Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Belz...]

You know that philosophers are still discussing about 'what is reality?', 'what can we know?' etcetera.

That's because they depend on discussing things ad infinitum. While science progresses, they just keep talking.

So, it's not an easy question with an easy answer.

Non sequitur.

When someone had an NDE and he or she is telling us that:
-It's difficult to use words to tell about it ('using words to describe it' is all we have).
- It felt more real than our world here.

You continue to refuse to learn what is taught to you. You recycle your own claims without any effort to incorporate new knowledge.

 

[John Jones]

When the content of the dream is exactly the same, in that case, it's not a dream anymore. It's a reality.

No. It's not reality. It's a commonly shared dream. Like flying. Like teeth crumbling. Like sex dreams.

They are dreams. This has been explained to you many times, Maartenn100.

 

[MaartenVergu]

The arguments here are not convincing at all and some people here are avoiding the difficult questions. They don't seem to learn when I give some information about research of NDE's.

 

[MaartenVergu]

I'm not playing your definitions game when you are utterly unwilling to even acknowledge the points that people post for your benefit. At least do so, and we'll talk about your own questions.

You are avoiding the question with blablabla.
So again:
What was the definition of the 'induced NDE' the scientists used?
And another question: how did they know it was similar to an NDE when their subjects never experienced one. How could they know that it was similar to an NDE;
Please do not avoid the difficult questions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You are avoiding the question with blablabla.
So again:
What was the definition of the 'induced NDE' scientists used?

Suppose you identify, precisely, with citations, which scientists, and which study, it is about which you speak?

(BTW, you still appear to be ignoring the "D" in "NDE")

 

[MaartenVergu]

By finding an accurate enough brainwave reader. Which, while it does not yet exist, is theoretically possible.

Nice fantasy of yours. But in reality: such thing does not exist.
You are trying to save your fallacy ("when you can't proof it, it doesn't exist") by talking about a fantasised brainwave reader to proof the content of a dream.

And of course, by descrediting philosophy and the ideas of f.e. mathematical realism you try to keep your personal definition of reality as the only legitimate definition.
There is not just one concept. But of course, you can just avoid other possible definitions of 'existence' or 'reality' so you can keep your definition to defend your position.
But it's obviously a selective bias to descredite an open and free discussion between free thinking people (philosophers) with rational arguments about the nature of reality.
By the way, you still didn't give any scientific source where I could find your definition of the concept 'real'.
("interacting with the universe".). I can't find it.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Slowvehicle, it were the people here who were writing about these experiments with induced N(D)E's.
It was one of the arguments here: "these N(D)E's can be induced."

So, my question is:
What was the definition of the 'induced NDE' the scientists used?
And another question: how did they know it was similar to an NDE when their subjects never experienced one. How could they know that it was similar to an NDE;
Please do not avoid the difficult questions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, it were the people here who were writing about these experiments with inducing N(D)E's.
It was one of the arguments here: "these N(D)E's can be induced.

I encourage you to consider that you may be misrepresenting what has been posted.

Be so kind as to quote where such has, in fact been said.

Given that the "soi dissant" experience is misnamed, I, for one, would speak of "reproducing the (reported) experiences", not reproducing a mis-named and misrepresented suite of effects.

So, my question is:
What was the definition of the 'induced NDE' the scientists used?
And another question: how did they know it was similar to an NDE when their subjects never experienced one. How could they know that it was similar to an NDE;
Please do not avoid the difficult questions.

Have you, in fact, read any of the studies offered you?

If you chose not so to do, it is your own reticence that keeps from you the answers you say you seek.

There is no "hard question" here save one: Why misname the hallucination suite a "near 'death' experience", when death is not involved? Would you call a prom date a "near 'marriage' experience", or singing Io Vinho Schertzofino in the shower a "near 'la Scala' experience"?

 

[Belz...]

The arguments here are not convincing at all

Correction: you don't listen to what people tell you. That's not the same thing.

and some people here are avoiding the difficult questions.

Which ones ? All your questions have been answered.

You are avoiding the question with blablabla.

I am not avoiding the question. I am telling you that I refuse to answer your points and questions until you answer mine. It's bad form by you to expect all your questions answered but not make any effort to understand and address what is said to you.

Please do not avoid the difficult questions.

There's nothing difficult about your questions. You just keep ignoring the answers.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Slowvehicle, we use the official terms. "NDE" (Near Death Experience) is an official term with a well known definition (see wikipedia et al). So, i'm not going to invent terms nobody understand.

 

[MaartenVergu]

You know that philosophers are still discussing about 'what is reality?', 'what can we know?' etcetera.

That's because they depend on discussing things ad infinitum. While science progresses, they just keep talking.

Philosophers are asking many questions and are using rational or logical arguments to answer them. They also ask fundamental questions about the postulates of the scientific method (Popper et al), about materialism etc... It's a free and open discussion with rational arguments.

By descrediting philosophy, you can belief in the ilusion that your basic concepts of reality are like dogma's (can't be discussed), and you don't have to argue them or confront them with other philosophical concepts of reality, then you are narrow minded in my opinion.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, we use the official terms. "NDE" (Near Death Experience) is an official term with a well known definition (see wikipedia et al). So, i'm not going to invent terms nobody understand.

And, like "paranormal abilities", it is a misleading, a poorly-crafted, a deceptive, an inappositive, a false-to-reality mocker of a term, assuming its own conclusion; a bit of special pleading made flesh. Unless and until one who has, in fact died, and is, in fact, dead reports on the experience, the suite of hallucinations reported by people who have not, in fact, died, your term is not a factual report.

Use it an you so choose, but do not deceive yourself; nor expect uncritical acceptance. Grape Nuts^TM are neither grapes nor nuts.

ETA: what do you mean, "we"? Did I miss your elevation? I do not use the term, not without reservation.

 

[MaartenVergu]

You can have your opinion about the term. I don't like the term 'NDE' either, but that's another discussion. I use this term to avoid confusion about the concept, because it's a well described term.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You can have your opinion about the term. I don't like the term 'NDE' either, but that's another discussion. I use this term to avoid confusion about the concept, because it's a well described term.

Funny how you "do not like it", but use it in full adoption of its inherent special pleading.

Remember that the people who report what it is like to "die", did not, in fact, die. Much like minstrel-show coureurs du bois who never left St. Louis.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Slowvehicle, I don't agree. It's not because you 'come back' that you didn't die. We don't know that. Their was brain malfunctioning, no electricity in the brain, no blood flow.
So, was he dead? We don't know. When is someone dead?

That's the whole point of the discussion about these experiences: was the brain functioning or not. Some people say: the brain must had activity because they can remember these experiences. The memory worked, so the brain was functioning.
They assume that the brain must function, because there are these memories.
But that's the whole question. Researchers of NDE's claim that the brain wasn't functioning at all. There was no electric activity in the brain at all, they claim. And yet there is this very coherent and consistent 'hallucination'.

 

[Nonpareil]

Nice fantasy of yours. But in reality: such thing does not exist.

You will note that I specifically said that it does not. The point is not that it exists. It is that it is theoretically possible.

Pay attention.

And of course, by descrediting philosophy and the ideas of f.e. mathematical realism you try to keep your personal definition of reality as the only legitimate definition.

I discount neither. Mathematical realism does not contradict the definition in any way. "Philosophy" might, but the veracity of such philosophies is tenable at best. And you haven't given any examples in any case, so there is nothing to discount.

By the way, you still didn't give any scientific source where I could find your definition of the concept 'real'.
("interacting with the universe".). I can't find it.

Because that isn't the definition I gave. Re-read my posts. Just the last one, if that's too daunting a task.

Here's a hint: "interacts with the universe" is not the definition, but rather a corollary to it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, I don't agree. It's not because you 'come back' that you didn't die. We don't know that. Their was brain malfunctioning, no electricity in the brain, no blood flow.
So, was he death? We don't know.

Then you have no reason, no honest cause, to adopt the term "near death experience" for a suite of hallucinations that does not, in fact, represent the experience of nearly dying. The things reported are experienced by individuals who (not to put too fine a point on it) did not die.

That's the whole point of the discussion about these experiences: was the brain functioning or not. Some people say: the brain must had activity because they can remember these experiences. The memory worked, so the brain was functioning.
They assume that the brain must function, because there are these memories.

There's part of the problem...

But that's the whole question. Researchers of NDE's claim that the brain wasn't functioning at all. There was no electric activity in the brain at all. They were clinically death.

And, if the brain was, in fact, "not functioning" there was, in fact, no brain function. Any function reported would have occurred when there was, in fact, brain activity, compressed as is the case when a dream lasts for subjective years.

A brain that is not functioning is not functioning. A brain that is functioning is, in fact, functioning.

 

[MaartenVergu]

My best argument is that there are some studies with induced cardic arrest in people and in animals. When you induce cardiac arrest, then within one second the blood flow to the brain is zero. Within one second people are unconscious. The body reflexes are gone, wich is a function of the cortex of the brain. The brainstemreflexes are gone. People don't breath anymore. When you measure the EEG of the brain, after an average of 15 seconds: a total flatline. So, in the studies of induced cardiac arrest in people or animals, the brain doesn't function anymore after an average of 15 seconds.

Ergo, in the studies of NDE's, most people must have a flat EEG after an average of 15 seconds and yet they have an enhanced consciousness, a coherent experience and all the logic thinking faculties seem to function well.

 

[Belz...]

Philosophers are asking many questions and are using rational or logical arguments to answer them.

Yeah, and scientists use facts. Guess which one gets real answers.

By descrediting philosophy, you can belief in the ilusion that your basic concepts of reality are like dogma's (can't be discussed), and you don't have to argue them or confront them with other philosophical concepts of reality, then you are narrow minded in my opinion.

Science is the most open-minded methodology of the two, because it's not bound by the hypothesis.

So, in the studies of NDE's, most people must have a flat EEG and yet they have an enhanced consciousness.

You jumped a step, there. People who have NDEs aren't at flat EEG. We have TOLD you this already. Stop ignoring what people teach you.

 

[MaartenVergu]

You jumped a step, there. People who have NDEs aren't at flat EEG.

Did you measure the EEG? How do you know that? Did you use an EEG-monitor?
The studies of induced cardiac arrest are more convincing then your argument.

The brainstemreflexes are gone. The body reflexes are gone.
And there is even more consciousness then the normal waken consciousness we have now.

How do you explain that?