• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

nde--read the interview with fenwick

idunno said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
idunno said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Slimething said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:

hamelekim said:
Do we know at what point the brain ceases to function as normal after the heart has stopped?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Slimething said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SezMe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hamelekim said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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:
 
hamelekim said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
idunno said:
If he wants a controlled study as he proposes we have to resort to NAZI-methods
Click to expand...

Wow, Godwined in the first page. And this was such an itneresting thread until idunno started posting as well...
 
«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 said:
«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
Click to expand...


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.
 
I can't even find the article. The link is to a page selling DVDs at $25 a go and asking for "contributions". Rubbish.
 
idunno said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
idunno said:
«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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom