Interaction between body and soul

[litewave]

Yes, but I don't currently have a copy. NDEs are a perennial subject here. What materials by Greyson have you read?

Nothing by him, as far as I remember. I just read some articles on the internet and some books by Raymond Moody years ago. I know that there have been two studies by Sam Parnia where he placed some symbols in operating rooms that could be seen only from an elevated position to test whether a patient would see them during a supposed out of body experience. No patient mentioned such a symbol in their NDE reports. The second study is still under way.

 

[abaddon]

So what did you experience?

In brief, the tunnel, the light, the disembodied floating around the operating theatre as a disembodied "soul". The eerie sense of absolute serenity through all of it. I was even interviewed by the anesthetist post op because of some of the events.

Had you an actual question?

 

[litewave]

In fact, without a brain attached to the soul, how does it record memories? Does the soul have its own memory system? If so, why the duplication?

We can only speculate. The soul may have its own memory system and the material body may serve as a tool through which the soul interacts with the material world.

 

[abaddon]

None. So what? How many neuroscientific experiments have you done?

Great. So now you have a chance to interview one. Set forth.

 

[litewave]

In what sense is it apparent? All you've done is say it's apparent and when asked how it's apparent, say that some other people who had NDEs say it's apparent.

But how is it apparent? There's no actual chain of reasoning for why vivid NDEs should be considered evidence of souls detaching from brains.

Also, is it actually apparent to NDE experiences and they have reported this? Have NDE experiencers actually specifically said they think vivid and empathetic NDEs are evidence of souls detaching from bodies?

NDErs often mention out of body experiences and that it felt very real, even hyper-real, vivid and with heightened empathy toward other people.

 

[JayUtah]

That's an extreme scenario...

Okay, fine, I'll come back to that. My question really meant to ask why we're spending so much time on NDEs. It wasn't really part of the discussion to start with, and now it's taken over. I'm just curious where you plan to take it.

That's an extreme scenario where the soul doesn't interact with the body during life and only interacts with it at the end by downloading memories from the brain, which results in the experience of life review. A more general scenario is that the soul interacts with the body during life, and the experience of life review at the end is a result of experiencing the memories in an altered state of mind for the first time.

Which scenario are you advocating? Or is it not an either-or dilemma for you?

Regarding the first scenario, we sort of stalled on the issue of the low rate of occurrence as it appears in the data. You argue from silence in a way that suggests you believe the numbers can only go up from there, but I pointed out that's not how arguments from silence work. Greyson also points out a few relevant things there too. I think we converged on the issue of people who die sudden deaths that don't afford a transfer. The degree to which it would be considered a poor system design depends on the degree to which one believes it is a designed system.

Regarding the second, general scenario, you made a comment that's gotten a lot of attention: that this appears to be the soul leaving the body. You're not making that statement now, so it's not clear whether you intend the life review in "an altered state of mind" to refer in any way to a soul. Others have argued that the dying or distressed brain would easily qualify as an altered mind. It matters because even if we grant you that the soul exists and that it communicates undetectably with the organism, why does the life review have to implicate a soul? Can it just be a function of the organism? The more fanciful properties, interactions, and roles you assign speculatively to the soul without reasons or evidence why, the less prima facie probable your soul hypothesis becomes.

But more importantly, you've been asked several times how the purported similarity among NDE reports means they must have a supernatural origin. That's a giant leap of logic that you have yet to explain.

 

[litewave]

In brief, the tunnel, the light, the disembodied floating around the operating theatre as a disembodied "soul". The eerie sense of absolute serenity through all of it. I was even interviewed by the anesthetist post op because of some of the events.

Had you an actual question?

Why do you think it was all a hallucination?

 

[JayUtah]

NDErs often mention out of body experiences and that it felt very real, even hyper-real, vivid...

How does "feel real" translate to "was real?"

...and with heightened empathy toward other people.

What does this have to do with a soul?

 

[abaddon]

Why do you think it was all a hallucination?

Given the post op interview, at least some of it was demonstrably real. In fact, I never claimed that it was "all a hallucination" because I know that at least some of it was fact based.

Why must you strawman everything?

 

[abaddon]

How does "feel real" translate to "was real?"

It doesn't. If one went that road, what is one to do with the things that feel unreal but actually are real? As I interestingly discovered.

What does this have to do with a soul?

Foxtrot Alpha.

 

[JayUtah]

Nothing by him, as far as I remember.

You might want to brush up on him then. Wikipedia is probably not telling you all that you need to know about his work in order to effectively use him as an authority.

I know that there have been two studies by Sam Parnia where he placed some symbols in operating rooms...

He mentioned in interviews that he wasn't satisfied that this was a good protocol. I agree. Probably why a new study is a good idea.

I hadn't intended to go on to the other people you mentioned until we focused on Greyson a bit. Gish gallops are easily noticed here for what they are. But now that I've ignored my own advice, look at your list. You said there were "neuroscientists and doctors" who disagreed that the existing understanding of neurology was sufficient to explain NDEs. Out of an abundance of fairness, Loss Leader asked you to name "neuroscientists and/or doctors." But your list contains no neuroscientists or neurologists. The closest is Greyson, who is an academic psychiatrist. This is not to say that clinicians or other specializations in academia don't have insight. But you're trying to argue that there is legitimate dissent over whether natural causes are sufficient to explain NDEs. Accuracy of specialization is a factor in that argument.

You also urge that Greyson and a few others ought rightly to be credited with bringing the study of NDEs into academic light. That's a two-edged sword at best. The Greyson scale is widely cited, it is true. But when you look at what Greyson et al. actually did, they formed their own institutes, research groups, and journals focusing on NDEs. They didn't really join the world of academia. They sort of went off and formed their own club to host the research they wanted to do. Not a transgression per se, but it undermines the notion that the alleged dissent is legitimate. Have you studied what actual neurologists say in actual neurology journals about the neurological implications of NDE?

 

[JayUtah]

We can only speculate.

Yeah, that's the problem. You start with the assumption that a soul exists and then speculate that it has exactly all the properties required to afford all the things you attribute to it, the end observation being exactly the same as it would have been without the soul. This is the paragon of antiparsimony.

 

[litewave]

Which scenario are you advocating? Or is it not an either-or dilemma for you?

In my OP I had the general scenario in mind, that the soul interacts with the body anytime and in a significant way. Then Scorpion mentioned that the soul may be dormant during life and it reminded me of the doctrine of the spiritual fall of man in religious literature. So there seems to be a possibility that the soul interacts with the body only sometimes, or anytime but not much.

Regarding the second, general scenario, you made a comment that's gotten a lot of attention: that this appears to be the soul leaving the body. You're not making that statement now, so it's not clear whether you intend the life review in "an altered state of mind" to refer in any way to a soul.

An NDE is often accompanied by an experience of being out of one's body or of having died and entering a spiritual realm, so it seems obvious to me that the patient feels as if he was a soul that has left his body. The altered state of mind -- a sense of hyper-reality and/or heightened empathy -- is often part of that experience, as is the life review.

Others have argued that the dying or distressed brain would easily qualify as an altered mind. It matters because even if we grant you that the soul exists and that it communicates undetectably with the organism, why does the life review have to implicate a soul? Can it just be a function of the organism? The more fanciful properties, interactions, and roles you assign speculatively to the soul without reasons or evidence why, the less prima facie probable your soul hypothesis becomes.

Maybe the NDEs are products of a distressed or dying brain but that's a speculation too and it usually seems unconvincing to NDErs themselves.

But more importantly, you've been asked several times how the purported similarity among NDE reports means they must have a supernatural origin. That's a giant leap of logic that you have yet to explain.

If the NDEs had just random elements that would make it more believable that they are caused by firings of a distressed or dying brain. Instead, the reports often mention common features that evoke the notion of a soul as a conscious entity that survives the death of the material body.

 

[litewave]

Given the post op interview, at least some of it was demonstrably real. In fact, I never claimed that it was "all a hallucination" because I know that at least some of it was fact based.

Why must you strawman everything?

So what was a hallucination?

 

[abaddon]

So what was a hallucination?

I can answer that. But I am uncertain that you care about any answer I may provide and thus lack motivation to do so since any answer I might provide is likely to be promptly dismissed by you since it will not conform to your presuppositions.

You have already decided that any NDE is evidence of a "soul". I am in a position to categorically state that it bloody well isn't on the basis of first hand experience of such.

You are fundamentally uninterested in my particular experience, only in ways to dismiss it. And that is a game I am unwilling to play.

So I will trade you. I will answer questions if you will be honest. Can you live with that?

 

[JayUtah]

...it reminded me of the doctrine of the spiritual fall of man in religious literature. So there seems to be a possibility that the soul interacts with the body only sometimes, or anytime but not much.

Because religion says so? Do you mean "possible" in the sense of congruence among religious beliefs, or "possible" as something that science should consider?

An NDE is often accompanied by an experience of being out of one's body or of having died and entering a spiritual realm, so it seems obvious to me that the patient feels as if he was a soul that has left his body.

No. What you actually said was

Apparently this is due to the soul detaching from the brain.

Nothing about what the patient believes. What about patients who don't believe in souls? Is your interpretation still "obvious" in those cases?

Maybe the NDEs are products of a distressed or dying brain but that's a speculation too...

How do you know that? Are you a neurologist? Do neurologists generally concede any such notion? Even if we were to grant that it's speculation, it would still be speculation of a much lower order than what you're suggesting. You have to conjure much more into existence in order for your speculation to hold.

...and it usually seems unconvincing to NDErs themselves.

Why does that matter? Are they all neurologists?

If the NDEs had just random elements that would make it more believable that they are caused by firings of a distressed or dying brain.

What evidence supports this claim? Is that what neurologists think?

Instead, the reports often mention common features that evoke the notion of a soul as a conscious entity that survives the death of the material body.

That's an interpretation of the data, not the data itself. When you interpret data through the bias of your beliefs, it does not somehow become evidence of the belief.

 

[litewave]

Have you studied what actual neurologists say in actual neurology journals about the neurological implications of NDE?

I don't know if I read an article by a neurologist but I see from the Wikipedia article on NDEs that neurologists have suggested possible causes of NDEs, such as too little oxygen, to much carbon dioxide, endorphines etc.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't know if I read an article by a neurologist but I see from the Wikipedia article on NDEs that neurologists have suggested possible causes of NDEs, such as too little oxygen, to much carbon dioxide, endorphines etc.

I recommend deeper research.

 

[litewave]

You have already decided that any NDE is evidence of a "soul".

I said that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, not that they are evidence of it, let alone any NDE.

So I will trade you. I will answer questions if you will be honest. Can you live with that?

I don't know what you expect of me but I would like to know what you think was a hallucination in your NDE and what was not, and why you think so.

 

[abaddon]

In my OP I had the general scenario in mind, that the soul interacts with the body anytime and in a significant way. Then Scorpion mentioned that the soul may be dormant during life and it reminded me of the doctrine of the spiritual fall of man in religious literature. So there seems to be a possibility that the soul interacts with the body only sometimes, or anytime but not much.

Are you aware that Scorp has proudly declaimed on this very site that he is a para-schiz refusing meds? This is not an ad-hom. He has flat out told everyone publicly. It isn't a secret.

An NDE is often accompanied by an experience of being out of one's body or of having died and entering a spiritual realm,

Yup. Been there, done that. So? It is quite a trip, but not even vaguely mysterious.

so it seems obvious to me that the patient feels as if he was a soul that has left his body.

Yeah. the patient. Would that be the patient under the influence of intravenous drugs? That patient? The same one having intravenous drugs intentionally used to alter their consciousness? Those patients? Don't you think that drugs intended to alter anyones consciousness might actually do that? Or did that thought simply not occur to you?

And that is the point. What it feels like is not what it actually is.

The altered state of mind -- a sense of hyper-reality and/or heightened empathy -- is often part of that experience, as is the life review.

Sure. Insufficient to make me believe in <insert deity of choice> though.

Maybe the NDEs are products of a distressed or dying brain but that's a speculation too and it usually seems unconvincing to NDErs themselves.

Not to me. NDErs see whatever cultural deity is appropriate.

If the NDEs had just random elements that would make it more believable that they are caused by firings of a distressed or dying brain.

Strawman. NDEs are not random they are the result of notions ALREADY IN THE BRAIN. Thus christians see jesus, muslims see little mo and so forth. The point is that these myths were already in the brain in the first place.

Instead, the reports often mention common features that evoke the notion of a soul as a conscious entity that survives the death of the material body.

Been there, done that. Your answer is No.