nde--read the interview with fenwick

[idunno]

http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/dr._peter_fenwick_m.d._science_and_spirituality_6. htm

what do you think about this?:D l

[idunno]

http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/dr._peter_fenwick_m.d._science_and_spirituality.ht ml

more

[Mojo]

Itneresting.

[idunno]

its obvious that for science any evidence that consciousness is independent from the brain would lead to major changes in the way they see the universe

[Miss Anthrope]

I seemed to have trouble finding science in the article :shocked:

[idunno]

I seemed to have trouble finding science in the article :shocked:

then learn to read:D

[idunno]

since you seem to be a bit lazy to read things you dont like i post here the most important:D

Breach of Rule 4.

...snip...

And then, of course, there is transformation. Particularly notable was the finding that 72 percent of our respondents reported being more spiritual and having less fear of dying. Some findings from other studies provide some very interesting things to think about. For example, in Bruce Greyson’s (2003b) study of 272 patients who had a brush with death, 22 percent had NDEs, and they were found to be less psychologically disturbed than those who did not have NDEs. So that is extremely good news in that it goes against the idea that those who have NDEs have some mental pathology.
Willoughby Britton and Richard Bootzin’s 2004 study

[Tricky]

I dunno, idunno. There may be some science here, but a few things set off my BS meter
And then, of course, there is transformation. Particularly notable was the finding that 72 percent of our respondents reported being more spiritual and having less fear of dying.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is there a quantitative way to measure "spirituality"? I can see that these responses may well have occurred, but they could just as easily be psychological as physical.

Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.
I am also wary of anything that is offered with the authoritative, "Science says". Quite often, science says no such thing, or science may have a wide range of opinions on the subject. More warning buzzers go off.

So there are real difficulties in accepting that the NDE happens when the NDErs say it happens: during unconsciousness. So are you beginning to feel the significance of the timing of the NDE both for neuroscience as well as for our understanding of the NDE?
I'm having problems accepting that a person undergoing a NDE is capable of assessing what their "consciousness" level is. The term "consciousness" is layered with many meanings. Are you truly unconscious when you dream? My experience says no.

The nonreductionist view is that there is a process to dying. There is apparent separation of mind and brain. Love and light are fundamental to the dying experience.
Okay, big ol' buzzers going off here. "Love and light are fundamental"? "Separation of mind and brain"? This is drifting into the realm of serious woo. I have never seen a shred of evidence for any sort of "mind" that is unconnected to a brain. Also, the term "love" is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless in this context. This is sounding less and less like science.

So perhaps the near-death experience will help us to change science and to change our culture and bring back personal responsibility for our actions, if there is, indeed, continuing consciousness after death.
Will we ever really know? Perhaps, but let me end with a Zen parable.
Nope that tears it. It concludes with a presumption that science needs to be changed. It throws in some drivel about "personal responsibility". It becomes quite clear that this is an article written by someone with some understanding of science, but who has an agenda to support their "spiritual" conclusions. I call BS.

[idunno]

I dunno, idunno. There may be some science here, but a few things set off my BS meter

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is there a quantitative way to measure "spirituality"? I can see that these responses may well have occurred, but they could just as easily be psychological as physical.


I am also wary of anything that is offered with the authoritative, "Science says". Quite often, science says no such thing, or science may have a wide range of opinions on the subject. More warning buzzers go off.


I'm having problems accepting that a person undergoing a NDE is capable of assessing what their "consciousness" level is. The term "consciousness" is layered with many meanings. Are you truly unconscious when you dream? My experience says no.


Okay, big ol' buzzers going off here. "Love and light are fundamental"? "Separation of mind and brain"? This is drifting into the realm of serious woo. I have never seen a shred of evidence for any sort of "mind" that is unconnected to a brain. Also, the term "love" is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless in this context. This is sounding less and less like science.


Nope that tears it. It concludes with a presumption that science needs to be changed. It throws in some drivel about "personal responsibility". It becomes quite clear that this is an article written by someone with some understanding of science, but who has an agenda to support their "spiritual" conclusions. I call BS.

i think you deliberately ignired the strong points he had made and focussed on the more woo woo stuff:D

[idunno]

I dunno, idunno. There may be some science here, but a few things set off my BS meter

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is there a quantitative way to measure "spirituality"? I can see that these responses may well have occurred, but they could just as easily be psychological as physical.


I am also wary of anything that is offered with the authoritative, "Science says". Quite often, science says no such thing, or science may have a wide range of opinions on the subject. More warning buzzers go off.


I'm having problems accepting that a person undergoing a NDE is capable of assessing what their "consciousness" level is. The term "consciousness" is layered with many meanings. Are you truly unconscious when you dream? My experience says no.


Okay, big ol' buzzers going off here. "Love and light are fundamental"? "Separation of mind and brain"? This is drifting into the realm of serious woo. I have never seen a shred of evidence for any sort of "mind" that is unconnected to a brain. Also, the term "love" is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless in this context. This is sounding less and less like science.


Nope that tears it. It concludes with a presumption that science needs to be changed. It throws in some drivel about "personal responsibility". It becomes quite clear that this is an article written by someone with some understanding of science, but who has an agenda to support their "spiritual" conclusions. I call BS.

read again

The flat electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain activity during cardiac arrest, and the high incidence of brain damage afterwards both point to the conclusion that the unconsciousness in cardiac arrest is total. You cannot argue that there are ‘‘bits’’ of the brain that are functioning; there are not. There is a confusional onset and offset, and there is no brain-based memory functioning. Everything that constructs our world for us is, in fact, ‘‘down.’’ There is no possibility of the brain creating any images. Memory is not functioning during this time, so it should be impossible to have clearly structured and lucid experiences, and because of brain damage, memory should be significantly impaired, and you should not be able to remember any experiences which occurred during that time. Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.

[idunno]

Breach of Rule 4.

[slyjoe]

...snip

Because the theory also presupposes that consciousness does not survive death, and the evidence is beginning to be against that, too.
The nonreductionist view is that there is a process to dying. There is apparent separation of mind and brain. Love and light are fundamental to the dying experience. And the suggestions are that, in fact, love and consciousness are the fundamental ground structure of the universe and that consciousness may survive death of the body. So perhaps the near-death experience will help us to change science and to change our culture and bring back personal responsibility for our actions, if there is, indeed, continuing consciousness after death.
...snip

If this is science, where is the evidence that consciousness does survive death?

Love and light are fundamental? Have they looked at the supposed NDEs that involved fear and darkness?

[Tricky]

i think you deliberately ignired the strong points he had made and focussed on the more woo woo stuff:D

As I say, the author obviously has some experience with science, but I focused entirely on the passage you cited as the "scientific part", and it is markedly different from any scientific papers I have read.

[Tricky]

read again

The flat electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain activity during cardiac arrest, and the high incidence of brain damage afterwards both point to the conclusion that the unconsciousness in cardiac arrest is total. You cannot argue that there are ‘‘bits’’ of the brain that are functioning; there are not. There is a confusional onset and offset, and there is no brain-based memory functioning. Everything that constructs our world for us is, in fact, ‘‘down.’’ There is no possibility of the brain creating any images. Memory is not functioning during this time, so it should be impossible to have clearly structured and lucid experiences, and because of brain damage, memory should be significantly impaired, and you should not be able to remember any experiences which occurred during that time. Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.
Yes, I read it. I did a brief search to see if the EEG did indeed go flat at the onset of cardiac arrest, and I could find nothing that said it did. There is no citation for this declaration either. As I say, I am not an expert, but this seems unlikely to me. Yet it is exactly this point upon which the author hangs his "difficult question".

[idunno]

how about this?

Breach of Rule 4

[brodski]

Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE.

Paragraph breaks are your friend...

[slyjoe]

how about this?

Some researchers try to create artificial intelligence by computer technology, hoping to simulate programs evoking consciousness. But Roger Penrose, a quantum physicist, argues that “Algorithmic computations cannot simulate mathematical reasoning. The brain, as a closed system capable of internal and consistent computations, is insufficient to elicit human consciousness.”36 Penrose offers a quantum mechanical hypothesis to explain the relation between consciousness and the brain. And Simon Berkovitch, a professor in Computer Science of the George Washington University, has calculated that the brain has an absolutely inadequate capacity to produce and store all the informational processes of all our memories with associative thoughts. We would need 1024 operations per second, which is absolutely impossible for our neurons.37 Herms Romijn, a Dutch neurobiologist, comes to the same conclusion.30 One should conclude that the brain has not enough computing capacity to store all the memories with associative thoughts from one’s life, has not enough retrieval abilities, and seems not to be able to elicit consciousness.

One of the problems is that these guys are thinking of the brain as a computer. They make assumptions based on computer models, and assume our brain works in a similar fashion. What if it doesn't? The same argument can apply to many fields where apparent complexity arises from simple instructions. Is the human genome long enough to code for our development?

It appears to me that we don't understand enough about the brain or consciousness to draw conclusions, especially those that posit that the mind is separate from the brain.

ETA: Thanks to brodski for reminding us of the need for paragraph breaks!

[Tricky]

how about this?

Some researchers try to create artificial intelligence by computer technology, hoping to simulate programs evoking consciousness. But Roger Penrose, a quantum physicist, argues that “Algorithmic computations cannot simulate mathematical reasoning. The brain, as a closed system capable of internal and consistent computations, is insufficient to elicit human consciousness.”36 Penrose offers a quantum mechanical hypothesis to explain the relation between consciousness and the brain.
It is possible to be brilliant at quantum mechanics (and I have way of knowing if 36 Penrose is or isn't) and yet know little about neurology. Beware of people who speak authoritatively of knowledge outside their fields, or as I call it, Pascalism.

[Ducky]

i think you deliberately ignired the strong points he had made and focussed on the more woo woo stuff:D

I think if there were any strong points to be made, there wouldn't be woo woo stuff in the article, and it would be much more recognizable as a peer reviewed paper published in...say...JAMA.

[Miss Anthrope]

I think if there were any strong points to be made, there wouldn't be woo woo stuff in the article, and it would be much more recognizable as a peer reviewed paper published in...say...JAMA.

Yes, thank you.

[Slimething]

Sorry, idunno. This is complete woo. I've bolded some of the suspect claims in the story.

For example, in Bruce Greyson’s (2003b) study of 272 patients who had a brush with death, 22 percent had NDEs, and they were found to be less psychologically disturbed than those who did not have NDEs. So that is extremely good news in that it goes against the idea that those who have NDEs have some mental pathology.
Willoughby Britton and Richard Bootzin’s 2004 study

Our conclusions from the study were that cardiac arrest NDEs were classical; rates were similar to previous estimates; and patients said that the experiences occurred during unconsciousness. Now, that is important because neuroscience maintains that conscious experience is not possible during physical unconsciousness. We also found that NDEs were not due to medication, electrolytes, or blood gases. So something interesting is going on.
The flat electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain activity during cardiac arrest, and the high incidence of brain damage afterwards both point to the conclusion that the unconsciousness in cardiac arrest is total. You cannot argue that there are ‘‘bits’’ of the brain that are functioning; there are not. There is a confusional onset and offset, and there is no brain-based memory functioning. Everything that constructs our world for us is, in fact, ‘‘down.’’ There is no possibility of the brain creating any images. Memory is not functioning during this time, so it should be impossible to have clearly structured and lucid experiences, and because of brain damage, memory should be significantly impaired, and you should not be able to remember any experiences which occurred during that time. Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.
So then, as far as science is concerned, the NDE cannot occur at the point the heart stops, it cannot occur at any point during the period of unconsciousness, and it is unlikely to occur at the point of confusional arousal, because it is not typical of that level of consciousness; and if it occurred after recovery, the NDErs would say it occurred after recovery, because they know they have recovered. So there are real difficulties in accepting that the NDE happens when the NDErs say it happens: during unconsciousness. So are you beginning to feel the significance of the timing of the NDE both for neuroscience as well as for our understanding of the NDE?
Could approaching-deathexperiences and the NDE be a model for the dying process? If so, it would point towards consciousness beyond death. The brain identity theory says that consciousness ends with brain death. But if it can be shown in the cardiac arrest model that people can acquire information when they are unconscious and out of their body, if deathbed coincidences are real, it would be indisputable evidence that consciousness is separate from the brain. The brain identity theory – the reductionist view that consciousness is entirely dependent on brain function – then must fail, and this would have a heavy cost for science. Do not underestimate this cost. Science would have to change in a fundamental way, and so, interestingly, would our social structures. Because the theory also presupposes that consciousness does not survive death, and the evidence is beginning to be against that, too.
The nonreductionist view is that there is a process to dying. There is apparent separation of mind and brain. Love and light are fundamental to the dying experience. And the suggestions are that, in fact, love and consciousness are the fundamental ground structure of the universe and that consciousness may survive death of the body. So perhaps the near-death experience will help us to change science and to change our culture and bring back personal responsibility for our actions, if there is, indeed, continuing consciousness after death.
Will we ever really know? Perhaps, but let me end with a Zen parable

I call shenanigans on the bolded parts. It's nothing but a mishmash of speculation, impossible findings and just plain wrong science. The brain does NOT turn off during ischemic attacks. I sincerely doubt that there is much, if any, data on blood gas levels for NDE patients at the time of the event. The authors don't know what is going on inside the brain during an NDE so their speculation about memory and consciousness is questionable. Taking a patient's word that they knew that they were not conscious during an NDE is ludicrous.

The journal put out by these quacks is non-refereed and even has articles about Jesus in it. C'mon. Get with the program.

[idunno]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Poynton_skeptic.htm

http://dailygrail.com/node/750

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ndestitus.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html

you will find these very clarifying.By the way, Shermer is an idiot:D

[Tricky]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Poynton_skeptic.htm

http://dailygrail.com/node/750

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ndestitus.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html

you will find these very clarifying.By the way, Shermer is an idiot:D
You don't respond in substance to any of the comments on the articles you linked, then you link Victor Zammit and call Michael Shermer an idiot? Okay, I believe I can see how this is going to go down.

[Miss Anthrope]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Poynton_skeptic.htm

http://dailygrail.com/node/750

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ndestitus.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html

you will find these very clarifying.By the way, Shermer is an idiot:D

idunno is the greatest username ever.
:th:

[Tricky]

idunno is the greatest username ever.

But Miss Anthrope has the best avatars ever.:jaw-dropp

[Mercutio]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Poynton_skeptic.htm

http://dailygrail.com/node/750

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ndestitus.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html

you will find these very clarifying.By the way, Shermer is an idiot:D

Hmmm... Shermer ain't the brightest knife in the shed, but he has the ability to invite some of the leaders in the field to a conference. Shermer, IMO, is a hot dog, but I have been to a number of conferences where he was an organizer, because the people who *did* know were invited.

I also am familiar with the sites you link. I have used some of their materials in classes. Mostly as an exercise for my students to pick apart, but hey, it's a start.

The big problem with NDE's is consistency. Reports of NDE range from very very few in adequate circumstances to take physiological measures, to scads and scads in circumstances that either do not have such measures available, to many where the NDE is actually precluding the measurements required for such a study (if my heart stops in an emergency room, the last thing I want is for medics to wait while they properly apply electrodes and insert catheters for in vivo blood chemistry measures--well, if I do want that, it will very likely be the last thing I want).

When researchers presuppose there is a single NDE entity, they then throw together data collected from each of these types of experience. They then can (quite correctly) claim that science has no explanation for "the NDE". It's a bit like looking for one single cause of automobile accidents; since some happen in summer, snow and ice cannot be factors...since some happen to sober people, alcohol cannot be the explanation...

There is a built-in bench chair at my in-law's house, where generations have kept games, puzzles, crossword books, etc. The NDE researchers have found several handfuls of puzzle pieces in it, and are trying to see what sort of picture has kittens, giant squid, balloons, Van Gogh's eye, and Norman Rockwell's signature. They can claim that science cannot conceive of one picture that contains all those elements, but they cannot reasonably claim that they have a better grasp of the situation.

[Miss Anthrope]

But Miss Anthrope has the best avatars ever.:jaw-dropp

:bgrin:

[Slimething]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Poynton_skeptic.htm

http://dailygrail.com/node/750

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ndestitus.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html

you will find these very clarifying.By the way, Shermer is an idiot:D

Yes, thank you. I did find them clarifying. There is an idiot now in this conversation but I don't think it's Shermer and I'm certainly not the one pushing unproven "facts". So, who does that leave? :xtongue

[idunno]

How do researchers test people with heart arrests?
Only afterwards! There is no other way!
Read Van Lommel's story in The Lancet, and see what they have done. It is what they call prospective research.

As for the point that there is no consistency in NDE's, in one way he is right, in the other he is not. Because, taken all the hundreds of thousands of NDE's together, then you will find that to some extent there IS consistency. Such consistency is enough for the time being. Moreover, this consistency does not depend on culture, intellectual background etc.

:mad:

[Mercutio]

How do researchers test people with heart arrests?
Only afterwards! There is no other way!
Actually, there is not even that way. In terms of the required sensitivity of the eeg and invasiveness of the blood gas readings, trying to use these cases to examine NDE is like trying to take someone's pulse from a mile away. Sorry, those data are contaminated; they cannot be used.

Read Van Lommel's story in The Lancet, and see what they have done. It is what they call prospective research.
I read it some time ago (probably during a debate here with Titus Rivas, the author of one of your links--he used to post on this forum; you might want to search for some of his threads), and skimmed over it again just now; it illustrates beautifully the problem of thinking there is one sort of thing called an NDE, that has one physiological explanation. When the researchers found the classic NDE symptoms in only some people, they (quite rightly) concluded that hypoxia could not be the sole cause. Great--but it might be the cause of one set of symptoms, while other causes account for other symptoms. It is only problematic if we assume that NDE is a unitary syndrome with a singular cause. This is an utterly foolish assumption, given the paucity of data.

Oh, and correct me if I am wrong--this study defined "clinical death" by EKG, and the vast majority of patients were dead less than 2 minutes. How does this study address brain death? (Hint: it cannot.)

As for the point that there is no consistency in NDE's, in one way he is right, in the other he is not. Because, taken all the hundreds of thousands of NDE's together, then you will find that to some extent there IS consistency. Such consistency is enough for the time being. Moreover, this consistency does not depend on culture, intellectual background etc. Which hundreds of thousands? Is there consistency in the NDE's where people never even lose consciousness? (and yes, I have read reports labeled as NDE's which included car accidents in which the subject believed himself about to die, but from which he escaped unharmed.) Does it include heart-stoppages for which we have absolutely no information about brain function? Does it include self-reports of dreams that appear similar to the prototypical NDE, from which the subjects inferred that they must have died in their sleep and then come back? Those who have suffered life-threatening illnesses, but who might never have suffered brain damage at all? There simply are not "hundreds of thousands of NDE's" for which we have brain activity data, or blood gas data, or anywhere close to adequate control to draw such conclusions.

I suggest that the "consistency" is a confirmation bias; the "real NDE cases" are those which fit the pattern that has come to be the stereotypical NDE, while atypical cases are dismissed. Didn't see a white light? You must not have been near death. Did see one? Ah, you were near death. No physiological readings on either of you, so you'll just have to take our word for it.

[davidsmith73]

The big problem with NDE's is consistency. Reports of NDE range from very very few in adequate circumstances to take physiological measures, to scads and scads in circumstances that either do not have such measures available, to many where the NDE is actually precluding the measurements required for such a study (if my heart stops in an emergency room, the last thing I want is for medics to wait while they properly apply electrodes and insert catheters for in vivo blood chemistry measures--well, if I do want that, it will very likely be the last thing I want).

What you have described is not an inconsistency in the NDE but an inconsistency in the circumstances surrounding the experience. Perhaps there is a large variation in reported experiences too, I'm not an expert. So I am unsure what you are trying to say here. Surely we can identify certain criteria that identify a typical NDE as an experience, in the same way that we identifed reports of OBE's before a neurological explanation was discovered?


When researchers presuppose there is a single NDE entity,...

Do you mean "single NDE entity" to mean a single neurological mechanism? If so, I don't find that an unreasonable assumption. Again, look at OBE's. These experiences were found to have their physical loci in a very specfic area of the brain. So going on past findings, I would say that this presupposition is quite justified, as a starting assumption at least.


...they then throw together data collected from each of these types of experience. They then can (quite correctly) claim that science has no explanation for "the NDE".

Not sure what you mean here. Can you give us examples of this?

[idunno]

What you have described is not an inconsistency in the NDE but an inconsistency in the circumstances surrounding the experience. Perhaps there is a large variation in reported experiences too, I'm not an expert. So I am unsure what you are trying to say here. Surely we can identify certain criteria that identify a typical NDE as an experience, in the same way that we identifed reports of OBE's before a neurological explanation was discovered?



Do you mean "single NDE entity" to mean a single neurological mechanism? If so, I don't find that an unreasonable assumption. Again, look at OBE's. These experiences were found to have their physical loci in a very specfic area of the brain. So going on past findings, I would say that this presupposition is quite justified, as a starting assumption at least.



Not sure what you mean here. Can you give us examples of this?

good point:D

[strathmeyer]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Poynton_skeptic.htm

http://dailygrail.com/node/750

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/ndestitus.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html

you will find these very clarifying.By the way, Shermer is an idiot:D

I read the second one and it was retarded. Did any of the other links have anything of sustenance?

[Mercutio]

What you have described is not an inconsistency in the NDE but an inconsistency in the circumstances surrounding the experience. Perhaps there is a large variation in reported experiences too, I'm not an expert. So I am unsure what you are trying to say here. Surely we can identify certain criteria that identify a typical NDE as an experience, in the same way that we identifed reports of OBE's before a neurological explanation was discovered?
There are inconsistencies (or rather, there is variability) in both the circumstances and the experiences. Did you read Van Lommel's paper? In the literature review is precisely what I mean. You are asking for common features among vastly different experiences, let alone different circumstances.
Do you mean "single NDE entity" to mean a single neurological mechanism? If so, I don't find that an unreasonable assumption. Again, look at OBE's. These experiences were found to have their physical loci in a very specfic area of the brain. So going on past findings, I would say that this presupposition is quite justified, as a starting assumption at least.
The angular gyrus was associated, in a handful of experiments, with a particular type of OBE. Suppose we add to that the sort of OBE's that Iacchus used to speak of on this forum...OBE's that the vast majority of people would probably label "dreams", given that they happened while he was asleep, and not while his angular gyrus was being artificially stimulated. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that both of these are the same, without additional evidence. In Olaf Blanke's OBE research with the angular gyrus, people reported feeling like they were looking down on their bodies; they did not report that they felt they were flying around the room, or down the street, or whatever. Should we assume that people who claim that sort of OBE are responding to the same mechanism? Not without additional evidence.

When I speak of a single NDE entity, I mean both an experiential phenomenon and a neurological mechanism. I think the burden of proof should be on someone who claims that such varied circumstances give rise to the same phenomenon. (The same argument, of course, can be made for any number of clinical diagnoses--is there one entity called "depression"? If so, why do some people respond to one drug, and other people do not, but may respond to another? Mightn't there be more than one physiological underpinning to something with such a wide variety of presenting symptoms as depression? Mightn't this be a number of different problems, that happen to be collected together because of similarity of symptoms? This applies to "normal" function as well--for instance, there is evidence for at least 4 separate neurological pathways processing depth perception information.)
Not sure what you mean here. Can you give us examples of this?Not tonight I can't. Perhaps the next time I am at my office.

[idunno]

Actually, there is not even that way. In terms of the required sensitivity of the eeg and invasiveness of the blood gas readings, trying to use these cases to examine NDE is like trying to take someone's pulse from a mile away. Sorry, those data are contaminated; they cannot be used.
I read it some time ago (probably during a debate here with Titus Rivas, the author of one of your links--he used to post on this forum; you might want to search for some of his threads), and skimmed over it again just now; it illustrates beautifully the problem of thinking there is one sort of thing called an NDE, that has one physiological explanation. When the researchers found the classic NDE symptoms in only some people, they (quite rightly) concluded that hypoxia could not be the sole cause. Great--but it might be the cause of one set of symptoms, while other causes account for other symptoms. It is only problematic if we assume that NDE is a unitary syndrome with a singular cause. This is an utterly foolish assumption, given the paucity of data.

Oh, and correct me if I am wrong--this study defined "clinical death" by EKG, and the vast majority of patients were dead less than 2 minutes. How does this study address brain death? (Hint: it cannot.)
Which hundreds of thousands? Is there consistency in the NDE's where people never even lose consciousness? (and yes, I have read reports labeled as NDE's which included car accidents in which the subject believed himself about to die, but from which he escaped unharmed.) Does it include heart-stoppages for which we have absolutely no information about brain function? Does it include self-reports of dreams that appear similar to the prototypical NDE, from which the subjects inferred that they must have died in their sleep and then come back? Those who have suffered life-threatening illnesses, but who might never have suffered brain damage at all? There simply are not "hundreds of thousands of NDE's" for which we have brain activity data, or blood gas data, or anywhere close to adequate control to draw such conclusions.

I suggest that the "consistency" is a confirmation bias; the "real NDE cases" are those which fit the pattern that has come to be the stereotypical NDE, while atypical cases are dismissed. Didn't see a white light? You must not have been near death. Did see one? Ah, you were near death. No physiological readings on either of you, so you'll just have to take our word for it.


It is all wrong what this correspondent just said.:D
There is no stereotypical NDE. And atypical cases are NOT dismissed, on the contrary. (We even include the so-called hell-experiences. In contrast to what skeptics usually seem to think, NDE-researchers are not morons.)
The white light is not typical, it is only of the possible elements. The tunnel is not typical, it is only one of the possible elements -- as a matter of fact, the tunnel and the light occur in only about 20% of all cases. The life review is not typical, it is only one of the possible elements. And so on.
NDE's are not necessarily linked to clinical death. They can also happen during a period of deep stress, or deep meditation, or even spontaneously (in which one spoke, in days gone by, of a mystical experience).
But they all have thing in common: transformation. People having experienced an NDE undergo a character change. For example, formerly agressive people become meeker, more willing to devote themselves to the wellbeing of others, etc. But, it is all in the literature.

[davidsmith73]

There are inconsistencies (or rather, there is variability) in both the circumstances and the experiences. Did you read Van Lommel's paper? In the literature review is precisely what I mean. You are asking for common features among vastly different experiences, let alone different circumstances.

I didn't read the Van Lommel paper before posting and I do now see the variation in reported experience. I assumed that almost all NDE's involved the tunnel. That will teach me to jump in before doing my homework.


The angular gyrus was associated, in a handful of experiments, with a particular type of OBE. Suppose we add to that the sort of OBE's that Iacchus used to speak of on this forum...OBE's that the vast majority of people would probably label "dreams", given that they happened while he was asleep, and not while his angular gyrus was being artificially stimulated. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that both of these are the same, without additional evidence.

Surely its not out of the question that a specific area of the brain is responsible for the perceptual distortion that primarily characterises most out of body experiences (namely the change in perceived body position relative to the perceived "self") based on experimental data? With regards to Iacchus's dreams, I am not familiar with his reports. But if he reported a similar shift in perceived body position relative to perceived "self" then I don't see why common neural mechanisms shouldn't be considered as a possibility.


In Olaf Blanke's OBE research with the angular gyrus, people reported feeling like they were looking down on their bodies; they did not report that they felt they were flying around the room, or down the street, or whatever. Should we assume that people who claim that sort of OBE are responding to the same mechanism? Not without additional evidence.

I don't understand your reluctance here. I agree that we shouldn't assume it to be true but surely its possible that both share a common mechanism that accounts for a common aspect of both reports - a change in perceived body position.

[Mercutio]

Of course it is a possibility. I did not dismiss it, merely call for more evidence. There are too many cases where an apparently unitary percept turns out to be multiple parallel processing of many different aspects (cf Sacks or Ramachandran) for me to trust an introspective account as evidence of identical neurological events. And there are enough differences between Blanke's patient's description of OBE and, say dreams of flying (I'll save you the time--Iacchus interpreted what most of us would call "flying dreams" as mystical events, literally transporting him to a heavenly dimension), for me to not merely suspend judgment but actively doubt that the same neurology is active in each.

[Mercutio]

It is all wrong what this correspondent just said.:D

Please present, then, evidence of your "hundreds of thousands of NDE's" for which the relevant EEG and blood gas readings are available. They are most certainly not present in the links you gave. Even the "prospective research" did not do this, and it was the most controlled of what was available.

[Mashuna]

NDE's are not necessarily linked to clinical death. They can also happen during a period of deep stress, or deep meditation, or even spontaneously (in which one spoke, in days gone by, of a mystical experience).
But they all have thing in common: transformation. People having experienced an NDE undergo a character change. For example, formerly agressive people become meeker, more willing to devote themselves to the wellbeing of others, etc. But, it is all in the literature.

How is this an NDE? Surely you've just now picked an event, namely character transformation, and called anything that causes this transformation an NDE.

You've taken the ND out of NDE, and made the outcome 'being a bit nicer to people'.

[idunno]

Please present, then, evidence of your "hundreds of thousands of NDE's" for which the relevant EEG and blood gas readings are available. They are most certainly not present in the links you gave. Even the "prospective research" did not do this, and it was the most controlled of what was available.

I don't talk to this gentleman any longer. He is asking the impossible AND unethical.
How can he expect a team of life savers to quietly take blood samples and all that, while someone is on the brink of dying?

If he wants a controlled study as he proposes we have to resort to NAZI-methods:
bringing thousands on the brink of death, make sure that they lose consciousness, do not breathe, have cardiac arrest, so no blood pressure, and a flat ECG. Then take blood samples to find those gases, and next hope they will recover, which most of them don't (because not all reanimation attempts succeed). Hence, plain murder on a massive scale.

[Mercutio]

I don't talk to this gentleman any longer. He is asking the impossible AND unethical.
How can he expect a team of life savers to quietly take blood samples and all that, while someone is on the brink of dying?

If he wants a controlled study as he proposes we have to resort to NAZI-methods:
bringing thousands on the brink of death, make sure that they lose consciousness, do not breathe, have cardiac arrest, so no blood pressure, and a flat ECG. Then take blood samples to find those gases, and next hope they will recover, which most of them don't (because not all reanimation attempts succeed). Hence, plain murder on a massive scale.

What I want, is for you to limit your claims to that which can be supported by your data. The claims you make are not even close to what your data can prop up. You claimed that "[t]aken all the hundreds of thousands of NDE's together, then you will find that to some extent there IS consistency. Such consistency is enough for the time being. Moreover, this consistency does not depend on culture, intellectual background etc." As Mashuna quite rightly pointed out, the only "consistency" in your claim is the inconsistency of your definition. Given the post that Mashuna quoted, there is no reason for you to label the phenomenon you study "Near-Death Experience". That label is not supported by your data.

[Slimething]

I don't talk to this gentleman any longer. He is asking the impossible AND unethical. How can he expect a team of life savers to quietly take blood samples and all that, while someone is on the brink of dying?

No, he's not. You made the claim that these data were available. All he is doing is asking for proof that it even exists. He is not asking you to go collect it. In fact, the very impossibility of collecting such data is the very reason I picked up on the fact that you are spouting nonsense. You only need admit that these data don't exist and, probably, never will.

If he wants a controlled study as he proposes we have to resort to NAZI-methods:

Again, you made the claim that the data already exists. That was not true, was it? This is merely a ploy on your part to blame Mercutio for catching you in a lie. He doesn't want the data collected (at least I think he doesn't). He's merely asking to produce what you said you had. Stop trying to blame others for your equivocation.

bringing thousands on the brink of death, make sure that they lose consciousness, do not breathe, have cardiac arrest, so no blood pressure, and a flat ECG. Then take blood samples to find those gases, and next hope they will recover, which most of them don't (because not all reanimation attempts succeed). Hence, plain murder on a massive scale.

You're beating around the bush. Thousands die every day for one reason or another but, even if one dies in an operating room while their blood gases are being monitored, those data don't support your argument. The brain does not cease to function when the heart does and that would plainly be shown from EEG traces (not EKG as you would have it).

Face it, your argument is fatally flawed. Maybe you should hook it up to a gas monitor. :eek:

[hamelekim]

You're beating around the bush. Thousands die every day for one reason or another but, even if one dies in an operating room while their blood gases are being monitored, those data don't support your argument. The brain does not cease to function when the heart does and that would plainly be shown from EEG traces (not EKG as you would have it).

Do we know at what point the brain ceases to function as normal after the heart has stopped? Do we know when it can't take in new information through any of the senses? If we knew this then we could surmise that any information gained by the patient after this point is through some other method.

I cringe as the use of supernatural given that everything has to be made of something. If it's made by something then we should be able to, with enough knowledge, build a device to study these extra dimensions or whatever you want to call them. paranormal doesn't mean magic it just means something we don't understand with science at the current time.

I think there are definitely some interesting aspects of NDEs and OBEs that should be studied if only to understand how the mind works more clearly. What is it about the structure of the brain that causes even very young children without the culture background of adults to have similar NDEs? They see a silver cord, meet people, see the light, etc...

Being a skeptic doesn't mean being a materialist, it means you don't take either side without sufficient proof. You can't say that the brain creates consciousness when we don't even know what consciousness is, or how the brain creates it. Until we fully understand the brain it's silly to argue that our consciousness survives after death.

I would also like to know how we can trust anything we see if our brains can create such lucid images that it seems like reality?

being a skeptic doesn't mean being an atheist. That's like saying you haven't proven that there isn't a god so I will believe in one until you do. You just take the opposite stance and there is no proof that you are right or wrong. The only valid stance a skeptic can take is to say we don't know at this point.

[Slimething]

Hamelekim, I will reply although I strongly suspect you are idunno. Very strange that a new member would make their first post a response to an over-long thread where idunno's argument has been thoroughly beaten. Anyhow, here goes:

Do we know at what point the brain ceases to function as normal after the heart has stopped?

What do you mean by "normal"? However, the answer is no. The instruments normally used to measure brain activity only detect the dominant functions of the brain while it is functioning optimally.

Do we know when it can't take in new information through any of the senses? If we knew this then we could surmise that any information gained by the patient after this point is through some other method.

Right. So, what's your point?


I cringe as the use of supernatural given that everything has to be made of something. If it's made by something then we should be able to, with enough knowledge, build a device to study these extra dimensions or whatever you want to call them. paranormal doesn't mean magic it just means something we don't understand with science at the current time.


No. Look up the definition of "supernatural" and "paranormal". They both imply phenomena outside the reach of science and more akin to magic. You need to use the word "preternatural" if you want to refer to a natural phenomenon that science just hasn't got around to yet. But, be more specific. Idunno was all over the place. First, he started discussnd NDE's then people who just had an epiphany then... So, state exactly and precisely what you believe is preternatural or supernatural so the discussion can continue.

I think there are definitely some interesting aspects of NDEs and OBEs that should be studied if only to understand how the mind works more clearly. What is it about the structure of the brain that causes even very young children without the culture background of adults to have similar NDEs? They see a silver cord, meet people, see the light, etc...

Bully for you! How would you test this, if indeed the phenomenon exists? How did anyone extract these descriptions from children without injecting their own prejudices as to what constitutes an NDE?

Being a skeptic doesn't mean being a materialist, it means you don't take either side without sufficient proof. You can't say that the brain creates consciousness when we don't even know what consciousness is, or how the brain creates it. Until we fully understand the brain it's silly to argue that our consciousness survives after death.

You really should review your terminology before posting. That is not what a skeptic is. Skeptics aren't wafflers who sit on a fence waiting for someone to come along with evidence one way or the other. There is NO evidence that consciousness exists outside the brain. None. If you don't believe that, find it and post it. Otherwise, as a skeptic, I think you're idunno trying a new tac on a losing argument.


I would also like to know how we can trust anything we see if our brains can create such lucid images that it seems like reality?


Test it objectively. If we find that the phenomenon holds, we formulate a hypothesis and test further. We stick to the hypothesis until it is proven beyond question, after which, it becomes a scientific rule, theory or law, depending on which hierarchical system you follow.

being a skeptic doesn't mean being an atheist. That's like saying you haven't proven that there isn't a god so I will believe in one until you do. You just take the opposite stance and there is no proof that you are right or wrong. The only valid stance a skeptic can take is to say we don't know at this point.

Don't lecture me about skepticism until after you look up the definition. This thread is not about atheism, deities or anything else. It's about the phenomenon of NDEs so stop trying to change the subject. Exactly what is the data on NDEs that support survival after death and why? Cough it up.

See, idunno? Didn't work so good, did it?

[hamelekim]

Hamelekim, I will reply although I strongly suspect you are idunno. Very strange that a new member would make their first post a response to an over-long thread where idunno's argument has been thoroughly beaten. Anyhow, here goes:

I have no clue who idunno is and I am interested in the phenomenon of OBEs and NDEs so that's why I posted.


What do you mean by "normal"? However, the answer is no. The instruments normally used to measure brain activity only detect the dominant functions of the brain while it is functioning optimally.

Normal meaning being able to take in information and process and store that information. It's what your brain is doing right now and what it appears to be doing in some cases of NDEs.

Right. So, what's your point?



No. Look up the definition of "supernatural" and "paranormal". They both imply phenomena outside the reach of science and more akin to magic. You need to use the word "preternatural" if you want to refer to a natural phenomenon that science just hasn't got around to yet. But, be more specific. Idunno was all over the place. First, he started discussnd NDE's then people who just had an epiphany then... So, state exactly and precisely what you believe is preternatural or supernatural so the discussion can continue.

No need to be so pedantic. supernatural or paranormal doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is. I'm saying that it's a misnomer to refer to things we don't understand with current science as supernatural or paranormal. Everything can be explained using science, we just need the technology to do so. I'm sure in 10,000 years that humanity will be able to discover if there is anything else out there besides what we see in the physical world. If there is a "soul" and some kind of heaven then they are both made out of something which can be explained by science. So yeah, supernatural is the wrong word to use to describe things like ghosts and souls and the afterlife.

Bully for you! How would you test this, if indeed the phenomenon exists? How did anyone extract these descriptions from children without injecting their own prejudices as to what constitutes an NDE?

Who says they extracted anything? You have all these assumptions which are baseless. You just come up with anything that sounds remotely plausible that will invalidate the experience. In all these cases the children are the ones that bring it up and describe it. They don't have their parents asking if they saw a silver string or anything else of that nature.

You really should review your terminology before posting. That is not what a skeptic is. Skeptics aren't wafflers who sit on a fence waiting for someone to come along with evidence one way or the other. There is NO evidence that consciousness exists outside the brain. None. If you don't believe that, find it and post it. Otherwise, as a skeptic, I think you're idunno trying a new tac on a losing argument.

Actually there is plenty of subjective evidence that consciousness exists outside of the brain (all science is interpreted through subjective eyes and there are biases that shape all scientific results).

We don't even know what consciousness is let alone how the brain is supposed to create it. We know so little about the human brain. W don't even know what make someone more intelligent from another person. It isn't brain size because you have people with smaller brains who are smarter than those with larger brains.

Even if you can induce an OBE through drugs or some other method that doesn't mean that it is all in the brain. It very well could be that drugs have an effect on the brain that causes your consciousness to separate from the body for a short period of time. We just don't have a way of testing something like that at this time.


Test it objectively. If we find that the phenomenon holds, we formulate a hypothesis and test further. We stick to the hypothesis until it is proven beyond question, after which, it becomes a scientific rule, theory or law, depending on which hierarchical system you follow.

Since when does the hypothesis that there is no soul hold up under scientific study? I believe that there hasn't been a scientific study to declare definitively that there is no soul.

Don't lecture me about skepticism until after you look up the definition. This thread is not about atheism, deities or anything else. It's about the phenomenon of NDEs so stop trying to change the subject. Exactly what is the data on NDEs that support survival after death and why? Cough it up.

See, idunno? Didn't work so good, did it?
Actually when discussing NDEs God is always in the equation. If there is life after death it has major implications for the meaning of life and existence and that brings in God.

I already said this once but I'll say it again. I'm not idunno so stop being such a jackass. I really can't stand your obvious arrogance about your supposed logical way of viewing the world when you are completely illogical and clueless.

Oh and btw, I'm an agnostic and I don't believe in ghosts goblins or visages of the Virgin Mary in office building windows. I do believe that we don't know half of what we think we know and I believe that skeptics such as yourself are far more biased and stubborn that you make yourselves out to be.

[SezMe]

From hamelekim, above:

Actually there is plenty of subjective evidence that consciousness exists outside of the brain (all science is interpreted through subjective eyes and there are biases that shape all scientific results).

We don't even know what consciousness is let alone how the brain is supposed to create it.
These two paragraphs are contradictory. First you say there is plenty of evidence for consciousness outside the brain then you say we don't know what consciousness is. How can there be evidence for something undefinable?

BTW, forgeting that point for the moment, can you provide links to some of the "plenty" of data.

[hamelekim]

From hamelekim, above:


These two paragraphs are contradictory. First you say there is plenty of evidence for consciousness outside the brain then you say we don't know what consciousness is. How can there be evidence for something undefinable?

BTW, forgeting that point for the moment, can you provide links to some of the "plenty" of data.

It's subjective but there are plenty of NDEs on record including those were the patient actually saw and heard their relatives outside of the room and down the hall. They could tell them what they said when they were revived. Of course all of this can be explained away but it's all conjecture. Either the even was real or it wasn't. You can choose to believe that there was discussion of the conversation within earshot of the patient and they thought they remembered it or it was some sort of out of body experience. Someone who doesn't believe in the paranormal is going to side with the explanation that doesn't involve anything outside of current scientific thinking, but that doesn't mean they are right.

Also, I don't see how those two statement are contrary. When I say we don't know what it is I meant is it only a physical phenomenon created within the brain or is it more than that. We don't know how consciousness works, we don't even know how thoughts come into our minds. Why does our brain work on a problem and then all of a sudden an hour or two later the answer just pops into our heads when we weren't even thinking about it? We can't explain these things at this point. Consciousness is a mystery and one explanation for it is that the mind is more like a broadcaster of consciousness than the source of it.

[nathan]

Since when does the hypothesis that there is no soul hold up under scientific study? I believe that there hasn't been a scientific study to declare definitively that there is no soul.

huh? Since when does the hypothesis that there is no {lump of green jelly inside me} hold up under scientific study? I believe that there hasn't been a scientific study to declare definitively that there is no {lump of green jelly inside me}.

See the flaw in your argument?

[davidsmith73]

OK, so there appears to be a range of experiences that researchers choose to label as near death experiences. I think that there is clearly a problem here in that it is difficult to define which experiences are to fall under the category and which are not.

Despite this, there are cleary some similarities in reports. So the initial inconsistency problem is certainly not a barrier to research and possibly finding something interesting about the brain and consciousness from NDE's.

I don't really see where Peter Fenwick assumes that all his reports he labels as NDE's means he is dealing with a unitary phenomena or the same mechanism in each case.

The bottom line is, we have a group of experiences that share some similar aspects and from that we are trying to explain the occurance of these similar aspects. The explanation may take us away from an account of consciousness in terms of physical brain activity or it may not. I don't see any good reason why people here view these reports as not worthy of scientific study :confused:

[davidsmith73]

I'm saying that it's a misnomer to refer to things we don't understand with current science as supernatural or paranormal.

I couldn't agree more. These words are outdated and just serve to counfound the real issues.

[idunno]

I have no clue who idunno is and I am interested in the phenomenon of OBEs and NDEs so that's why I posted.


Normal meaning being able to take in information and process and store that information. It's what your brain is doing right now and what it appears to be doing in some cases of NDEs.



Since when does the hypothesis that there is no soul hold up under scientific study? I believe that there hasn't been a scientific study to declare definitively that there is no soul.

Actually when discussing NDEs God is always in the equation. If there is life after death it has major implications for the meaning of life and existence and that brings in God.

I already said this once but I'll say it again. I'm not idunno so stop being such a jackass. I really can't stand your obvious arrogance about your supposed logical way of viewing the world when you are completely illogical and clueless.

Oh and btw, I'm an agnostic and I don't believe in ghosts goblins or visages of the Virgin Mary in office building windows. I do believe that we don't know half of what we think we know and I believe that skeptics such as yourself are far more biased and stubborn that you make yourselves out to be.


he is not idunno. and my comments were not mine but from one of the scientists, who wishes to remain anonymous as he regards this forum a die hard skeptics not really worthy:D

[Cuddles]

If he wants a controlled study as he proposes we have to resort to NAZI-methods

Wow, Godwined in the first page. And this was such an itneresting thread until idunno started posting as well...

[idunno]

Wow, Godwined in the first page. And this was such an itneresting thread until idunno started posting as well...

i started the thread, moron:mad:

[Cuddles]

i started the thread, moron:mad:

:popcorn1

[Mashuna]

i started the thread, moron:mad:

If you look up, idunno, you can probably see something. It's Cuddles' sarcasm, flying over your head.

[idunno]

«As for NDE's they have not properly studied the subject, hence do not know what they are talking about.
They simply do not want it to exist. Hence, there impossible wishes.

Besides, the proof he is asking does exist. For example, there are plenty of cases where indeed blood gases were measured, and then, surprise! it contained plenty of oxygen, whereas the debunkers alsways claim that the NDE is a result of shortage of oxygen in the blood.
Don't ask me for the exact data, because I do not have them at hand.
Besides, it is pointless anyway because that type of people will never believe, whatever you tell them.

Once again, leave me out of this.»

no more responses fron this person as you can see.just to let you know about blood gases being measured:D

[Mashuna]

«As for NDE's they have not properly studied the subject, hence do not know what they are talking about.
They simply do not want it to exist. Hence, there impossible wishes.

Besides, the proof he is asking does exist. For example, there are plenty of cases where indeed blood gases were measured, and then, surprise! it contained plenty of oxygen, whereas the debunkers alsways claim that the NDE is a result of shortage of oxygen in the blood.
Don't ask me for the exact data, because I do not have them at hand.
Besides, it is pointless anyway because that type of people will never believe, whatever you tell them.

Once again, leave me out of this.»

no more responses fron this person as you can see.just to let you know about blood gases being measured:D


idunno, when people ask you to provide evidence for something like this, they don't mean you saying 'there are thousands of cases out there.' It's just no use in trying to evaluate a claim. Likewise, 'I know a scientist, and he agrees there is lots of evidence out there, but he doesn't have it to hand' is equally useless.

To then go on and say that even if he had the evidence to hand, there's no use supplying it because nasty mean sceptics would just ignore it is, frankly, ridiculous.

[baron]

I can't even find the article. The link is to a page selling DVDs at $25 a go and asking for "contributions". Rubbish.

[Mercutio]

he is not idunno. and my comments were not mine but from one of the scientists, who wishes to remain anonymous as he regards this forum a die hard skeptics not really worthy:D
He ought to know that he may remain anonymous (I assume your name in real life is not "idunno") while presenting evidence here. We have had professional psychics (Karen Boesen, e.g.), magnet therapy proponents (Roger Coghill), spiritualist circle members ("Flo"--she told me her real name, but in PM, so I will not disclose it), and others who were or are confident in their beliefs come here to try to persuade us. All it takes is evidence, and you claim your scientist has evidence. Sorry to tell you this, but it comes across as if he does not think his evidence is worthy, not that this site is not.
«As for NDE's they have not properly studied the subject, hence do not know what they are talking about.
They simply do not want it to exist. Hence, there impossible wishes.
Here you are quite simply wrong. There are those among us who would not want it to exist, but there are those among us who would love for it to exist. As for "not properly studied", I must take issue with that, too. I have taught courses on the psychology of paranormal belief, and as such have had to become quite well acquainted with the original research on a number of topics, including NDE's. (After all, one reason for believing in something is that it really does exist--I have to consider that possibility in my course.) I suspect that you are defining "properly studied" as "agreeing with your conclusions"; it is quite possible for two people to have studied something in detail and yet disagree. (One or the other may be wrong, or both may be--but both cannot be right.)

Besides, the proof he is asking does exist. For example, there are plenty of cases where indeed blood gases were measured, and then, surprise! it contained plenty of oxygen, whereas the debunkers alsways claim that the NDE is a result of shortage of oxygen in the blood.
Don't ask me for the exact data, because I do not have them at hand.
Besides, it is pointless anyway because that type of people will never believe, whatever you tell them.
Take your time, find a citation. Most of us have access to very good libraries and interlibrary loan systems. You might be surprised about "that type of people", when you actually present them with evidence. But scientific progress comes from challenging theories, not blindly accepting them.

BTW, thank you for illustrating my point. Your claim that "the debunkers always claim that the NDE is a result of shortage of oxygen in the blood" is precisely what I meant when I said "When researchers presuppose there is a single NDE entity, they then throw together data collected from each of these types of experience. They then can (quite correctly) claim that science has no explanation for 'the NDE'." Of course, when you define NDE's as loosely as you have ("[t]hey can also happen during a period of deep stress, or deep meditation, or even spontaneously"), they cannot all be explained by hypoxia.

Once again, leave me out of this.
It is not about you whatsoever. It is about the data.

no more responses fron this person as you can see.just to let you know about blood gases being measured:D In which sorts of NDE's?

A brief lesson on measurement. You are trying, with your data, to say something about the range of experiences called NDE's. This process is called standardization. In the general population, how many see a bright light? How many feel calm? How many are frightened? Excellent questions, and data well worth finding. But... standardization cannot happen without reliability and validity. Reliability refers to consistency in measurement. My in-laws have a scale (for weighing oneself) that can vary as much as 100 pounds from trial to trial, if you simply step off the scale and back on. It is horribly unreliable. I have a scale from a doctor's office that is depressingly reliable. In order to have reliability, one must operationalize the variable being measured clearly. When you define NDE as broadly as you do, you cannot possibly have a reliable measure of whether or not something is an NDE, let alone whether it is a typical one. Which brings us to validity. A measure is valid if it measures what it says it measures. A culturally biased IQ test measures socioeconomic status, not intelligence; an unbiased test that does measure intelligence is valid. Here's the deal--something cannot be a valid measure unless it is a reliable measure. My in-law's scale is not measuring my weight--if it was, it would give roughly the same number each time.

A failure to have well-defined operational measures of what constitutes an NDE means that the data are unreliable, and thus invalid. It is inappropriate to draw any conclusions about standardization based on invalid data.

Please, invite your scientist to this thread, as you are unable to present the data and rely instead on emotional distractions to hide your lack of coherent argument. A researcher should welcome critical evaluation of his or her work; someone who points out dirty test tubes should be thanked, not avoided.

[Tricky]

As for "not properly studied", I must take issue with that, too.
Uh oh Idunno, look what you've done now. You've roused The Beast. It might confuse him if you ran away some more.
:aaa!

[hamelekim]

huh? Since when does the hypothesis that there is no {lump of green jelly inside me} hold up under scientific study? I believe that there hasn't been a scientific study to declare definitively that there is no {lump of green jelly inside me}.

See the flaw in your argument?

Yes there has, we have opened up the body and seen that there isn't. We haven't seen a soul though. Now you could argue that there is an invisible green jelly inside of you that we can't see yet and you could make an argument for that but then there is absolutely no evidence for that. If people didn't have NDEs then I think you could make a good argument for no afterlife, but the fact that people do experience NDEs makes a possible case for an afterlife.

[Mercutio]

If people didn't have NDEs then I think you could make a good argument for no afterlife, but the fact that people do experience NDEs makes a possible case for an afterlife.

But the "definition" of NDE has been stretched thin enough on this thread alone to include experiences nowhere close to "near-death". If someone sees a white light, feels calm, and experiences a life transformation through the course of meditation, how on earth is that a "possible case for an afterlife"? And yet, that situation is claimed as an NDE.

If a white-light-and-tunnel experience is explained by hypoxia in some cases, bringing up other cases where an NDE occurred without hypoxia is only disconfirmatory IF A) the hypoxia explanation is claimed to be exhaustive (that is, it is claimed to be the solitary explanation) and B) the same definition of NDE is being used. A is not the case, and we can see from this thread that B is not true either.

I have claiming proof, nor even evidence, that there is no afterlife. But this is precisely what I mean by "not going beyond one's evidence". NDEs have not been examined with anything remotely approaching the precision that would allow us to say they exist, let alone that they serve as evidence of an afterlife. Sometimes, researchers see what they want to see, and not what is actually there. Remember N-Rays?

[nathan]

Yes there has, we have opened up the body and seen that there isn't. We haven't seen a soul though.

Well, my paraphrasing meant to imply *me*, *my body* not anyone else's. Anyhow, are you now claiming there is no evidence for a soul? Why should we equivocate about souls? Isn't the default hypothesis be that souls do not exist?

[hamelekim]

But the "definition" of NDE has been stretched thin enough on this thread alone to include experiences nowhere close to "near-death". If someone sees a white light, feels calm, and experiences a life transformation through the course of meditation, how on earth is that a "possible case for an afterlife"? And yet, that situation is claimed as an NDE.


The experiences are usually not just a white light and it isn't like a dream it's reality like flesh and blood type of experience. Obviously it doesn't prove there is an afterlife even if the experience is real, it just means that consciousness is something more than what we think it is. It very well could be that our consciousness only survives a short time without the body and fades away like the image on a tv after it's been turned off.

Also, the argument is given that OBEs just strengthen the idea that there is more to consciousness than just the brain. Drugs supposedly temporarily separate the consciousness from the body and you have an OBE. The fact that drugs help you to do this doesn't mean that it's a drug induced hallucination. Also, from what I read about DMT it's a far different and more lucid experience than other hallucinogenics, hence the argument that it is doing something other than just creating a fantasy world in your brain.


If a white-light-and-tunnel experience is explained by hypoxia in some cases, bringing up other cases where an NDE occurred without hypoxia is only disconfirmatory IF A) the hypoxia explanation is claimed to be exhaustive (that is, it is claimed to be the solitary explanation) and B) the same definition of NDE is being used. A is not the case, and we can see from this thread that B is not true either.


How does that disprove that NDEs are not something outside of the brain? If anything that goes to show that NDEs aren't solely caused by hypoxia and that it takes certain situations for consciousness to separate from the body (including drug use). The argument could also be made that everyone has NDEs when hypoxia occurs but that only some people remember them due to whatever factors effect memory retention of such an event. It's like not being able to remember a dream.

That's another thing, people remember these events long after they have them. Dreams on the other hand (hallucinations caused by the mind) are rarely remembered and even when they are it's only for a short period of time. This suggests that the event is different than just a normal hallucination created by the brain.


I have claiming proof, nor even evidence, that there is no afterlife. But this is precisely what I mean by "not going beyond one's evidence". NDEs have not been examined with anything remotely approaching the precision that would allow us to say they exist, let alone that they serve as evidence of an afterlife. Sometimes, researchers see what they want to see, and not what is actually there. Remember N-Rays?

Yes, some researchers see what they want to see, the same goes for those who deny events like NDEs. I believe the evidence is compelling enough to really study the phenomenon in a serious and large scale manner. Find people who have OBEs on a regular basis and subject them to a study as with the one done some years ago (I forget then names) where the woman had an OBE in the lab and read a number on top of a shelf. If it's real then a certain percentage of people who have OBEs should be able to read the number. You don't see anything of the sort in the scientific community. They look upon such research as being ridiculous because of course there is no such thing as the soul leaving the body, or even an expanded consciousness.

I have to say that I have no clue what N-Rays are and I don't believe in ghosts, psychics, fortune tellers, astrology, etc... I'm very skeptical about mediums as well but the fact that they are all likely fakes doesn't disprove that there is some sort of survive of consciousness after death.

[davidsmith73]

A brief lesson on measurement. You are trying, with your data, to say something about the range of experiences called NDE's. This process is called standardization. In the general population, how many see a bright light? How many feel calm? How many are frightened? Excellent questions, and data well worth finding. But... standardization cannot happen without reliability and validity. Reliability refers to consistency in measurement. My in-laws have a scale (for weighing oneself) that can vary as much as 100 pounds from trial to trial, if you simply step off the scale and back on. It is horribly unreliable. I have a scale from a doctor's office that is depressingly reliable. In order to have reliability, one must operationalize the variable being measured clearly. When you define NDE as broadly as you do, you cannot possibly have a reliable measure of whether or not something is an NDE, let alone whether it is a typical one.

Which brings us to validity. A measure is valid if it measures what it says it measures. A culturally biased IQ test measures socioeconomic status, not intelligence; an unbiased test that does measure intelligence is valid. Here's the deal--something cannot be a valid measure unless it is a reliable measure. My in-law's scale is not measuring my weight--if it was, it would give roughly the same number each time.

A failure to have well-defined operational measures of what constitutes an NDE means that the data are unreliable, and thus invalid. It is inappropriate to draw any conclusions about standardization based on invalid data.


Is any researcher actually saying there is a "single entity" called a NDE? The way I see it, there is only categorisation of certain experiences as NDE's based on subjective criteria and I don't think any serious researcher would deny that such a categorisation is subjective. And I bet that if a process is eventually indentified that explains pertinent aspects of these experiences, some NDE's will be found to be not NDE's after all, if you catch my drift.

Science comes across "unreliable" data all the time and has no trouble incorporating subjective categorisation into objective searches for underlying mechanisms. The prime example is research into positive symptoms of schizophrenia.

So why should NDE research be any different? How does an initial subjective categorisation of NDE experiences provide a barrier to finding objective mechanisms that may lie behind the similarities we see in these NDE reports?

[hamelekim]

Well, my paraphrasing meant to imply *me*, *my body* not anyone else's. Anyhow, are you now claiming there is no evidence for a soul? Why should we equivocate about souls? Isn't the default hypothesis be that souls do not exist?

I'm suggesting that the experience of NDEs and OBEs seems to involve some other phenomenon involving consciousness outside the body.

It is true that there are OBEs where the person sees something that someone is doing and then asks them if they did this thing and they say no. There are also cases during OBEs and especially NDEs where the patient sees and hears things outside of their range of hearing and sight. You can come up with an explanation that says they overheard their family members talking afterwards about what someone said in the waiting room or that the object they saw was briefly in their vision when passing down a hall by a window, or any other numerous explanations but they aren't necessarily right.

There is the example where a woman had an NDE and went above the hospital and saw a shoe on the roof. You can't see the shoe from any position on the ground or from any of the floors she was on and yet she saw it. So either she was there some time ago and was at a vantage point where she might have seen it but forgot about it until she had the NDE at which point her brain created an image of the hospital including the shoe. The other explanation is that her consciousness left her body and she saw the shoe. I would argue that the latter explanations is the more likely one, especially if she had never been to that hospital before and wasn't on any of the floors that she could see the shoe during her stay up until she had the OBE. If she says she hadn't seen the shoe before then you either take her word for it or call her a liar. I'm more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

As for taking consciousness as being a result of the brain and nothing else... I agree with this but with the caveat that each of us hold beliefs that are similarly ridiculous in nature that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Taken the trickle down theory of economics for starters. There are plenty of economic conservatives who still hold to this belief even though it's been disproved. I'm sure there are beliefs that you hold right now that wouldn't stand up to real scrutiny.

If NDEs weren't at all similar and if we didn't have almost completely scientifically valid experiments that show there might be something to OBEs you could make a very good argument that there is nothing else to consciousness except the brain. But the fact that there is even circumstantial evidence means that you have to give the phenomenon serious consideration if only to disprove it.

I say that anyone who says they have OBEs on a regular basis should prove it through scientific experimentation. Go to a sleep lab and have a random number generator that will select a number and then place that number in a location that they cannot see and have cameras in the room watching the person to see that they are not cheating somehow. No serious scientist is going to bother doing this though, because they would be the laughing stock of the scientific community for even suggesting that such a phenomenon is anything more than just the brain creating hallucinations.

Even if there is no survival after death it's nice to know that at least we all think there will be in the first minutes after we die. That phenomenon is worth studying even if it is only a creation of the brain.

[davidsmith73]

NDEs have not been examined with anything remotely approaching the precision that would allow us to say they exist

I find this an absurd thing to say. Surely a near death experience exists as an experience, or do you think the people who report these experiences are lying?

[davidsmith73]

There is the example where a woman had an NDE and went above the hospital and saw a shoe on the roof. You can't see the shoe from any position on the ground or from any of the floors she was on and yet she saw it. So either she was there some time ago and was at a vantage point where she might have seen it but forgot about it until she had the NDE at which point her brain created an image of the hospital including the shoe. The other explanation is that her consciousness left her body and she saw the shoe.

Another explanation could be coincidence. Her brain could have envoked the mental image of the shoe from a past experience of "a shoe on a roof". Perhaps she saw a film with a shoe on roof and her brain engaged that particular memory.

[hamelekim]

Another explanation could be coincidence. Her brain could have envoked the mental image of the shoe from a past experience of "a shoe on a roof". Perhaps she saw a film with a shoe on roof and her brain engaged that particular memory.

Her description of the location and the shoe are too specific to be coincidence. You're just reaching to anything to explain it as being anything but a real OBE. The idea that the brain would create an image of a shoe and the location on top of the building and that it would match it perfectly is... well I'm sure you have a better chance of winning lottery than coming up with that. I'm not saying that it's not possible that she might have seen it, but it isn't likely from the description of the story, and if she didn't see it then something is definitely occurring. What that something is remains to be seen.

[Mercutio]

The experiences are usually not just a white light and it isn't like a dream it's reality like flesh and blood type of experience. Obviously it doesn't prove there is an afterlife even if the experience is real, it just means that consciousness is something more than what we think it is. It very well could be that our consciousness only survives a short time without the body and fades away like the image on a tv after it's been turned off.
"The experiences"--which ones? Lumping them all in together is like lumping all "flying things" together and trying to describe birds alone when your data include butterflies, bats, and beetles (with no discrimination among them). Until the data are reliable, we simply cannot draw conclusions from them. Do birds have feathers? If you define birds as "all flying things", then only some birds have feathers. Only some NDE's have white lights--and this will remain the case as long as NDE's are so poorly defined. There may be something there--the research has the potential to show us unimagined new things about ourselves--but as long as the methodology is so haphazard, we cannot claim we have found anything.

Also, the argument is given that OBEs just strengthen the idea that there is more to consciousness than just the brain. Drugs supposedly temporarily separate the consciousness from the body and you have an OBE. The fact that drugs help you to do this doesn't mean that it's a drug induced hallucination. Also, from what I read about DMT it's a far different and more lucid experience than other hallucinogenics, hence the argument that it is doing something other than just creating a fantasy world in your brain.
"[S]eparate the consciousness from the body"? Sorry, but what on earth allows you to draw that conclusion?

Yes, I recognise that the argument is that OBE's and NDE's say there is more to consciousness than just the brain. I also recognise that it is a fatally flawed argument as long as the data are so haphazardly collected and ill-defined.
How does that disprove that NDEs are not something outside of the brain? If anything that goes to show that NDEs aren't solely caused by hypoxia and that it takes certain situations for consciousness to separate from the body (including drug use). The argument could also be made that everyone has NDEs when hypoxia occurs but that only some people remember them due to whatever factors effect memory retention of such an event. It's like not being able to remember a dream.
Thank you for illustrating my point. You continue to refer to "NDE's" as if they were one sort of thing. And thank you for recognizing that the methodology currently in use cannot separate out the presence or absence of alleged NDE from A) an NDE that is not recalled (your example) or B) a non-NDE that is confabulated to have been an NDE.

That's another thing, people remember these events long after they have them. Dreams on the other hand (hallucinations caused by the mind) are rarely remembered and even when they are it's only for a short period of time. This suggests that the event is different than just a normal hallucination created by the brain.
It does--it opens the door for false memory. Including data such as these is exactly the opposite of what should be done; it is like intentionally reaching for the dirtiest test tube in the lab. Memory is notoriously malleable, and vividness of memory is not a reliable indicater of truth.
Yes, some researchers see what they want to see, the same goes for those who deny events like NDEs. I believe the evidence is compelling enough to really study the phenomenon in a serious and large scale manner.If you are serious about this, the first step is to clean up the methodology. Clean up the operational definitions, clean up the measurements, get rid of the baggage that is pulling this research underwater.
Find people who have OBEs on a regular basis and subject them to a study as with the one done some years ago (I forget then names) where the woman had an OBE in the lab and read a number on top of a shelf. That was "Miss Z.", Charles Tart's OBE subject. If you read his account (here's one (http://www.soultravel.nu/2004/040326-MissZ/index.shtml)), you can see that even he sees the possibility of more mundane explanations, although he doubts them. After all, it is more likely that her spirit left her body, yet was still able to see despite having no physical retina, although it was unable to get through to another room where the other target number sequence was, than it is that she somehow cheated. Despite his admission that he sometimes slept in the other room while the experiment was going on, and his admission that there were ways (sneaky ones, I admit) that the numbers could have been read by her physical self.

To me, the most puzzling aspect of the case is the fact that it was a one-time event. Tart chose Miss Z because she had a history of multiple OBEs, and when she finally (after several failures) gets the complete sequence right, and in order, that's the end of it? No replication? That experiment, with proper controls, would likely win Randi's million bucks. That experiment, with proper controls, would blow the sciences of psychology, biology, and physics wide open. That experiment, with proper controls, would change everything. But there is no mention of even an attempt at replication. Puzzling indeed.
If it's real then a certain percentage of people who have OBEs should be able to read the number. You don't see anything of the sort in the scientific community. They look upon such research as being ridiculous because of course there is no such thing as the soul leaving the body, or even an expanded consciousness.
That is because we wish to see evidence before we will believe such a thing.

There is well over a century of detailed experimental work showing how we process visual information. The level of understanding about what goes on at the retina is astounding. We know about multiple parallel pathways where visual information is processes for color, distance, shape, facial recognition, often redundantly (multiple pathways for depth perception, for instance). All of what we know about it so far requires the neural transduction of light energy, and conduction of nerve impulses...in other words, stuff that happens in the body. So it is not merely that we have no evidence for it happening outside the body, we also have wealth of data supporting it happening inside the body. Any new explanation would have to account for all that data AND be a better explanation of OBEs. So far, nothing has come close.

I have to say that I have no clue what N-Rays are and I don't believe in ghosts, psychics, fortune tellers, astrology, etc... I'm very skeptical about mediums as well but the fact that they are all likely fakes doesn't disprove that there is some sort of survive of consciousness after death.
N-Rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray). Very good scientists thought they had found a new energy type. Different labs confirmed it, although others could not find them. Proper experimental controls disconfirmed their existence. Good scientists can be fooled.

[nathan]

There is the example where a woman had an NDE and went above the hospital and saw a shoe on the roof. You can't see the shoe from any position on the ground or from any of the floors she was on and yet she saw it. So either she was there some time ago and was at a vantage point where she might have seen it but forgot about it until she had the NDE at which point her brain created an image of the hospital including the shoe. The other explanation is that her consciousness left her body and she saw the shoe.

Do you have a reference for this?

[Mercutio]

I find this an absurd thing to say. Surely a near death experience exists as an experience, or do you think the people who report these experiences are lying?By that criterion, N-rays exist.

Blondlott was not lying--he was reporting the results of an inadequately controlled experiment. Same thing applies here.

[Mercutio]

Is any researcher actually saying there is a "single entity" called a NDE? The way I see it, there is only categorisation of certain experiences as NDE's based on subjective criteria and I don't think any serious researcher would deny that such a categorisation is subjective. And I bet that if a process is eventually indentified that explains pertinent aspects of these experiences, some NDE's will be found to be not NDE's after all, if you catch my drift.

Science comes across "unreliable" data all the time and has no trouble incorporating subjective categorisation into objective searches for underlying mechanisms. The prime example is research into positive symptoms of schizophrenia.

So why should NDE research be any different? How does an initial subjective categorisation of NDE experiences provide a barrier to finding objective mechanisms that may lie behind the similarities we see in these NDE reports?With a slight quibble with your first paragraph, I am mostly in agreement with you. I do not at all deny the possibility that well-controlled research in this area might reap tremendous insights. The barrier to finding mechanisms is simply the denial that the current definitions and methodologies are inadequate. When someone points out that your test tubes are dirty, the proper procedure is to clean them and repeat the experiment, not argue that dirty test tubes are perfectly adequate for chemistry.

[hamelekim]

"The experiences"--which ones? Lumping them all in together is like lumping all "flying things" together and trying to describe birds alone when your data include butterflies, bats, and beetles (with no discrimination among them). Until the data are reliable, we simply cannot draw conclusions from them. Do birds have feathers? If you define birds as "all flying things", then only some birds have feathers. Only some NDE's have white lights--and this will remain the case as long as NDE's are so poorly defined. There may be something there--the research has the potential to show us unimagined new things about ourselves--but as long as the methodology is so haphazard, we cannot claim we have found anything.

The NDE and OBE phenomenons both share similar traits including floating outside their bodies, seeing other beings, a complete sense of lucidity and of knowledge. I think it's perfectly find to group them together because they do have similarities all having to do with the appearance of consciousness outside of the body.

I agree that there needs to be a standardized methodology test the experiences but until scientists decide to get together and come up with one I don't see it happening.

"[S]eparate the consciousness from the body"? Sorry, but what on earth allows you to draw that conclusion?

Yes, I recognise that the argument is that OBE's and NDE's say there is more to consciousness than just the brain. I also recognise that it is a fatally flawed argument as long as the data are so haphazardly collected and ill-defined.

I don't see how it is any more flawed than ideas like string theory or the multiverse. String theorists can't even agree on how many dimensions there are let alone try to prove that there are an infinite number of universes outside of our own and yet they seriously consider such an idea. I don't see how that is any different from NDEs and OBEs.

Thank you for illustrating my point. You continue to refer to "NDE's" as if they were one sort of thing. And thank you for recognizing that the methodology currently in use cannot separate out the presence or absence of alleged NDE from A) an NDE that is not recalled (your example) or B) a non-NDE that is confabulated to have been an NDE.

NDE's are a "thing". Whether or not that thing is hallucinations or something else remains to be seen but it is a definite occurrence.

It does--it opens the door for false memory. Including data such as these is exactly the opposite of what should be done; it is like intentionally reaching for the dirtiest test tube in the lab. Memory is notoriously malleable, and vividness of memory is not a reliable indicater of truth.

You might as well just invalidate anyone who tells you anything that they don't have absolute proof for. If they say they saw someone or some thing how can you trust that they really saw it? Memory can be tricked but that doesn't mean that the experience as described isn't the truth. You're making an assumption that it isn't the truth.

That was "Miss Z.", Charles Tart's OBE subject. If you read his account (here's one), you can see that even he sees the possibility of more mundane explanations, although he doubts them. After all, it is more likely that her spirit left her body, yet was still able to see despite having no physical retina, although it was unable to get through to another room where the other target number sequence was, than it is that she somehow cheated. Despite his admission that he sometimes slept in the other room while the experiment was going on, and his admission that there were ways (sneaky ones, I admit) that the numbers could have been read by her physical self.

To me, the most puzzling aspect of the case is the fact that it was a one-time event. Tart chose Miss Z because she had a history of multiple OBEs, and when she finally (after several failures) gets the complete sequence right, and in order, that's the end of it? No replication? That experiment, with proper controls, would likely win Randi's million bucks. That experiment, with proper controls, would blow the sciences of psychology, biology, and physics wide open. That experiment, with proper controls, would change everything. But there is no mention of even an attempt at replication. Puzzling indeed.

I agree that is suspicious. I have wondered about that myself. Has he ever given an explanation as to why he didn't continue on with further study?

That is because we wish to see evidence before we will believe such a thing.

There is well over a century of detailed experimental work showing how we process visual information. The level of understanding about what goes on at the retina is astounding. We know about multiple parallel pathways where visual information is processes for color, distance, shape, facial recognition, often redundantly (multiple pathways for depth perception, for instance). All of what we know about it so far requires the neural transduction of light energy, and conduction of nerve impulses...in other words, stuff that happens in the body. So it is not merely that we have no evidence for it happening outside the body, we also have wealth of data supporting it happening inside the body. Any new explanation would have to account for all that data AND be a better explanation of OBEs. So far, nothing has come close.

so you won't do it until you see evidence but in order to see valid evidence you need a methodology that you won't agree upon until you see proof? You don't see the problem here? If someone makes a claim, such as OBEs, then it needs to be tested. You can't just say I won't test the claim until I see proof because the proof would mean the test already occurred.

I also have issues with your claim that all that an OBE requires is internal. I already asked at what level of brain function can a person still take in process and store sensory information. Does it require a certain measurement on the eeg ekg (not sure which one it is) machine? If so then what about cases where the measurements are below the threshold and yet the person still has visual and auditory memories of events after the fact? If we don't even know at what level a brain can still take in and store sensory information then how can you say that it's all in the brain? We need to know these things in order to come to a final conclusion.

N-Rays. Very good scientists thought they had found a new energy type. Different labs confirmed it, although others could not find them. Proper experimental controls disconfirmed their existence. Good scientists can be fooled.
Yes they can be fooled by their biases.

[hamelekim]

Do you have a reference for this?

can't post urls until I have 15 posts...

h t t p : / / w w w . shaktitechnology . c o m / o b e . h t m

first site I came across. There are other sites that reference the same story and I'm sure that you could find the journal and read the story yourself. It's interesting but again there is a small chance she might have seen it somehow if it was at a height and location that could be seen from some higher vantage point in the hospital. There really needs to be an intensive and conclusive study of the phenomenon considering that millions of people have had the experience.

Dr. Bruce Greyson is also the editor for The Journal for Near-death Studies, which has published several accounts of veridical of body experiences. These are cases in which a person has an out of body experience, sees something that would not be visible from their body's location, and then later has their perception validated. In one case, an elderly woman in intensive care had a heart attack followed by a near-death experience which included an out of body experience. During her out of body experience she saw the roof of the hospital and noticed are red tennis shoe. A maintenance worker and some medical observers went to the roof of the hospital where they retrieved the shoe. While this seems to prove consciousness can exist separate from the brain, it leaves open one possibility. It may be that the mind, when it is outside of the body has a structure, and that structure reflects the structure of the brain. Proving the existence of consciousness outside the body, or separate from the brain may prove to be very elusive, even if the ideas that support it are valid.

[Mashuna]

I don't see how it is any more flawed than ideas like string theory or the multiverse. String theorists can't even agree on how many dimensions there are let alone try to prove that there are an infinite number of universes outside of our own and yet they seriously consider such an idea. I don't see how that is any different from NDEs and OBEs.

Are you sure this is what physicists are claiming? ;)





I also have issues with your claim that all that an OBE requires is internal. I already asked at what level of brain function can a person still take in process and store sensory information. Does it require a certain measurement on the eeg ekg (not sure which one it is) machine? If so then what about cases where the measurements are below the threshold and yet the person still has visual and auditory memories of events after the fact? If we don't even know at what level a brain can still take in and store sensory information then how can you say that it's all in the brain? We need to know these things in order to come to a final conclusion.



I don't think that this is the point Merc is making (although I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong). It's not the question of whether the brain can still process and store sensory information during an OBE. The question is what senses are being used to get this information to the brain? What mechanism is in play to allow people to see / hear things that are out of range of their normal senses. Everything we know about how light signals are interpreted by the retina and nerve endings would indicate this isn't possible. You need to be able to explain this. Otherwise, you at least need to factor it in to your probability assessment of how likely it is that someone 'saw' a shoe on the roof of the hospital.

[Mercutio]

The NDE and OBE phenomenons both share similar traits including floating outside their bodies, seeing other beings, a complete sense of lucidity and of knowledge. I think it's perfectly find to group them together because they do have similarities all having to do with the appearance of consciousness outside of the body.
It is fine for you to group them together. It is also fine for others not to. At this point, there is no agreement over definitions. At some point, some definitions will be more productive than others, and the others will drop.

I agree that there needs to be a standardized methodology test the experiences but until scientists decide to get together and come up with one I don't see it happening.
Are the current researchers concerned about this at all?
I don't see how it is any more flawed than ideas like string theory or the multiverse. String theorists can't even agree on how many dimensions there are let alone try to prove that there are an infinite number of universes outside of our own and yet they seriously consider such an idea. I don't see how that is any different from NDEs and OBEs.
Excellent analogy! I agree completely--and note, please, that some scientists say that string theory is "not even wrong", that it is incoherent. Eventually, there will either be utility in these theories or there will not be. For now, it is a mess. One difference, though--for NDE and OBE, we *do* have physiological explanations for some of the phenomena (the explanations break down, as they must, when additional phenomena are shoe-horned into the category of NDE/OBE); string theory and multiverse theory are forays into legitimate areas where we do not know yet.
NDE's are a "thing". Whether or not that thing is hallucinations or something else remains to be seen but it is a definite occurrence.
NDE's may be a "thing". They may be many things. Until tightened controls are in place we cannot say for certain.
You might as well just invalidate anyone who tells you anything that they don't have absolute proof for. If they say they saw someone or some thing how can you trust that they really saw it? Memory can be tricked but that doesn't mean that the experience as described isn't the truth. You're making an assumption that it isn't the truth.
Actually, I am making the assumption that if it is true, tighter controls will produce better evidence. And the processes of confabulation and distortion of memory are a fertile area of research--it is not merely a matter of making an assumption.
I agree that is suspicious. I have wondered about that myself. Has he ever given an explanation as to why he didn't continue on with further study?
I have not seen it. That does not mean it doesn't exist, but if you find it please share!

so you won't do it until you see evidence but in order to see valid evidence you need a methodology that you won't agree upon until you see proof? You don't see the problem here? If someone makes a claim, such as OBEs, then it needs to be tested. You can't just say I won't test the claim until I see proof because the proof would mean the test already occurred.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I can certainly agree to methodology before an experiment takes place. Agreeing only based on results is a terrible flaw. But experimental methodology is something we know a bit about; if you present an experiment without the results, it can still be critiqued for methodological flaws.

I also have issues with your claim that all that an OBE requires is internal. I have not made this claim. I have said that the current evidence does not support any explanation. Nor can it. The test tubes are dirty.
I already asked at what level of brain function can a person still take in process and store sensory information. Does it require a certain measurement on the eeg ekg (not sure which one it is) machine? If so then what about cases where the measurements are below the threshold and yet the person still has visual and auditory memories of events after the fact? If we don't even know at what level a brain can still take in and store sensory information then how can you say that it's all in the brain? We need to know these things in order to come to a final conclusion.
Psychophysics has explored some of these questions over the past century or so, and other of them are being explored by neuropsychologists and others currently. We are, of course, limited by our equipment. (Incidentally, the founder of psychophysics, Fechner, was a spiritual monist; he would not have said it was all physical. Most of those who followed in his footsteps drew other conclusions. Good methodology transcends one's belief systems.)

And again, I do not say it is all in the brain, I simply say that the evidence does not exist that it is other than this. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Yes they can be fooled by their biases.
This is why we have experts in methodology, and why we have peer review. Scientists are above all human, and thus biased. The scientific method is not "how scientists think", but rather a guard against how humans think. So, tighten up the methodology. If there is something there, tighter controls will show it more clearly. If there is nothing there, tighter controls will show it dissappear.

[Mercutio]

I don't think that this is the point Merc is making (although I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong). It's not the question of whether the brain can still process and store sensory information during an OBE. The question is what senses are being used to get this information to the brain? What mechanism is in play to allow people to see / hear things that are out of range of their normal senses. Everything we know about how light signals are interpreted by the retina and nerve endings would indicate this isn't possible. You need to be able to explain this. Otherwise, you at least need to factor it in to your probability assessment of how likely it is that someone 'saw' a shoe on the roof of the hospital.

You are correct.

[hamelekim]

I don't think that this is the point Merc is making (although I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong). It's not the question of whether the brain can still process and store sensory information during an OBE. The question is what senses are being used to get this information to the brain? What mechanism is in play to allow people to see / hear things that are out of range of their normal senses. Everything we know about how light signals are interpreted by the retina and nerve endings would indicate this isn't possible. You need to be able to explain this. Otherwise, you at least need to factor it in to your probability assessment of how likely it is that someone 'saw' a shoe on the roof of the hospital.

I agree we need to be able to explain this. If it does occur we should be able to do so. We likely don't have the technology at this point to explain it but we can do experiments to show that it is happening outside of our current understanding of human consciousness.

[Mercutio]

I agree we need to be able to explain this. If it does occur we should be able to do so. We likely don't have the technology at this point to explain it but we can do experiments to show that it is happening outside of our current understanding of human consciousness.

Certainly--if a well-controlled, replicable experiment reliably showed (and those are not goalpost-moving words--that is the standard in all science) that even one person could view objects remotely, that would be outside the current understanding of biology, psychology, and physics. It would rock the world.

But...since magicians view