What do you make of Near death experiences/ out of body experiences. A lot of people have said they see a light and loved ones, future kids etc, then are resuscitated and can recall it, and supposedly this is evidence of an afterlife. But I am aware there just as many people who also claim they were abducted by aliens, or that they saw big foot or any other mythical creature. And also aware that g force tests that when the pressure built so high, that it causes the test subject to black out that they experience the same thing, so just a hallucination, right?
But my question is, what do you think of supposed cases where they claimed to have seen their body and after surgery or whatever are able to accurately describe something they supposedly couldn't see. For instance on a national geographic video "Moment of Death" some guy had a screen up, and was unconscious and had described a mannerism of the doctor. Also heard of accounts of the patient saying which doctor performed an operation even though weren't told ahead of time, or what tool was used. What do you think of it? Lucky guess (ie, what about all the times they guessed wrong, obviously they wouldn't have been reported), lying, could actually see during the procedure, etc. And I've heard there were supposed to be experiments with this, having a pattern up high or something, but haven't heard if it was successful or if this experiment really existed.
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, i thought about science but it really is just a pseudo science. And my main reason for inquiring is because my mom is really into this crap, reads books about it, and is sure they are all telling the truth and not hallucinating. and if I am ever to come out as an atheist, i hope to answer all possible questions.
I found Susan Blackmores explanation reasonable.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/D ... %20one.htm (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Dying%20to%20Live/chapter%20one.htm)
Bunk
http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html (http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html)
Blackmore is mentioned in this article.
I didn't read the article in full.
But I read about it before. Scientist in general say
that at time of death the brain releases certain chemicals which causes hallucination and a nice feeling to
make the painful moment more bearable. (Patients with kidney failure seem to experience this a lot).
There are however extremely strange cases.
There was this case about a patient who was in heart surgery, his life was in danger.
During the surgery he almost died and at that moment he described that he was lifted up seeing the whole
room with doctors full of it.
He didn't just know what the doctors said, but also where they walked, where they stood and what they did and how many of them.
(before the surgery he met just one doctor, but he could describe the others without ever seeing them)
So far, there are no theories/explanations for this event.
NDEs: the final thoughts of a dying brain.
I have very strong suspicions that the unbelievable accounts of NDEs are simply fabrications.
Quote from: "Whitney"I have very strong suspicions that the unbelievable accounts of NDEs are simply fabrications.
I'd be inclined to agree. If it sounds too good to be true...
I believe they are nothing but a neurological misfire. The brain, interpreting the various inconsistent signals from the nervous system finds that the nervous system must be outside the body. These experiences can be induced, they are commonly reported by pilots after passing out under extreme g forces. The cause of their passing out is a loss of blood flow to the brain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8QHOUWECU
In smaller centrifuges, the fluids in the ear also send some confusing signals to the brain just as it is losing its ability to interpret correct signals from the rest of the body:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07feb_stronggravity/
Take a look at this article:
http://pragmasynesi.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/near-death-and-out-of-body-experiences/
I personally have had two out-of-body experiences, both were LSD induced.
-a-train
Thanks for the responses! Also I was thinking that if it wasn't normal for humans to dream, and I never dreamed before and then I had a dream one night, I would probably think something supernatural/religious was going on, but obviously not. Same with these NDE's, but are obviously much more rare because how often am I going to be that close to death and then make a recovery.
Quote from: "none123"Also I was thinking that if it wasn't normal for humans to dream, and I never dreamed before and then I had a dream one night, I would probably think something supernatural/religious was going on, but obviously not.
There is a interpretive process going on here, don't you think? Does everyone experiencing a NDE make the assumption it was real, or do some put such experiences down to dreams? Certainly the only NDEs we ever hear about are from those people who believe they had an out-of-body or other experience. As for dreams it is my understanding that they were sometimes in the past viewed as communications with gods. My discussions with hardcore Fundamentalists have led me to realize many people still interpret some of their dreams as communications with God.
Unless some hard evidence one day come along supporting the validity of NDE experiences I will interpret them as vivid dreams, which we do know are relatively common. Wikipedia says this:
QuoteIn a study of fourteen lucid dreamers performed in 1991, people who perform wake-initiated lucid dreams operation (WILD) reported experiences consistent with aspects of out-of-body experiences such as floating above their beds and the feeling of leaving their bodies.[20] Due to the overlap between lucid dreams, near-death experiences, and out-of-body experiences, researchers say they believe a protocol could be developed to induce a lucid dream similar to a near-death experience in the laboratory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream)
Quote from: "Whitney"NDEs: the final thoughts of a dying brain.
Or failures of interpretation of the dying brain.
Does that HAF fish portrait need to moved to the left a touch?
Maybe down a bit, or ... oh never mind.
The mind is a wonder, a creator of its own image. It lives inside the brain as an intergrated part of it. Creates dreams which in many cases are just like a movie but the greates is the near death experience. In a dream the dreamer never dies and in a near death experience the subject never dies or it won't be a near death experience. The subject is experiencing something but is it a near death experience or is it something else? I will go with the something else as being a collection of a self-surviving defence mechanism combine with the desire to live. This is something that is yet to be understood by science but it will be discovered as being somewhat as I had pointed out. The notion of a prior life is a collection of an individual family history that has been written in the genes or some particular gene and inhereted. At one time or other it manifest itself more vividly in an individual givin it the notion of an earlier life. This last statement is to illustrate that there are explanation for our experiences.
I haven't had a near death experience although I have had OBEs. Sometimes it's almost as vivid as being awake and sometimes it feels a bit like a dream. I used to be skeptical but not any more.
Quote from: "pilchardo"I haven't had a near death experience although I have had OBEs. Sometimes it's almost as vivid as being awake and sometimes it feels a bit like a dream. I used to be skeptical but not any more.
Do they ask about stuff like that before they give you a drivers licence?
I think it comes down to what you are most persuaded by. Does it seem more plausible that we can explain these experiences in terms of the traumatic stress that your body and brain is going through when you are near dying? Or is it more plausible to suggest, "No. What's happened here is a soul has been released from connection with the body." I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances? The answer is we just don't know enough yet. Even if you were to make a good argument against séances, for example examining the credibility of one who is communication with the spirits, that still does not disprove the existence of ghosts. There very well could be ghosts and communicaton with the dead. You just have to decide for yourself what makes the best explanation out of the evidence that we have.
I think firstly we must examine if a soul exists and the arguments for and against. Secondly when examining the evidence for and against NDES's we must look at it case by case basis.
Quote from: "Achronos"I think it comes down to what you are most persuaded by. Does it seem more plausible that we can explain these experiences in terms of the traumatic stress that your body and brain is going through when you are near dying? Or is it more plausible to suggest, "No. What's happened here is a soul has been released from connection with the body." I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances? The answer is we just don't know enough yet. Even if you were to make a good argument against séances, for example examining the credibility of one who is communication with the spirits, that still does not disprove the existence of ghosts. There very well could be ghosts and communicaton with the dead. You just have to decide for yourself what makes the best explanation out of the evidence that we have.
I think firstly we must examine if a soul exists and the arguments for and against. Secondly when examining the evidence for and against NDES's we must look at it case by case basis.
...What scientific arguments are there for the existence of souls?
Firstly I am not a scientist and so I'm not in any position to say, "Look, here are the details of the explanation." Of course there will be more scientific evidence (or should I say the more persuasive argument) that favors a materialist viewpoint, however it hasn't been proven nor disproven if a soul actually exists. The short answer is, we just don't know. Like I said, we have to view the arguments for and against it. What is more plausible? Is viewing the soul in the realm of science possible? Is it more of a metaphysical tendency?
Quote from: "Achronos"Firstly I am not a scientist and so I'm not in any position to say, "Look, here are the details of the explanation." Of course there will be more scientific evidence (or should I say the more persuasive argument) that favors a materialist viewpoint, however it hasn't been proven nor disproven if a soul actually exists. The short answer is, we just don't know. Like I said, we have to view the arguments for and against it. What is more plausible? Is viewing the soul in the realm of science possible? Is it more of a metaphysical tendency?
You keeping saying to review the arguments for and against it, but I don't see any arguments for the existence of the soul.
Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?
Quote from: "Achronos"Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?
That's a straw man, as I didn't say that -- what I said was that I know of no arguments for it. Do you know of any arguments for it, that don't involve your god?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Quote from: "Achronos"Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?
That's a straw man, as I didn't say that -- what I said was that I know of no arguments for it. Do you know of any arguments for it, that don't involve your god?
There's a difference in not knowing of any arguments, and saying as you did "I don't see any arguments..." because you would have some knowledge that would draw the conclsuion of not seeing the arguments
for the existence of a soul.
But taking it as you are asking me what kind of arguments do we have for the existence of a soul. Now remember I am not saying in any way these are
good arguments, but just arguments. It is up to you to draw the conclusion on if it's persuasive or not.
You say that can I draw arguments for the existence of a soul without appealing to God. The issue of whether souls exist or not is an essential consideration for theism, since if souls do not exist then an afterlife does not exist which is the domain for theism to reward or punish. I.e. without an afterlife who cares whether gods exist or not.
Let's define some terms:
[li]materialism: the belief that the physical world is the only reality. Thus, things if incorporeal substance (such as the soul) do not exist.
[li]physicalism: the belief that we have physical bodies but no nonphysical minds or souls.
Technically, one can believe in physicalism but not materialism. For instance, it is logically possible for one to believe in an incorporeal God, but purely physical humans. Nonetheless, many physicalists are also materialists.
[li]determinism: the belief that all effects (including our actions) are determined by prior causes.
metaphysical freedom: the belief that we can choose among genuine alternatives (what many think of when they read the term “free willâ€).
[li]libertarianism: belief that we have metaphysical freedom, and thus rejects determinism. Libertarianism comes in two forms: agency theory and indeterminism.
[li]indeterminism: sometimes called simple indeterminism, this theory defines free will as “an effect without a cause†and that we have such free will.
One criticism of this belief is that it seems to violate ex nihilo nihil fit.
[li]agency theory: the belief that free will is an act of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, self) causes an event to happen.
1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists
While the argument may seem sound, especially if free will exists, there are a few points that could be disputed. The argument could still be rejected if free will does not exist. Does human volition exist? Are the arguments for lines 4 and 5 sufficient rational grounds for accepting them as true?
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... /soul.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/soul.html)
From a dualistic standpoint, I'll quote Jeffery Schwartz, a neuroscientist and researcher of “neuroplasticity†at UCLA:
Quote"But it [epiphenomenalism] denies that the awareness of a conscious experience can alter the physical brain activity that gives rise to it. As a result, it seemed to me, epiphenomenalism fails woefully to account for the results I was getting: namely, that a change in the valuation a person ascribes to a bunch of those electrochemical signals can not only alter them in the moment [mental forces or active power] but lead to such enduring changes in cerebral metabolic activity that the brain's circuits are essentially remodeled. That, of course, is what PET scans of OCD patients showed."
That's from his book: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neurop ... 0060393556 (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Power-Mental/dp/0060393556)
If you haven't already, I think it might be advisable to read Plato's Phaedo, where Plato discusses on the immortality of the soul.
Those are just a few arguments I have seen for the soul without appealing towards a theistic bias, but I'll look up some more if I find some this evening. But I think it may be impossible to divorce the soul from God or a god.
Also I'm not somebody who wants to say we can disprove the existence of souls. I don't think we can disprove them. I don't think the idea of a soul is in any way incoherent. But look at the arguments and draw your own conclusions to them.
Quote from: "Achronos"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Quote from: "Achronos"Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?
That's a straw man, as I didn't say that -- what I said was that I know of no arguments for it. Do you know of any arguments for it, that don't involve your god?
There's a difference in not knowing of any arguments, and saying as you did "I don't see any arguments..." because you would have some knowledge that would draw the conclsuion of not seeing the arguments for the existence of a soul.
But taking it as you are asking me what kind of arguments do we have for the existence of a soul. Now remember I am not saying in any way these are good arguments, but just arguments. It is up to you to draw the conclusion on if it's persuasive or not.
You say that can I draw arguments for the existence of a soul without appealing to God. The issue of whether souls exist or not is an essential consideration for theism, since if souls do not exist then an afterlife does not exist which is the domain for theism to reward or punish. I.e. without an afterlife who cares whether gods exist or not.
Let's define some terms:
[li]materialism: the belief that the physical world is the only reality. Thus, things if incorporeal substance (such as the soul) do not exist.
[li]physicalism: the belief that we have physical bodies but no nonphysical minds or souls.
Technically, one can believe in physicalism but not materialism. For instance, it is logically possible for one to believe in an incorporeal God, but purely physical humans. Nonetheless, many physicalists are also materialists.
[li]determinism: the belief that all effects (including our actions) are determined by prior causes.
metaphysical freedom: the belief that we can choose among genuine alternatives (what many think of when they read the term “free willâ€).
[li]libertarianism: belief that we have metaphysical freedom, and thus rejects determinism. Libertarianism comes in two forms: agency theory and indeterminism.
[li]indeterminism: sometimes called simple indeterminism, this theory defines free will as “an effect without a cause†and that we have such free will.
One criticism of this belief is that it seems to violate ex nihilo nihil fit.
[li]agency theory: the belief that free will is an act of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, self) causes an event to happen.
1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists
While the argument may seem sound, especially if free will exists, there are a few points that could be disputed. The argument could still be rejected if free will does not exist. Does human volition exist? Are the arguments for lines 4 and 5 sufficient rational grounds for accepting them as true?
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... /soul.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/soul.html)
From a dualistic standpoint, I'll quote Jeffery Schwartz, a neuroscientist and researcher of “neuroplasticity†at UCLA:
Quote"But it [epiphenomenalism] denies that the awareness of a conscious experience can alter the physical brain activity that gives rise to it. As a result, it seemed to me, epiphenomenalism fails woefully to account for the results I was getting: namely, that a change in the valuation a person ascribes to a bunch of those electrochemical signals can not only alter them in the moment [mental forces or active power] but lead to such enduring changes in cerebral metabolic activity that the brain's circuits are essentially remodeled. That, of course, is what PET scans of OCD patients showed."
That's from his book: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neurop ... 0060393556 (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Power-Mental/dp/0060393556)
If you haven't already, I think it might be advisable to read Plato's Phaedo, where Plato discusses on the immortality of the soul.
Those are just a few arguments I have seen for the soul without appealing towards a theistic bias, but I'll look up some more if I find some this evening. But I think it may be impossible to divorce the soul from God or a god.
Also I'm not somebody who wants to say we can disprove the existence of souls. I don't think we can disprove them. I don't think the idea of a soul is in any way incoherent. But look at the arguments and draw your own conclusions to them.
Interesting, but as you can see in this thread (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6622), I don't even believe in free will, so that argument falls flat for me from the beginning.
And of course the ideas of souls can't be disproven, in much the same way as the idea of invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I don't think it's an incoherent idea; just primitive, and extremely unnecessary.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And of course the ideas of souls can't be disproven, in much the same way as the idea of invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I don't think it's an incoherent idea; just primitive, and extremely unnecessary.
What is unnecessary about a soul?
The idea of invisible unicorns is unnecessary because it serves no purpose. However when discussing the soul, and if the soul is immortal, then there is a purpose because it indicates an afterlife. So is the idea of a soul necessary for an afterlife? Yes.
Quote from: "Achronos"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And of course the ideas of souls can't be disproven, in much the same way as the idea of invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I don't think it's an incoherent idea; just primitive, and extremely unnecessary.
What is unnecessary about a soul?
The idea of invisible unicorns is unnecessary because it serves no purpose. However when discussing the soul, and if the soul is immortal, then there is a purpose because it indicates an afterlife. So is the idea of a soul necessary for an afterlife? Yes.
You're kidding, right? You just compared the "
idea of invisible unicorns" to the soul. Note that you didn't also write, "the idea of an invisible, never-seen, never-witnessed, never-proven, only-hypothesized-by-some-religions soul". Instead, you changed the comparator to assume the existence of a soul, as defined by your specific religion.
The proper comparison would then be to assume the existence of unicorns, or to not assume the existence of a soul.
By the way, as anyone knows, unicorns do exist. Not only that, but unicorns are absolutely essential to an afterlife, because they are the mode of transport in the afterlife. They serve a vital purpose. So not only do unicorns indicate an afterlife, they keep it running smoothly.
I wanted to make an observation LS, regarding your beliefs that you have no free will. Do you yourself have a purpose in life?
Quote from: "McQ"You're kidding, right? You just compared the "idea of invisible unicorns" to the soul. Note that you didn't also write, "the idea of an invisible, never-seen, never-witnessed, never-proven, only-hypothesized-by-some-religions soul". Instead, you changed the comparator to assume the existence of a soul, as defined by your specific religion.
Not quite. LS brought up that souls can't be disproven in much a way that invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I can imagine that the flying spaghetti monster exists, but that is not proof he exists. Just so much as it is purposeless to suppose that invisible unicorns exist however something that if a soul does exist, and is inside each human being and let's suppose this soul is immortal, than it's purpose is one that our souls will be joined into an afterlife. That's why there is the distinction between both ideas.
QuoteBy the way, as anyone knows, unicorns do exist. Not only that, but unicorns are absolutely essential to an afterlife, because they are the mode of transport in the afterlife. They serve a vital purpose. So not only do unicorns indicate an afterlife, they keep it running smoothly.
That's fascinating, I'd love for you to prove it.
Quote from: "Achronos"Not quite. LS brought up that souls can't be disproven in much a way that invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I can imagine that the flying spaghetti monster exists, but that is not proof he exists. Just so much as it is purposeless to suppose that invisible unicorns exist however something that if a soul does exist, and is inside each human being and let's suppose this soul is immortal, than it's purpose is one that our souls will be joined into an afterlife. That's why there is the distinction between both ideas.
You still don't understand your mistake. You pre-supposed, as if it were fact, that a soul does exist. You then tried to compare that to an entity that you pre-supposed does not exist, in order to set up your argument. You altered the starting point of your argument in order to tilt the debate in your favor. You made invalid comparisons to start your argument. Get it?
By the way, as anyone knows, unicorns do exist. Not only that, but unicorns are absolutely essential to an afterlife, because they are the mode of transport in the afterlife. They serve a vital purpose. So not only do unicorns indicate an afterlife, they keep it running smoothly.
Quote from: "Achronos"That's fascinating, I'd love for you to prove it.
You just have to accept it on faith.
Quote from: "McQ"You still don't understand your mistake. You pre-supposed, as if it were fact, that a soul does exist. You then tried to compare that to an entity that you pre-supposed does not exist, in order to set up your argument. You altered the starting point of your argument in order to tilt the debate in your favor. You made invalid comparisons to start your argument. Get it?
Again I'm pointing out that since LS stated that invisible unicorns and souls cannot be disproven, thus they could very well exist. I'm illustrating why invisible unicorns have no merit versus why having a soul would have some merit in believing such could possibly exist. The problem though, as I mentioned earlier, is that having a soul realms in the belief of a deity; the soul entirely depends on a theistic argument doesn't it? Because if God doesn't exist, there is no point having the idea of a living soul.
QuoteYou just have to accept it on faith.
Which is not
reasonable to do so, only that you made the claim. So you are on faith yourself then?
Quote from: "Achronos"Quote from: "McQ"You still don't understand your mistake. You pre-supposed, as if it were fact, that a soul does exist. You then tried to compare that to an entity that you pre-supposed does not exist, in order to set up your argument. You altered the starting point of your argument in order to tilt the debate in your favor. You made invalid comparisons to start your argument. Get it?
You continue to ignore the point that your entire case rests on you setting the rules of the discussion with "ifs" that support
only your pre-supposed soul. There's more to this than whether or not an alleged soul has merit in an alleged afterlife. It's that you pre-suppose a soul to begin with, yet do not allow for the pre-supposition of unicorns.
Quote from: "Achronos"Again I'm pointing out that since LS stated that invisible unicorns and souls cannot be disproven, thus they could very well exist. I'm illustrating why invisible unicorns have no merit versus why having a soul would have some merit in believing such could possibly exist. The problem though, as I mentioned earlier, is that having a soul realms in the belief of a deity; the soul entirely depends on a theistic argument doesn't it? Because if God doesn't exist, there is no point having the idea of a living soul.
Again, not only do you pre-suppose alleged soul existence, you also pre-suppose that they have merit in an alleged afterlife. I can play your "what if" games too, but those types of arguments have no value. I can say "what if" there are such things as souls, but souls are not what you think they are, but are instead, simply piles of mysterious energy, without consciousness? Or that souls are actually my unicorns. What if, when you die, all that you are becomes a unicorn, but has no knowledge of your life on Earth?
"What if?", can be played all day long.
Quote from: "Achronos"QuoteYou just have to accept it on faith.
Which is not reasonable to do so, only that you made the claim. So you are on faith yourself then?
Just pointing out that you would have to believe in a unicorn the same way you would believe in a soul. No evidence for either means you have to accept either on faith only.
Quote from: "Achronos"I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances?
Séances need verification before explanation. There's nothing to explain other than why some person with a wallet is gullible enough to ay for one.
Quote from: "Sophus"Quote from: "Achronos"I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances?
Séances need verification before explanation. There's nothing to explain other than why some person with a wallet is gullible enough to ay for one.
Didn't Houdini issue a challenge for someone to communicate with him for him to give a secret password that would have provided some positive evidence for seances? Ten attempts and no winners.
Quote from: "Davin"Quote from: "Sophus"Quote from: "Achronos"I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances?
Séances need verification before explanation. There's nothing to explain other than why some person with a wallet is gullible enough to ay for one.
Didn't Houdini issue a challenge for someone to communicate with him for him to give a secret password that would have provided some positive evidence for seances? Ten attempts and no winners.
Ha! I did a :shake:
QuoteThe Houdini séance has been a Halloween tradition since the first anniversary of his death. The magician died at the age of 52 on October 31, 1926 from peritonitis - an internal infection - as the result of a ruptured appendix....
Oddly enough, Harry Houdini did not necessarily believe that spirits of the dead could be contacted. Aside from his fame as a stage magician and astonishing escape artist, Houdini was just as well known - especially in the later part of his career - as a debunker of spirit mediums and phony séances. He felt, however, that if it were possible for anyone to come back, he would find a way to do it.