherry-picked factoids) {that} all the actual 'facts' involved in anything are far more complex than any fiction could ever be.

[Gus diZerega]

I am not interested in debating the issue. In my experience some are what I call "irrationally committed to their version of rationality" just as they think those of us who think scientism is an inadequate model for phenomena are similarly afflicted. I really no longer care very much what they think.

However before I posted the video I had just finished a remarkable book, "Conjuring Up Philip," when this thread appeared, so I added the video for fun and entertainment. Make of it anything you want, but for the people in the video it was not a spoof.

RE:
Spoof using Bedford levitator (?)...
...I would not be surprised...
...Yes I am skeptical of that video being a spoof in of it's own right.
What 'reasonable' 'proof' is there which scientifically illustrates that video it is not likely a “spoof”?...

[Hotspring 44]

RE:

...Make of it anything you want, but for the people in the video it was not a spoof.

I can't even determine that one way or the other with any absolute certainty any better than you or anybody else who has neither talked to anyone who was in the video or at least seen an interview of at least some of the 'participants' in that video who was not a part of any such (so-called) spoof, which in fact, due to the way the video is presented is highly unlikely.... ...Or knows someone who was in on the whole thing from the inside in the beginning who stated it was a 'spoof which is also not likely here on waccobb....

...But I do have to think that If they have never been informed of being spoofed and did actually really 'believe' what was going on there was a "super natural phenomena" at that time, then of course to them it was not a 'spoof'.

I just think that it is much more likely that video is in one way or the other ultimately about a 'spoofing'.

I have been writing another response for this thread It has more to say about how I personally think and process things that I reasonably realize which I don't know to be either fact or fiction.
Anyway, your response to my previous comment came to my attention so I have posted this first.

[Hotspring 44]

I have a question I am putting out to all who are into this thread:

Q: At what point or when would it be best for someone (anyone) to say, admit, acknowledge, state the "fact", etc. that: "I don't know"? (I am of course referring to the person making that "I don't know" statement).

I will further up the ante of question/s by saying that just because "I don't know" and someone else is absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is "factual" doesn't mean that:
1- they are correct,
2- (doesn't mean that) just because they insist they so strongly 'believe' they know something as "factual" that I am in any way whatsoever required to also "believe" it is "fact" just because someone else is so absolutely sure that it is.
3- this seems to be a good time to mention another thread (thanks to Dixon for that other thread) The Gospel According to Dixon #15: Are You Certain? Where in the introduction Dixon says (in part):

...any idiot can have subjective certainty about anything no matter how unjustified that certainty is. A subset of subjective certainty is justified certainty. It's the certainty that's supported by good evidence, and the degree of justified certainty is determined by how good the evidence is. Another way to look at it is that subjective certainty is belief, while justified certainty is knowledge, with the understanding that belief is whatever we believe even if it's totally unsupported or even disproved, while knowledge is what we believe with reasonable evidence...

Right on the mark Dixon!

[Gus diZerega]

I recommend reading the book the group generated- "Conjuring up Philip" Owen and Sparrow, 1976. I know considerably about the attitudes of those involved and I'm afraid your imaginings are wrong.

[Hotspring 44]

Is there any way that you know of to reproduce what is claimed in the book?
It seems to me that there should be a way to at least re produce the same experiment and have at least similar results if what is claimed in the book actually occurred.

Just reading the book would not be enough for me to know what is either fact or fiction one way or the other.

Are there any other similar experiences that have been 'documented' that you are aware of?

Is there anyone that you know of that is doing actual research along the same lines currently?

What are the "attitudes" which you mention?... ...and/or what exactly did you mean contextually speaking when you said "I know considerably about the attitudes of those involved"? The reason I ask is: I have been told that I was "wrong" many times from people who had an "attitude" when they were saying that I was wrong even though most of those times I was not being 'wrong'.
In my 'book' (figuratively speaking of course) attitude/s alone is not proof of what is false or true of much anything other than someone having an "attitude".

In my experience, people who are bonded heavily with a particular 'belief' or whole belief system tend to get defensive when that 'belief' is questioned and even get more defensive and some people even actually get angered and become offensive when such belief/s become challenging to keep hold of in the light of substantial evidence which contradicts that belief.

I think the difference between a so-called true "believer" and a true "scientist" is that a true 'scientist' almost always welcomes his or her "theories" to be challenged to the core, particularly by someone or group who is/are most competent, whereas the true 'believer' despises their beliefs being challenged particularly by someone or group is/are most competent.

I ask anyone on this thread:
Where or even if there is any place in existence that is a reasonable middle ground between the two seemingly opposing sides where the conversation within doesn't end up getting convoluted into obliviousness?

Gus diZerega, please don't take it personally, I just don't read very many books, never have, I wouldn't go out of my way to read that one even if it were on the book shelf right next to me but if it were now just out of curiosity after reading this thread I might at least read some of it. Who knows if it were in my hands I could end up reading the whole thing.

I recommend reading the book the group generated- "Conjuring up Philip" Owen and Sparrow, 1976. I know considerably about the attitudes of those involved and I'm afraid your imaginings are wrong.

[podfish]

I have a question I am putting out to all who are into this thread:

Q: At what point or when would it be best for someone (anyone) to say, admit, acknowledge, state the "fact", etc. that: "I don't know"? (I am of course referring to the person making that "I don't know" statement).

since that statement is always technically accurate, anyone can say it any time.

but if you mean it tactically, there are different answers. As you mention, when you're discussing something with someone who clearly has less justification for their position than you do for yours, "I don't know" implies recognition that their case is stronger - an implication you certainly don't intend to make. That's one of the problems with using language as a means of reaching understanding. It's subject to misinterpretation.

If you're discussing ideas with someone who's also got an open mind, it's useful to indicate the boundaries of your understanding - an indication of the point where you shift to analyzing your level of confidence (a continuous quantity) vs. a black/white binary dichotomous statement of fact.

or you can use it to cut off further discussion - hell, I don't know - implying lack of deeper interest.

(this is my contribution in the spirit of Dixon's series)

[podfish]

I am not interested in debating the issue. In my experience some are what I call "irrationally committed to their version of rationality" just as they think those of us who think scientism is an inadequate model for phenomena are similarly afflicted. I really no longer care very much what they think.

However before I posted the video I had just finished a remarkable book, "Conjuring Up Philip," when this thread appeared, so I added the video for fun and entertainment. Make of it anything you want, but for the people in the video it was not a spoof.

maybe no debate, but it's here and so part of a discussion.

I'm a bit torn because although I agree that science isn't the ultimate tool, capable of reaching complete understanding of all that is real, I don't think the alternative view you're implying is an alternative either. Sure, there's such a thing as "scientism", which I read as a description of a religious-like belief in the power of science. But science is incredibly powerful as a process. And from what I know of "Philip" it's a tool that could have been, and wasn't, applied. As recent publicity about the difficulties of applying science to psychology illustrate, there are phenomena that are difficult to study rigorously; parapsychology would be in that realm too.

There's a well known bias toward studying or developing things that you can measure, and science is a great measuring tool. The correct response to that is to define what your tool isn't measuring, and make sure that you give that aspect of the problem/situation/phenomenon due attention. But there's often no alternative tool to use, leaving us with the answer Hotspring proposes - "I don't know". And sometimes that includes the observation that despite their claims, no-one else can know either.

[Gus diZerega]

Good questions.

Reading the book should not be enough to turn a true skeptic into someone convinced, but assuming honesty by the authors, it should turn a true skeptic into someone who acknowledges something most interesting is going on and those who think the phenomena are genuinely psychic have a reasonable case worth taking seriously. The book gives you a very clear sense of where the people involved were coming from unless you want to assume the people spent years concocting fraudulent activities for no monetary pay off and during that time for no publicity at all. The book does not even give their last names except for the two women involved in writing it, and as the video demonstrates, they existed. That the book does such a good job describing the experiment and those involved is why I think I have a good sense of what their attitude towards all this was.

You can choose not to read books as I choose not to do a number of things others do and enjoy immensely. Some of those things I imagine I would enjoy as well- but not as much as what I already do and there are only 24 hours in a day. No problem- but in all these matters the price of not doing it is not benefiting from the activity involved. That said, the internet benefits non-book readers and Googling "The Philip Experiment" will 'net' you many links some very useful. It's where I started regarding this issue.

The book actually does describe a successful replication involving a fictitious French Canadian woman named "Lilith" who went to France in WWII to be a spy and was discovered and shot. I have recently located some Canadians in Victoria who I hope will be able to bring me up to date on events after the book. I know many directly involved are now dead.

The experiment was scientifically conducted - including efforts at replication. The phenomena it describes has long been reported, even by leading scientists of the time like William James. It breaks new ground (assuming the phenomena exist) in demonstrating there need be no departed ones for much of what is reported to happen, and that even entirely fictitious characters can appear to interact with us. Thus a new theory about what was happening was tested and found to fit the phenomena- and yet the thing they most hoped to accomplish - a materialization visible to the eye - never happened. Sounds like disciplined research to me, with fascinating results that changed the context for understanding what was happening.

I suspect mainstream science has not been much interested in part because it was done mostly by average people. (This was one of the points of the experiment- that you didn't need to think of yourself as a psychic to generate the phenomena.)

Further, most scientists are hostile to such reports if they cannot identify a mechanism by which they could be produced. One told me years ago essentially "if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist." I replied that perhaps radiation did not exist until the Curies discovered how to measure it... He became silent.

In addition, scientists are people with all the prejudices people have. There are collections of world renowned scientists saying things with complete assurance that only a few years later were shown to be completely false. Some years back I asked a professor of physical therapy at a university where I was teaching if she was interested in exploring some healing phenomena I was involved with. She said "no" because the experiment would take enormous amounts of time and energy and would likely discredit her in the eyes of many in her department. She had a career to consider.

As to finding such things around here- I know of nothing like this happening nearby. There are small groups where people meet regularly and often most interesting phenomena happen, but they are private, not doing research, not talking about it, and not seeking publicity. Perhaps the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma will have speakers and such on related issues. I suggest keeping an eye on their webpage: https://noetic.org/

I have no affiliation with them, but to my mind for the most part they are a serious and level headed organization.

There are a number of recent books by scientists with PhDs and plenty of university experience that use very different methods to explore what is generally called psi phenomena, though none I know of have done the Philip type stuff. I recommend two to start

Elizabeth Mayer, Extraordinary Knowing, science, skepticism and the inexplicable powers of the human mind. Random House, 2008. Here is a Youtube of her describing what caused her to become interested in such stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AClVSWvNsWw

Gary Schwartz. The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough evidence of Life After Death, Pocket Books, 2002

Mayer was a full professor at Berkeley,

Schwartz got his PhD at Harvard and is now professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery at Arizona.

You write of seeking a middle ground. Actually in many ways the Philip Experiment is such a ground for it suggests the phenomena do NOT need to involve discarnate spirits, and anyone can reproduce the results under the rights circumstances. But because it gives psi phenomena credibility, 'skeptics' discount it.

In other words, there is no middle ground. Either the phenomena, whatever it is, exists, or it does not and those arguing otherwise are frauds, simpletons, or deluded. A genuine skeptic would either withhold judgment and not explore the issue as not likely worth the time, or would withhold judgment while exploring the issue. But as we have seen regarding global warming, religion, and this kind of thing, those claiming to be 'skeptics' are in fact emotionally very committed to their belief. I am now as interested in addressing 'skeptics' about whether or not such phenomena exist as I am in addressing 'skeptics' regarding global warming. That is, not at all.

But as I have just demonstrated, I'll take time to address what I take to be sincere questions.

Is there any way that you know of to reproduce what is claimed in the book?...