But that doesn't invalidate the search.

But it is an amusing and usuful reminder of how one might be misled, however strong one's sense of conviction might have been at the time. Also the history of frauds and quacks who have been willing to exploit many people's gullibility is a long and extensive one. I'm very glad there are sceptics and debunkers around like Randi http://www.randi.org and  Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - they are much-needed:

We're lucky to have Ben Goldacre, and maybe as a result of his book we'll have more people like him. He is fighting what sometimes seems like a one man battle against a tide of pseudoscience and an army of quacks. His main weapons are his weekly column in the Guardian newspaper, an impressive website (www.badscience.net), and now this book, which aims "to teach good science by examining the bad."

BMJ

http://www.badscience.net/2008/10/nice-review-of-the-book-in-the-british-medical-journal-by-richard- smith/#more-819

Also I don't buy these myths about scientists and their supposed narrowness and intolerance. I am sure that there are SOME like that, but just as those interested in exploring "alternative" "spiritual" (or whatever label they choose) approaches would object if one lumped all such people with the most extreme fringes, so it's quite unfair to suggest that all scientists and those generally in favour of a scientific approach to reality are all narrow and intolerant of any alternative. I think many scientists would generally agree with Einstein:

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.

Albert Einstein

Even someone like Martin Gardner, who enjoys debunking, is quite willing to admit that there are many things about which he has an open mind:

Gardner: I'm not sure why I enjoy debunking. Part of it surely is amusement over the follies of true believers, and partly because attacking bogus science is a painless way to learn good science. You have to know something about relativity theory, for example, to know where opponents of Einstein go wrong. You have to know something about probability and statistics to recognize Michael Drosnin's The Bible Code as hogwash. You have to know the power of the placebo and faith to see why Mary Baker Eddy is the very model of a quack.
...
There are dozens of monumental questions about which I have to say "I don't know." I don't know whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or whether life is so improbable that we are truly alone in the cosmos. I don't know whether there is just one universe, or a multiverse in which an infinite number of universes explode into existence, live and die, each with its own set of laws and physical constants. I don't know if quantum mechanics will someday give way to a deeper theory. I don't know whether there is a finite set of basic laws of physics or whether there are infinite depths of structure like an infinite set of Chinese boxes.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/gardner.html

Nor do I buy the idea that ET in general is hostile to discussion of personal experience, consciousness, etc. I asked Fran for some evidence to support her implied cliam that there was such general hostility - no answer. If you wanted to discuss consciousness, SK, you could have written your own diary, you didn't really need Helen to give you the "opportunity" - it was always there.

Let's keep our minds open - but not so much that our brains fall out :-)


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

It is unknown and unknowable and going on about it, building great religions don't change that one indisputable fact ; once you go through that gate, nobody comes back to tell the tale. So why should my idea have any more validity than anybody elses's ? So I keep my counsel and keep the peace. I still don't know I did the right thing even writing it down.

keep to the Fen Causeway

In his introduction to the Gita Huxley described the principal of direct perception of some of the aspects of the inner self and the higher self.  I have had certain limited experiences that I believe fall into those categories.  As melo said, you cannot explain what a banana tastes like to one who has never tasted one, and after they have tasted one, explanations are superfluous.

Helen, I like your explanation of the "life review" phenomenon.  It seems quite plausible, but none of the experiences I personally have had have shed any light on such matters as reincarnation.  I am, however, aware of small children who have made detailed references to and described experiences which could only be explained in terms of a prior life or just be left unexplained. That is about as close as I can presently come to any observation or experience that could be confirmatory.  It is yet another experience that I hold in a space of suspended judgment.  Sort of a mental curiosity cabinet.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."