Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw  Loads - and it has been discussed at length here elsewhere - look around as there is no need to repeat it all here yet again.
Fenwick's reasoning is flawed and he has provided no evidence whatsoever, neither has Parnia (though he is trying to do some nice experiments and I wish him well with those). Van Lommel's article is perhaps the worst I have read in years - nice method but utterly flawed conclusions - Stevenson is not really worth bothering with, Sabom's work has been investigated by others and found wanting.....I could go on.
The best thing to read is independent cognitive neruoscience. You will be amazed. 
None of those blogs you cite seem to understand the brain or indeed scientific logic - so their contribution is likely to be unhelpful. |
Ah, I found one of the threads it was being discussed in. It was one where you responded to a post I had made regarding a previous discussion at the JREF Forums which you aimed to "correct" what I had presented, calling me deceptive and delusional in the process, without even knowing the reasoning I had behind what I presented.
I'd like to clear up right here and now that the information I presented in that thread and in this article was merely *me personally* going by the best research *I personally* have come across in researching the Pro-NDE Camp (researched from a number of Pro-NDE sources) in my posts, in answering the common skeptical arguments *I* have personally come across from skeptics *I* have personally encountered in various places. If those sources, studies, and research findings are incorrect, I did not know, and wouldn't have known that until I am corrected with good counter-evidence, and then counter-check for any counter-source that may tackle the accusations from the Pro-NDE Camp (to get an overall explaination of the issue from both sides).
I am relying upon those NDE Researchers' arguments and findings to make my case, so if they are wrong, that isn't my fault. I was not purposely being deceptive in the scenerio that those things are wrong is what I'm saying. I'm merely presenting what I personally found to be compelling evidence from reputable researchers in the field. I was being honest from my perspective. If they weren't, I was unaware.
If what you say in that previous thread and above is true, I was unaware, therefore I wasn't purposefully trying to deceive anyone. I've run into a number of skeptics who are fairly poor debaters without much substance in their debating style beyond name calling and falling back on logical fallacies, so, not a good pool of great skeptical arguments come from a number I've debated with. I may have misinterpreted and misunderstood aspects of the JREF Forum debate, but I'm only human, and open to adaquete correction.
I'll look into those claims about each of those researchers when I have time. I agree with MC in the other thread though that the subject of whether or not there is still functionable brain activity going on during flat EEG is not anywhere near as important as tackling Veridical Details in the NDE/OBE Phenomenon as a whole, especially those that occur at location far enough away from the physical body of the person that the five senses cannot naturally detect whatever is obtained.
What we need is better research, better research studies, better tests, better controlled tests, and the Veridical Details area be the primary focus of NDE Research, as truely, that's the only key thing that if adaquetely proven or disproven, could settle the debate.