D'Souza's Life After Death: The Review Thread! [Archive]

View Full Version : D'Souza's Life After Death: The Review Thread!

Maia

9th November 2009, 06:15 PM

Yes! As promised, this is the review thread of that new book. I warn y'all... this is LLLOOONNNGGGGGG. But it's still shorter than reading the book. :)

Basically, this book, Life After Death: The Evidence, is anything but. You may search from cover to cover, but no evidence will you find. Worse, there's really no attempt at presenting evidence, either. However, it's apparent that D'Souza has at least paid attention and taken notes when he's debated atheists, because the book does show a lot of sneaky debate tricks. Also, this is a ripoff—or, to be nice, a response to—the John Shelby Spong book, Eternal Life: A New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. Even the cover is almost the same! I may review Spong's book soon.

Anyway, first, we get the foreword by Rick Warren, which is about what you’d expect (complete with quotes like “this is also a book for genuine seekers of the truth.”
The introduction is really what convinced me that without having read Spong, D’Souza’s never would have decided to write this book, because he covers so much of what Spong did in his introduction and first chapter. He notes that people in our culture do not deal honestly with death, that we do not know how to handle the subject, that we have reached a point where we must find a better way, and that religion has always dealt with the subject of death in a particular way. But here, of course, is where he and Spong so radically part ways, because D’Souza takes off on a panegyric to good old-time religion, and that it’s all the fault of the atheists and their sinister influence over American (and European) culture. But I do have to say this for him: he’s really quite honest about what he plans to do in this book. D’Souza states clearly that he will use a mainly secular vocabulary in order to win over undecided “seekers and fencesitters.’ It’s worth quoting this passage in its entirety to understand what he himself frankly admits he’s going to do for the next 269 pages:

For the Christian cage fighter, it’s fun to take on your opponent with one hand tied behind your back. I do this here by giving up all claims to biblical truth or revelation. This is not because I reject all such forms of truth; far from it. Rather, I want to engage atheism and reductive materialism on their own terms, and to beat them at their own game.

D’Souza then states that he will present three arguments for life after death: “one from neuroscience, one from philosophy, and one from morality.” Quite honestly, however, it sounds like D’Souza just finished admitting that any secular argument he made from this point on would be a trick, a bait and switch, meant to lull people into agreeing with religious ideas before they realize what they’re doing. But we will see.

The second chapter, entitled “Vendors of Disbelief: Atheist False Advertising”, is meant to “show the pretensions of the atheist claim to knowledge.” Basically, D’Souza makes the argument that whether atheists are talking about proof for a lack of life after death or religious believers are claiming proof for the same, it is a matter of faith for each group. He goes on to say that the believers’ faith is more plausible because it comes from “a divine text”. (The idea of “giving up all claims to biblical truth or revelation” didn’t make it very far; this is exactly seven pages after that quote!) Also, D’Souza seems to be arguing that life after death (which is clearly being bundled up with religious ideas in general here; I don’t care what claims the author may make to the contrary) should be regarded as a possibility because it is philosophically reasonable, and if anybody wants to negotiated their way through that tortured maze, it’s on page 29 of the book.

Next, D’Souza very briefly takes on the various psychodynamically oriented grounds for human ideas about the afterlife such as “wish fulfillment”. D’Souza seems to think he has dealt with it by quoting Steven Pinker’s statement that wish fulfillment can’t be squared with natural selection very well. Whether this is an accurate summary of what Pinker actually said or not, I don’t know, but this represents a much more interesting area, and I would like to have seen much more time spent on it, (which Spong actually did do.) However, the way the author treats this subject is a good lead-in to the next chapter.

The reason is that in Chapter Three, “A Universal Longing, Two Types of Immortality”, we can really see D’Souza’s main tactics coming to the fore.

1.) He presents his view as the only reasonable one, supported by all evidence, tradition, and history, and yet somehow vulnerable to damage or destruction by a small, malicious group (atheists) that is trying to spread its sinister influence over all of civilization. In other words, all of reality is divided into good and bad, “us” and “them”. The only difference is that the definition of “us” and “them” is subtler and more nuanced than it ordinarily would be in a polemical work, because, as D’Souza said in the introduction, the book is aimed so much at the undecided group, or perhaps not at a group which is actually so much undecided as it is unwilling to accept Christian ideas without being able to dress them up in reasonable language. (Here, D’Souza argues that all world religions have universally believed in the afterlife, and that the godless secularists are the only dissenters.)

2.) He even makes what looks like a brief “devil’s advocate” argument or making gracious concessions to his opponents (stating that atheists do seem to have a point that must be answered when they ask how anyone knows that their religion is right and all the others are wrong.)

3.) However, he then goes on to use a tactic C.S. Lewis was fond of dragging out over and over again: demolishing a particular argument step by step so that his argument seems perfectly persuasive by the end of the entire thing—but for anyone who really wants to trace it back all the way, it’s not hard to figure out where it went wrong. (Here, he presents the atheist supposition as being that different religions’ “competing claims cancel each other out”, and his answer at this point as being the result of “testing a set of atheist claims about the religions of the world against the empirical reality of what the religions of the world actually believe.”

4.) He always makes a slip which reveals that he is essentially taking 269 pages to tell a begging-the-question sort of shaggy dog story, where the conclusion has already been reached and is present at each stage of the argument before being revealed again at the end. (Here, it’s when he says “we are not doing comparative religions, we are not trying to affirm religions diversity”.

Chapter Four:
View From the Edge: Exploring Near-Death Experiences
This is the chapter, more than any other, which really gives the whole thing away. If there were any doubt that D’Souza had zero interest in anything besides winning converts to Christianity from the fence-sitters by writing this book, this chapter would flatten them all by itself. This was the one which convinced me that, as incredible as it sounds, D’Souza wasn’t really interested in convincing people of life after death with this book. That’s not why he wrote it. How can this be, and why would this chapter tend to make anyone think that?

First of all, a book with a title like Life After Death: The Evidence. What would you think it should contain. How about… an attempt at presenting actual evidence? And what would constitute evidence of life after death? It wouldn’t be philosophical arguments about what Plato and Schopenhauer believed or five thousand years of what Buddhists and Hindus and Jews and Christians believed, rants about evil, snarky atheists and their sinister influence on American culture, musings on what Christopher Hitchens would encounter in hell, or weird New-Agey versions of what Roger Penrose supposedly wrote about quantum physics and consciousness, and it definitely wouldn’t be a sudden descent into the same old evangelical nonsense in the last chapter of the book (which is exactly what we get.) But D’Souza first spends several pages yapping away about weird reincarnation ideas, complete with Deepak Chopra quotes about children supposedly remembering past lives. Quite some time later, he finally does get to NDE’s, but the way in which he writes about them is oddly lackluster and lazy. He relies almost completely on anecdotes and reports about Americans’ beliefs about NDE’s, then quickly moves to religious objections to them, which I think reveals much more about what’s really going on here. He spends a surprising amount of time on really bad “Christian” NDE research which dwells on the “negative NDE’s” of people who supposedly went to hell, assuring readers that “Christians need not worry that NDE’s somehow undermine mainstream religious beliefs” and that “NDE’s seem to produce a stronger faith and a higher level of commitment to traditional religious practice” (not true!) He then spends the rest of the chapter on refuting criticisms of NDE’s, which is reasonably well done, but what surprised me so much about this chapter was the things that were totally left out. Pim van Lommel’s fascinating work received one sentence, for instance. And you’d never know from reading this that NDE’s have been thoroughly defined as a neurobiological event, and that a standard test (Greyson’s NDE Scale) differentiates them from other neurological events such as organic brain syndrome. I think the reason is that the real research on NDE’s says absolutely nothing about their nature, or whether or not they somehow constitute proof that consciousness survives bodily death, much less that a Christian concept of an afterlife exists. This research certainly would not fit into D’Souza’s agenda in this book!

Chapter Five: The Physics of Immortality: Multiple Universes and Unseen Realms.
D’Souza talks about quantum physics for the first time here, but he clearly understands as much about them as I do (not a whole lot), and his scientific interests clearly exist for a very specific reason. Christian ideas about heaven and hell “beyond space and time” and resurrection of the body are more important than anything else, and D’Souza twists around scientific theories to come up with possible scenarios where these things can exist. So the point of talking about multiple universes is that heaven and hell can exist in them. Modern physics can be made to support “the Christian concept of eternity” and the Anthropic Principle.

Chapter Six: Undeniable Teleology: The Plot of Evolution
I think that D’Souza was itching to put this chapter a lot earlier, but he realized that if he did, the real nature of his motives in this entire argument would be a lot more obvious. It’s becoming more and more clear that the masks of secularism are dropping fast. Here, D’Souza argues that “nature operates according to a plan” because the earth was obviously fine-tuned for human life, and argues against “accidental” evolution, making a play for intelligent design.When he states “the mind may have arisen out of the material, but it is manifestly material”, it’s unfortunate, because the next couple of chapters could have been very interesting without this setup.

In chapter seven, “The Spiritual Brain, Finding the Soul Within the Body”, I came the closest to agreeing with the points that D’Souza was making, and he does make some very good points here. He acknowledges that thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc., are clearly caused and mediated by physical processes in the brain, but he severely criticizes theoretical concepts such as reductive materialism, functionalism, identity, and eliminative materialism when they are used as attempts to deny human consciousness and mental states. This criticism, I think, is quite honestly fair enough as far as it goes (especially for eliminative materialism.) Materialist philosophies are much more useful in other fields (economy, political history, art criticism) than in the philosophy of consciousness. Not that D’Souza stops there, though, but rather states that this criticism has negated any attempt to explain mental states in physical terms. It hasn’t, because we’re talking about two different things, science and philosophy. And his argument hasn’t proven dualism as a stance on consciousness either.

But yes, I think it’s negated the attempt to explain consciousness away, which is not the same thing. Subjective mental states cannot be “explained away” by identifying their causes, this is a mistake that some people do make, and any attempts to do so are really quite bizarre (you do have to wonder about Paul and Patricia Churchland’s sanity sometimes.) However, this isn’t a distinction that D’Souza understands, either. (Also, I’ll admit that I don’t like Daniel Dennett very much in this context because of his arguments about adaptavism. I really like Stephen Jay Gould, Dennett has been too willing to make a strawman out of Gould’s arguments, and I have very little time for “evolutionary psychology,” a field which has always made Freud’s work look like the height of the rigorous scientific method.)

So then we come to Chapter Eight, The Immaterial Self: How Consciousness Can Survive Death, which sort of slops over and runs into chapter nine. D’Souza argues philosophy elegantly if rather speciously, but he falls apart completely when it comes to neurobiology. He points out that cognitive activity can change the brain, although his examples of how this happens are pretty dreadful and incorrect in their details (especially when it comes to Jeffrey Schwarz, who is my least favorite researcher and writer on the subject of obsessive-compulsive disorder by far. D’Souza actually gives Schwarz credit for developing “cognitive therapy”, which must come as quite a surprise to Dr. Aaron Beck, the actual pioneer of cognitive-behavioral therapy. He then goes on to give Schwarz credit for practically inventing the idea that the brain is capable of considerable plasticity throughout the life cycle. Surprisingly, he didn’t finish up by crediting Schwarz for the invention of modern psychiatry. This is all so breathtakingly dumb that it’s really kind of hard to believe.) There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that any of this has anything to do with quantum changes in consciousness, but sure enough, it comes up again.

D’Souza would do a lot better to stick to his next argument about the nature of consciousness—namely, that any reductionistic attempt to “explain it away” is ultimately doomed, because such attempts themselves depend upon the very quality that is putatively illusory and are simply impossible without it. But he spends very little time on this idea—surprisingly little, in fact—and I think it’s because there’s nothing intrinsically religious about it at all. There’s nothing that leads to the necessity of any type of God, so D’Souza abandons it and spends the rest of the chapter on the concept of free will. He clearly believes in its existence, he rejects materialist arguments against it, and he does make some very good arguments about the tautological nature of attempts to refute it. The problem, however, is that all of this effort is not neutral; is in the service of only one end: to support his ideas about “morality” and the way in which it defines the human soul.

When D’Souza moves on to the ninth chapter, he “locates an eternal realm that is beyond physical law” through analyzing the ideas of Kant, Schopenhauer, and Berkeley. If this sounds like a weird use of logic, it should, because D’Souza actually seems to think that he demolishes the entire idea of empirical realism—of the belief that a real and physical world exists outside of our own senses—by listing philosophical systems that have been opposed to it. I suppose that in a bizarre way this does make sense, since D’Souza’s entire argument seems to be that ultimate reality cannot be known and that everything is subjective, but he doesn’t seem to understand that he is really headed off the deep end of dualism here. Kant’s idea that a “real world” and an unseen “noumenal realm” exist is interesting. But not only is it not proof that it’s the reason why human beings help each other and show compassion and love, it’s definitely not proof that we’re all constructed to have a particular kind of “morality”, and that’s exactly where D’Souza is headed. If anything, this is an argument which itself denies free will, and D’Souza doesn’t seem to understand this at all. I think that materialist philosophies in any field do exist for a very good reason, and that ultimately it’s to bring people up short when they range too far into totally ungrounded speculation and bring them back to basic common sense, to what can be known according to empirical reasoning and the scientific method, and that’s very much what is needed here.

Well, on we go to chapter ten, The Impartial Spectator: Eternity and Cosmic Justice. D’Souza states that he’s presented two “proofs of life after death, one from neuroscience and another from philosophy”, which makes me wonder if his editor was on drugs that day, because he certainly hasn’t done either one (although he’s failed a lot more spectacularly at the first). The third proof is supposed to be the “presuppositional argument”. As D’Souza explains it, the fact that human beings “espouse goodness and justice even when the world is evil and unjust” can only be explained by the idea that there is an afterlife where everything will be evened out, and he still denies any claim that this necessitates the presence of any God, much less a “God of the gaps.”(Of course, he then immediately goes on to argue that the mere presence of “gaps” is what drives the process of scientific discovery.) D’Souza then criticizes the “selfish gene” theory and argues that the only way that genuinely altruistic behavior in its full human context makes any sense is if human existence continues into an afterlife. In and of itself, it’s an elegant argument and maybe the best use of reasoning in the entire book. If selfish genes are our evolutionary heritage, all well and good, but then why does anybody struggle to overcome them? Why be altruistic instead of only putting energy into appearing this way, particularly in situations where there’s no benefit in it for us? Why do I work twelve hours a day with Alzheimer’s patients who don’t remember me the next day for a salary so low it’s a joke? The problem is that there are many possible answers to these questions, and D’Souza’s answer, is, yet again, slanted to reach a very specific supposition, which is very much a religious one. D’Souza doesn’t reveal this quite yet, but he’s coming closer and closer.

In Chapter Eleven, Good for Society: The Transcendent Roots of Secular Values, D’Souza really starts to tip his hand. Essentially, he argues that Christianity has done wonderful things for society throughout all of history, and that this is why we should believe in its teachings, which include eternal life, and besides, the evil atheist communists might come back and murder millions of people any minute now. A five-year-old could see that this isn’t a logical argument, but the deeper D’Souza starts to dive into specifically religious ideas, the more illogical he starts to become. In Chapter Twelve, Good for You, The Practical Benefits of Belief, he really just presents Pascal’s Wager very thinly dressed up in new clothes. We should believe in life after death because so many other people have believed in it, so who are we to say they’re wrong, it’ll make us feel better, it’ll infuse our lives with a sense of purpose, it gives us a reason to behave morally and to teach our children to do the same (as opposed to atheists, who “seek hedonistic escape from the demands of morality), and it makes us better people (see, there are even studies proving it!)

Well, then comes Chapter Thirteen, Life Everlasting, Eternity Right Now, where D’Souza finally lays all the cards out on the table as he’s been itching to do all along. This is where he reviews his case, claiming he’s proven life after death through evidence on NDE’s, quantum physics (because of ‘realms beyond the universe” that could contain heaven and hell), intelligent design, neuroscience (he just has to be kidding here), arguments about consciousness and free will, philosophical arguments that refute empirical realism and carve out a “noumenal” world where we can continue to live on after we die, the explanation of human “morality” as a sort of evolutionary adaptation to the afterlife, and finally a practical argument that we should all believe in immortality because it makes out lives better. And then… (you knew THIS was coming…)

D’Souza triumphantly states that “someone actually died and came back to life”, and that this someone was Jesus Christ. Bad arguments biblical criticism ensue; they try to establish the Resurrection as historical fact, and this is presented as “final proof” of life after death. It’s finally clear that this is all that the entire book has been leading up to, and everything else has really been nothing but window dressing. This, I think, is why the only sections that actually could have presented anything like proof of consciousness surviving death (not “would have” but “could have”, of course)—the ones on near-death experiences and neurobiology—were so short, horribly researched and written, uninspired, and uninteresting. D’Souza couldn’t have cared less about any evidence; in fact, I think that real evidence was the last thing he wanted to find or to present. All he ever wanted to do was to get to: “Christ wants us to acknowledge that we are sinners and to accept God’s grace by way of his sacrifice on the cross.” He was longing to get to the part where he’d be able to describe a literal heaven and hell (which he does lovingly, including his fond wishes that Christopher Hitchens will end up there, complete with a graduate student eternally pestering him.)

All in all, I seriously wonder if in the deepest and most unexamined recesses of his mind, D’Souza himself believes in a literal afterlife. I don’t doubt that he firmly believes in Christianity, and that some of the reasons are the very pragmatic ones he outlined in Chapter Eleven. Ultimately, religion is the best means of attempting to control human behavior during this life—as this book makes abundantly clear.

PixyMisa

9th November 2009, 07:34 PM

Maia

9th November 2009, 07:59 PM

On that natural selection bit: Natural selection will only act on beliefs of life after death if people actually act according to those beliefs. People don't. This may, of course, be because everyone who did act according to those beliefs has already been erased from the gene pool.

That could be. I'm not completely sure what you mean, though. I hope the sheer length of the first post isn't going to put everybody off... I did have fun analyzing this book. One of the main things I got out of it was that I honestly don't think D'Souza knows or cares the first thing about the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness; he's just trying to find a way to place heaven and hell in literal physical space. :P

tsig

9th November 2009, 08:50 PM

PixyMisa

9th November 2009, 09:31 PM

That could be. I'm not completely sure what you mean, though. I hope the sheer length of the first post isn't going to put everybody off... I did have fun analyzing this book. One of the main things I got out of it was that I honestly don't think D'Souza knows or cares the first thing about the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness; he's just trying to find a way to place heaven and hell in literal physical space. :P
Well, the argument seems to be that if life after death were wish fulfilment rather than reality, natural selection would eliminate it. But natural selection only acts on externalities. If you believe in life after death, but run away from the saber-tooth tiger all the same, then natural selection and your belief are both irrelevant.

If you believe in life after death and poke the saber-tooth with a pointy stick, your genes don't make it to the next generation. So it's not the unsupported belief itself that's selected against, but the tendency to act upon unsupported beliefs.

Maia

10th November 2009, 10:20 AM

Thanks tsig!

Well, the argument seems to be that if life after death were wish fulfilment rather than reality, natural selection would eliminate it. But natural selection only acts on externalities. If you believe in life after death, but run away from the saber-tooth tiger all the same, then natural selection and your belief are both irrelevant.

I get it now. :)

This part of D'Souza's argument was from Chapter 10 (gets book and flips through it.)He was arguing that "the voice of morality" in human beings exists because it's the natural standard in the heavenly realm, but that we frequently violate morality because the "evolutionary" realm is the one we're actually living in at the moment. So we're torn between our two natures, one "spiritual" and one as "evolutionary primates". So he's trying to divorce the idea of natural selection from a belief in life after death in the first place, and of course what he's actually talking about is a religious idea (although he doesn't admit this yet).

If you believe in life after death and poke the saber-tooth with a pointy stick, your genes don't make it to the next generation. So it's not the unsupported belief itself that's selected against, but the tendency to act upon unsupported beliefs.

This also happens if you force the saber-toothed tiger to sit in the comfy chair. ;)

Skeptic

10th November 2009, 10:44 AM

Seems like the usual argument from incredulity: "I have no idea how humans could develop morality, so GODIDIT".

kuroyume0161

10th November 2009, 01:05 PM

TimCallahan

10th November 2009, 01:30 PM

Chapter Six: Undeniable Teleology: The Plot of Evolution
I think that D’Souza was itching to put this chapter a lot earlier, but he realized that if he did, the real nature of his motives in this entire argument would be a lot more obvious. It’s becoming more and more clear that the masks of secularism are dropping fast. Here, D’Souza argues that “nature operates according to a plan” because the earth was obviously fine-tuned for human life, and argues against “accidental” evolution, making a play for intelligent design.When he states “the mind may have arisen out of the material, but it is manifestly material”, it’s unfortunate, because the next couple of chapters could have been very interesting without this setup.
.

I wonder how anything as chaotic as mass extinctions - particularly the Permian extinction, which wiped out nearly 95% of all life, including most of the mammal-like reptiles - fit either an earth fine-tuned for life or any sort of teleological argument.

tsig

10th November 2009, 01:52 PM

I wonder how anything as chaotic as mass extinctions - particularly the Permian extinction, which wiped out nearly 95% of all life, including most of the mammal-like reptiles - fit either an earth fine-tuned for life or any sort of teleological argument.

When they say fine-tuned for life you are supposed to hear "fine tuned for human life" the rest don't count because they have no souls.

kuroyume0161

10th November 2009, 01:57 PM

When they say fine-tuned for life you are supposed to hear "fine tuned for human life" the rest don't count because they have no souls.

Exactly. Which it isn't. I guess tornados and earthquakes are a way for god to tell people to build better homes? And, as has been pointed out in other places, the rest of the universe is happily fatal to human life. Not so 'fine tuned' in my book.

TimCallahan

10th November 2009, 02:07 PM

Exactly. Which it isn't. I guess tornados and earthquakes are a way for god to tell people to build better homes? And, as has been pointed out in other places, the rest of the universe is happily fatal to human life. Not so 'fine tuned' in my book.

I wonder if D'Souza will make the argument creationists make: Yes, the world was fine tuned for human life; but, because of the Fall of Man, God cursed the earth. Hence, disease, tornados etc.

kuroyume0161

10th November 2009, 04:08 PM

I wonder if D'Souza will make the argument creationists make: Yes, the world was fine tuned for human life; but, because of the Fall of Man, God cursed the earth. Hence, disease, tornados etc.

Most likely. It is a vapid argument though. They can only point to current conditions, only speculate on those 'fine tuned' conditions without a hope of evidence, and then apply post hoc ergo propter hoc correlations - which is what it appears they are doing. The problem isn't even causation since the causal situation has no evidence (what it was like 'before the fall', was there a so-called Garden of Eden, no carnivores or omnivores, a tree of knowledge, etc.). Fortunately, more and more people understand Genesis as a creation myth not historical document. Unfortunately, not everyone has received the memo. :)

This is sort of like the antediluvian world that some are trying to foist upon us. http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/before-the-cataclysm/before-the-flood/

Sad...

kuroyume0161

10th November 2009, 04:16 PM

Safe-Keeper

10th November 2009, 04:21 PM

I wonder if D'Souza will make the argument creationists make: Yes, the world was fine tuned for human life; but, because of the Fall of Man, God cursed the earth. Hence, disease, tornados etc.From my experience:

Explanation 1: we have free will and foolishly choose to live in disaster-prone areas.

Explanation 2: We live in a post-Fall world.

Explanation 3: God could prevent those disasters and save countless lives, but then we wouldn't have free will for some reason.

Maia

10th November 2009, 04:22 PM

Maia, thank you very much for the review.

Sounds like long-winded apologetics and an attack on the recently harvested 'evil atheists'. At first I thought that this might wind its way meanderingly from supposition to supposition like Tippler's "The Physics of Immortality" but it is apparently an attempt to put a number of carts before the horse. Babble on about specious points that support your specious argument (life after death) in order to justify a specific, specious singular event of importance (The Resurrection). No sale here.

Yep, pretty much. And it's a shorter review which is a lot easier to get through. ;)

By the way, I am someone who did experience a NDE in my youth. I was donating blood, as I was oft to do as a 'good christian/roman catholic', in the basement of my church of all places. Yes, I remember warm, fuzzy feelings, and something that appeared to be like a blue sky and field of sunflowers. And, as you can tell, it so much made my belief stronger that I'm now an atheist, humanist, skeptic. :)

:eek: You had an near-death experience as a result of donating blood in the church basement?!? What on earth were those Catholics DOING??? I think it's a lot safer over at the Red Cross... :rolleyes:

The NDE section of the book was just odd. For instance, the
Newsweek article about the book (http://www.newsweek.com/id/220296?GT1=43002) mentioned this:

In the AWARE study, randomly generated images will be projected in the rooms of critically ill patients, in locations where they can be viewed only from above—by someone having an out-of-body experience, for instance. If patients who survive NDEs can identify these images subsequently—well, not to overdramatize, but several centuries of materialism in the natural sciences will have to be rewritten. The director of AWARE is Dr. Sam Parnia, a fellow at Weill Cornell Medical Center. He told NEWSWEEK that researchers at 20 hospitals have identified about 600 subjects for interviews. Parnia expects to publish his results in 2010.

which would make you think that there would be something about this study or this researcher in the book, wouldn't it? But there wasn't a single word. Overall, I don't think the entire subject was Christian-y enough for D'Souza.

Anyway, it's almost worth reading the entire book just for Chapter Six.

There is an obvious and undeniable pattern in evolution itself which belies the whole random chance argument... now let us see how fine-tuned the earth is for human life in particular.

While we may no longer regard the earth as the physical center of the universe, we are entirely justified in considering it as the biological center.

If Jupiter did not exist or was smaller, Stuart Taylor writes, the earth would be bombarded with comets. It seems unlikely that our species could survive such disasters. Thanks, Jupiter!

The moon seems to serve mainly as a facilitator of mood and romance, but in fact, the moon also performs a number of practical functions... without which it would make human life much more difficult.

Much entertainment to be had, or at least there would be except that there's something so pernicious about these arguments. They always sound close to sort of almost making sense until you realize why he's actually making them and where they're headed, and I think it's because he's paid attention and learned some tactics when he's debated people like Christopher Hitchens or read modern theology. I think that D'Souza really does represent a whole new breed of evangelical Christianity, and because of that, everyone should probably read this book to understand what's going on here, because we will be seeing this sophisticated presentation of these arguments again.

kuroyume0161

10th November 2009, 04:52 PM

:eek: You had an near-death experience as a result of donating blood in the church basement?!? What on earth were those Catholics DOING??? I think it's a lot safer over at the Red Cross... :rolleyes:

It may have actually been the Red Cross but they did these blood drives through the church at least once a year (it's been a few decades since the occurence). The cause was that my friends and I went to do this and I hadn't eaten yet that day. So, I passed out during the process. But according to the nurses that surrounded me upon being revived, I had no pulse for a short while (less than a minute). Whether or not I recovered on my own or they applied CPR is still unknown to me.

tsig

10th November 2009, 05:42 PM

Going off track here, but this page from the previously linked site explains creationism better than any other creationist source that I've ever seen:

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/creation-theory-index/

Just in case it changes, I'll include a partial screenshot. :)

http://www.kuroyumes-developmentzone.com/referenced/Theory_of_Creation.jpg

I'm surprised that it took them more than six days.:)

A quote from that site:

"But ‘life’ is something different from molecules. Life has to do with consciousness. Although bacteria and plants use the same DNA language as other organisms, they are not life in the sense that animals are."

Sums up what they consider life.

tsig

10th November 2009, 05:48 PM

:eek: You had an near-death experience as a result of donating blood in the church basement?!? What on earth were those Catholics DOING??? I think it's a lot safer over at the Red Cross... :rolleyes:

The NDE section of the book was just odd. For instance, the
Newsweek article about the book (http://www.newsweek.com/id/220296?GT1=43002) mentioned this:

which would make you think that there would be something about this study or this researcher in the book, wouldn't it? But there wasn't a single word. Overall, I don't think the entire subject was Christian-y enough for D'Souza.

Anyway, it's almost worth reading the entire book just for Chapter Six.

Much entertainment to be had, or at least there would be except that there's something so pernicious about these arguments. They always sound close to sort of almost making sense until you realize why he's actually making them and where they're headed, and I think it's because he's paid attention and learned some tactics when he's debated people like Christopher Hitchens or read modern theology. I think that D'Souza really does represent a whole new breed of evangelical Christianity, and because of that, everyone should probably read this book to understand what's going on here, because we will be seeing this sophisticated presentation of these arguments again.

Of course fine tuning requires a fine tuner now I wonder just who D thinks that could be? Bet his initials are J. C. and he died for you and me.

Eyeron

10th November 2009, 06:18 PM

Basically, this book, Life After Death: The Evidence, is anything but. You may search from cover to cover, but no evidence will you find. Worse, there's really no attempt at presenting evidence, either. However, it's apparent that D'Souza has at least paid attention and taken notes when he's debated atheists, because the book does show a lot of sneaky debate tricks. Also, this is a ripoff—or, to be nice, a response to—the John Shelby Spong book, Eternal Life: A New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. Even the cover is almost the same! I may review Spong's book soon.

So what would you accept as real evidence?

Photos don't work. They're mostly just a photoshop.

See a strange light with weird properties, it's just a light.

So is there any kind of evidence that you would accept?

Maia

10th November 2009, 06:25 PM

It may have actually been the Red Cross but they did these blood drives through the church at least once a year (it's been a few decades since the occurence). The cause was that my friends and I went to do this and I hadn't eaten yet that day. So, I passed out during the process. But according to the nurses that surrounded me upon being revived, I had no pulse for a short while (less than a minute). Whether or not I recovered on my own or they applied CPR is still unknown to me.

Good to know that it wasn't the evil Red Cross's fault, although I hope you learned your lesson! :rolleyes: Always be sure to eat before giving blood. (Although I have to say that I'm not sure if this could cause an actual near-death condition as such; LOC and even an indiscernible pulse aren't necessarily as extreme as that. Close enough though, and good to know that you made it through all right. :) )

So what would you accept as real evidence?

Photos don't work. They're mostly just a photoshop.

See a strange light with weird properties, it's just a light.

So is there any kind of evidence that you would accept?

I'm not exactly sure that I understood what Eyeron meant by this. Actually, I'm sure that I didn't understand it at all. But what surprised me so much about D'Souza's book (although in a way, I guess it wasn't a surprise after all) was that he didn't really even TRY to come up with actual evidence. Take NDE's, for example. That's about the only category which really could provide actual evidence, and that was probably the weakest chapter in the book.

Verifiable Greyson-scale NDE's are fascinating neurobiological events, no doubt about it. As subjectively reported events, they are extremely consistent under specific sets of circumstances. There's actually been some very good research into the neurological issues involved which doesn't beg the question that NDE's somehow "prove life after death." Neither does this research rule out the idea that NDE's could indicate a survival of consciousness, of course, but that's not what it's about. But D'Souza doesn't deal with the real research at all, and I think that's exactly the reason why. It is not amenable to being used as a proof-text for Christianity. Instead, he spends the chapter throwing around some vague anecdotes and insisting that weird stories about supposedly "seeing heaven and hell" proved that NDE's were compatible with Christianity. :rolleyes:

Hux

11th November 2009, 06:09 AM

I just watched D'Souza for the first time in a debate with Hitchens. I sincerely had no idea what a loud mouthed little prick D'Souza is.

PixyMisa

11th November 2009, 08:03 AM

Hux

11th November 2009, 02:46 PM

If there is existence after death, it would be a natural if unknown occurrence. What would be the point of being a Christian? If there is after death existence it would be a natural thing and therefore, promoting a particular religion would be completely unnecessary.

So why do religions claim life after death but they hold the only passport?

kedo1981

11th November 2009, 04:25 PM

cause their dang liers

I Ratant

11th November 2009, 04:58 PM

So what would you accept as real evidence?

Photos don't work. They're mostly just a photoshop.

See a strange light with weird properties, it's just a light.

So is there any kind of evidence that you would accept?
.
I read a review of the book, and I got the impression the only real evidence of LAD d"Souza has is that it would be "unfair" if there weren't any. ?????
Ain't nuthin' "fair" about life; animal or vegetable.

justcharlie09

11th November 2009, 05:13 PM

Ugh. Another one of these books. Well, we'll all know when we get there, won't we?

I understand the fascination with death. I mean, it really is a mystery. Life and death, why on earth we're on earth.

Every time someone comes out with a "afterlife evidence" book it just comes off as kooky. No one will EVER be able to prove an afterlife. E-V-E-R.

NDEs in themselves actually bring up more questions than answers for theists (such as myself) such as...why would a loving God give a little child an NDE involving the devil and torment? The only thing I can assume as a rational person or a Christian is that NDEs are a function of the brain experiencing trauma. It's the only way to come out with an answer that still leaves you with any God worth believing in.

Heaven, God, faith...all of these things are a function of trust in a relationship with the intangible. It may well be that there is no heaven. I trust, whatever the case, that there is purpose in the universe and that even annihilation on my own death is somehow okay. TRUST. Besides, the biggest question is not after death. After death is settled whether we know it or not. It's what we're doing before it happens. Trying to live right and in proper relationship to your God and other people.

As I've said in other posts... it isn't faith if you have to keep demanding proof.

....

I'd actually feel better about these books if these authors would be more honest and title them "My Guesses about the Afterlife and Why I've Made Them"

fls

11th November 2009, 05:50 PM

Thank you for the review Maia. I did actually read it all. :) I wondered whether you got this quote correct:

“the mind may have arisen out of the material, but it is manifestly material”

It seems like it would make more sense if his last word was "immaterial".

Linda

fls

11th November 2009, 05:55 PM

So what would you accept as real evidence?

Photos don't work. They're mostly just a photoshop.

See a strange light with weird properties, it's just a light.

So is there any kind of evidence that you would accept?

I've always thought that if the experiments by Dr. Parnia returned even a single positive result, that would really get my attention. I'm guessing that they haven't (only because it seems like it would warrant an announcement), but I am looking forward to the publication of his results.

Linda

justcharlie09

11th November 2009, 06:08 PM

I've always thought that if the experiments by Dr. Parnia returned even a single positive result, that would really get my attention. I'm guessing that they haven't (only because it seems like it would warrant an announcement), but I am looking forward to the publication of his results.

Linda

This guy?

http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/Human-Consciousness-Project/human-consciousness-project.html

I saw a snippet about this on TV...placing signs up above patients so they can read/report them after an out-of-body NDE?

Honestly, that gave me a good laugh. If something traumatic enough happened to me to knock me out of body and make me float above while doctors were trying to jolt my corpse back to life...have to say, the last thing I'd be bothering with would be some stupid placard or trying to remember it.

Maybe I'm in a minority on that one. :boggled:

fls

11th November 2009, 08:11 PM

This guy?

http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/Human-Consciousness-Project/human-consciousness-project.html

I saw a snippet about this on TV...placing signs up above patients so they can read/report them after an out-of-body NDE?

I think they are pictures or shapes, rather than words. But I don't really know and they probably don't want to advertise what they are - blinding and all that.

Honestly, that gave me a good laugh. If something traumatic enough happened to me to knock me out of body and make me float above while doctors were trying to jolt my corpse back to life...have to say, the last thing I'd be bothering with would be some stupid placard or trying to remember it.

It's the sort of thing that people report on anyway - just not so easily filled in for the story.

Maybe I'm in a minority on that one. :boggled:

I guess I'm not so incurious as you. Don't know who's in the minority on that.

Linda

justcharlie09

12th November 2009, 09:33 AM

I think they are pictures or shapes, rather than words. But I don't really know and they probably don't want to advertise what they are - blinding and all that.

It's the sort of thing that people report on anyway - just not so easily filled in for the story.

I guess I'm not so incurious as you. Don't know who's in the minority on that.

Linda

:p I am curious, and I'll probably read the findings in the end. As I've read a lot of stuff about NDEs and afterlife experiments, etc. My expectations aren't high.

I still think it's funny. If you agree or disagree, that's fine. I just can't personally imagine *myself* in a state of major trauma, floating outside of my body, then coming back and reporting on the sign posted above my would-have-been death bed.

Think about times you've experienced something traumatic...how good was your memory? Mine, so far, in traumatic situations, has been crap. All I can remember are the most glaring and/or personal details...not fine details about signs on the wall or what people were wearing.

As far as NDEs go, again, it really does seem like a natural function of the brain. The studies done to this end are far more convincing than ones like U of A's Gary Schwartz.

If there is life after death, then it is a nonphysical experience or else an experience that takes place somewhere else in a multiverse or some weird cosmic realm. Science can study and understand the physical world and physical death. I don't know how one would propose to take data on and evaluate something outside the physical world/physical experience.

That's the problem I see anyway.

Again, if I were dying...the last thing on my mind would be a sign on the wall in the room. But, I do give they guy kudos for creativity :) Maybe there will be people in the act of dying/being revived that will have a high attention to detail and come back with a meaningful report. Time will tell. Although, if I had to place a bet today...I'd probably bet against it.

fls

12th November 2009, 09:41 AM

I just can't personally imagine *myself* in a state of major trauma, floating outside of my body, then coming back and reporting on the sign posted above my would-have-been death bed.

I understand that you personally can't imagine this. However, these are the sorts of details that people who have experienced OBE's will report. So regardless of what you imagine will happen, the researchers happened to have chosen to go with what actually happens.

Example:

"...you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth..."

"He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself"

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm#results

Linda

Hux

12th November 2009, 09:48 AM

How does one define a 'Near death experience"? As far as I can tell, such subjects are nowhere near death as I understand it. It just sounds like a consciousness that is confusing for a brief while.

justcharlie09

12th November 2009, 10:54 AM

I understand that you personally can't imagine this. However, these are the sorts of details that people who have experienced OBE's will report. So regardless of what you imagine will happen, the researchers happened to have chosen to go with what actually happens.

Example:

"...you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth..."

"He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself"

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm#results

Linda

You seriously can't see how the whole scenario could be funny? I mean, just a little bit?

I'll read the results. I actually bookmarked the page after I saw the snippet on TV. What's wrong with finding it humorous and not expecting much?

Sorry to crimp your chi, but if there are out of body experiences as part of near death/reviving... then wouldn't the best "evidence" you could hope for end up being anecdotal?

How is science going to test something outside of physical experience? I already gave him points for creativity.

Still, say you have a group of 30 people who have an OBE, and two of them remember in detail what was on the sign above the bed and the rest don't? The result is still worse than chance, isn't it?

I'm not saying "there is no afterlife" or "out of body experiences cannot exist"...I'm simply asking: How could you reliably measure it?

justcharlie09

12th November 2009, 11:19 AM

And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31

I actually have no problem with an afterlife. In fact, it is part of my belief-system and spiritual understanding of the world.

All the same, how do you test for it? The most this study can do is say "there's something to it, but we don't know". Similar things to NDEs can be induced, but they don't necessarily seem to have the same impact on the individual as a "real" NDE. Which tells us they may, in fact, be quite different...but the whys and hows are still sketchy.

How do you tell which is which? How do you objectively study a subjective experience?

Then, again, there is the experience of negative NDEs experienced by some people (sometimes children). Yes, the percentage is small...but how do we view those experiences?

Perhaps I'm naive in that I sincerely hope that young children experiencing terrifying NDEs are, in fact, experiencing some form of brain-induced nightmare than some other-worldy reality.

In short, I'm sure researchers will try. I don't necessarily fault them for trying to figure it out. It just doesn't seem like, at the present time, we can expect anything conclusive to arise from the findings. I'll still read them...all the same. :D

fls

12th November 2009, 11:27 AM

You seriously can't see how the whole scenario could be funny? I mean, just a little bit?

I'm not arguing that it is not possible to find humour in various situation (I'm the last one who should be doing that).

I'll read the results. I actually bookmarked the page after I saw the snippet on TV. What's wrong with finding it humorous and not expecting much?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Sorry to crimp your chi, but if there are out of body experiences as part of near death/reviving... then wouldn't the best "evidence" you could hope for end up being anecdotal?

How is science going to test something outside of physical experience? I already gave him points for creativity.

Still, say you have a group of 30 people who have an OBE, and two of them remember in detail what was on the sign above the bed and the rest don't? The result is still worse than chance, isn't it?

What do you think the chance is that someone would incorporate a very specific image which is not usually part of any medical setting into the story (let's say something like an image of a top hat underneath a rainbow on an orange background)?

Like I said, if even one positive result were returned, it would get my attention. The difference between this study and an anecdote is that this study involves an intervention - an artificially introduced feature whose presence in the story would be unequivocably remarkable (like an individual surviving an almost universally fatal illness after receiving penicillin).

I'm not saying "there is no afterlife" or "out of body experiences cannot exist"...I'm simply asking: How could you reliably measure it?

The intention of this study is to detect it in a way that doesn't leave room for our mind to simply fill in the blanks due to familiarity.

Linda

Hux

12th November 2009, 11:44 AM

Indeed. Since we have an entirely workable definition of death, in what way do these so called NDE's qualify as NDE?

justcharlie09

12th November 2009, 11:59 AM

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Okay, thought you were getting mad at me for that. I still think it'd have to be one heck of a picture to get my attention in that scenario. Something so outlandishly strange... you know, a good comedian could have a field day with this. I hope they'll post the images they use (after the fact, of course).

What do you think the chance is that someone would incorporate a very specific image which is not usually part of any medical setting into the story (let's say something like an image of a top hat underneath a rainbow on an orange background)?

It would be impressive and would get my attention. I'm not sure it would constitute irrefutable evidence, though. Now, if you had a large sample size, and a good portion were coming back with detailed reports of these strange pictures. Yes, that would be strong evidence in favor of OBEs.

I still doubt that will be the outcome, but I may read the study and find myself pleasantly surprised. It's a strange world we live in.

Like I said, if even one positive result were returned, it would get my attention. The difference between this study and an anecdote is that this study involves an intervention - an artificially introduced feature whose presence in the story would be unequivocably remarkable (like an individual surviving an almost universally fatal illness after receiving penicillin).

It would get my attention, but I don't think it would be enough to claim "the afterlife is proven" or "out of body experiences are real"...not unless more than just one person reported correctly. And even then, more investigation would be warranted.

The intention of this study is to detect it in a way that doesn't leave room for our mind to simply fill in the blanks due to familiarity.

Again, points for creativity. It's an interesting design. I'm still not expecting much. Maybe one or two surprises, at best, but nothing that verifies the "great beyond".

I've often wondered how much people come up with in OBEs and NDEs from general familiarity.

Hux

12th November 2009, 12:24 PM

How come the likes of Lazarus et al, who had much 'nearer' experiences, had absolutely nothing to say on the matter?

RandFan

12th November 2009, 01:08 PM

Wow. I'm impressed. Well done. I had no intention of reading the book but I like D'Souza ok and was mildly interested.

SusanB-M1

12th November 2009, 01:39 PM

Thank you for the review Maia. I did actually read it all. :)
Very much agree. I really enjoyed reading the review.

Maia

12th November 2009, 08:09 PM

Thanks, y'all! :)

I still wish that Eyeron would come back and explain that weird comment about photographs and how they could possibly relate to the afterlife. (Maybe photos of ghosts??) Now, Hux's questions should be addressed, because there is actually an answer to the question of how an NDE can be defined. This is from some information that I put together ALL by myself (I know how many reprinted infodumps we do see around here. ;) )Greyson developed the NDE scale, which provided a means of quantitatively measuring NDE's, differentiating them from organic brain syndromes and nonspecific stress responses, and sorting them out from false positives such as other psychological states. It has high internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability (Lange R, Greyson B, Houran J, 2004; Greyson B, 1983.) Cardiac arrest in a hospital setting is the medical condition under which near-death conditions are most likely to be verifiable, and although NDE's are not universal in these situations, those that do occur are usually verifiable as genuine NDE's under the Greyson scale (van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I., 2001).

Of course, it's important to keep in mind that none of the above research really has anything to say about the meaning of an NDE one way or the other; this is about quantitatively and qualitatively defining an NDE as a neurobiological event that can be studied. That's something which can be done. As for Parnia's work, nobody knows yet what the results of the study in question will be. But I think I'd actually like to read his book (What Happens When We Die?: A Groundbreaking Study into the Nature of Life and Death) if for no other reason than that it seemed to make a lot of reviewers on Amazon mad when they didn't get any kind of definite answer at all at the end. Apparently, Parnia talked about research methods and said he hadn't done the study yet, and that the anecdotes he presented were only... anecdotes. It didn't seem to be what a lot of readers expected. :rolleyes:

justcharlie09

12th November 2009, 08:20 PM

Thanks, y'all! :)

I still wish that Eyeron would come back and explain that weird comment about photographs and how they could possibly relate to the afterlife. (Maybe of ghosts??) Now, Hux's questions should be addressed, because there is actually an answer to the question of how an NDE can be defined. This is from some information that I put together ALL by myself (I know how many reprinted infodumps we do see around here. ;) )Greyson developed the NDE scale, which provided a means of quantitatively measuring NDE's, differentiating them from organic brain syndromes and nonspecific stress responses, and sorting them out from false positives such as other psychological states. It has high internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability (Lange R, Greyson B, Houran J, 2004; Greyson B, 1983.) Cardiac arrest in a hospital setting is the medical condition under which near-death conditions are most likely to be verifiable, and although NDE's are not universal in these situations, those that do occur are usually verifiable as genuine NDE's under the Greyson scale (van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I., 2001).

You rock :)

Of course, it's important to keep in mind that none of the above research really has anything to say about the meaning of an NDE one way or the other; this is about quantitatively and qualitatively defining an NDE as a neurobiological event that can be studied. That's something which can be done. As for Parnia's work, nobody knows yet what the results of the study in question will be. But I think I'd actually like to read his book (What Happens When We Die?: A Groundbreaking Study into the Nature of Life and Death) if for no other reason than that it seemed to make a lot of reviewers on Amazon mad when they didn't get any kind of definite answer at all at the end. :rolleyes:

What? Death is still a mystery? Bummer ;)

In all seriousness, though, great points and thanks!!

kuroyume0161

12th November 2009, 10:36 PM

I think that the comment about photographs might have to do with photographs which appear to contain ghostly images of deceased people (a simple technique even for the early 1900s! - see Cottingley Fairies for how simple this is even without computers and Photoshop).

kuroyume0161

12th November 2009, 10:41 PM

There is no mystery to death: when you die, you stop existing and your body starts to decay and its material reenters the ecosystem. I realize that this is a very difficult concept for people to accept (even I find it hard to visualize - haha). Once the sentience engine starts running it's quite difficult to imagine not existing. But the easy question to answer is this: where were you before you were conceived? You weren't anywhere. You slowly attained sentience from a foggy notion of existence after birth. Unfortunately, for most of us, we don't perform the opposite degredation on the way out.

Hux

13th November 2009, 01:03 AM

I still wish that Eyeron would come back and explain that weird comment about photographs and how they could possibly relate to the afterlife. (Maybe photos of ghosts??) Now, Hux's questions should be addressed, because there is actually an answer to the question of how an NDE can be defined. This is from some information that I put together ALL by myself (I know how many reprinted infodumps we do see around here. )Greyson developed the NDE scale, which provided a means of quantitatively measuring NDE's, differentiating them from organic brain syndromes and nonspecific stress responses, and sorting them out from false positives such as other psychological states. It has high internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability (Lange R, Greyson B, Houran J, 2004; Greyson B, 1983.) Cardiac arrest in a hospital setting is the medical condition under which near-death conditions are most likely to be verifiable, and although NDE's are not universal in these situations, those that do occur are usually verifiable as genuine NDE's under the Greyson scale (van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I., 2001).

Thank you Maia for considering my question seriously for it is seriously intended. I have amjor problem with the definitions. Cardiac arrest is obviously potentially fatal but, given oxygenation, for instance, it is not an NDS. We have to be very specific about it. The BMA and the American equivalent have a specific (virtually identical) criteria for death. cardiac arrest is a symptom and often, very often reversible. I once nursed a little old lady who would go into spontaneous ventricular fibrillation. She thus had no cardiac function. Hence she would black out. To my knowledge she did this four times, awaking spontaneously without de-fibrillation. On the third occasion she sat bolt upright, laughed and said, "You thought I was a goner didn't you?"

She never reported any experiences whilst 'unconscious' but that is not the point here. The point is, by the standards allotted by the NDE'ers, she had an NDE. By any clinical standard she was not 'near death' as we accept death to be. We just seem to be skirting around the very real notion that there are varying degrees of consciousness and humans, being different, interpret these inputs (or lack of) in varying ways.

Given that the major medical associations accept death as having no brain function or activity, no Central Neuronal system responses and an ability to sustain vital signs without intervention, I fail to see how NDE'ers can claim their study rats are near to death? Brain damage for the most part is largely irreversible. We might be an steadier ground if we suggest there is an altered brain state during certain chemical -neuronal changes - and that is worthy of research. But how can we measure what is 'Near'? In my experience, I found that anaesthesiologists were rather intrigued by what some of their patients reported during anaesthetic or procedure but there was never much lip service paid to the possibility that certain patients were entering, so they believed, an entirely different realm of existence.

It strikes me that those who promote the notion of NDE (not the patients necessarily) want it to be real, like some religious certitude. I wonder how many of those active in the NDE field are religious?

Maia

13th November 2009, 08:01 AM

Given that the major medical associations accept death as having no brain function or activity, no Central Neuronal system responses and an ability to sustain vital signs without intervention, I fail to see how NDE'ers can claim their study rats are near to death? Brain damage for the most part is largely irreversible. We might be an steadier ground if we suggest there is an altered brain state during certain chemical -neuronal changes - and that is worthy of research.

I think that this is closer to what is happening in the better-designed studies. I do have more info, and I'll dig it up later on. That's the part that really fascinates me, because I think that knowing more about the neurobiology of NDE's could be valuable for so many reasons.

It strikes me that those who promote the notion of NDE (not the patients necessarily) want it to be real, like some religious certitude. I wonder how many of those active in the NDE field are religious?

I know there's one researcher in particular who is (blanking on the name right now; maybe somebody else can think of it), but he isn't one of those who's done rigorous or well-controlled research, and he's written a book that is 100% anecdotes. I have mixed feelings about that entire issue. But the problem is that I doubt it's possible to find researchers working seriously on any subject that doesn't interest them deeply in the first place, which I think is always something to keep in mind when examining the research itself in any case (kind of like reading the competing interests section!) On the other hand, that level of caution should be higher when dealing with anything which could possibly slop over into the world of the "paranormal." There's really no reason why NDE's have to do this, but I agree that it's hard to avoid, at least in the public perception.

Actually, the neurological aspect is so important that I wish there were some way to completely separate it from the entire question of how NDE's could relate to "life after death". For instance, the little old lady in ventricular fibrillation may have been near death, but she didn't have a Greyson NDE. Why, or why not? What was the relevant neurobiology of her experience? Researchers should be able to learn more about these questions without having the entire field of study muddied in the way it currently is. But I doubt this could be done.

fls

13th November 2009, 08:47 AM

Maia

13th November 2009, 04:54 PM

I understand that you are hung up on this point, but what is at issue is whether they are having a particular type of experience - an experience that in some people (particularly prior to our use of interventions where we reversibly halt cardiac or brain function) occurred in association with the type of cessation of cardiovascular function which is often followed by unequivocal death. The use of Near-Death is a handy way to refer to these experiences, as it reflects how they first came to our attention. But it should be obvious by now that the state which may stimulate this experience can be reached through other means. 'Death' is not part of how the experience is defined for these purposes, so it isn't particularly relevant to worry about how death or near-death is defined. It may be time for a name change for that reason?

Linda

I don't know for sure if that's the case or not, simply because there seems to be no other one experience which combines all of the features of a Greyson NDE. Rather, many different types of experiences exhibit particular individual aspects. The intake of psychomimetic drugs is one example that especially comes to mind (much more so than the dissociatives like ketamine; I'm not sure why the ketamine example is the one that gets used so often.) Ayahuasca is the subject of a lot of controlled experimentation right now. It would be great to see research on NDE's from people who could really be agnostic about their meaning.

Hux

14th November 2009, 06:27 AM

I dont really thing I am 'hung up' on this point. It happens to be the working, practical, diagnoses of death. I cannot speak for the rest of the world but id bet their definitions are not far short of that. So it deserves more than just being 'hung up'. It is difficult to work around it and as such, none of the 'participants' have really been anywhere near that state.

Of course it is going to be entirely anecdotal. It is all there is. I watched countless people die and most of them were connected to the most sophisticated equipment available. No one, nor any of my colleagues, observed any signs of anything other than the gradual (often sudden) shut down of a living being. It was always a pattern of deterioration; no indication whatsoever that something was 'leaving' - absolutely nothing. There is a certain level from which people do not resuscitate. Either spontaneously or by assistance. There is a level at where people can and do resuscitate and many often do - but it is no where near the level of finality.

In the end, it is pure anecdote.

I think it is dangerous to suggest these people are undergoing an 'experience' unless you mean in the same way we 'experience ' a dream. I think we can induce the same level of consciousness, of appreciation, using a multitude of drugs, medically or non medically administered and for that reason alone we should be extremely cautious of suggesting these people are briefly experiencing another existence.

Death is a primal fear. I suggest that is why religions claimed a foothold with early people and never let go. But the medical advances we have made actually blurred the distinction of death; the criteria for death is much more precise than it was 100 years ago. Wishful thinking and religious belief never kept up with anything.

As a personal aside, I wonder about those poor people (thankfully very few) who get misdiagnosed as dead (not everyone is tested on an E.E.Graph as a matter of course) and 'wake up' after a few days, have to say? As far as I can tell, these people 'report' little in the way of experience but certainly express gratitude that they weren't embalmed or worse. Even so, it is stretching the current definition of NDE. Since we cannot have known their brain state.

justcharlie09

14th November 2009, 09:51 AM

[QUOTE]In the end, it is pure anecdote.

This is what I can't get around, myself. Also, as mentioned before, I sincerely hope NDEs are nothing more than a dream-like response of a brain in peril. I say this again: young children have had NDEs of torment and devils. Even if it was only one kid--would you really want that to be a sign of an afterlife?

I think it is dangerous to suggest these people are undergoing an 'experience' unless you mean in the same way we 'experience ' a dream. I think we can induce the same level of consciousness, of appreciation, using a multitude of drugs, medically or non medically administered and for that reason alone we should be extremely cautious of suggesting these people are briefly experiencing another existence.

What I find interesting is the way in which the study info posted noted a difference between the response of those with "real" NDEs vs. induced NDEs. Maybe this is because one knew they were being induced and the other was told they were near death. It would, I would think, change the person's attitude quite radically. I guess one could try to test for reaction to induced NDEs by setting the person up to think they were in real mortal danger...but that's unethical, so can't be done.

Death is a primal fear. I suggest that is why religions claimed a foothold with early people and never let go. But the medical advances we have made actually blurred the distinction of death; the criteria for death is much more precise than it was 100 years ago. Wishful thinking and religious belief never kept up with anything.

Speaking in terms of the evolution of religion, yes, probably so. Of course, it is important to realize the clergy or shamans were likely just as frightened of the boogeyman death as their followers. It's a little too cynical, for me, to say that religions were created by people who really didn't believe a word of what they were saying. Manipulative and cruel? Sure, but that isn't the whole story.

As for spirituality itself, I think it is unfair to say that all spiritual leanings of all people throughout time are a product of delusion and fear. I would never go so far as to claim that atheism is an inappropriate response to the information available, but I don't think being inclined toward spirituality is a sign of intellectual weakness, either. People who demand "You can't be a good thinker and believe in God," are on par with the same who say "You can't be a good person and not believe in God." Just my two bits.

As a personal aside, I wonder about those poor people (thankfully very few) who get misdiagnosed as dead (not everyone is tested on an E.E.Graph as a matter of course) and 'wake up' after a few days, have to say? As far as I can tell, these people 'report' little in the way of experience but certainly express gratitude that they weren't embalmed or worse. Even so, it is stretching the current definition of NDE. Since we cannot have known their brain state.

On this, perhaps the positive aspect of NDE research might be a move toward the widespread use of more sensitive equipment that allows for an even more accurate understanding of death (in terms of NOT embalming people on accident :eek:).

It isn't bad to continue studying the mind, altered states of consciousness, death--even NDEs. It's never a bad thing to ask questions about reality. There just doesn't seem to be much hope for "proof" for or unequivocally against an afterlife or anything that resides outside of the physical reality we can understand through the scientific method.

Put it this way: I expect conclusive results of OBEs and an afterlife to come out of these experiments about as much as I expect someone to claim James Randi's million dollar prize.

Maia

14th November 2009, 11:38 AM

[QUOTE=Hux;5309753]

This is what I can't get around, myself. Also, as mentioned before, I sincerely hope NDEs are nothing more than a dream-like response of a brain in peril. I say this again: young children have had NDEs of torment and devils. Even if it was only one kid--would you really want that to be a sign of an afterlife?

Ick. Where was this? Do I want to know?

Anyway, I found some more stuff I had about definitions of clinical near-death that were used in the NDE studies-- they all used cardiac arrest subjects.

"During a cardiac arrest the clinical criteria of death are
always reached for a variable length of time ranging from a few seconds to tens of minutes. By definition, patients have at least two out of the three criteria of clinical death (no cardiac output, no respiration) and also usually develop the third (fixed dilated pupils) rapidly with the loss of brainstem function."(Parnia & Fenwick, 2002).

Yup, the same Parnia. Even more:

There have definitely been excellent studies done on cardiac arrest survivors in terms of NDE's, and this has been made possible because of parameters that can be obtained for both the experiencer group and the matched control group:

a) the severity of myocardial dysfunction on a standardized 4-point scale [15] of “cardiogenic
shock,” “severe heart failure,” “heart failure,” and “no heart failure”; b) the Coronary Prognostic Index [16], a weighted index based on sex, age, past history, cardiogenic shock, heart failure, electrocardiogram, and cardiac rhythm;
and, c) proximity to death on a 4-point scale of “loss of vital signs,” “progression to loss of vital signs likely without medical intervention,” “condition serious but not near
death,” and “condition not serious.” These evaluations of the medical records were performed independently by two
physicians or a physician and a nurse, both of whom were blind to patients’ group assignment. In the event of disagreement on these ratings, the two raters were required to discuss the case until they reached consensus.
(Greyson, 2003).

Another definition that was used:

Also, here's another definition of "near death": "defined clinical
death as a period of unconsciousness caused by
insufficient blood supply to the brain because of
inadequate blood circulation, breathing, or both." ( van Lommel, van Wees, Meyers, & Elfferich. (2001).

One thing that really fascinated me was the fact that people who had experienced a Greyson-scale NDE did not reach the score (on standardized scaling instruments such as the PCL-C) for either pathological dissociation, acute stress disorder, or PTSD after the NDE. That's a good example of why it would be so helpful to know more about the neurobiology of NDE's, because there may be something neuroprotective about them.

On this, perhaps the positive aspect of NDE research might be a move toward the widespread use of more sensitive equipment that allows for an even more accurate understanding of death (in terms of NOT embalming people on accident :eek:).

:eek::eek: That would be... good...

There's a huge old cemetery close to where I grew up with lots of historic mausoleums. One actually has a phone and phone line installed in it so that family members could call for help if they'd been accidentally buried alive. No. Really.

It isn't bad to continue studying the mind, altered states of consciousness, death--even NDEs. It's never a bad thing to ask questions about reality. There just doesn't seem to be much hope for "proof" for or unequivocally against an afterlife or anything that resides outside of the physical reality we can understand through the scientific method.

Pretty much. I really don't know what NDE's mean, but I do think there are some fascinating things going on in that process and some incredibly valuable things to be learned by studying them. Silliness like the D'Souza treatment only makes it harder for the serious research to be done, though.

Put it this way: I expect conclusive results of OBEs and an afterlife to come out of these experiments about as much as I expect someone to claim James Randi's million dollar prize.

:rolleyes: Has anybody told Sam Parnia about this? Snerky snerk.

justcharlie09

14th November 2009, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE=justcharlie09;5310097]

[QUOTE]Ick. Where was this? Do I want to know?

Probably not, but here's one recently published example:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/165410

Ironically, this was linked to an article loosely related to the book you reviewed :) Look at slide #3 from a 6 year old boy's NDE. This is just one example, but I have heard of others. Just a quick google of negative NDE is scary--even if it is a minority experience.

There's a huge old cemetery close to where I grew up with lots of historic mausoleums. One actually has a phone and phone line installed in it so that family members could call for help if they'd been accidentally buried alive. No. Really.

Well, now, isn't that...thoughtful? :jaw-dropp

Pretty much. I really don't know what NDE's mean, but I do think there are some fascinating things going on in that process and some incredibly valuable things to be learned by studying them. Silliness like the D'Souza treatment only makes it harder for the serious research to be done, though.

No, the D'Souzas of the world really don't help anyone--religious or otherwise--as far as I'm concerned. There are probably plenty of people to say that's wrong to think, but oh well. Definitely fascinating and I always end up reading about it, anyway. There's always something more to learn--where the mind is involved, doubly so.

:rolleyes: Has anybody told Sam Parnia about this? Snerky snerk.

Maybe he should see if his research could fall under the guidelines for Mr. Randi's prize in some way? :D

jadey

14th November 2009, 12:14 PM

This guy?

http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/Human-Consciousness-Project/human-consciousness-project.html

I saw a snippet about this on TV...placing signs up above patients so they can read/report them after an out-of-body NDE?

Honestly, that gave me a good laugh. If something traumatic enough happened to me to knock me out of body and make me float above while doctors were trying to jolt my corpse back to life...have to say, the last thing I'd be bothering with would be some stupid placard or trying to remember it.

I saw some information on this experiment. It seems they've placed various posters of scenes including:

Dark tunnel with light streaming through
Old white man in tunic with flowing beard
Security gate encased in pearls

From what I've heard, the results have been promising.:)

justcharlie09

14th November 2009, 12:20 PM

I saw some information on this experiment. It seems they've placed various posters of scenes including:

Dark tunnel with light streaming through
Old white man in tunic with flowing beard
Security gate encased in pearls

From what I've heard, the results have been promising.:)

Heheheh....

How about a sign saying

"St. Peter's Office: Out to Lunch Back in 30 Minutes"

Hux

14th November 2009, 12:45 PM

Several points spring to mind:

In as much as NDE'ers think their experience to be 'religious' - or at least an insight into another existence, why do they seem to have these experiences broadly along the lines of their own religion (or the visions they would expect)? Muslims see 'paradise' as a lush garden and Christians, much like Pilots undergoing high G-forces, see a light far away.

If pilots can be induced to 'see' the same experience, how can we suggest that NDE's could be anything more than cerebral O2 starvation?

Cardia arrest is certainly a symptom of death but it is no more than that. I would say the resuscitation rate, when I was creeping around the wards was about 85%. Higher in Theatre. These people were clearly not dead. As long as you keep the brain oxygenated they are sustained. Its when the oxygenation drops rapidly that things go awry. I have known many who reported they were watching themselves being resuscitated in theatre when their theatre notes demonstrated clearly they were in no need of it and had not undergone resuscitation. I think such people are influenced by the burgeoning medical documentaries and dramas that show a lot of procedures nowadays. I do not say they are making it up; they are convinced this is happening.

Someone should read the findings of Ketamine administration in anaesthetics. There's some fairly funky stuff there; sounds just like NDE's but more trippy but no one ever suggested these were NDE's.

What also occurs; are these people suggesting they were close to death in a final sense? Or do they suggest they saw a bridge, if you will, to another existence? I could imagine the natural processes of 'shutting down' might induce such imaginings as the brain struggles to make sense of its environment but as for the latter? Well, its high on humanities wish list (for some - I dont want to live forever) but the possibility of an afterlife is once again, merely anecdotal. If it did not occur in our Scriptures I doubt humanity would have given it a second thought. It is just counter-intuitive; it runs counter to everything we observe about the Universe and its workings and I think there are those who are terrified of finality that want to dress their wishes in the respectability of science.

Maia

14th November 2009, 12:54 PM

Heheheh....

How about a sign saying

"St. Peter's Office: Out to Lunch Back in 30 Minutes"

:D

I'm familiar with the ketamine studies, and I do have to say that I'm not impressed by the similarities between ketamine and NDE's, particularly because ketamine is one of the dissociatives and that's exactly the quality which NDE'ers do not exhibit. Ayahuasca may be a different matter, and that's a much more interesting avenue of study. I did some research into the pilot studies a while back, and that was a case where the ones in question probably shouldn't have gotten past the ethics committee to begin with. They were very dangerous, which was probably why they resulted in NDE's-- their purpose was actually to try to find safer ways to subject pilots to G-forces, but the human subjects were not well protected.

I followed the Newsweek link, and I did recognize one of the drawings that was used in the review of the D'Souza book. I wouldn't exactly worry about those NDE stories, though. Basically, they were unverifiable anecdotes, almost all of which were recalled long after the fact. While those are always interesting to read and certainly personally meaningful to the people involved, the important thing to keep in mind is that they aren't verifiable Greyson-scale NDE's. This means that there's no way of knowing what they actually were (organic brain syndrome? a recreation of some other kind of psychological event?) As distinct neurobiological events, NDE's can be and have been reliably differentiated from other types of subjectively experienced events. Of course, we're not talking about whether or not verifiable NDE's are proof of life after death or survival of consciousness or anything else, but what can be said is that specific visions of hell and the Devil weren't verifiable NDE's. So don't worry about the kids. :)

Although one of the least charming parts of D'Souza's book was in Chapter 4, where he rambled on for half a page about how exactly the same type of thing (totally unverifiable anecdotes about how people supposedly visited heaven and hell in NDE's) somehow proved that NDE's were "compatible with Christianity." :eye-poppi

justcharlie09

14th November 2009, 01:18 PM

Of course, we're not talking about whether or not verifiable NDE's are proof of life after death or survival of consciousness or anything else, but what can be said is that specific visions of hell and the Devil weren't verifiable NDE's. So don't worry about the kids. :)

Well, that's good at least. Honestly, I'm kind of hoping this is the way the brain shuts down. Even if there isn't an afterlife attached to the experience it would be nicer NOT to go out kicking and screaming but instead go in a state of dreamy bliss. Atheists and theists should be able to appreciate that thought.

Although one of the least charming parts of D'Souza's book was in Chapter 4, where he rambled on for half a page about how exactly the same type of thing (totally unverifiable anecdotes about how people supposedly visited heaven and hell in NDE's) somehow proved that NDE's were "compatible with Christianity." :eye-poppi

See, that's the problem. If one takes all these anecdotes to be "true" experiences of the afterlife then one has to accept that these minority "negative NDE" are also part of that same afterlife reality. No thanks. I'll pass :p

Hux

14th November 2009, 01:23 PM

As long as the subject remains anecdotal it will remain in the realms of woowoo. When all is said and done, humanity has accepted (and desired) the possibility based upon anecdote alone. Anecdote is worthless as evidence in a scientific sense and I fail to see (although this could be my lack of imagination) how we will be able to measure the non existent?

I grow suspicious that regardless of the drug, we can induce virtually the same experience, the same common experience in so many. Chemical will alter perception but I doubt they alter reality. I guess that another philosophical question but if you see pink Elephants you must be influenced by some drug or other. No one suggests there may be actual pink Elephants. I think it is the same for NDE. Its been done to death.:D

I freely admit i have not read De Souza's book but I am confident I will see nothing in it new. Peer tested medical Journals demonstrate the most recent, justifiable studies going in the medical professions. I find it significant that not many Pro's take this subject seriously except for those who are trying to bring their belief system to others.

Hux

14th November 2009, 01:29 PM

Well, that's good at least. Honestly, I'm kind of hoping this is the way the brain shuts down. Even if there isn't an afterlife attached to the experience it would be nicer NOT to go out kicking and screaming but instead go in a state of dreamy bliss. Atheists and theists should be able to appreciate that thought.

Absolutely, no one wants go painfully but we have to look to medicine to help that. I have on occasion seen people die in a very peaceful way. I have seen many struggle, in agony despite all attempts to analgese. When they died, they had an almost serene look about them which people interpret as "well hes not in pain any more". He isn't in anything.

I suspect it is this serenity that has encouraged certain people to believe we are in transit.

justcharlie09

14th November 2009, 01:50 PM

Absolutely, no one wants go painfully but we have to look to medicine to help that. I have on occasion seen people die in a very peaceful way. I have seen many struggle, in agony despite all attempts to analgese. When they died, they had an almost serene look about them which people interpret as "well hes not in pain any more". He isn't in anything.

I suspect it is this serenity that has encouraged certain people to believe we are in transit.

Well, when it comes to drugs and the terminally ill... I say pump em' full of the stuff. The less pain on the way out, the better. I was present for the death of a family member. I can't say it was a peaceful experience, and certainly, it left me shaken in faith for a long time.

I'm not an atheist, although I've logged time as one in the past...

Maia

14th November 2009, 02:07 PM

Well, D'Souza's book actually has very little in it about NDE's-- it's almost all split between dragging out philosophical arguments, random chapters about intelligent design, and weird attempts to prove that something about quantum physics demonstrates the existence of heaven and hell. If D'Souza had included more info about NDE's, it would have been a much more interesting book, but I don't think that any of it would have suited his arguments as well. There is good quality NDE research, but it isn't the kind that lends itself well to the kind of book that D'Souza was writing (or the kind that is so often seen right now Into the Light: Real Life Stories About Angelic Visits, Visions of the Afterlife, and Other Pre-Death Experiences and that kind of thing.) Morse, Venecia, and Milstein did some of the early research into a neurophysiologic explanatory model of NDE's, for example. I have some of the articles if anyone would like to see them. :)

Hux

14th November 2009, 02:27 PM

Well, when it comes to drugs and the terminally ill... I say pump em' full of the stuff. The less pain on the way out, the better. I was present for the death of a family member. I can't say it was a peaceful experience, and certainly, it left me shaken in faith for a long time.

I'm not an atheist, although I've logged time as one in the past...

So...not a fan of Mother Teresa then?:D

I have never known any patient go in pain that was not seriously and continually considered in analgesia. Yes they get pumped full of the stuff, (Diamorphine or a cocktail of that usually) but still some go screaming if not kicking.

I'm interested why such an experience would have shaken your faith in the least? I always used to think, if this guy is going some place better - why does God have to torment his relatives so? How does such immense suffering ease his passage into a better life?

None of it makes sense. None of it. Unless you accept that the person is succumbing to disease as do all living things that are not predated upon and such is life. Making things up doesn't make it any different.

Hux

14th November 2009, 02:35 PM

Morse, Venecia, and Milstein did some of the early research into a neurophysiologic explanatory model of NDE's, for example. I have some of the articles if anyone would like to see them. :)

Not wishing to be dismissive because we are having a tremendous discussion on this but surely any 'explanatory model' can only be based upon anecdote? I am not familiar of course with this study but I am sure other medical professionals require empiric and observable evidence. It would change their entire grasp of caring for the terminally ill. Entire mind sets as well as strategy would have to be re written. And yet, why is there so little concern over these 'experiences'?

Its not for being indifferent. it isn't even by ignoring them. Perhaps it has been taken as far as is possible and the neurophysiological model is sufficient to explain the phenomena? Sometimes if it quacks.....

justcharlie09

14th November 2009, 03:08 PM

So...not a fan of Mother Teresa then?:D

You really, really don't want me to get started on anything regarding the RC Church. I'll just leave it at this: On Mother Teresa, Hitchens is 100% correct.

I have never known any patient go in pain that was not seriously and continually considered in analgesia. Yes they get pumped full of the stuff, (Diamorphine or a cocktail of that usually) but still some go screaming if not kicking.

Maybe new drugs that induce something akin to NDE wouldn't be a bad thing, then?

I'm interested why such an experience would have shaken your faith in the least? I always used to think, if this guy is going some place better - why does God have to torment his relatives so? How does such immense suffering ease his passage into a better life?

It wasn't so much being there as events leading up to, during, and after. What shaking my faith got wasn't from the death itself. Because really, in the most meaningful ways, he had already been gone for a few days before it was officially over. No, this was something else. Can't really relate it here because I would have to cover a myriad of dysfunctional family relationships to express it with any clarity LOL...and no one wants to read it anymore than I want to tell it.

None of it makes sense. None of it. Unless you accept that the person is succumbing to disease as do all living things that are not predated upon and such is life. Making things up doesn't make it any different.

Of course that is the only rational physical explanation of physical death. One doesn't have to be a dogmatic adherent of materialism to be "sane"--just because you look at the world through the lense of a different philosophy does not negate the right of others to see things differently. Arguably, winged half-human beats, cloudy harp-filled realms, and boatmen requiring coins for passage across rivers named Styx are "made up"....but that doesn't mean there cannot be more to life than what the five senses can relate.

Again, for me, faith means trusting that--with or without an afterlife--eveything is as it should be and that life itself has some purpose.Other people prefer a perfectly random, only-you-make-the-purpose way of viewing the world. That's fine, and they're certainly entitled to that opinion since there's no way of "knowing" either way.

EDIT TO ADD: All the same, as I've said before the existence of NDE doesn't prove anything for or against an afterlife. People who think someday science will validate or invalidate spiritual concerns about death/meaning are fighting a losing battle.

Maia

14th November 2009, 03:29 PM

Not wishing to be dismissive because we are having a tremendous discussion on this but surely any 'explanatory model' can only be based upon anecdote? I am not familiar of course with this study but I am sure other medical professionals require empiric and observable evidence.

This study was actually a very good example of what I mean by the kind of NDE research that is available, but would maybe not be used by the author of something like the D'Souza book precisely because it's not anecdotal. The authors don't come across as having a particular ax to grind either way, but their focus of interest is definitely the neurobiology of NDE's. Here's a sample paragraph from it (keeping in mind that it was a 1989 study, and the conclusions are not necessarily the most up to date-- and I'm not a big fan of the ketamine hypothesis either, but it does give you some idea)

The medical literature includes many psychological analyses of NDEs (Greyson, 1983; Noyes, 1979; Enhrewald, 1974), but to our
knowledge few neurophysiological models.
It has been proposed (Carr, 1982) that NDEs are the result of stimulation of the hippocampus by endogenous endorphins. The stresses of
dying certainly generate '~natural opiates," such as enkephalins and endorphins, and enkephalins have been documented to inhibit neuronal
discharge within the hippocampus. This theory proposes that increased endorphin levels disinhibit the hippocampus, as well as lowering
the seizure threshold within the temporal lobe, and that NDEs are the result of limbic lobe and temporal lobe seizures.

One problem with this hypothesis is that patients with narcotic overdoses or narcotic-induced hallucinations do not report the characteristic
features of NDEs; in particular, they do not report vivid out-of body experiences (OBEs). Our study of NDEs used a control group treated with narcotics, as well as being hypoxic and hypercapnic, and none of those patients had NDEs (Morse, Castillo, Venecia, Milstein, &
Tyler, 1986).

We are proposing a similar model, but based on serotonin rather than opioid peptides. The NDE may be the result of activation of
neuronal connections in the temporal lobes that code for NDE-like memories. Activation of these neuronal connections is mediated via
serotonergic pathways. Alteration of central serotonergic activity through extreme emotional or physiological stress, or via certain psychoactive
drugs, could lead to activation of these neuronal connections resulting in an NDE. Imbalances in monoamine transmitter systems
at the level of the hippocampus would lead to disinhibition of '~hard wired" neurons with axons to the temporal lobe, leading to activation
of areas of the temporal lobe that have been documented to cause mystical visions, out-of-body sensations, panoramic memories, and
vivid hallucinations.

I also read that Christopher Hitchens book about Mother Teresa... and afterwards, I kind of wished I hadn't. :eek:But truth is truth, no matter how unpleasant. At least I read the book at Borders instead of actually buying it!

Hux

14th November 2009, 09:22 PM

You really, really don't want me to get started on anything regarding the RC Church. I'll just leave it at this: On Mother Teresa, Hitchens is 100% correct.

Absolutely right. Its the last thing i want to get into. I merely made the Teresa reference because she believed that suffering was ennobling and for that reason withheld painkillers from those dying in agony.

Maybe new drugs that induce something akin to NDE wouldn't be a bad thing, then?

Not having read the studies I do not know what the anecdotal information is on analgesia. I think, several experience's have stated they could feel pain (and we know certain patients become aware of pain during anaesthetic procedures) so I would need a better definition of NDE than simple anecdote to understand if inducing such a state would be analgesic.

It wasn't so much being there as events leading up to, during, and after. What shaking my faith got wasn't from the death itself. Because really, in the most meaningful ways, he had already been gone for a few days before it was officially over. No, this was something else. Can't really relate it here because I would have to cover a myriad of dysfunctional family relationships to express it with any clarity LOL...and no one wants to read it anymore than I want to tell it.

I understand that. But i note you appear to have reached your own definition of death - there was a defining moment when you though they were already gone. it is here that lies the grey area of NDE. It is just altered states of consciousness and those that 'come back' to report it are just reporting it thus.

Of course that is the only rational physical explanation of physical death. One doesn't have to be a dogmatic adherent of materialism to be "sane"--just because you look at the world through the lense of a different philosophy does not negate the right of others to see things differently.

Oh you have the right to see things however you wish but it is faith. It is not science. I, like other materialists see no good reason to suppose, nor see any evidence for, an afterlife or a further existence. So i simply do not assume otherwise. There may be such an existence - but it is unknown to us in any real sense and only exists by fiat of religious wishes. I therefore view NDE's as nothing more than an interesting study of pharmaceutical intervention or the manifestation of consciousness going awry. There is much to learn from that and I am sure in the end, that will be all there is to it. Yes I am aware that is my opinion, but I am prepared to be dazzled and I (nor anyone else) has seen otherwise that can have any verification.

Arguably, winged half-human beats, cloudy harp-filled realms, and boatmen requiring coins for passage across rivers named Styx are "made up"....but that doesn't mean there cannot be more to life than what the five senses can relate.

It can equally mean its all made up and the product of a florid imagination. The five senses have worked pretty well but for those realms we cannot sense on our own we have technology. Even with it we cannot see more than there is...how on earth did these early sheep shaggers insist there was more than the real senses? Without discounting wishful thinking?

Again, for me, faith means trusting that--with or without an afterlife--eveything is as it should be and that life itself has some purpose.

Well of course thats another argument. Some of us accept the proposition that the only 'purpose' of life is to produce life. If you mean 'meaning' then that's whatever value you choose to give it. But neither of those ideas naturally lends itself to an afterlife.

Other people prefer a perfectly random, only-you-make-the-purpose way of viewing the world. That's fine, and they're certainly entitled to that opinion since there's no way of "knowing" either way.

I disagree. Simply observing history and the present shows you the world the way it was and is. Can there be perfect randomness? What does it mean? At least, in one respect, the researchers are looking to demonstrate something. All the wishful thinker has is wishful thinking. Everyone id free to believe in what they wish but things have more merit when they are true.

EDIT TO ADD: All the same, as I've said before the existence of NDE doesn't prove anything for or against an afterlife. People who think someday science will validate or invalidate spiritual concerns about death/meaning are fighting a losing battle.

Yet NDE'rs want there to be an afterlife because simple oxygen confusion is not satisfying enough for them. We already have the technology to demonstrate that absolutely nothing in matter of energy leaves a clinically dead body. If a souls is said to prevail. it falls to believers to show there is such a thing as a soul. We cannot sugar coat it any longer; that is what some people want but it is in the complete absence of any evidence no matter how much we might wish it. I cringe at the arrogance of the ancients who thought they had more insight, more evidence, more certainty about these things than we do. we have the measure of this world several magnitudes better than they ever had, yet there are those who cling to these ideas as if they had some substance.

I hope these NDE researchers spend more time keeping the living alive than watching them die.

fls

15th November 2009, 07:36 AM

I don't know for sure if that's the case or not, simply because there seems to be no other one experience which combines all of the features of a Greyson NDE.

The Greyson scale does not include "death", or any measure of closeness to death, as one of the elements, though.

Linda

fls

15th November 2009, 07:59 AM

I dont really thing I am 'hung up' on this point. It happens to be the working, practical, diagnoses of death. I cannot speak for the rest of the world but id bet their definitions are not far short of that. So it deserves more than just being 'hung up'. It is difficult to work around it and as such, none of the 'participants' have really been anywhere near that state.

Exactly. So the presence or absence of "death" seems to be independent of the experience, so it is unnecessary to accurately specify what we mean by death or near-death when describing the experience. Our focus can be on whether we can validly identify the experience. Then we can look at those circumstances associated with the experience - cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, particular brain states, etc. - without worrying about whether a different, more permanent state, can form part of a valid definition.

I think it is dangerous to suggest these people are undergoing an 'experience' unless you mean in the same way we 'experience ' a dream. I think we can induce the same level of consciousness, of appreciation, using a multitude of drugs, medically or non medically administered and for that reason alone we should be extremely cautious of suggesting these people are briefly experiencing another existence.

I wasn't referring to anything but the mental experience. Considering that that is all we have been talking about, it didn't really occur to me that you would read something more into it.

Death is a primal fear. I suggest that is why religions claimed a foothold with early people and never let go. But the medical advances we have made actually blurred the distinction of death; the criteria for death is much more precise than it was 100 years ago. Wishful thinking and religious belief never kept up with anything.

But as you mentioned earlier, these experiences aren't really associated with death, so it doesn't really matter how the criteria for death have changed.

As a personal aside, I wonder about those poor people (thankfully very few) who get misdiagnosed as dead (not everyone is tested on an E.E.Graph as a matter of course) and 'wake up' after a few days, have to say? As far as I can tell, these people 'report' little in the way of experience but certainly express gratitude that they weren't embalmed or worse. Even so, it is stretching the current definition of NDE. Since we cannot have known their brain state.

The criteria for a Greyson NDE, which is what Maia has been talking about, does not include anything about the physiologic state of the rest of the body. So while they may not be able to report on whether or not they physiologically experienced death or near-death, they may be able to report on whether they had a particular mental experience which would fulfill the criteria of a Greyson NDE. (Please note that I am not trying to suggest that mental states are not a particular subset of physiologic states.)

Linda

Maia

15th November 2009, 08:16 AM

Exactly. So the presence or absence of "death" seems to be independent of the experience, so it is unnecessary to accurately specify what we mean by death or near-death when describing the experience. Our focus can be on whether we can validly identify the experience. Then we can look at those circumstances associated with the experience - cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, particular brain states, etc. - without worrying about whether a different, more permanent state, can form part of a valid definition.

Huh. I didn't really even think of it that way, but it does make sense. Now this is a good example of how internet discussions can really work-- people share perspectives from different points of view. :)

Well of course thats another argument. Some of us accept the proposition that the only 'purpose' of life is to produce life. If you mean 'meaning' then that's whatever value you choose to give it. But neither of those ideas naturally lends itself to an afterlife.

I've also thought about starting a review thread for John Shelby Spong's book (Eternal Life: A New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. ). I'm convinced that it was at least an "inspiration" (to put it nicely) for parts of the D'Souza book, although IMHO it's infinitely superior to it.

A big reason why I think Spong's book would be so worth discussing is that it tackles ideas like Hux's absolutely headon instead of retreating into weird arguments about intelligent design and quantum physics proving heaven and hell. For instance, Chapter Two is called "Life Is
Accidental" (which kind of gives you a clue right there,) starts with "Where do we begin this journey?" and then goes into:

I am not the product of anyone's design,and no thing or being has created me by intention. I am the product of the infinite laws of probability, with no apparent or obvious purpose. This not a statement that will likely gladden the hearts of those human beings who hear it, for we are prone to create a sense of worth and purpose for ourselves that is not well served by the truth of our accidental and chance nature. The facts, however, make the chance nature of our life abundantly clear. Chance embraces us on both a macro and a micro level.

The first time I read this, I thought there was no possible way he was going to get to Chapter 17, "I Believe In Life Beyond Death." But he did, and all without using the phrase "quantum physics" even ONCE! ;)

fls

15th November 2009, 08:40 AM

Huh. I didn't really even think of it that way, but it does make sense. Now this is a good example of how internet discussions can really work-- people share perspectives from different points of view. :)

Kewl!

I've also thought about starting a review thread for John Shelby Spong's book (Eternal Life: A New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. ). I'm convinced that it was at least an "inspiration" (to put it nicely) for parts of the D'Souza book, although IMHO it's infinitely superior to it.

You should. I've not heard of it except your mention of it.

Linda

Hux

15th November 2009, 08:43 AM

I wasn't referring to anything but the mental experience. Considering that that is all we have been talking about, it didn't really occur to me that you would read something more into it.

I know that is your reference point but it is not the reference point for NDE researchers. They are not looking for altered states; they are looking for some 'evidence' that some part of us prevails over death. They would not, will not, be satisfied with anything less.

Such people, if they consider themselves 'scientific' should be weighing the evidence. There is none. All the experiences that the patients have had can be easily replicated by drugs and hallucinogens. That should tell researchers all there is to know. We dram strange things. We seem to wake up and realise what we dreamed was not reality. If surviving death was reality we would have all sorts of ways to observe it. Why are these things only known by the religious? What information do they have that reasonable people do not? If NDE research is not about trying to suggest a way of overcoming death in some form then it is nothing more than studying the conscious levels of patients undergoing procedures or drug induction.

jadey

15th November 2009, 09:02 AM

Such people, if they consider themselves 'scientific' should be weighing the evidence.

A bit of an aside, but wasn't there an experiment where they "weighed" the evidence quite literally? Some team tried to detect a change in weight at the point of death in an effort to detect the departure of something (soul) that might experience an afterlife. I don't recall what they discovered if anything. It seems reasonable that if something persists after death, it must have mass and would theoretically be detectable (assuming it left the body).

Hux

15th November 2009, 09:06 AM

I saw that. It would seem that these findings could not be replicated under control conditions. How unusual. One for Randi I think.

Maia

15th November 2009, 09:14 AM

I know that is your reference point but it is not the reference point for NDE researchers. They are not looking for altered states; they are looking for some 'evidence' that some part of us prevails over death. They would not, will not, be satisfied with anything less.

Such people, if they consider themselves 'scientific' should be weighing the evidence. There is none. All the experiences that the patients have had can be easily replicated by drugs and hallucinogens. That should tell researchers all there is to know. We dram strange things. We seem to wake up and realise what we dreamed was not reality. If surviving death was reality we would have all sorts of ways to observe it. Why are these things only known by the religious? What information do they have that reasonable people do not? If NDE research is not about trying to suggest a way of overcoming death in some form then it is nothing more than studying the conscious levels of patients undergoing procedures or drug induction.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't really agree with it 100%. Researchers who follow proper procedure may have all kinds of motivations for what they do, but they will be committed to the scientific method and to correct methodology. Persinger is probably a very good example. I've read most of the research he's done, I've heard that he does have a certain bent towards wanting to find evidence of something "paranormal", and I think it's likely to be true. But you would never know it from his work, because he consistently publishes the results of studies which are exactly the opposite of anything that anyone would have wanted to see if they were looking for that kind of proof. (He's the one who found that aiming EMF's at subjects' heads in a controlled lab setting reliably produced the perception of a "sensed presence".) Some researchers who were looking for proof of the opposite would have given that information the "circular file" treatment (and that's exactly what Merck did with unwelcome information in the Vioxx studies in 2000.) But Persinger didn't, and I really respect him for that.

Similarly, there's been some rigorous research in the NDE field which has separated itself from silly anecdotes and popularized books, and researchers have definitely published studies that did not support what they wanted to find. There are also those such as Morse, Venecia, and Milstein, who are interested in the neurobiological aspects and do not try to argue about "life after death" one way or the other. What fascinates me the most-- and this is the question I would be researching-- is why people who have had an NDE do not exhibit PTSD or dissociation afterwards, when the traumatic nature of the experiences which led them to have the NDE would have been expected to cause these pathological responses. There is no medication in use right now which can duplicate this long-term effect, and there is no standard evidence-based treatment for PTSD. Can we learn more about how to treat PTSD and even traumatic brain injuries by studying NDE's?

This information is desperately needed, and this question has to be answered, especially because 38 percent of regular soldiers and 31 percent of Marines on active duty currently report symptoms of PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, or TBI, is considered to be the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of screening at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 60% of all wounded arriving soliders are estimated to have TBI's. At the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, over 80 percent of the wounded Marines and sailors were found to have temporary or permanent brain damage from head wounds. This is a disaster in the making. NDE research could have the most practical applications imaginable, but it needs to be taken out of the realm of attempts to prove anything "paranormal".

Hux

15th November 2009, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE=Maia;5312605]I understand where you're coming from, but I can't really agree with it 100%.

can I ask you Maia, what do you hope for in these 'experiments' Im not sure it is in an way relevant but I'm curious. Do you think there is an afterlife or will you be satisfied that anything under the umbrella of NDE will prove to be a manifestation of altered consciousness?

Researchers who follow proper procedure may have all kinds of motivations for what they do, but they will be committed to the scientific method and to correct methodology.

I dont doubt that for one minute, but many start from an unsupported hypothesis that there may be an afterlife. I do not expect anyone, no matter how they follow the scientific process, starts from the gun expecting nothing more than a dream like state. That ship sailed long ago. Anaesthetists spend a lot of time researching various induction agents and their effects. So it would seem NDE'ers are starting from a point beyond that.

Persinger is probably a very good example. I've read most of the research he's done, I've heard that he does have a certain bent towards wanting to find evidence of something "paranormal", and I think it's likely to be true. But you would never know it from his work, because he consistently publishes the results of studies which are exactly the opposite of anything that anyone would have wanted to see if they were looking for that kind of proof. (He's the one who found that aiming EMF's at subjects' heads in a controlled lab setting reliably produced the perception of a "sensed presence".)

If this is the chap who I think it is, he is the one that can induce experiences into people that did not experience any such thing. Thus he could influence people into thinking they'd been abducted by aliens although they knew they had not. If it is him, I suspect his NDE reseach is redundant. I would suggest he already has the answer since he is confident he can induce any emotion or experience into anyone.

Similarly, there's been some rigorous research in the NDE field which has separated itself from silly anecdotes and popularized books, and researchers have definitely published studies that did not support what they wanted to find.

I understand that. But none have found the slightest iota of evidence for afterlife -which is what they are looking for, lets not sugar coat it. When all is said and done, how near is near?

Suppose for the sake of argument, that we can access and record the experiences of a person 02 starved for 2.5 minutes. Suppose we can somehow access and record the same for an 02 starved patient at 3.5 minutes. Apart from alpha waves and neural activity difference ( or whatever it might produce) - what of it? Will it tell us anything new? well perhaps it might but does it represent the kind of 'experience' these researchers crave? It might be academically interesting but of no satisfaction to a NDE'er.

There are also those such as Morse, Venecia, and Milstein, who are interested in the neurobiological aspects and do not try to argue about "life after death" one way or the other.

Then why are they mentioned in a discussion on NDE? They are studying Neurobiology. Seems to me an altogether respectable aim.

What fascinates me the most-- and this is the question I would be researching-- is why people who have had an NDE do not exhibit PTSD or dissociation afterwards, when the traumatic nature of the experiences which led them to have the NDE would have been expected to cause these pathological responses.

There you have lost me. I think you are saying such people don't appear to be traumatised after their altered state? if so, its not immediately apparent they should? We awake from nightmares for instance and for the most part dont dwell on them much.

There is no medication in use right now which can duplicate this long-term effect. Can we learn more about how to treat PTSD and even traumatic brain injuries by studying NDE's? This information is desperately needed.

It remains to be seen if a long term effect exists but we can be certain that peoples reaction to drugs varies greatly and many of the same images and experiences occur after administration. For this reason alone I could dismiss NDE's. But i try not to do so by pre empting the outcome. Hell there may be an afterlife. But I see no good reason or evidence for any. 'Scientific' research just keeps turning up the mundane, natural explanations. I suspect, for some, this will not be enough.

fls

15th November 2009, 10:07 AM

A bit of an aside, but wasn't there an experiment where they "weighed" the evidence quite literally? Some team tried to detect a change in weight at the point of death in an effort to detect the departure of something (soul) that might experience an afterlife. I don't recall what they discovered if anything. It seems reasonable that if something persists after death, it must have mass and would theoretically be detectable (assuming it left the body).

Yes. That is where "21 grams" comes from. In 1907, Dr. MacDougall placed six dying patients on a scale (not all at the same time) and recorded weight measurements before and after death. The results were inconsistent and could easily be taken as within the range of experimental error. Nevertheless, he hit upon one value (three-quarters of an ounce) as indicative of the weight of a soul. He repeated the experiment with dogs and when they did not show any loss of weight, he felt that vindicated his results in humans, since we all know that dogs don't have souls.

Linda

jadey

15th November 2009, 10:48 AM

Yes. That is where "21 grams" comes from. In 1907, Dr. MacDougall placed six dying patients on a scale (not all at the same time) and recorded weight measurements before and after death. The results were inconsistent and could easily be taken as within the range of experimental error. Nevertheless, he hit upon one value (three-quarters of an ounce) as indicative of the weight of a soul. He repeated the experiment with dogs and when they did not show any loss of weight, he felt that vindicated his results in humans, since we all know that dogs don't have souls.

Linda

Cool. Thanks for the info. If those results were repeatable and verifiable, that would make for an interesting discussion. Any idea whether anyone has attempted this?

I've never heard the term "21 grams", is it a common reference?

We all know that CATS don't have souls, but dogs? I'm not convinced.;)

Hux

15th November 2009, 11:15 AM

These are the experiments I referred to. they could never be verified under control conditions. They wouldn't pass the randi challenge.

justcharlie09

15th November 2009, 11:51 AM

Absolutely right. Its the last thing i want to get into. I merely made the Teresa reference because she believed that suffering was ennobling and for that reason withheld painkillers from those dying in agony.

Horrible, and again, on this, Hitchens is correct. Her affiliations with brutal dictators are also troubling. If she's a saint and the sort God wants in his/her/its heaven, I think I'd rather rot in Dante's inferno.

Not having read the studies I do not know what the anecdotal information is on analgesia. I think, several experience's have stated they could feel pain (and we know certain patients become aware of pain during anaesthetic procedures) so I would need a better definition of NDE than simple anecdote to understand if inducing such a state would be analgesic.

Just throwing that out as a hypothetical offshoot. I can't really think of many practical applications, but sometimes when researchers look for one thing they find another. That's why I won't firmly come down against NDE research (or any research) if done properly.

I understand that. But i note you appear to have reached your own definition of death - there was a defining moment when you though they were already gone. it is here that lies the grey area of NDE. It is just altered states of consciousness and those that 'come back' to report it are just reporting it thus.

No, not dead, just not available for a chat. There is a difference between someone being dead in the morgue and "gone". Meaning, basically, if there was a time to say anything important to that person, it passed before they passed. And the approach of death became evident--to the point there was no real surprise. Physical death, as the current definition stands, still suits me fine. I don't imagine we're different on this point. Grief is the act of mourning a loss. Someone doesn't have to be physically dead to be lost to you.

Oh you have the right to see things however you wish but it is faith. It is not science. I, like other materialists see no good reason to suppose, nor see any evidence for, an afterlife or a further existence. So i simply do not assume otherwise. There may be such an existence - but it is unknown to us in any real sense and only exists by fiat of religious wishes. I therefore view NDE's as nothing more than an interesting study of pharmaceutical intervention or the manifestation of consciousness going awry. There is much to learn from that and I am sure in the end, that will be all there is to it. Yes I am aware that is my opinion, but I am prepared to be dazzled and I (nor anyone else) has seen otherwise that can have any verification.

I know it isn't science. No, there's "no good reason to suppose"...that's why it is a faith matter--whatever meaning there is to life or death is a faith matter. I've already said that I don't know there is an afterlife, I just trust that EITHER WAY (for or against) it is all right. I find people like D'Souza and his ilk (throw in Deepak Choppra) repugnant for playing on the true "wishful thinking" of those who want "scientific proof" to justify their faith.

It can equally mean its all made up and the product of a florid imagination. The five senses have worked pretty well but for those realms we cannot sense on our own we have technology. Even with it we cannot see more than there is...how on earth did these early sheep shaggers insist there was more than the real senses? Without discounting wishful thinking?

There are some things that will forever be beyond human comprehension or, even, imagination. To say that people aren't limited is foolish in its own right. This is really something that irks me about the pushy forms of atheism out there. I'll concede that faith is not a replacement for scientific understanding (as if that wasn't obvious), but I won't budge on the point that humans are not capable of knowing everything there is to know. Insofar as atheism results from reductionism it annoys me as much as certain religious forms that lay claim to absolute knowledge. The faith in reductionist/materialist absolutes may be better for you, but it doesn't mean you've cornered the market and can now preach to the unwashed masses/declare them wrong.

Well of course thats another argument. Some of us accept the proposition that the only 'purpose' of life is to produce life. If you mean 'meaning' then that's whatever value you choose to give it. But neither of those ideas naturally lends itself to an afterlife.

"Life's purpose is to create more life" always seemed kind of a tautology, but if it works for some people, okay. Would you mind telling me where I have, in any of my posts, said that any idea naturally lends to an afterlife? The most I have said, thusfar, is that I don't know and that I *trust* *either* way there is still some overarching purpose. How is that even remotely the same?

I disagree. Simply observing history and the present shows you the world the way it was and is. Can there be perfect randomness? What does it mean? At least, in one respect, the researchers are looking to demonstrate something. All the wishful thinker has is wishful thinking. Everyone id free to believe in what they wish but things have more merit when they are true.

Perfect: as in absolute. Random: without the slightest hint of design, or specific intent. Can there be perfect randomness? It depends on the definition of the word "perfect" that is used and the worldview you have adopted. I wasn't referring to "random" as in "random sampling" for research, I was referring to the belief that life, the universe and everything coming about under absolutely random (without design, only based on probability). It is my understanding that some people do hold this view of life's origins and direction. Researchers can look for something specific by testing a random sample, but that doesn’t mean the thing they seek or the sample itself didn’t originate from a random process. :p Look, obviously you enjoy your philosophy and worldview to the point of wanting to “enlighten” others to the error of their wishful-thinking ways, but at the end of the day neither of us can claim to “know” the meaning of life, the universe, the existence of God (as intangible force or ghost with a long beard in the clouds) …at least not KNOW as in “beyond doubt”.

Yet NDE'rs want there to be an afterlife because simple oxygen confusion is not satisfying enough for them. We already have the technology to demonstrate that absolutely nothing in matter of energy leaves a clinically dead body. If a souls is said to prevail. it falls to believers to show there is such a thing as a soul. We cannot sugar coat it any longer; that is what some people want but it is in the complete absence of any evidence no matter how much we might wish it. I cringe at the arrogance of the ancients who thought they had more insight, more evidence, more certainty about these things than we do. we have the measure of this world several magnitudes better than they ever had, yet there are those who cling to these ideas as if they had some substance.

Look, I find D’Souza et al as infuriating as the next person. I have said absolutely *nothing* in support of NDE research other than “fine, maybe they’ll learn something interesting about brain function”. People interested in PROOF of an afterlife or those who demand that for “believers” to continue believing they must justify themselves at the feet of almighty materialists are wrong-headed. I have nothing to prove, as I’ve already said: I don’t know, I trust. A vague sense of an afterlife is part of my theistic cosmology, but not something vital to my theistic worldview. Theism has nothing to prove to atheism—and vice versa. If anything I wish the two worldviews would stop wrestling each other over who “owns science”…and quit with the condescension.

I hope these NDE researchers spend more time keeping the living alive than watching them die.

On that much, we agree. Still, I’m much more interested in the quality of life than life for life’s sake. I see nothing wrong with voluntary euthanasia in some cases and/or abortion for terminally ill fetuses. The effort to extend life should be strongly linked with efforts to maintain quality of life. If preserving life means prolonging intense suffering…what good is it?

Maia

15th November 2009, 11:53 AM

Cool. Thanks for the info. If those results were repeatable and verifiable, that would make for an interesting discussion. Any idea whether anyone has attempted this?

I've never heard the term "21 grams", is it a common reference?

We all know that CATS don't have souls, but dogs? I'm not convinced.;)

!!!! My cat does too have a soul. And he's trying to communicate complex philosophical ideas through meows... I can just tell... yes, that's it, that's the ticket... ;)

I don't know if there is an "afterlife" or not, and even if Parnia's experiments do end up showing that people who subjectively report an OOB can actually identify images that they wouldn't have been able to see any other way (highly unlikely to happen, IMHO), that wouldn't settle the question either. Morse, Venecia, and Milstein are closer to the type of researchers who might be quoted by people who didn't believe that NDE's represented any kind of "proof of an afterlife", because their work examines the complex neurobiology of what actually happens during the phenomenon rather than trying to start from the premise that NDE's are about that proof. But that's the part which can be studied with an eye to practical application.

The thing about the PTSD issue is that people who've had the experiences surrounding an NDE (auto accidents, cardiac arrest, drowning, etc.), have had experiences which should cause extreme trauma. But people who've had NDE's (vs. those who've come close to death but who haven't reported NDE's) report less psychological distress, and they do not meet criteria scores for post-traumatic stress disorder on standardized scales. The question is why this happens, and nobody knows what the answer is.

I do have to say that this is a big reason why I think that something as yet unidentified may be going on with the neurobiology of NDE's, because there is no medication which can duplicate this effect. PTSD is notorious for being impossible to treat with medication in the long run (and generally in the short run, too.) If something could be identified which is neuroprotective against the development of PTSD before traumatic situations occur, it would be one of the most important medical discoveries I can even imagine. I'm not going to say that it wouldn't be exciting to see something come out of a study like Parnia's, because of course it would be-- but I really think that the PTSD discovery would be a lot more valuable.

Hux

15th November 2009, 12:13 PM

There are some things that will forever be beyond human comprehension or, even, imagination. To say that people aren't limited is foolish in its own right. This is really something that irks me about the pushy forms of atheism out there.

Without wishing to change the subject that is not what I am suggesting. Sure there are things that will be beyond our comprehension but that means they will be beyond all comprehension. We need more to go on than scripture to suggest a thing exists - but we cant fathom it. And I do not think if something is beyond the realm of reason that it becomes the property of faith. That's just a worthless way of conceding defeat and I think we will learn magnitudes more before we get to the boundary of our comprehension.

Faith is self limiting. It is a certitude of things known that may never be known. Wherever we find our practical and actual limit, it will be science that takes us the closest. faith means never having to set off on the journey.

justcharlie09

15th November 2009, 12:27 PM

Without wishing to change the subject that is not what I am suggesting. Sure there are things that will be beyond our comprehension but that means they will be beyond all comprehension. We need more to go on than scripture to suggest a thing exists - but we cant fathom it. And I do not think if something is beyond the realm of reason that it becomes the property of faith. That's just a worthless way of conceding defeat and I think we will learn magnitudes more before we get to the boundary of our comprehension.

No doubt humanity will. I'm not saying "Stop everything. Close up shop, just have faith!" There are people who do that, but not all theists belong in the same basket. What happens "after death" in a metaphysical sense and "why we are here" in the metaphysical sense will always be a matter of faith. You can't put something subjective or immaterial under a microscope and so those things will never belong to science. Science can and should push for understanding, though.

Faith is self limiting. It is a certitude of things known that may never be known. Wherever we find our practical and actual limit, it will be science that takes us the closest. faith means never having to set off on the journey.

Only in some definitions of faith. Some people take faith as an excuse to hide their heads in the sand. Not everyone does this. To paint every theist with this brush is intellectually dishonest.

justcharlie09

15th November 2009, 12:29 PM

These are the experiments I referred to. they could never be verified under control conditions. They wouldn't pass the randi challenge.

BTW, beat you to this conclusion several posts ago. :p

jadey

15th November 2009, 01:24 PM

These are the experiments I referred to. they could never be verified under control conditions. They wouldn't pass the randi challenge.

Sorry, I missed that in the earlier post:o.

Maia

15th November 2009, 04:24 PM

Something tells me that attempting to weigh souls is extremely unlikely to come within light years of passing the Randi challenge. For one thing, I predict a few ethical problems, seeing as how you'd have to induce death in your subjects... :eek:

I think we have a more interesting mix of viewpoints in this thread than what is all too often seen around here. Many unknowns, of course, but I think that we can identify skeptics, atheists, rational theists, NO preachers (at least as far as who's been posting!) and at least one non-theist but also non-atheist (me). :) I hope for many interesting future discussions.

justcharlie09

15th November 2009, 05:40 PM

[QUOTE]Something tells me that attempting to weigh souls is extremely unlikely to come within light years of passing the Randi challenge. For one thing, I predict a few ethical problems, seeing as how you'd have to induce death in your subjects... :eek:

Yeah, just a bit. ;)

I think we have a more interesting mix of viewpoints in this thread than what is all too often seen around here. Many unknowns, of course, but I think that we can identify skeptics, atheists, rational theists, NO preachers (at least as far as who's been posting!) and at least one non-theist but also non-atheist (me). :) I hope for many interesting future discussions.

I guess good can even come out of a D'Souza character in the form of a spirited discussion. :D Too bad there aren't any preachers, priests, rabbis or mullahs, gurus, monks, etc. about... that would've been interesting. Any takers out there on the world wide web??

TimCallahan

16th November 2009, 10:27 AM

I think we have a more interesting mix of viewpoints in this thread than what is all too often seen around here. Many unknowns, of course, but I think that we can identify skeptics, atheists, rational theists, NO preachers (at least as far as who's been posting!) and at least one non-theist but also non-atheist (me). :) I hope for many interesting future discussions.

You mean KK hasn't investigated this thread?

By the way, Maia, thanks for the review.

Hux

16th November 2009, 10:31 AM

Sorry, I missed that in the earlier post:o.

Not at all. The difference is is just wouldn't occur to me to be arsed to point it out.

Hux

16th November 2009, 10:38 AM

[QUOTE=Maia;5313565]Something tells me that attempting to weigh souls is extremely unlikely to come within light years of passing the Randi challenge. For one thing, I predict a few ethical problems, seeing as how you'd have to induce death in your subjects... :eek:

Strangely, no one seemed to question the ethics of the original 'research'. I merely referred to the fact that these 'finding' could never be replicated under control conditions. The fact that the guy who undertook such 'research' was a believer that could never replicate his claims seemed mightily suspicious.

I think we have a more interesting mix of viewpoints in this thread than what is all too often seen around here. Many unknowns, of course, but I think that we can identify skeptics, atheists, rational theists, NO preachers (at least as far as who's been posting!) and at least one non-theist but also non-atheist (me). :) I hope for many interesting future discussions.

I agree with that. Apart from one pointless contribution, I am surprised by the lack of personal disagreement and being disagreeable. Which is remarkable for any thread that contains the name D'Souza.

fls

16th November 2009, 10:50 AM

I know that is your reference point but it is not the reference point for NDE researchers. They are not looking for altered states; they are looking for some 'evidence' that some part of us prevails over death. They would not, will not, be satisfied with anything less.

I suspect that that is the motivation for many, but my opinion is worthless as I don't have direct contact with any of these researchers. :) And your statement about evidence is interesting. There is an account (I'm going on memory here, so some of the non-relevant details may be incorrect) of a young woman who claimed to have frequent OBE's while sleeping (which is relevant to this issue, as a duality of mind and body would represent a way that some part of us prevails over death) who was studied in a sleep lab. A paper with a six-digit number was placed on a ledge which would be visible to her it she left her body, but not if she was confined to her bed. When she awoke she was able to accurately state the six-digit number. The only problem is that we don't know whether, during the night, she simply left the bed, removed the paper from the ledge, memorized the numbers, and replaced the paper. Now if she didn't leave the bed, this would be an amazing finding - something that legitimate researchers would be jumping all over to understand. But the researcher who performed the study couldn't be arsed to repeat the experiment to make sure that she didn't leave the bed. He had the opporunity to obtain evidence, but he chose not to do so. And I can't help but suspect that it reflects an unadmitted (by them) realization that these things do not stand up to scrutiny. The investigation of their beliefs can only to be taken to the point where they may be confirmed, but falsification is off-limits.

Such people, if they consider themselves 'scientific' should be weighing the evidence. There is none. All the experiences that the patients have had can be easily replicated by drugs and hallucinogens. That should tell researchers all there is to know. We dram strange things. We seem to wake up and realise what we dreamed was not reality. If surviving death was reality we would have all sorts of ways to observe it. Why are these things only known by the religious? What information do they have that reasonable people do not? If NDE research is not about trying to suggest a way of overcoming death in some form then it is nothing more than studying the conscious levels of patients undergoing procedures or drug induction.

Okay, I see what you mean. If this is about surviving death, then death does become relevant to the investigation. If this is about establishing duality, then not so much. And if this is about the use of altered mental states as a sort of preventive or protective mechanism, then death becomes irrelevant.

Linda

fls

16th November 2009, 10:52 AM

Strangely, no one seemed to question the ethics of the original 'research'.

Well, it was considerably pre-Nuremberg...

Linda

fls

16th November 2009, 10:57 AM

Something tells me that attempting to weigh souls is extremely unlikely to come within light years of passing the Randi challenge.

Most importantly, why would anyone interpret weight changes as reflecting the loss of a soul, when there are dozens of potential material changes to account for any documented weight loss?

There is a section of this forum for book reviews. It may be worthwhile asking for this thread to be moved to that section, so that your review doesn't get lost in the archives once this discussion peters out.

Linda

fls

16th November 2009, 11:03 AM

Cool. Thanks for the info. If those results were repeatable and verifiable, that would make for an interesting discussion. Any idea whether anyone has attempted this?

I don't know. However, it's a result that reflects that material, rather than the immaterial, so I don't really understand how anyone can relate it to the 'soul', unless they are a lazy apologist (I realize that the modifier is probably redundant).

I've never heard the term "21 grams", is it a common reference?

Mostly a movie title (very good movie, BTW), but I've heard it used several times as one of those pop culture factoids we get used to hearing (like "we only use 10 percent of our brain").

Linda

Hokulele

16th November 2009, 12:02 PM

Mostly a movie title (very good movie, BTW), but I've heard it used several times as one of those pop culture factoids we get used to hearing (like "we only use 10 percent of our brain").

This was also discussed in Spook by Mary Roach. That is really a fun book that looks at both the scientific and paranomal claims regarding life after death.

fls

16th November 2009, 12:15 PM

This was also discussed in Spook by Mary Roach. That is really a fun book that looks at both the scientific and paranomal claims regarding life after death.

Yeah, she is one of my favourite authors (like I wish she could be my friend in real life). "Stiff" and "Bonk" are also outstanding, although "Bonk" strays awfully close to TMI!!!

Linda

Hokulele

16th November 2009, 12:23 PM

Yeah, she is one of my favourite authors (like I wish she could be my friend in real life). "Stiff" and "Bonk" are also outstanding, although "Bonk" strays awfully close to TMI!!!

Linda

As does Stiff. ;)

(I mean, who really wants to know in graphic detail what happens as a human corpse decomposes. Well, other than me and possibly anyone else who has read the book.)

I Ratant

16th November 2009, 12:31 PM

Most importantly, why would anyone interpret weight changes as reflecting the loss of a soul, when there are dozens of potential material changes to account for any documented weight loss?

There is a section of this forum for book reviews. It may be worthwhile asking for this thread to be moved to that section, so that your review doesn't get lost in the archives once this discussion peters out.

Linda
.
A genuine controlled experiment could take place in a sealed environment, with the test chamber with all participants being weighed thru the process of the death.
Nothing goes in to change the weight.
Any observed weight change would then lead to more experiments with even tighter controls.
BTW, Death Row has many test subjects.
'
The quoted 21 gram loss was probably more than the final exhalation of the person, there being no controls on input and output in the test.

jadey

16th November 2009, 03:27 PM

I don't know. However, it's a result that reflects that material, rather than the immaterial, so I don't really understand how anyone can relate it to the 'soul', unless they are a lazy apologist (I realize that the modifier is probably redundant).

I guess I can't grasp the concept of an immaterial soul. If I were to presume the existence of a soul, I would presume it to be material in some form. However, now that I think about it, I can't grasp the concept of a material soul either. :boggled:

Hux

17th November 2009, 08:35 AM

.
A genuine controlled experiment could take place in a sealed environment, with the test chamber with all participants being weighed thru the process of the death.
Nothing goes in to change the weight.
Any observed weight change would then lead to more experiments with even tighter controls.
BTW, Death Row has many test subjects.
'
The quoted 21 gram loss was probably more than the final exhalation of the person, there being no controls on input and output in the test.

Yes indeed something like this might work but the assumption would be that any weight decrease was a 'spiritual' thing because those undertaking the research would be looking for that. I don't think there are many, who do not believe in such a thing as a soul, that would give this kind of thing any credence as anything other than some physical process. Besides which, if Eric Cartman is correct, everyone opens their bowels when they die....

TimCallahan

17th November 2009, 06:34 PM

I remember, when I first heard of NDE's, wishing for the proof that they were objectively real. Certainly, we would all wish to keep on going, rather than dying and that being it. Therein lies the problem of weighing souls, looking for the definite proof in NDE's that the experience was objective, not subjective: Our desires for a certain outcome will always get in the way of objectivity in judging the actual outcome of such experiments.

Maia

17th November 2009, 06:59 PM

I actually ordered the Sam Parnia book (What Happens When We Die,), and I'm reading it now. I don't seem to be able to resist these books. ;) However, I think I can pretty much promise that there will be no reviews of Angel On Board - A look at life from the other side..., Hello From Heaven, or The Little Book of Life After Death. (All actual titles from Amazon.) I'm about halfway through the book so far. I'm not sure what to think of it yet, although I can see why it wasn't as popular as books of the type of the three above. Parnia definitely is interested in doing actual research, anyway, and when his methodology ran into serious problems in an earlier study, he admitted it and stopped the study.

I'm surprised that KK hasn't found this thread, too. (Yet. We probably shouldn't speak too soon.)

Hokulele

17th November 2009, 08:42 PM

I actually ordered the Sam Parnia book (What Happens When We Die,), and I'm reading it now. I don't seem to be able to resist these books. ;)

If you haven't already read Spook, I highly recommend it. It is as funny and entertaining as it is informative.

Hux

18th November 2009, 07:18 AM

Maia

18th November 2009, 08:11 AM

(My Bold) There is nothing 'certain' about that statement at all.

Actually, I thought that too-- out of all the people on earth, there are sure to be some who don't want that. I was actually thinking the other day about whether or not I'd want to live forever, if the choice ever became possible through the miracles of modern science. ;) It's one of those things where at first you'd say yes, and then, when you had a chance to think about it further, you'd say no, and then... I decided that the answer would be yes. However, it's not an easy yes. It would not be a pleasant yes in a lot of ways. Living forever (or, well, for an extremely long time, anyway-- the stars would burn out eventually, if nothing else) would mean being forced to know ourselves completely, and to have no hiding place at all from who we really are, ever. :eek: Very much a No Exit kind of situation. On the other hand, it could be like endless free therapy. :)

Hux

18th November 2009, 08:27 AM

Ask any of us at the height of our physical, mental and financial powers and most would plump for immortality. But when the reality of life gets finished with you and gravity has taken its toll, living forever becomes a question of , Do you want to live longer? and the question comes back - what for?

As Ingersoll said, he'd be happy to make way for another when hios time comes and as far as I understand, he went quietly. Of course when we think of our loved ones we cannot bear the separation. When we think of unfinished business, it upsets us. But that is an argument to finish that business and make our peace with our loved ones(if it be necessary).

There is comfort in a non belief in an after life. I never wonder where my Father is now. But I will never forget him and what he meant to me. He did, when he was dying, tell me he was pissed off at going before his time. But then, near the end, he said to me, well, when IS my time? Im having it.

Of course none of us wants to go painfully and alone (insert your own nightmare here) but the manner of our going is entirely different to whether we are undertaking some great journey or not. If it is true, then there is nothing we can do about it. It will be part of our physicality and no amount or direction of woo will later it. No special incantations will get us there quicker than the other. 'Religion' will be therefore a worthless waste of time.

If however, as we suspect, all that happens is the oxygen death of tissue and therefore the cessation of brain activity along with everything else (why do we not talk about a Liver having a second bite of the apple?), then there is a satisfaction it. More importantly, to override all, there is not the slightest iota of evidence to suggest any portion of matter or energy 'leaves' our corporeal bodies at death. So why should we make an assumption that something does? I think its as a religious desire as an other. Whilst I appreciate that people are frightened of the unknown, it does not validate religious hopes.