Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Akhenaten]

What is important that often veridical perceptions during NDE/OBE do occur later than the first 30 seconds after cardiac arrest, like the case of the denture man in the study, as in many other corroborated cases of veridical perceptions during NDE/OBE.

Why is this important? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that people won't generally start having a near death experience until they're actually, you know, near death.

And it would be nice to think that you've finally learned that people aren't really seeing the future during these events, but I'm not overly confident about it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So we can conclude that no one here can explain how it is possible that people have an enhanced consciousness while there is no electric activity in the brain. That's all we need to know.

What a remarkably disingenuous claim, even given the level of honesty to which so many of the woo!-thiests who regularly post here stoop.

Before you can honestly make any claim about explaining "how it is possible that people have an enhanced consciousness while there is no electric activity in the brain", as you put it, you must first demonstrate that the "brain activity" does, in fact, happen "while there is no brain activity".

You have stated a contradictory conclusion. You compound your error by assuming that conclusion as support for that conclusion.

Special pleading is a fallacy; as is circular reasoning; you have done none other.

You ignore the fact that brain activity happens when the brain is active. Given a traumatic period of suppressed brain activity bracketed by a period of decreasing consciousness and a period of increasing consciousness, it is a twisted misstatement of what we know about neuroscience to claim, without any support, that the "memories" of the kinds of hallucinations referred to as N(D)Es" must be forming when there is no brain activity.

Inactive brain is inactive.

And about the paterns in NDE's all over the world(again):

The traits of a classic NDE are as follows:

You seem to be repeating your claim that all "N(D)Es" are "identical", and yet...

<snip>
Most of the NDE's have the same characteristics. Some of them are different.
But you can see patterns.

"Patterns" are not identity; further, those "patterns" have been pointed out to you. You have, typically, ignored that to chant your litany of identicality.

"N(D)Es" are as "identical" (and as culturally driven) as dreams.

 

[steenkh]

So we can conclude that no one here can explain how it is possible that people have an enhanced consciousness while there is no electric activity in the brain. That's all we need to know.

You have no evidence that it has ever happened, so there is nothing to explain. The NDEs can easily have been formed before or after the cardiac arrest. And cherry-picking anecdotes about NDEs will not give you a true picture of what happens.

And about the paterns in NDE's all over the world(again):

Why do you bring this list again? We have seen it, it is cherry-picked, and it does not even support your theory.

Kenneth Ring (1980) subdivided the NDE on a five-stage continuum. The subdivisions were:
Peace
Body separation
Entering darkness
Seeing the light
Entering the light

So even when you leave out the obvious hallucinations about helping Santa, you get incompatible stories. How on Earth can you claim that they are alike when some see light and some see darkness?

But you can see patterns.

I see a pattern of you ignoring everything we tell you.

 

[Donn]

Most of the NDE's have the same characteristics. Some of them are different.
But you can see patterns.

I don't believe your interpretation of the data. Please do it again without using science.

 

[Belz...]

So we can conclude that no one here can explain how it is possible that people have an enhanced consciousness while there is no electric activity in the brain. That's all we need to know.

No, we can conclude that you do not read and/or understand what people post. You are unable to learn, or even give an inch to an opposing viewpoint. Discussing with you is pointless.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Physisists are searching desperately for some kind of portal or gate to a parallel universe. Some ordinary people are finally telling them that they experienced another universe and reached it via a portal, but scientists don't believe them?!! Because it is not what scientists expected. This parallel Universe has other laws of nature and doesn't work with ordinary evidence. One needs another worldview to believe in it, when one has no experienced it. To experience or not to experience it is the only portal to that other realm.

 

[Akhenaten]

Physisists are searching desperately for some kind of portal or gate to a parallel universe.

They are? No doubt you have a plethora of cites with which to support this dramatic assertion.

Some ordinary people are finally telling them that they experienced another universe and reached it via a portal, but scientists don't believe them?!!

Nor would they believe 'ordinary' people if they told them they'd just returned from two weeks on Venus.

Go figure.

Because it is not what scientists expected. This parallel Universe has other laws of nature and doesn't work with ordinary evidence.

Scientists are desperately searching for this parallel Universe and yet you already know all about it.

How can this be?

One needs another worldview to believe in it, when one has no experienced it. To experience or not to experience it is the only portal to that other realm.

I'm sure the desperate scientists will be much relieved to know that all they have to do is believe and lo, the answer will be revealed to them.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Here is a person, who is a biologist and has many titles in science.
He exeperienced an NDE and has something to say about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2_K-NlEjBk

 

[steenkh]

Here is a person, who is a biologist and has many titles in science.
He exeperienced an NDE and has something to say about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2_K-NlEjBk

Why is this interesting? Nobody doubts that people have these experiences, so what is new here?

 

[mstricky]

No, we can conclude that you do not read and/or understand what people post. You are unable to learn, or even give an inch to an opposing viewpoint. Discussing with you is pointless.

That goes both ways

 

[Donn]

Physisists are searching desperately for some kind of portal or gate to a parallel universe.

Oh, I get it now; sorry Maartenn, it's all clear. You see, Stargate was not a documentary. It's fiction, see?

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Donn]

That goes both ways

Nah, points are not vectors.

 

[Belz...]

Physisists are searching desperately for some kind of portal or gate to a parallel universe.

No, they're not. What the hell are you talking about ? I suggest you stop projecting your own beliefs and desires on other people.

Some ordinary people are finally telling them that they experienced another universe and reached it via a portal, but scientists don't believe them?!!

Right, for the same reasons we keep telling you: just because people have an experience, doesn't mean it suddenly supports the existence of the supernatural. AND even if there are parallel universes, we have already explained to you, many times, that you cannot interact with them.

Make SOME effort to understand this.

 

[Belz...]

That goes both ways

No it's quite possible to have a discussion with me because I'm quite willing to change my mind or explore different possibilities. Maartenn responds to criticisms of his ideas by re-stating his ideas.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Mstricky is right. 'to teach' is down talk. We can learn from each other. And consciousness is a hard problem in science, still no final answer how it is created by the brain.

 

[Donn]

Mstricky is right. 'to teach' is topdown speech.

?

And consciousness is a hard problem in science, still no final answer how it is created by the brain.

And all the evidence still shows that consciousness is what the brain does.

You have nothing to show it happens outside of the meat in our brains. Zip. Nada. Squat. Zilch. Zero. Nought. Nix. Niente. Null.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Why do you think it's called the hard problem in science? Because they don't know.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why do you think it's called the hard problem in science? Because they don't know.

Which is why you are welcome to provide evidence for the claims you are making...particularly evidence that indicates exactly when the experiences and hallucinations sometimes called "N(D)Es" are, in fact, formed.

Hint: Inactive brain is inactive...

 

[Donn]

Why do you think it's called the hard problem in science? Because they don't know.

Sure, it's hard, but your work is even harder. You have to catch-up with current science and evidence before you can even start.

 

[Belz...]

Mstricky is right. 'to teach' is down talk.

That's insane. I can teach you and you can teach me. The only reason why you'd think it's talking down is if you are averse to learning.

We can learn from each other.

We've tried that with you and it hasn't worked so far, and it's not for lack of effort.