Merged Near Death Experience Study

[mstricky]

How can you all be so absolutely sure there is nothing beyond the physical. Like the old saying... a goldfish is only aware of the bowl its in. Has no concept of the world beyond.

 

[Akhenaten]

Scientists and experts are becoming more laughable these days than cold readers. For years we were told that best butter is not good for us and that it causes high cholesterol levels. Recently they have announced that it is good for us, doesn't cause high cholesterol and that, that type of fat is vital to our bodies. One report was about coffee not being good for us but now it is.
When these latest reports come out in the newspapers, the comments below tell me that most people now take them with a pinch of salt...... oh that's now good for us apparently and does not cause high blood pressure.

What you're pointing an accusing finger at here is the laughabillity of mass media and it's not really increasing at all. Eye-catching headlines have always trumped actual research.

Scientists and experts, on the other hand, consistently produce results that increase our understanding of the way reality operates.

Judging the current state of science, technology and medicine by what you read in tabloid newspapers is a poor substitute for educating oneself.

Regarding religion being founded on OBEs, yes I can see that now but I have only recently come to that conclusion after reading the bible cover to cover a couple of times.

This is a both non sequitur to my own observation and a contradiction of your previous claim that OBEs are a recent "discovery".

But what you have said about that, must tell you that OBEs exist and have done for thousands of years.

No, it tells me that belief in them has existed for thousands of years. There's no evidence that the actual phenomena exists at all and a host of very well-established reasons to believe that they don't, regardless of an abundance of fanciful anecdotes about them.

Could they all have been lying?

That's a bit harsh. Most of them were probably quite honest in their delusion.

 

[Akhenaten]

But how can one see oneself from above or across a room?

Mirrors are good. CCTV is even better, although webcams are becoming more popular as a cheap alternnative .

I too had a sleep paralysis experience

Of course you did. I would have been astounded if you hadn't

 

[Pixel42]

But how can one see oneself from above or across a room?

One can't.

One can, however, have one's perception of where one's self is located disrupted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6960612.stm

 

[Hellbound]

An interesting articles I found while looking up some info:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-ha...t-body-experiences-are-harder-remember-270883

Seems that a third-person perspective plays with our memory formation by interrupting the action of the hippocamus. Interesting to consider what effects that might have on reported OBEs and NDEs.

Also, check the Wikipedia article on autobiographical memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_memory), specifically the section on perspectives. Remembering an event from a third-person perspective is not unusual. Also interesting is the triggers that tend towards 3rd person rather than 1st:
"Events that were relatively low in emotional experience are often remembered from a field perspective, whereas events higher in emotion are more likely to remembered from an observer perspective."
"A higher level of self-awareness is often associated with observer memories instead of field memories."

So, it's not unreasonable to think that a self-aware person, involved in an emotional event leading to near-death, would create third-person memories...and that the attempt to encode these by a malfunctioning brain (due to loss of oxygenated blood, various medications, or similar things) would confuse the memory with an experience. Heck, every time we remember an event, we're modifying our memory. So, again, it's not unreasonable that a person being told about what happened to them when they do recover would interweave those details into their fragmented and improperly coded memories, as their brain tries to "flesh out" a narrative.

 

[mstricky]

An interesting articles I found while looking up some info:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-ha...t-body-experiences-are-harder-remember-270883

Seems that a third-person perspective plays with our memory formation by interrupting the action of the hippocamus. Interesting to consider what effects that might have on reported OBEs and NDEs.

Also, check the Wikipedia article on autobiographical memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_memory), specifically the section on perspectives. Remembering an event from a third-person perspective is not unusual. Also interesting is the triggers that tend towards 3rd person rather than 1st:
"Events that were relatively low in emotional experience are often remembered from a field perspective, whereas events higher in emotion are more likely to remembered from an observer perspective."
"A higher level of self-awareness is often associated with observer memories instead of field memories."

So, it's not unreasonable to think that a self-aware person, involved in an emotional event leading to near-death, would create third-person memories...and that the attempt to encode these by a malfunctioning brain (due to loss of oxygenated blood, various medications, or similar things) would confuse the memory with an experience. Heck, every time we remember an event, we're modifying our memory. So, again, it's not unreasonable that a person being told about what happened to them when they do recover would interweave those details into their fragmented and improperly coded memories, as their brain tries to "flesh out" a narrative.

Very interesting

 

[dlorde]

How can you all be so absolutely sure there is nothing beyond the physical.

It's a good question. To answer it, one needs to clearly distinguish what we mean by the physical and the non-physical (or 'beyond' the physical).

Unfortunately, the non-physical is unknown and undefined (and you can't usefully define something in terms of what it is not). However, we have a pretty good idea of what the physical is and how it behaves.

We can ask why we might be interested in what is beyond the physical. The answer, presumably, is because it might affect us; it might be relevant to our everyday lives. If it doesn't affect us, and isn't relevant to our lives, then it might as well not exist, for all we know or care.

So the first part of the answer involves the age-old bug-bear of dualism, interaction. How does something that is not physical affect, interact with the physical? Our best understanding of the world, through long observation and experiment, is that we, and everything else in it, are made up of a few different kinds of particles of matter held together and influenced by a few forces. We now know how these few particles and forces work together to make everything around us. As a consequence, we now know what can interact with the physical world, we know what can affect us - and so we know that whatever the non-physical is, if it means anything, if it's out there at all, it isn't relevant to us because it can't interact with us.

I'll let Sean Carroll explain - and note that he is very careful about what, precisely, he is saying. I cut to the chase with the links here, but the whole video is very entertaining and well worth watching.

The Fundamental Nature of Reality

 

[bruto]

But how can one see oneself from above or across a room?
I too had a sleep paralysis experience

Many times I have dreamed that I was flying, and many other times I have dreamed that I saw myself from outside. How do you suppose that was possible? Do you think I flew in my dreams?

How can you all be so absolutely sure there is nothing beyond the physical. Like the old saying... a goldfish is only aware of the bowl its in. Has no concept of the world beyond.

Speak for yourself. I am not a goldfish. I have read voluminously the work of many people who have imagined, theorized, and logically inferred a world beyond, and judged that work as a thinking human being. If you are limited to the viewpoint of a goldfish, then perhaps that is your problem right there.

 

[asydhouse]

mstricky: up to your old tricks again, I see. Last year all this malleability of memory was explained quite extensively to you, and yet here you are pretending it's all news to you.

dlorde has given you some serious attention here. You should show some respect for his time and effort, and look into it.

It's a good question. To answer it, one needs to clearly distinguish what we mean by the physical and the non-physical (or 'beyond' the physical).

Unfortunately, the non-physical is unknown and undefined (and you can't usefully define something in terms of what it is not). However, we have a pretty good idea of what the physical is and how it behaves.

We can ask why we might be interested in what is beyond the physical. The answer, presumably, is because it might affect us; it might be relevant to our everyday lives. If it doesn't affect us, and isn't relevant to our lives, then it might as well not exist, for all we know or care.

So the first part of the answer involves the age-old bug-bear of dualism, interaction. How does something that is not physical affect, interact with the physical? Our best understanding of the world, through long observation and experiment, is that we, and everything else in it, are made up of a few different kinds of particles of matter held together and influenced by a few forces. We now know how these few particles and forces work together to make everything around us. As a consequence, we now know what can interact with the physical world, we know what can affect us - and so we know that whatever the non-physical is, if it means anything, if it's out there at all, it isn't relevant to us because it can't interact with us.

I'll let Sean Carroll explain - and note that he is very careful about what, precisely, he is saying. I cut to the chase with the links here, but the whole video is very entertaining and well worth watching.

The Fundamental Nature of Reality

 

[Akhenaten]

How can you all be so absolutely sure there is nothing beyond the physical.

Total lack of evidence is what works for me. I can't help but think you'd probably use a similar method to arrive at a personal conviction for or against the likelihood of Tyrannosauruses lurking in the gently rolling hills of Warwickshire.

Like the old saying... a goldfish is only aware of the bowl its in. Has no concept of the world beyond.

And like a great many other "old sayings" this is completely bogus.

If only you'd asked a scientist or an expert.

 

[barehl]

What's more likely, three PhD's and a Doctor publish in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the word, and they can't figure something as basic as setting up a proper study

Classic bait and switch. The WCEI was created with the presumption of NDE. So, it tells you how well your test group fits within the framework of the WCEI. That's all it tells you. When you go beyond that to claim that it is proof of NDE, when you've already assumed that with the questionnaire, and you've limited your test sample to people who were near death, you have nothing but confirmation bias. This is basic statistics. In order to make the claim that the WCEI score has anything at all to do with proof of NDE you have to sample outside of the group that has been near death. Again, this is basic statistics.

If you honestly can't understand this concept, let me explain it more simply. Let's say I create a test and call it the Weighted Clueless Poster Index. Then I send this test to only those people who disagree with me. Then I claim that a high score on the WCPI is proof that people who disagree with me are clueless. Most people here would understand that all I would have done is confirm my own bias. Do you genuinely not grasp this?

 

[barehl]

How can you all be so absolutely sure there is nothing beyond the physical. Like the old saying... a goldfish is only aware of the bowl its in. Has no concept of the world beyond.

I've watched Sye Ten Bruggencate's contortions on presuppositional apologetics. One of the big mistakes that he makes is in defining knowledge as justified true belief. That definition is useless. In daily life we use the concept of working confidence. For example, I have a working or functional confidence that I can tell the difference between water and ammonia, that I can cross a street without getting ran over, and many other things that are necessary to still be alive the next day. This confidence is based on repetition, prediction, and consensus. A recipe would be of no value if it only worked once; recipes work the same over and over. Modeling your environment lets you make predictions which you can then test. For example, I might look at how much coffee I have left and predict that I'll have enough for tomorrow morning. If I keep getting this wrong then my models aren't very good. And, then you have consensus which helps eliminate personal bias. If you think the food in your restaurant is great but 70% of your customers say it is bad, you don't have consensus.

So, apply these things to the paranormal. If you see something unusual but it only happens once, it is of no value. If you see something but can't use it to make predictions then obviously it didn't tell you anything. If you think something is amazing but most others don't then you don't have consensus. If there is something real beyond the physical then it would still be bounded by these concepts: repetition, prediction, and consensus.

 

[mstricky]

I think I may have grasped it. Is this it? .....
The couple in the head on crash became unconscious on impact and were taken to hospital. Whilst unconscious they dreamt about the collision then got that dream mixed up with an OBE

 

[Akhenaten]

I think I may have grasped it. Is this it? .....
The couple in the head on crash became unconscious on impact and were taken to hospital. Whilst unconscious they dreamt about the collision then got that dream mixed up with an OBE

I doubt that you're likely to get confirmation here of your own insights into a story that you alone are claiming to have taken place.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Then the defibrillator kicked in and I was back in my body in the emergency room. Straight from a spiritual paradise where I was happy to earth where there is no spiritual paradise. It was really tempting to tell them to not resuscitate me next time.

So, still alive today. And I plan on getting into Heaven and living in a spiritual paradise for ever.

Well, we know one thing for sure: You won't be disappointed.

 

[tsig]

They can also all be honestly mistaken.

I had never heard of sleep paralysis when I first experienced it, it was terrifying and I can understand why many of those who experience it reach for a paranormal explanation. But the fact remains that it is a well understood phenomenon, with a purely physiological cause. As are NDE/OBE experiences.

The question was:

"Could they all have been lying? "

It's obvious they could have all been lying, whether they were or not is another matter.

 

[barehl]

I think I may have grasped it. Is this it? .....
The couple in the head on crash became unconscious on impact and were taken to hospital. Whilst unconscious they dreamt about the collision then got that dream mixed up with an OBE

I've given several examples of people who were conscious while having OBEs. If you are genuinely interested in this subject, you might do some research on Ingo Swann. He claimed that he had been able to leave his body since he was a young child. The problem is that he was tested and he was never able to provide any information for anything outside his body. For example, Ingo would claim that he could leave his body and in spirit form go through the wall and into the next room. Yet, if you put objects in that room, he was unable to tell you what they were. The only reason why anyone noticed him at all was because he claimed to be able to see auras and he was a painter. He did paintings that supposedly included these auras. Of course, any painter can do this.

 

[Akhenaten]

I know testimonies are not considered scientific evidence here, but I would like to put my story in too.

About five years ago I suffered a asthma attack that put me in hospital and killed me a few times. Once in the ambulance on the way to hospital and a few more times in the emergency room.

They kept defibrillating me and bringing me back to life, which is why I am alive today. One of the times I came back I was protesting about them bringing me back to life. I had been in Heaven and I was really happy. They explained how the optic nerve does something when you die so you see the light at the end of the tunnel, and everyone has halucinations, sometimes of dead relatives. But they don't really have an explanation for a spiritual paradise.

I saw God on His throne in Heaven. He looks like a gentle giant. There were male and female angels around too, maybe fifteen of them. I'm a pretty good comedian when I get going and I was in the zone at the time. I was really happy. I could feel spiritual paradise inside me and outside me too.

Then the defibrillator kicked in and I was back in my body in the emergency room. Straight from a spiritual paradise where I was happy to earth where there is no spiritual paradise. It was really tempting to tell them to not resuscitate me next time.

As seen on TV!

So, still alive today. And I plan on getting into Heaven and living in a spiritual paradise for ever.

In the interim, a quick bit of research into how defibrillators work in the real world wouldn't go astray.

 

[turingtest]

I've watched Sye Ten Bruggencate's contortions on presuppositional apologetics. One of the big mistakes that he makes is in defining knowledge as justified true belief. That definition is useless. In daily life we use the concept of working confidence. For example, I have a working or functional confidence that I can tell the difference between water and ammonia, that I can cross a street without getting ran over, and many other things that are necessary to still be alive the next day. This confidence is based on repetition, prediction, and consensus. A recipe would be of no value if it only worked once; recipes work the same over and over. Modeling your environment lets you make predictions which you can then test. For example, I might look at how much coffee I have left and predict that I'll have enough for tomorrow morning. If I keep getting this wrong then my models aren't very good. And, then you have consensus which helps eliminate personal bias. If you think the food in your restaurant is great but 70% of your customers say it is bad, you don't have consensus.

So, apply these things to the paranormal. If you see something unusual but it only happens once, it is of no value. If you see something but can't use it to make predictions then obviously it didn't tell you anything. If you think something is amazing but most others don't then you don't have consensus. If there is something real beyond the physical then it would still be bounded by these concepts: repetition, prediction, and consensus.

+1

 

[MaartenVergu]

On Youtube you can find a lot of witnesses talking about their own NDE. There are a lot of people with their own personal story. And most of them have had similar experiences. The subjective experience was similar. That's not what we define as an hallucination. A common experience must be real.