Merged Near Death Experience Study

[steenkh]

I don't believe in it, but I have some reasonable doubts. Interviews, IANDS-website information etc. make me think. And we can discuss it here without being convinced. Only discussing pro and contra arguments. Nothing wrong with that.

But you do not discuss, you just try to convince. Not once have you addressed the points we have made, for instance that there is no good reason why NDEs should be formed while "dead" instead of while awakening.

 

[Donn]

I agree with the others, you are not discussing anything. You are like a xerox machine that just copies its own output over and over again. We may as well not be here, you can talk to a web server for all the difference that'll make. You won't even notice.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe in it, but I have some reasonable doubts.

Reasonable doubt can only exist when the issue is unsolved. Let's see what we have:

- Experiences of NDEs that are clearly not occuring when the person is actually dead.
- Experiences of NDEs that do not match each other, contrary to your claim.
- Laws of physics which are well-tested and preclude a soul or an afterlife.
- No proposed mechanism for such a soul or afterlife.
- A self-contradictory metaphysics in dualism.
- A video with interviews that may or may not represent the actual experiences as they happened.

I don't think there's room for reasonable doubt at this point, unless you can provide something more concrete. Reasonable doubt in an unknown isn't "it's still possible if I posit X" where X is another unknown.

 

[MaartenVergu]

- Laws of physics which are well-tested and preclude a soul or an afterlife.

Here is your mistake. Physics, and science in general has its limits. In another topic I wrote about this. For example: when you are walking into the woods and you discover an electrochemical system in a forest. Let's assume that this electrochemical system is at the same time 'a state of dreaming'. It's both. It's its material side and it is at the same time: subjective experiences (cfr, a brain). It doesn't look like a 'nerv system' at all, but it has the same property: the interacting materials are at the same time 'experiencing the world'. It's matter and it's a state of consciousness.

Your most sophisticated scientific tools or your most brilliant mathematical models of this electrochemical system are unable to discover this 'state of dreaming' as part of its reality. The system is only 'interacting materials' following the laws of physics and chemistry and that's it. Nothing more.

That's what science can tell us about this system in the woods. But 'the state of dreaming' of these interacting materials is hidden and not even necessary to have a coherent explanation of the electrochemical process.

It's the same thing with NDE's. How are you going to discover the fact that the content of the experience of people who had an NDE were real? Suppose that it is a real world, how are you going to discover that with the scientific tools?

How are you going to investigate the tunnel they are talking about? There is no way to use your tools to investigate the light people are talking about. It's an area where science cannot go. The content of a dream or the content of an hallucination is hidden territory for the scientific method. The only thing you can do is measure brainactivity. And that's about it. You don't need the words of the experiencer. It's wordsalad. The only thing your scientific tools can find is electrochemistry in a dying brain. That's all there is in this world, when you use your scientific tools.

Only an interview, is the only tool, to know about this part of reality.
Only 'to be' the electrochemical system who has this experience is the only reliable tool of knowledge about this part of reality.

That's your big mistake: to think that physics or science is going to reveal us everything there is to know about the world. There is at least one electrochemical system (a brain and a nerve system) with invisible properties: consciousness, awareness, subjective experiences. These are hidden. Cannot be found with the best tools of physics. These things are not even necessary to model the whole universe. Yet 'subjective experiences' are part of reality. Science can't discover them in material objects.
To be the experiencer is to know that it exists. I wrote about his earlier.

 

[mstricky]

Another argument: veridical perception;

Veridical Perceptions Do Occur
Indeed, a number of cases of veridical perceptions have occurred during cardiac arrest resuscitation and
were verified, at least informally. In the Sartori prospective study, a patient reported seeing the physiotherapist
peeking around the curtains during the resuscitation to check on him, and the researchers verified those
perceptions (Sartori, Badham, & Fenwick, 2006). Kimberly Clark Sharp (1995; 2007) reported that patient
Maria’s perceptions of a tennis shoe on a ledge outside a third story window in the hospital during her
resuscitation were accurate, that Sharp recovered the shoe, and that Maria recounted the story to a number of
hospital workers at the time. Rudolf Smit (2008) reported that a patient later recognized the nurse who had
removed his dentures during resuscitation and accurately described the wooden tray where they were placed and
other features of the hospital room, even though he was completely unconscious. Other cases occurring during
resuscitation include a patient who saw a penny out of normal sight on top of one of the cabinets in the room,
which a nurse later found (Morris & Knafl, 2003, p. 155), a patient who saw a nurse unsafely opening a glass vial
in another room (Moody & Perry, 1988, pp. 19–20), and three cases that Kenneth Ring and Madelaine Lawrence
(1993) reported: a red shoe on the roof of the hospital that a patient saw and a doctor later recovered, plaid
shoelaces that a patient saw and that the nurse who had worn them later confirmed, and a yellow smock that a
patient saw and that the nurse who had worn it later confirmed.

The fact that a patient can accurately describe in detail the unique sequence of events
during their resuscitation is evidence of veridical perception.

source: On the Scope of Analysis for the AWARE Study

Those are all Out Of Body Experiences not Near Death Experiences. But it does prove that we hover over our bodies in certain circumstances. Maybe we come out of our bodies during trauma when we think we are dying but go back into our bodies when we realise all is ok.

 

[Belz...]

Here is your mistake. Physics, and science in general has its limits.

It's not a mistake. It's another example of your total inability to read what people post. I said that physics is well-tested, not final, and that at this time (notice the use of the present tense), it precludes the supernatural.

You have still not put any thought at trying to understand my earlier point to you: if something interacts with the physical world, then it is physical. If it is physical, how can it be called supernatural ? And if you perceive it, somehow, how can it not interact with you and your senses ? EVEN if you posit the existence of a soul to bridge the two, that soul HAS to interact with both, and thus with the physical world. You cannot logically escape this: if something can be perceived, it is not supernatural. The supernatural (i.e. outside of our physical universe) may as well exist, but we'll never know about it in any way.

 

[MaartenVergu]

It's not a mistake. It's another example of your total inability to read what people post. I said that physics is well-tested, not final, and that at this time (notice the use of the present tense), it precludes the supernatural.

And I wrote that physics or science in general will never be able to discover the content of the subjective experience. The subject isn't there for a scientist. Only the object. Only the electrochemistry. Science can never see 'the dream' of an electrochemical system of materials, interacting with eachother. It can only model the material system. And that's all there is to it, for a scientist or materialist.

To be the experiencer is to know that there is you. A subject. Feelings, dreamcontent, taste, hard and soft tissues, warm and hot, etc.
These subjective experiences are part of the world, yet undetectable. Only 'to be' is to know that this is also part of the universe.

You have still not put any thought at trying to understand my earlier point to you: if something interacts with the physical world, then it is physical.

When experiencers tell us, independent of each other, that this realm is 'tangible' and 'more real than here', we have to believe them. There is no way science can investigate this. An NDE is of a hidden nature. Like a dream. Only the experiencer can tell us about it and we have to believe him. Because we can only measure chemistry in the brain at best.

This 'interaction'-definition is about the material world. How does the content of a dream interact with this world? There is no interaction between the story of a dream and the universe. Yet, you really had that particular dream. So, this interaction-definition doesn't work when we talk about the subject and its experiences of nature. Is taste real? Is the experience of the color red real? There is no interaction between my experience of the color red and the world I observe. Some colorblind person will have no other 'interaction' with the universe than me. But my subjective experience 'the color red' is part of the world. It is real. Yet, no interaction with the universe.
There is no interaction of the subjective experience of a material system with the physical world at all. There is only electrochemistry.

Science doesn't need the subject (we) and its experiences to describe the material nature of the universe. We are useless to a scientist in its discriptions.

 

[Belz...]

And I wrote that physics or science in general will never be able to discover the content of the subjective experience. The subject isn't there for a scientist. Only the object.

Yeah, and that is wrong. You don't know what "subjective" means, apparently. It seems that you make up definitions as you go along, which isn't helping this conversation.

Only the electrochemistry.

There's nothing else. You are assuming that there is, but you cannot do this unless you can show evidence for it. Otherwise you have to tentatively conclude that there isn't, like everything else you can imagine but have no evidence for.

When experiencers tell us, independent of each other, that this realm is 'tangible' and 'more real than here', we have to believe them.

No, we don't. "More real than here" is just an impression. It doesn't mean that it represents reality. Hallucinations often more real than here, but I don't see you arguing that drug-induced psychosis represents another reality.

There is no way science can investigate this.

Of course there is. Here, it is you refusing to admit that possibility because doing so would take the exciting dream away.

An NDE is of a hidden nature. Like a dream.

Dreams are memory-organising brain trips. There is literally no reason to assume that they are anything else. In fact, there is reason to assume that they aren't, in good part because dreams keep including recent memories.

Because we can only measure chemistry in the brain at best.

You are again assuming that there's something else. Stop that. Start from zero, not from what you want to believe in.

This 'interaction'-definition is about the material world.

No, it isn't. You are NOT listening. It's a definition about things that can affect one another. If they can, they are physical. If they cannot, you cannot know of them. It's true by definition. What it entails, however, is the interesting part. If they cannot interact with the physical world as we know it, then you cannot have any sort of experience of it. If you can have an experience of it, then it is because of your interaction with it, and therefore we can detect it. You can't escape this logical implication.

How does the content of a dream interact with this world?

Dreams are part of this world. Just like your musings and imaginings are. It's brain chemistry playing with your visual cortex, etc. You keep thinking it doesn't interact because you don't understand the definition of the word "interact". When you touch something, your molecules and their constituents interact with that thing's molecules and constituents. If you experience a thing, you interact with that thing, whether it's in your brain or from the outside world. There is no logical way to experience something without interacting with it.

Is taste real? Is the experience of the color red real? There is no interaction between my experience of the color red and the world I observe.

Of course there is. One is caused by the other.

There is no interaction of the subjective experience of a material system with the physical world at all. There is only electrochemistry.

The experience IS electrochemistry. You are creating a distinction where none are needed, presumably because you feel that it is thus. Newsflash: feelings are usually totally wrong.

 

[Donn]

How are you going to investigate the tunnel they are talking about?

How are you going to investigate it Maartenn?

When experiencers tell us, independent of each other, that this realm is 'tangible' and 'more real than here', we have to believe them. There is no way science can investigate this.

How are you going to investigate this Maartenn?

Maybe we come out of our bodies during trauma ..

And maybe we don't. My maybe is stronger than your maybe.

 

[mstricky]

How are you going to investigate it Maartenn?





How are you going to investigate this Maartenn?



And maybe we don't. My maybe is stronger than your maybe.

Maatenn100 listed instances where people lying on hospital beds and unconscious saw items on the top of cabinets or roofs, that sort of proves that they left their bodies, otherwise they couldn't have seen the items

 

[steenkh]

Maatenn100 listed instances where people lying on hospital beds and unconscious saw items on the top of cabinets or roofs, that sort of proves that they left their bodies, otherwise they couldn't have seen the items

If these stories were true they would indeed be evidence that the patients had left their bodies. However, they are just stories, or at best, anecdotes.

For instance, the story about the red tennis shoe has been treated in several threads on these forums. One example is The Red Shoe OOBE. The last post in that thread was this one:

Barry Beyerstein co-authored a piece on exactly this incident in the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol 20, No. 4 (1996)), titled Maria's Near-Death Experience: Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop. It's a pretty thorough investigation--among other things, they documented that the ledge on which the shoe was found was clearly visible from several different places, including both the emergency entrance and the bed in Maria's room. A fun read.

So nothing interesting about this story after all.

There has been a research project where objects were hidden on top of cupboards for patients with OBEs to see, but despite the publicity when the project started, it has been quiet when the project ended. Presumably, there has been no result.

But believers will of course think that any story supporting their fantasies will be true, and no matter how tenous, or debunked they are, they will be quoted again and again.

 

[Belz...]

Maatenn100 listed instances where people lying on hospital beds and unconscious saw items on the top of cabinets or roofs, that sort of proves that they left their bodies, otherwise they couldn't have seen the items

Only if A) the items in question were actually out of their sights at that time and B) the story told is actually true. Even so, it wouldn't prove that they left their bodies, ad there would be several other possible explanations.

Your standard of evidence is incredibly low.

 

[Donn]

Maatenn100 listed instances where people lying on hospital beds and unconscious saw items on the top of cabinets or roofs, that sort of proves that they left their bodies, otherwise they couldn't have seen the items

So, besides repeatedly debunked examples, you are saying that Maartenn is allowed to use —

1. Items — material objects.
2. On top of cabinets — material objects placed in physical space in contact with other material objects, under a gravity field.
3. Proof by comparison — where an account of the object seen is compared to the actual object and a probability is found for the veracity.

— in order to prove that OOBEs are real?

But then, why did he declare science to be null and void in this arena?

And I wrote that physics or science in general will never be able to discover the content of the subjective experience.

The subject isn't there for a scientist. Only the object. Only the electrochemistry.

Science can never see 'the dream' of an electrochemical system of materials, interacting with eachother.

It can only model the material system. And that's all there is to it, for a scientist or materialist. — Maartenn100
​

Why would you allow him to use science to prove (show evidence) for what he says is not about science?

Soundslike you want to eat your cake, buttered on both sides, and have it too.

Decide.

If science is in, then all the conclusions we have posted about come into play and — bang! — goes your intangible after life.

If science is out, then you win — you can float about the ethereal realms vibrating harmoniously. Alone, but, I assume, content.

 

[mstricky]

I will never be convinced that we go into nothingness after death. We continue to live but in another dimension and without flesh but being able to create a spiritual body

 

[Pixel42]

I will never be convinced that we go into nothingness after death. We continue to live but in another dimension and without flesh but being able to create a spiritual body

You can be as unconvinced as you like. Just don't pretend there is any objective evidence that what you would like to believe is fact. Not on a sceptic board anyway.

 

[Resume]

I will never be convinced that we go into nothingness after death. We continue to live but in another dimension and without flesh but being able to create a spiritual body

Who is this we? Better, what is this we?

 

[Donn]

I will never be convinced that we go into nothingness after death. We continue to live but in another dimension and without flesh but being able to create a spiritual body

And that's just fine, as long as you realize it's a kind-of religion.

As soon as you seek assurance that your faith is real, you cross the line into our house, and when you're in our house you can't argue from faith.

So, keep it in your head. Don't pollute young minds with your imagination by calling it real.

If you can do that, then all is fine.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I will never be convinced that we go into nothingness after death. We continue to live but in another dimension and without flesh but being able to create a spiritual body

You are, of course, welcome to cling to whatever superstition comforts you. Just don't pretend that your belief constitutes evidence.

 

[tsig]

I can say the same thing about you Belz... You are the victim of confirmation bias.
You only accept evidence when it confirms your assumptions. Otherwise you ignore it or interprete it wrong.

OK, show evidence that NDE's have anything to do with actual death.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I would be imterested to know if those who believe that there must be 'something' beond death and who cannot discard such a beliefcould say what advantage such a belief is to them in life. Do I presume correctly that it gives a soft focus to death, enabling them to avoid considering it and its inevitability?