People really do exist that can read your mind.

[Slimething]

ok, try a little test, put a plastic bag over your head (with a friend present) and when your brain is being deprived of oxygen see if you go up a tunnel to a light described universally as unconditional love, see if then you are led through a review of your life, experiencing all the good and bad moral effects you have had on people you have interacted with...

Nope. Perhaps this time you would supply citations because, from what I read, only a few people coming out of these experiences describe any type of adventure, fewer still mention a light and only a very few ascribe anything to that light. What's your source?

across cultures these experiences are reported from those coming back from the dead

Imagine that! Brain anoxia having similar symptomology in all humans!!

if you have really, as you claim, investigated NDEs you will be familiar with the fact that returners have reported events within, say, an operating theatre, in great detail, during the time they showed no respiration or brain activity. Plus the experiments when objects were placed in high places, invisible from the operating table, and were then reported back when the person returned to their body..
this, most intriguingly, has been reported by people who were blind all their lives, and only saw for the first time when leaving the body

Some of these are new claims to me, at least. All the "floaters" I know about have been debunked. The few cases of the blind "seeing" have turned out to be pathetic regurgitations of what they had been told already.

This time, you must provide citations. Sorry. These cannot be classified as broad, general observations.

 

[thaiboxerken]

so astronauts in a g-force machine experience a full life review in the presence of a white light they describe as unconditional love? I'd be interested to hear more about this.

Penn & Teller did an episode on NDE and go over this. Feel free to rent it.

 

[Locknar]

I have to wonder, is there a point anyplace in here plumjam? A lot of attempts at making points, but little in the way of supporting documentation.

 

[plumjam]

How do I know you exist? How do I know you're not a figment of someone's imagination? The voices in my head don't belive I exist.

avoiding the question, i see

 

[plumjam]

I have to wonder, is there a point anyplace in here plumjam? A lot of attempts at making points, but little in the way of supporting documentation.

and your point is?
and where's the documentation for it?

 

[Locknar]

avoiding the question, i see

Actually, I thought the reply fit the question.

and your point is?
and where's the documentation for it?

My point was clearly stated; as to documentation, one only has to look at your posts.

 

[plumjam]

Penn & Teller did an episode on NDE and go over this. Feel free to rent it.

so you are so unskeptical that you accept Penn & Teller, who purposely go out to "debunk" everything, as unbiased investigators?
try reading the literature on it instead.

 

[plumjam]

Actually, I thought the reply fit the question.

his original point was that anecdotal evidence was of no value, in which case none of us can rightly believe in consciousness, and thus our own existence and our own experience.. because there isn't any evidence for the existence of consciousness other than anecdotal

 

[Locknar]

so you are so unskeptical that you accept Penn & Teller, who purposely go out to "debunk" everything, as unbiased investigators?
try reading the literature on it instead.

What literature do you suggest, as there is LOTS out there that debunks NDE? What have you read that leads you to believe NDE is real?

 

[plumjam]

What literature do you suggest, as there is LOTS out there that debunks NDE? What have you read that leads you to believe NDE is real?

the initial books by Dr Raymond Moody were probably the best, due to them being written before the phenomenon became widely known, this due to the fact that improved resucitation techniques, and life-support meant a sharp recent rise in patients coming back into the body

 

[Slimething]

avoiding the question, i see

Pot, meet kettle. When are you going to honor my requests for citations? It's either that or get the attention you truly deserve.

 

[plumjam]

Pot, meet kettle. When are you going to honor my requests for citations? It's either that or get the attention you truly deserve.

requests for citations when, and about what? I gave you Dr. Raymond Moody. He's written 11 books on that area.
If I were to google for some citations to give you, you would just go and google for some other citations that hopefully find against NDEs. This is how bogus this standard lazy demand for citations is. As if you'd go off to a University Library, find the relevant articles, read them, reflect on them, and get back to me with your considered conclusion. Stop pretending.
BTW, I'm not just blaming you, it's kind of a habit of a lot of people on here, particularly ones who haven't much to say.
How about you and me actually have a conversation, and express our opinions and ideas without this dishonest ploy of demanding academic references for everything?

 

[Slimething]

requests for citations when, and about what?[=

Any of the various claims you've made.

I gave you Dr. Raymond Moody. He's written 11 books on that area.

Does Raymond Moody, MD, have any peer-reviewed work? Does he have anything that has even been independently tested? I was really looking for something falsifiable. Something that we could chat about, not speculative conclusions from rare, selective observation. Is Moody your only source for your belief in NDE's?

If I were to google for some citations to give you, you would just go and google for some other citations that hopefully find against NDEs.

Sham argument. You probably won't find what I'm asking for by googling it. I'm asking you for some credible basis to your beliefs. That is something you read, other than an uncritical book, that contains verifiable/verified facts that give credence to your credo, not something you did a quick search for and determine that it fits superficially.

This is how bogus this standard lazy demand for citations is.

Bogus? It's the way scientists have been reviewing hypotheses and claims for centuries. Don't criticize what you don't know.

As if you'd go off to a University Library, find the relevant articles, read them, reflect on them, and get back to me with your considered conclusion. Stop pretending.

I'm not pretending to be willing to do anything until you've done your part. You arrived with claims so the onus is on you to provide us with support for your claims, even if it isn't what we would call evidence. If you believe that I'm going to take the time to research nebulous, unsupported claims from every loon who posts that this and that unverified phenomenon exists, they you'll believe anything. Is that what I'm going to take away from this? In my view there are two possible conclusions:

1. You believe all this unverified stuff but you really haven't done enough due diligence to post what anyone would consider a list of underpinning literature of significant breadth or depth.
2. You will not list the basis to your beliefs because you already know or suspect that they won't stand scrutiny. Books by Moody, Cayce, Nostradamus, God, vonDaniken, etc. are not considered authoritative because they don't include falsifiable events. You probably know that and won't cite them because that type of evidence is pathetic.

BTW, I'm not just blaming you, it's kind of a habit of a lot of people on here, particularly ones who haven't much to say.

Wrong again. I wish you could blame me for the exchange of citations among scholars and the rules of evidence. I would be truly honored if anyone thought I had come up with them, even if they were wrong, and they would be. This practice existed before you were born and will continue after you die. It's the best way to efficiently and exhaustively get to the facts of the matter at hand. It's also the best way to separate the learned from the idiot. That is, who's worth the time and who isn't.

How about you and me actually have a conversation, and express our opinions and ideas without this dishonest ploy of demanding academic references for everything?

No, thank you. You've given me nothing to respond to. We could talk about the beauty of the night sky but that would be a waste of my time as I already know it's beautiful. I have no time for your "grand observations" if you don't give me enough information to be able to agree or disagree substantively.

You have the right to believe anything you want. You don't have the right to expect others to follow suit unless you give them a compelling reason. You also don't have the right to waste anyone else's time if you have nothing to offer.

 

[asmodean]

NDEs: http://skepdic.com/nde.html
Moody: http://skepdic.com/moody.html

When will you list all papers Dawkins authored and co-authored and show how they are all garbage as you claimed in your "have you ever changed yourm mind" thread?

 

[Cuddles]

if you have really, as you claim, investigated NDEs you will be familiar with the fact that returners have reported events within, say, an operating theatre, in great detail, during the time they showed no respiration or brain activity.

The first problem with this is that there is no way of actually telling when an experience took place. While believers love to claim that NDEs happen when the EEG is flat, all that can actually be said is that at some point during a period of unconciousness an NDE took place and at some point during a period of unconciousness the EEG was flat. It is not psosible to say that both took place at the same time.

The second, really big problem is that what you claim isn't true. Yes, they describe the operating theatre in great detail. Unfortunately the details are usually wrong. For example, my father was once sued by a woman who claimed that she had seen him and another doctor placing things inside her body while operating and making jokes about her. She described the other doctor in great detail but said she had never met him and didn't know who he was. The case was thrown out because the other doctor was in fact one she had had several appoinments with over the previous months, but was in India at the time of the operation. No doubt it all seemed very real to her, but none of it actually was.

People having NDEs often describe things accurately that they have already seen, even if they aren't conciously aware of having seen them. They can describe the details of a room, even all the fiddly little details that no-one notices or pays attention to. What they can't do is describe anything that changes, such as the people in it.

 

[fls]

Plus the experiments when objects were placed in high places, invisible from the operating table, and were then reported back when the person returned to their body..

This is the kind of evidence that would be useful in distinguishing whether or not OBE's represent a particular kind of sensory experience or whether there is something that can travel separate from the body. In particular, objects or pictures (with very specific details) placed in circumstances where there would be no other way of knowing what was there, would really provide compelling evidence for the case that these experiences are not simply the result of particular kinds of brain activity. To that end, experiments of that type have been and are being performed. But they have been completely negative to this point - i.e. no one has reported on these objects/pictures when they "returned to their body". The closest was a case reported by Dr. Tart of a young women that was able to read a five-digit number placed on a shelf in the room. However, alternate means of obtaining the information (i.e. standing up and taking the paper off the shelf while awake) were not ruled-out (she was not watched while sleeping and the EEG showed the kind of artifact one would see if she got up out of the bed).

Linda

 

[Locknar]

the initial books by Dr Raymond Moody were probably the best, due to them being written before the phenomenon became widely known, this due to the fact that improved resucitation techniques, and life-support meant a sharp recent rise in patients coming back into the body

Moody is a known believer in NDE...I'd argue being such his books simply discuss that which he believes and are not objective; this is the same line of reasoning you made wrt Penn & Teller being de-bunkers.

That aside, Moody's books are written for public consumption; that is to say he has submitted material for peer review and acceptance which is how real medical (or science in general) works. His books are nothing more then opinion, written for entertainment.

Is he your only source/reference? If you are offering opinion wrt NDE, that is fine...but you need to make that clearly stated. If you are stating "fact", ie. making a claim, then you need to be prepared to provide supporting documentation.

That all said, I'm not sure what this entire NDE discussion has to do with the topic of this thread ("People really do exist that can read your mind.")

 

[Hardenbergh]

Have brain scans been discussed? Supposedly, they have the potential to read someone's mind.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580378,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience

I guess the topic was touched on in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74434

 

[Ersby]

The closest was a case reported by Dr. Tart of a young women that was able to read a five-digit number placed on a shelf in the room. However, alternate means of obtaining the information (i.e. standing up and taking the paper off the shelf while awake) were not ruled-out (she was not watched while sleeping and the EEG showed the kind of artifact one would see if she got up out of the bed).

Linda

I read about this from the paper Tart wrote himself. He said that afterwards they tested for mundane explanations and found that it was possible to read the reflection of the number in the side of the clock if you had a torch. The paper then insisted the woman didn't have one, but doesn't specify if the light was on or off when the paper was placed on the shelf. Plus, it was the same number for five nights, and it was on the fifth night that she got the number.

A replication with a different OOBE practitioner and with the number in a different room, changing each night, failed.

Alas, all of this is unreferenced. I no longer have the book I got this from.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

ok, try a little test, put a plastic bag over your head (with a friend present) and when your brain is being deprived of oxygen see if you go up a tunnel to a light described universally as unconditional love, see if then you are led through a review of your life, experiencing all the good and bad moral effects you have had on people you have interacted with...

across cultures these experiences are reported from those coming back from the dead

Personal expericence here. We all know that helium can change your voice due to some scientic reason that I can't remember (something about vibrations and the medium used). I took a huge hit from a fully charged helium tank. Think of the helium tank that resturants use to fill up ballons for the kiddies, that freaking size. Got light headed and passed out rather quickly for about 5 minutes. That meets, "brain is being deprived of oxygen". I did NOT see any, "tunnel to a light described universally as unconditional love", did not have the "review of your life, experiencing all the good and bad moral effects you have had on people you have interacted with" either. I honestly don't know how many brain cells I killed doing that stupid idiotic stunt. While I was passing out, I did have some, what I call, upper level abillity. I heard a friend freaking out, my head was bobbing like I was Rain Man, and I "told" myself to knock off the head bobbing but I couldn't.

does your own consciousness exist?

Wiktionary states consciousness as, "The state of being conscious or aware; awareness". Yes. I believe that I am conscious. I am in that state, so that state exists for me. I am aware of my surroundings and of myself. I can smell the ammonia from the cat boxes. It's dinner time and I'm hungry. Can I prove that to you? No. Because if I took that same standard and applied it to "you" right now, "you" could be a machine that could pass the Turing test. I go under the asumption that you are human, and hopefully you can do the same. My smart alec responce was to avoid the whole metaphysical road you were going to lead me down.

avoiding the question, i see

Funny. I asked you first.