One of the most dedicated researchers of near-death experiences is Susan Blackmore, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of the West of England, a parapsychologist, and Zen Buddhist. She is the author of several books including: Dying to Live, In Search of the Light, and her latest, The Meme Machine. Her theories concerning NDEs are very impressive and well worth understanding. She is a formidable skeptic, not only of the "afterlife theory" of the NDE, but on many other paranormal phenomena.

Susan is also one of the few researchers who actually had a NDE herself.

please view this link....WORTH READING !!!


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts09.html

I am a great fan of Susan Blackmore and have been aware of her work since I first started investigating.

this is the only article i have seen of hers,but wld be interested in reading more,if you have any to share..


what do you personally make of this one ?

Here's her website Angel

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

thanks very much,i will take a peek at this when kids gone to bed,so im not distracted.

SHES ONE CRAZY LOOKIN DOOD !!

Thoroughly enjoyed the read,thankyou for giving the link,bit too much to digest,so will go over it again no doubt

I saw her at a conference once. Looks a bit differant now.

must be a very confident lady,i didnt mean my comment in a negtive way.

i have reserved one of her books at the library today,cant wait to read it...you know newcastle upon tyne only have ONE book written by susan out of all their libraries !!

cant remember the whole name,but its one on consciounce (sp?)..i cant even spell it,pmsl

You should read "Dying to live" which is her book on near-death experiences.

Although now dated, it is still a seminal piece of work.

Hasn't there been some controversy recently over how Blackmore has portrayed the results of her early experiments as far more significant and watertight than they actually were?

Still, despite the apparent cynical edge to some of her opinions, she's made some very useful contributions to the field.

No - no controversy at all. Her stuff is sound.

As I said above though, it is now dated as brain science has moved on over the last 15 years or so....

The controversy is over the highly dubious work of people like van Lommel, Ring, Sabom, Parnia & Fenwick - all of whom are either factually incorrect, logically flawed, or both....

Well, there's evidence to the contrary here:

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5799

Errrr I would not take that link as a reliable source on the matter (websites are unregulated after all).

I have heard these claims before - but they are largely nonsense as they have nothing to do with her theory. The thing is - no one can replicate PSI findings - and so it is unlikely to be real.

Blackmore has been publishing for over 25 years so I fail to see how any of the discussion in that link can account for that. What it hints at is a publication bias assuming that what she did not publish were results that went against her model.

This is utter nonsense. Dont forget - statisitically we all expect 'hits' to occur by chance alone which many skeptics feel is exactly what the paranormalists have been doing for years (on average one in twenty). I note that link says nothing about this!

I think you've missed the point - I'm certaintly not doubting Blackmore's overall contribution, and particularly not her later work.

Rather, and as my original post stated, there's evident discrepancies between Blackmore's public opinion and her admissions to peers over the validity of some early experiments. Whether she's been working in the field for 2500, 25, or 0.25 years has no bearing on the matter.

I simply think it's an interesting point in light of how people with an agenda or belief of any sort can tend to adapt, whether consciously or not, evidence to suit their own views.