Heaven and the after-life, the skeptic's hell

[MattusMaximus]

I don't think Malerin is quite saying he supports the paper, as such, but rather is trying to hide in that vague zone where so long as something isn't 'proven', all options are therefore equal. As science doesn't deal in proofs, he's free to speculate whatever he wants and feel that it has equal weight to our own position.

I don't need to tell you where this falls down...

Athon

Exactly. I just nailed him on this point in my most recent post. It is the same argument made by creationists when they say we cannot accept evolution because there are still gaps in the fossil record.

 

[Malerin]

Yup, fairly well known paper, this one. Not replicated, unfortunately, and has a lot of misassumptions that have been discussed before, as well. Still, dualists seem to love it. Not sure why, though.

There's probably not a whole lot of funding for NDE research. This was a pretty large study spanning eight years. It might take awhile for a similar study to come out.

This is one hell of an assumption. There could be numerous contributing factors. In any case, let's look at the converse - if all of those patients had 'duality' of mind and body, then by the same token they also should all have experienced NDE. The fact that they didn't shows there is a physical variation...unless we assume some of them simply had no 'souls' to begin with...

I agree the fact that not everyone has NDE is any evidence for duality. I see the author's reasoning, though- if it were a purely physical phenemenon, shouldn't we expect to see it across the board? Example: people bleed when they're cut, people should have NDE's when their brain is oxygen deprived. There may be other factors involved to explain the low percentage, but it's a good prima facia point.

The 'verified observations' were not blinded (Sabom, 1982), from what I understand of Sabom's anecdote. Which detracts majorly from their validity, allowing for a number of possible and more likely causes behind this piece of evidence. This reflects poorly on the paper. As this would be the only way to confirm that some form of consciousness remained during the flat EEG period, the entire paper falls flat.

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Nobody disputes that EEG could flatline and a person could recall memories afterward. Yet memories are tricky things, especially regarding unconscious states - try waking up in the morning and giving an exact time of each dream you had and their duration. You'll find they won't match external quantifications.

The similiarities of the core experiences are striking, don't you think? In a flatine situation, with a jumble of recalled memories, why would there be such a coherent account, and why would it have a spiritual quality to it? The authors of the paper make this point at the end, when they compare the accounts of people with medically induced NDE's vs. the people they interviewed.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I agree the fact that not everyone has NDE is any evidence for duality. I see the author's reasoning, though- if it were a purely physical phenemenon, shouldn't we expect to see it across the board? Example: people bleed when they're cut, people should have NDE's when their brain is oxygen deprived. There may be other factors involved to explain the low percentage, but it's a good prima facia point.

Why would you assume this? Are you saying that in every case the person is dying in exactly the same manner? Perhaps there are nuances to having an NDE which involve physical factors that we don't fully understand yet? Why are you willing to completely throw out a physical explanation based upon such a flimsy argument?

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Okay, so they have over a hundred anecdotes instead of just one. Malerin, the plural of anecdote is not evidence

The similiarities of the core experiences are striking, don't you think? In a flatine situation, with a jumble of recalled memories, why would there be such a coherent account, and why would it have a spiritual quality to it? The authors of the paper make this point at the end, when they compare the accounts of people with medically induced NDE's vs. the people they interviewed.

See my previous criticisms above. You continue to engage in the same logical fallacy over and over.

 

[athon]

There's probably not a whole lot of funding for NDE research. This was a pretty large study spanning eight years. It might take awhile for a similar study to come out.

Oh I'm sure there are reasons for it. Funding usually goes towards things that have some decent supporting evidence - obviously a catch 22, but given that this is the best a study like this can produce, it doesn't make for rich grounds to seed a science on.

I agree the fact that not everyone has NDE is any evidence for duality. I see the author's reasoning, though- if it were a purely physical phenemenon, shouldn't we expect to see it across the board? Example: people bleed when they're cut, people should have NDE's when their brain is oxygen deprived. There may be other factors involved to explain the low percentage, but it's a good prima facia point.

Unfortunately, it isn't. The reasoning is actually quite poor, and is virtually an argument from ignorance (as far as logic goes). There is no reason to expect a system such as this to be ubiquitous, given the potential variables at work. In fact, that's the very reason we have developed tools such as probability and statistics in conjunction with science - to account for the fact that systems are typically complex. For instance, not all people will respond to a given drug. Does that suddenly mean the drug has no physiological grounding? No - it means the chemistry behind it varies according to differences in physiology within a population.

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Sabom's anecdote was a prime example, however, of the nature of the evidence. It was all anecdotal - there were no controls. That doesn't make it a bad paper, as such, but it does make for a poorly supported conclusion.

The similiarities of the core experiences are striking, don't you think? In a flatine situation, with a jumble of recalled memories, why would there be such a coherent account, and why would it have a spiritual quality to it? The authors of the paper make this point at the end, when they compare the accounts of people with medically induced NDE's vs. the people they interviewed.

It's no doubt a fascinating field from a neurological perspective. And if you're asking for answers to those questions, I could only speculate. Yet it's no different to creationist reasoning - it's all argument from ignorance. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, but rather increments of evidence. There are undoubtedly complexities in neurology which we are only starting to understand. Nothing in those questions you've provided falsifies neurological hypotheses - they only demonstrate the lack of complete models. Nobody disputes that, yet by no means does an incomplete model give any leniancy to another model which has zero evidence.

Athon

 

[Malerin]

If the study was so flawed, I would expect The Lancet to have published a retraction by now (or not agreed to publish it in the first place), as they did here http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)60148-8/fulltext

This is not at all similar to creationist's complaining about gaps in the fossil record. In order to be similar, the creationists would have to be able to reference an evolutionist's study, published in a respected journal (and not retracted for any reason), which questions the validity of the causes of evolution.

As to Mark Crislip's rebuttal article, I'm not a doctor, so I'm not really qualified to evaluate Lommel's team's version of "clinical death" vs. "How long does it take to flatline? If there is zero perfusion, experts at my hospital tell me it is more like 20 seconds. That's with no perfusion. And the EEG experts tell me that the sensitivity of an EEG for brain function is more like a one megapixel camera than a 5 megapixel. The brain probably doesn't start to die until several minutes elapse. In Oregon an EEG is considered so insensitive it does not have to be included as one of the criteria for determining if someone is brain dead; although we get it anyway, a flatline EEG is only part of the mix."

My point was that the longest and largest NDE study ever done (I checked, it is the largest) rejected some of the naturalistic causes of NDE's.

Mark Crislip is free to submit his analysis to The Lancet. Either he hasn't done so, or they don't find it compelling enough to retract any part of the study. MM, it's kind of funny to hear you calling a study that has stood for seven years in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world "woo". The Lancet has been around almost 200 years. You would think they would know a thing or two about "woo".



And since when is ancedotal evidence not evidence? If I see the license plate of a car that has just run someone over, are the cops going to ignore me because I don't have a photograph to back it up? If a patient who reports an NDE gives an account that includes the contents of a message placed where no one can see it, wouldn't that be evidence? If your wife (or husband) says they were late coming home because of traffic are you in a sort of epistemic limbo until you can confirm their story?

 

[edge]

Your forgetting one thing that meditating with out drugs or injuries can produce out of body also. Then there is the accidental soul travel that can happen either on the way to sleep or set of by external stimuli.
Those also seem to have a religious context to them.

 

[Malerin]

Oh I'm sure there are reasons for it. Funding usually goes towards things that have some decent supporting evidence - obviously a catch 22, but given that this is the best a study like this can produce, it doesn't make for rich grounds to seed a science on.



Unfortunately, it isn't. The reasoning is actually quite poor, and is virtually an argument from ignorance (as far as logic goes). There is no reason to expect a system such as this to be ubiquitous, given the potential variables at work. In fact, that's the very reason we have developed tools such as probability and statistics in conjunction with science - to account for the fact that systems are typically complex. For instance, not all people will respond to a given drug. Does that suddenly mean the drug has no physiological grounding? No - it means the chemistry behind it varies according to differences in physiology within a population.



Sabom's anecdote was a prime example, however, of the nature of the evidence. It was all anecdotal - there were no controls. That doesn't make it a bad paper, as such, but it does make for a poorly supported conclusion.



It's no doubt a fascinating field from a neurological perspective. And if you're asking for answers to those questions, I could only speculate. Yet it's no different to creationist reasoning - it's all argument from ignorance. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, but rather increments of evidence. There are undoubtedly complexities in neurology which we are only starting to understand. Nothing in those questions you've provided falsifies neurological hypotheses - they only demonstrate the lack of complete models. Nobody disputes that, yet by no means does an incomplete model give any leniancy to another model which has zero evidence.

Athon

I think we're actually agreeing on a lot of things here. I'm not claiming the paper is the definitive word on NDE's. It's an interesting study that a reputable medical journal chose to publish. I posted it as a rebuttal to MM's claim (that I guess he wasn't actually making).

Physical = Made of matter and existing independent of the mind or perception. I think I can anticipate your next question.

 

[Malerin]

Okay, so they have over a hundred anecdotes instead of just one. Malerin, the plural of anecdote is not evidence

Um, so everyone was lying to them? If anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, how does psychology or psychiatry work?

Patient: "Doc, I'm feeling depressed."
Psychologist: "Prove it."

 

[athon]

If the study was so flawed, I would expect The Lancet to have published a retraction by now (or not agreed to publish it in the first place), as they did here http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)60148-8/fulltext

The study isn't flawed, IMO. Not as such. It is simply based on extremely weak reasoning. Journals, even those like the Lancet, do occasionally let controversial papers through. If the study itself contained factual errors, or was based on incorrect assumptions, then they might well need to retract. In this case, the conclusions aren't wrong, they are simply weak given the nature of the evidence.

This is not at all similar to creationist's complaining about gaps in the fossil record. In order to be similar, the creationists would have to be able to reference an evolutionist's study, published in a respected journal (and not retracted for any reason), which questions the validity of the causes of evolution.

MM is pointing out that the basis of your argument is in the same faith as that of a creationist's. They also point out apparent weaknesses in an argument in an attempt to support a second totally baseless model, which is illogical at best.

My point was that the longest and largest NDE study ever done (I checked, it is the largest) rejected some of the naturalistic causes of NDE's.

The portion of the study which is sizeable is the number of interviews and evaluations of NDE reports. You could have ten times this number, and if the basic premise is flawed, it won't matter how big it is. In this case, the premise is flawed - variation does not falsify physiology as a cause. This leads to a weak conclusion.

Mark Crislip is free to submit his analysis to The Lancet. Either he hasn't done so, or they don't find it compelling enough to retract any part of the study. MM, it's kind of funny to hear you calling a study that has stood for seven years in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world "woo". The Lancet has been around almost 200 years. You would think they would know a thing or two about "woo".

Again, the study itself is not flawed, even if the premise it stems from is. I've read a large number of papers in my day with questionable premises that are worthwhile as papers. The Lancet has no need to retract, as the information itself has value, even if their conclusions and premises don't. That's how science works - journal articles only need to be pulled if the objective information they put forward is faulty or misleading. That is not the case in this paper, as far as I can tell.

And since when is ancedotal evidence not evidence? If I see the license plate of a car that has just run someone over, are the cops going to ignore me because I don't have a photograph to back it up? If a patient who reports an NDE gives an account that includes the contents of a message placed where no one can see it, wouldn't that be evidence? If your wife (or husband) says they were late coming home because of traffic are you in a sort of epistemic limbo until you can confirm their story?

Well, that's another can of worms. There are already several threads on evidence and anecdotal evidence around. You'll find I agree that anecdotes are a form of evidence, however they are weak and rely on large amounts of additional supporting evidence. In cases like this one, an account needs to be supported by a demonstration of controls (especially blinding) in order to lend it weight. Otherwise, there are far more likely explanations for their accounts which take precedence over idealist explanations.

Athon

 

[athon]

I think we're actually agreeing on a lot of things here. I'm not claiming the paper is the definitive word on NDE's. It's an interesting study that a reputable medical journal chose to publish. I posted it as a rebuttal to MM's claim (that I guess he wasn't actually making).

Fair enough. I agree that the study itself is interesting, yet it is more or less spoiled by conclusions that don't follow from the information. The same data set, however, might prove to be quite useful for a sociologist exploring the phenomenon.

Physical = Made of matter and existing independent of the mind or perception. I think I can anticipate your next question.

I suggest we don't derail this thread, in which case - I've opened another one for this question here.

Athon

 

[quarky]

There may be some lost NDE's, as well. People that survive a flatline experience, yet come out of it brain damaged and unable to communicate. The intact memory is required to have a sense of self. Even if the sequence of memories is disturbed, via Alzheimer's, for instance, there is a loss of self...or at least the self that could report back coherently.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Um, so everyone was lying to them? If anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, how does psychology or psychiatry work?

Another logical fallacy - false dichotomy. You assume that either

1) all the people's anecdotes are factually correct and therefore reliable, or
2) they are all lying.

You forget many other explanations, such as

3) they believe what they are saying, but there is still no validity to their claims of supernatural experience.

Your claim of anecdote outweighing objective, verifiable, and repeatable scientific analysis is a classic of pseudoscience. This claim on your part also shows that you know virtually nil about the psychology behind eye-witness reports, anecdotes, belief, cognitive dissonance, etc.

Patient: "Doc, I'm feeling depressed."
Psychologist: "Prove it."

Yes, so because the patient is saying they are depressed that must mean they are clinically depressed. You know, there actually is a medical diagnosis for clinical depression, and "I feel sad" doesn't cut it

You know, Malerin, it takes more than caring to be a doctor. I'm guessing you don't practice medicine as a profession?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, from a Christian viewpoint if you get to heaven you need not apologize for anything since you have been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward based on your faith in Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice.

Wow, seriously? I don't have to apologize?? Awesome. So I can even mock God in his face and it's ok anyway because I've already been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward? Cool. Can I also pee in his carpet and get laid with his wife?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).

So if the five senses are out, then that means I'd have to use my sixth sense to receive direct revelations, right? Okay, let's fire up the sixth sense and find out what I can see...




AAAIIIEEEEE! DEAD PEOPLE!

Now I remember why I stopped doing that.

 

[Malerin]

Another logical fallacy - false dichotomy. You assume that either

1) all the people's anecdotes are factually correct and therefore reliable, or
2) they are all lying.

You forget many other explanations, such as

3) they believe what they are saying, but there is still no validity to their claims of supernatural experience.

Your claim of anecdote outweighing objective, verifiable, and repeatable scientific analysis is a classic of pseudoscience. This claim on your part also shows that you know virtually nil about the psychology behind eye-witness reports, anecdotes, belief, cognitive dissonance, etc.



Yes, so because the patient is saying they are depressed that must mean they are clinically depressed. You know, there actually is a medical diagnosis for clinical depression, and "I feel sad" doesn't cut it

You know, Malerin, it takes more than caring to be a doctor. I'm guessing you don't practice medicine as a profession?

"According to the definitions of most medical, psychological and psychiatric bodies, there is a commonality in the diagnosis of depression. Most depression tests have a very similar framework. Almost without exception, clinical depression will be diagnosed if a certain number of feelings, that are signs of depression, are present over a certain period of time"

(1) depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.



(2) markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others)



(3) significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains.



(4) insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day



(5) psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down)



(6) fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day



(7) feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick)



(8) diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others)



(9) recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide



http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Depression_Information/signs.htm

So when you tell the doctor you feel depressed, you've lost weight recently, are having trouble sleeping, and are suicidal, their response is what? I don't believe it till you prove it? Please. Depression is diagnosed based on anecdotal accounts of how a patient feels and what they're experiencing

Anecdotal evidence is commonly used in court cases (eyewitness testimony), and psychology/psychiatry and any branch of medicine which deals with self-reporting would be useless without it. How do you think the whole field of NDE research began, if not for people telling about their experiences near the moment of death?

I think you want to claim anecdotal evidence is not as strong as evidence of other kinds, which is another discussion. But it is evidence. I assume you don't walk around in an intellectual fog until you can verify everything everyone's ever told you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

3, 4, 5, and 6 are all physical symptoms. As far as depression being diagnosed by how a patient feels, so what? The diagnosis for every single disease that doesn't have any visible physical symptoms starts with the patient describing to the doctor how he or she feels. This in no way proves that the disease does not have a physical cause. Sometimes a patient can be sick and not even be aware of it for a long time. Thankfully we have means of diagnosis that do not rely solely on what the patient is feeling.

What, do you go up to cancer patients and tell them they could cure themselves just by thinking about it?

 

[Malerin]

3, 4, 5, and 6 are all physical symptoms. As far as depression being diagnosed by how a patient feels, so what? The diagnosis for every single disease that doesn't have any visible physical symptoms starts with the patient describing to the doctor how he or she feels. This in no way proves that the disease does not have a physical cause. Sometimes a patient can be sick and not even be aware of it for a long time. Thankfully we have means of diagnosis that do not rely solely on what the patient is feeling.

What, do you go up to cancer patients and tell them they could cure themselves just by thinking about it?

How does this have any bearing on the claim "Anecdotal evidence is not evidence"? If you tell your doctor you feel X in location Y, that is evidence for them to do further testing. They're not going to throw you out of the office because you didn't bring lab results with you. I'm not claiming that things don't have physical causes (possibly they don't because I'm agnotic about materialism)- I'm claiming that anecdotal evidence IS evidence. We rely on it everyday (e.g., your wife significant other tells you to pick up some eggs on the way home. Do you check the fridge to verify their story )

 

[athon]

So when you tell the doctor you feel depressed, you've lost weight recently, are having trouble sleeping, and are suicidal, their response is what? I don't believe it till you prove it? Please. Depression is diagnosed based on anecdotal accounts of how a patient feels and what they're experiencing

Non sequitor argument, I'm afraid.

Depression isn't an assessment on causation, but rather the reporting of a symptom. To compare this with NDE, I don't think anybody has a problem with agreeing that X people all reported a sensation. Based on this, I'd say the likelihood of them all lying is very, very low. Therefore something is causing them to all experience a sensation.

If that sensation was unpleasant, and a remedy was found that diminished that unpleasant sensation, then a doctor could recommend that remedy on the basis of the anecdote.

On the other hand, like NDE, there is no single, clear cause of depression. It is linked with many neurological systems which are still being investigated.

Anecdotal evidence is commonly used in court cases (eyewitness testimony), and psychology/psychiatry and any branch of medicine which deals with self-reporting would be useless without it. How do you think the whole field of NDE research began, if not for people telling about their experiences near the moment of death?

Again, anecdotes are evidence...just not necessarily for what you think.

For a person to say 'I experienced X', you can be moderately sure they experienced that. If they then interpret 'X' to mean something, e.g., 'I experienced the perception of a green man in my lounge = alien from other planet' or 'I experienced sensation of not being on the ground = I was actually flying', then we have zero evidence for the interpretation, while we have some value in the evidence of their account of experience.

Athon

 

[MattusMaximus]

How about this, Malerin?

Anecdotal evidence is really lousy evidence.

Feel better?

As to this statement...

Anecdotal evidence is commonly used in court cases (eyewitness testimony), and psychology/psychiatry and any branch of medicine which deals with self-reporting would be useless without it. How do you think the whole field of NDE research began, if not for people telling about their experiences near the moment of death?

Yes, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence in court cases. Do you know how many innocent people in my home state (Illinois) have been wrongfully convicted of murder simply based upon eyewitness testimony? Answer: so many they shut down the damned capitol punishment system in this state. That's where an over-reliance on anecdote can get you.

Note, those same people were eventually released from death-row based not upon anecdote, but solid, verifiable, and objective evidence - DNA, for instance.

So let's say you're on trial for murder, and when push comes to shove, you'd feel comfortable with possibly being convicted on the basis solely of eyewitness testimony? You put that much value on anecdotal evidence? If the prosecution was offering only anecdotal evidence, would your respond in kind or would you go with actual physical evidence?

Now go back to burning your strawmen.

 

[Malerin]

How about this, Malerin?

Anecdotal evidence is really lousy evidence.

Feel better?

As to this statement...

No, because it's not true. If 20 independent eyewitnesses saw person X murder person Y, that's extremely strong evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be unreliable, but then so can physical evidence. Ever hear of Piltdown Man?