Hindu NDEs

[plindboe]

Thought this article was interesting:

http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html

Subjects of Indian near-death experiences do not report seeing their own physical body during the near-death experience, although American subjects usually do.

Jody Long, a near-death researcher with NDERF, has put it best. She said, "One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system."

Granted it's on a woowoo site, and the studies have small sample sizes, but still interesting nonetheless.

That NDEs apparently seem to be dependant on the culture and belief system tells me that the phenonemon probably is closely linked to hallucinations, similar to the endless UFO and ghost encounters out there, simply because people see what they subconsciously expect to see.

Anyone know of similar studies?

 

[CFLarsen]

Anyone know of similar studies?

I'm merely reminded of how similar this is to how the different cultures have viewed UFOs. That Indians and Americans experience NDEs differently very strongly suggests that NDEs are hallucinatory.

We are good at deceiving other people, but we are better at deceiving ourselves.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

I'm merely reminded of how similar this is to how the different cultures have viewed UFOs. That Indians and Americans experience NDEs differently very strongly suggests that NDEs are hallucinatory.

We are good at deceiving other people, but we are better at deceiving ourselves.

It suggests no such thing. Learn something about the psychology of perception. The self interprets reality in such a way that it makes sense to the individual. This is so for our everyday empirical reality, and it would seem strange if it were not so for any transempirical realm. This of course doesn't mean we can simply see what we want to see. It does mean though that implicit expectations mould, shape and colour what we see. It is sufficient that NDE accounts throughout the world share common elements for them to be suggestive that they are real.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

It suggests no such thing. Learn something about the psychology of perception. The self interprets reality in such a way that it makes sense to the individual. This is so for our everyday empirical reality, and it would seem strange if it were not so for any transempirical realm. This of course doesn't mean we can simply see what we want to see. It does mean though that implicit expectations mould, shape and colour what we see. It is sufficient that NDE accounts throughout the world share common elements for them to be suggestive that they are real.

I don't doubt that they are real, in the sense that people report them and believe something has happened. But the shared common elements could just as well be explained by common physiologies/perceptual systems breaking down in extreme situations, without the need for them to be indicative of some realm beyond the physical.

BTW, welcome back, Ian--I missed you.

 

[Dancing David]

The issue with NDE is "IF" the experience is something extraordinary or a Mecrutio suggests a product of the brain under stress.

It is important to remeber the process of confabulation, our brain makes up stuff all the time, like the material we percieve where the opticnerve passes through the retinat, or when there is a head trauma, when a trauma victim has clear emeories of stuff that didn't happen.

The experiences are real but will be interpreted in personal and cultural ways.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

It suggests no such thing. Learn something about the psychology of perception. The self interprets reality in such a way that it makes sense to the individual. This is so for our everyday empirical reality, and it would seem strange if it were not so for any transempirical realm. This of course doesn't mean we can simply see what we want to see. It does mean though that implicit expectations mould, shape and colour what we see. It is sufficient that NDE accounts throughout the world share common elements for them to be suggestive that they are real.

Don't patronize me. Working with webdesign, user interfaces and usability on world-wide systems, I am not entirely unfamiliar with how different cultures percieve things, Ian. I also have some knowledge from what I know about the paranormal.

I agree with Mercutio: They may be experiencing the same phenomenon, but why is it an OOBE, and not a hallucination?

I'm going out on a limb here and assume that you don't think that all such experiences are OOBE, but that some are hallucinatoty. But how do you distinguish between the two?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

I don't doubt that they are real, in the sense that people report them and believe something has happened. But the shared common elements could just as well be explained by common physiologies/perceptual systems breaking down in extreme situations, without the need for them to be indicative of some realm beyond the physical.

BTW, welcome back, Ian--I missed you.

The original contention was that the fact that people from differing cultures might experience NDE's differently is strongly suggestive that they are not real. For the reason I gave I do not think this can be sustained.

The fact that they might be unreal is neither here or there.

This just simply follows a very predictable pattern. A skeptic declares he has proved that some alleged paranormal phenomenon is not real. I argue against this. Then the skeptic says something like nevertheless it is possible it is not real, and therefore almost certainly isn't unless you can prove otherwise.

But I might not be interested in that debate. I might simply just be interested in rebutting the so called "proof" from the skeptic.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

The original contention was that the fact that people from differing cultures might experience NDE's differently is strongly suggestive that they are not real. For the reason I gave I do not think this can be sustained.

Ah...I see what you mean.

I am a bit curious about one thing...I understand (from many previous threads ) your point "The self interprets reality in such a way that it makes sense to the individual. This is so for our everyday empirical reality, and it would seem strange if it were not so for any transempirical realm." But to me, enough of our perceptual system's "interpretation" is tied in with the physical mechanisms (perceptual fields, for instance, in visual perception, which are a direct result of the structure of the cellular structure of the retina, are responsible for our perception of Mach bands) that I wonder--to what extent would it "seem strange" for transempirical perception to be different from everyday perception? After all (and this is, I think, the key assumption, and what I want your opinion on), in this transempirical perception, should we not be set free from the limitations of the physical perceptual systems? And if (a big if, I recognize) this is the case, then why not free of the cultural teachings? Lastly...is there, in your view, anything more than "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" questioning going on when we wonder such things? I can honestly see reason in making the assumptions you do in this case; my problem is that I see other assumptions as equally reasonable. Your thoughts?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

Don't patronize me. Working with webdesign, user interfaces and usability on world-wide systems, I am not entirely unfamiliar with how different cultures percieve things, Ian. I also have some knowledge from what I know about the paranormal.

I agree with Mercutio: They may be experiencing the same phenomenon, but why is it an OOBE, and not a hallucination?

I'm going out on a limb here and assume that you don't think that all such experiences are OOBE, but that some are hallucinatoty. But how do you distinguish between the two?

An OOBE is an "out of body experience". And that's it. It's a neutral description i.e one has the experience of being outside ones body. This doesn't mean to imply that one literally is out of ones body. They may or may not be. The term tries to avoid any theoretical interpretation.

Now certainly with some OOBEs the environment reported does not correspond with "how it really is". Other times it appears to do so. Thus during induced OBEs in experimental tests subjects have been able to identify remote targets to a statistically significant degree. OBEs also vary immensely. Voluntary induced OBEs are rather insipid. Those associated with NDEs tend to be much more rich.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

Now certainly with some OOBEs the environment reported does not correspond with "how it really is". Other times it appears to do so. Thus during induced OBEs in experimental tests subjects have been able to identify remote targets to a statistically significant degree. OBEs also vary immensely. Voluntary induced OBEs are rather insipid. Those associated with NDEs tend to be much more rich.

I supposed it would be too much to ask if I could see those studies?

You do realize the major flaw in an induced OBE as opposed to a "real" NDE, don't you?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

Ah...I see what you mean.

I am a bit curious about one thing...I understand (from many previous threads ) your point "The self interprets reality in such a way that it makes sense to the individual. This is so for our everyday empirical reality, and it would seem strange if it were not so for any transempirical realm." But to me, enough of our perceptual system's "interpretation" is tied in with the physical mechanisms (perceptual fields, for instance, in visual perception, which are a direct result of the structure of the cellular structure of the retina, are responsible for our perception of Mach bands)

It is my belief that it is the mind which interprets the data from our sensory perceptions, not the brain. The brain may have to be configured in order to perceive in a given way, but that does not mean it's not the mind doing the interpreting.

that I wonder--to what extent would it "seem strange" for transempirical perception to be different from everyday perception? After all (and this is, I think, the key assumption, and what I want your opinion on), in this transempirical perception, should we not be set free from the limitations of the physical perceptual systems?

We are free from such limitations. But when we see reality in a certain way this is not because our minds are limited in some way. Our intelligence is limited, yes, our memories, yes, our visual perception (and the other 4 senses) are all limited while the self operates through the brain. But when we see, for example, a necker cube as a real cube, this isn't because our perception is limited. Reality is nothing more than "the spin" the mind imposes on it. We cannot free ourselves from such an interpretation. Indeed that doesn't make sense.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

I supposed it would be too much to ask if I could see those studies?

I feel disinclined to provide evidence to skeptics. Sceptics I would, but not skeptics.

You do realize the major flaw in an induced OBE as opposed to a "real" NDE, don't you? [/B]

I don't know. I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

It is my belief that it is the mind which interprets the data from our sensory perceptions, not the brain. The brain may have to be configured in order to perceive in a given way, but that does not mean it's not the mind doing the interpreting.

But this is exactly my question: there are, in ordinary perception, phenomena which are the result of the physical structure of the retina (to stick with the same example I used before). Thus, if I have understood your explanation, the mind interprets the information that comes from this sense-organ and its physical structure. Ok so far. But in these NDE's, at least as I understand them (as true experiences, anyway), the mind is no longer interpreting through the physical constraints of the structure of the retina. It should, then, be more able to see things as they really are and not "as they are, subject to our physical constraints".

But it appears that the NDE reports show that the physical and social influences on our ordinary perception are still in place with transempirical perception.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

I feel disinclined to provide evidence to skeptics. Sceptics I would, but not skeptics.

In other words: "I have evidence, but I won't show it, nyah, nyah, neener, neener!"

This is exactly what I want to prevent by having stricter debate rules. Such childish behavior does not belong in a serious discussion, Ian. It gets us nowhere. We do not progress.

Now, do you have evidence or not?

I don't know. I don't know what you're talking about.

The whole idea behind NDEs is that you get a glimpse of an afterlife - a Heaven, Nirvana, whathaveyou. But you do it, because you are near death - hence the term.

If you are not near death - that is, in those circumstances where you have an induced OOBE, then how can that be an Near Death Experience? You are not near death.

So, how do you distinguish between:

1. An experience from a real NDE, where you are close to dying
2. An experience from an induced OOBE, where you are not close to dying
3. A hallucination

Hm?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

But this is exactly my question: there are, in ordinary perception, phenomena which are the result of the physical structure of the retina (to stick with the same example I used before). Thus, if I have understood your explanation, the mind interprets the information that comes from this sense-organ and its physical structure. Ok so far. But in these NDE's, at least as I understand them (as true experiences, anyway), the mind is no longer interpreting through the physical constraints of the structure of the retina. It should, then, be more able to see things as they really are and not "as they are, subject to our physical constraints".

But it appears that the NDE reports show that the physical and social influences on our ordinary perception are still in place with transempirical perception.

But I specifically made the point that although the brain constrains our intelligence, memories, visual acuity etc, it doesn't constrain the "spin" that the self imposes upon reality. Rather it allows it.

For example we see a 3D world because of an implicit low level theory we have about the world. According to you, if we literally leave our bodies we would therefore not see a 3D world, but see it as it 'truly is'! And what would that be? A flat chaotically coloured plain at no distance away from us? No, this is just simply nonsensical. Sorry, but that's simply not my understanding. There is no reality as it really is. There are only selves and their thoughts and perceptions.

And I don't know what you mean by "are the result of". The brain does not create consciousness, and therefore a fortiori does not create the way we see things. It merely allows us to see things in a certain way e.g the brain allows us to perceive a 3D world. Maybe if the brain were damaged in a particular way we wouldn't be able to see a 3D world. This is because even though the self is capable of seeing a 3D world, (or indeed is capable of having vastly enhanced vision and even be able to see 360 degrees around oneself etc), the body and, in particular, the brain, limits our perceptions. The brain acts as a kind of filter.

What happens outside the brain is that the self is more free to interpret reality accordingly. So in an afterlife realm you will see the self play a much greater role in our perceptions of that reality (and hence character of that reality since nothing exists outside our perceptions). And therefore we would certainly see a 3D world!

Got a funny feeling I'm not explaining this too well! LOL

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

In other words: "I have evidence, but I won't show it, nyah, nyah, neener, neener!"

This is exactly what I want to prevent by having stricter debate rules. Such childish behavior does not belong in a serious discussion, Ian. It gets us nowhere. We do not progress.

If you find my post does not meet your criteria of a critical discussion then take it up with Randi or Hal or whoever.

Now, do you have evidence or not?

Yes I do. I do have evidence but won't provide it. I'll only provide it to non-skeptics.

The whole idea behind NDEs is that you get a glimpse of an afterlife - a Heaven, Nirvana, whathaveyou.

No, that's actually quite infrequent.

But you do it, because you are near death - hence the term.

No, you can have NDE's when you're not near death. Why shouldn't you be able to do so? The self simply needs to be loosened from the brain.

If you are not near death - that is, in those circumstances where you have an induced OOBE, then how can that be an Near Death Experience? You are not near death.

Because of the certain characteristic phenomenology defined by an NDE. But yes, an OBE without being near death would not be classified as an NDE.

So, how do you distinguish between:

1. An experience from a real NDE, where you are close to dying
2. An experience from an induced OOBE, where you are not close to dying
3. A hallucination

Certain phenomenology is connected with an NDE. eg a feeling of peace, the experiencer of profound love being directed at you, and so on. An OBE is simply an OBE. It would only be classified as an NDE were it to take place on the threshold of death.

The 3rd item on your list is irrelevant. Here we get into the theoretical interpretation of an OBE which is irrelevant in the context of our present discussion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

If you find my post does not meet your criteria of a critical discussion then take it up with Randi or Hal or whoever.

That's the point. As it is now, people can argue like you do, with no intention of reaching any other goal than confusion and the tedious repetition of dogma.

Yes I do. I do have evidence but won't provide it. I'll only provide it to non-skeptics.

Why?

No, that's actually quite infrequent.

People get glimpses of what they think is an afterlife: The Great White Light, shadows moving, maybe even people they recognize. Sure, we also get the tunnels etc.

No, you can have NDE's when you're not near death. Why shouldn't you be able to do so? The self simply needs to be loosened from the brain.

No, if you are not near death, then you have an OOBE. If you have an OOBE when you are near death, then you have an NDE.

NDE means "Near Death Experience", Ian.

Because of the certain characteristic phenomenology defined by an NDE. But yes, an OBE without being near death would not be classified as an NDE.

Can you make up your mind?? You just contradicted yourself here. Which is it?

Certain phenomenology is connected with an NDE. eg a feeling of peace, the experiencer of profound love being directed at you, and so on. An OBE is simply an OBE. It would only be classified as an NDE were it to take place on the threshold of death.

Yes, but NDEs don't have to mean that you feel at peace etc. They can also be pretty violent and traumatizing.

The 3rd item on your list is irrelevant. Here we get into the theoretical interpretation of an OBE which is irrelevant in the context of our present discussion.

No, it is far from irrelevant, it is pivotal. How do you distinguish between the first two and the latter?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

But I specifically made the point that although the brain constrains our intelligence, memories, visual acuity etc, it doesn't constrain the "spin" that the self imposes upon reality. Rather it allows it.

Actually it does constrain it, but also allows it, if you know what I mean.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

That's the point. As it is now, people can argue like you do, with no intention of reaching any other goal than confusion and the tedious repetition of dogma.

What dogma do I repeat? I always argue my case. If my post is unsatisfactory then complain to Randi or Hal. Or argue about getting the rules changed. Maybe try to persaude them that no non-skeptics should henceforth be allowed to post. But don't whine at me about it.

Snip the stuff regarding your lack of knowledge regarding what is defined as an OBE and NDE

No, it is far from irrelevant, it is pivotal. How do you distinguish between the first two and the latter? [/B]

I keep repeating myself. There is no theoretical interpretation associated with OBE's. They might well all be hallucinations (whatever a hallucination might mean). Therefore your question of how we distinguish OBEs from hallucinations reveals a deep misunderstanding of this point.

The question of whether one literally leaves ones body during an OBE is another topic.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu NDEs

And I don't know what you mean by "are the result of". The brain does not create consciousness, and therefore a fortiori does not create the way we see things. It merely allows us to see things in a certain way e.g the brain allows us to perceive a 3D world. Maybe if the brain were damaged in a particular way we wouldn't be able to see a 3D world. This is because even though the self is capable of seeing a 3D world, (or indeed is capable of having vastly enhanced vision and even be able to see 360 degrees around oneself etc), the body and, in particular, the brain, limits our perceptions. The brain acts as a kind of filter.

I'll leave aside what the "real world" that we might perceive might be (although for myself, your description of "A flat chaotically coloured plain at no distance away from us" is nonsensical--I do realize you gave it as just one possibility among an unknowable number of unknowable possibilities, but still...), and focus on what you say here. If as you say above, the self is capable of, say, 360 degree vision, and if

What happens outside the brain is that the self is more free to interpret reality accordingly. So in an afterlife realm you will see the self play a much greater role in our perceptions of that reality (and hence character of that reality since nothing exists outside our perceptions).

then it seems to me that, even if we see cultural differences in the things which "the self" has learned over a lifetime, we should also see similarities in the shedding of physiological constraints (such as directional vision). But the opening post specifically mentions differences in seeing one's body...and thus, differences in what is seen.

Do you have references that suggest that 360 degree vision is a commonplace occurence in NDE's?