Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Near Death Experiences Debunked

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by gumpi View Post
    Ok thanks for sharing.

    It's interesting that nerves can be destroyed in the brain because you have to really assume that severed limbs are the only potential possible causes of nerve destruction otherwise. And why a disease like gonorrhea would affect the visual cortex of the brain to produce blindness and not impair other areas of the brain certainly seems a tad mysterious to me.
    Sorry Gumpi, I think my description may not have been wrong, as gonorrhea affects the cornea of the eye, not the visual cortex.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Vesalius View Post
      Sorry Gumpi, I think my description may not have been wrong, as gonorrhea affects the cornea of the eye, not the visual cortex.
      I wasn't trying to prove you wrong at all. I simply said that damage to nerves in the brain by a disease that produces blindness and not other brain defects seems a tad mysterious.

      Comment


      • #63
        This study shows exactly what was expected, that there's a way to reprogram your LDs surroundings to achieve whatever you are able to imagine.
        But it's very hard (maybe impossible) to experience new colors and many other things that occur during near death experiences.
        What next? Hypnosis? IMO, it gives a much deeper effect than LDs

        Plz, somebody put a question mark in topic

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sniffy the Atheist View Post
          Near-Death Experiences Reproduced in First-Ever Experiment

          Researchers have replicated NDE's in the lab:



          More problems for the soul
          I've read both of Raduga's books. He is a sleep state OBE expert. He says it took him two years before he became convinced that his OBEs were illusions and not real out of body experiences. The experiences were so convincing to him.

          Problem is, Raduga's OBEs don't sound like NDEs at all, apart from the OBE portion. His first OBE was just like an alien abduction story. It was so real seeming that he believed it.

          But then we go to William Buhlman whose OBEs are different than what Raduga describes. Buhlmans OBEs sometimes sound very much like NDEs with 360 degree vision and journeys through “astral realms".

          Most sleep state OBEs are not like NDEs at all. Some are.

          Can we assume that all of the sleep OBEs happen in all their complexity within 13 seconds? The time in which a similar experience must occur in cardiac arrest?

          Why do sleep OBEs take much longer than cardiac arrest NDEs, yet both are described with equal complexity? Are we forced to generate multiple explanations for what Radiga believes are the same phenomena?
          Last edited by TheSurvivalIndex; February 23rd, 2012, 03:33 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            [QUOTE=
            Why do sleep OBEs take much longer than cardiac arrest NDEs, yet both are described with equal complexity? Are we forced to generate multiple explanations for what Radiga believes are the same phenomena?[/QUOTE]

            Because it's a mute point IMHO. Time and Space do not exist in 'higher' levels of consciousness.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by platobird View Post


              Because it's a mute point IMHO. Time and Space do not exist in 'higher' levels of consciousness.
              This is very possible. NDErs repeatedly say they were outside of space-time, so if we take it at face value, the entire experience could happen very quickly. However, when NDErs are hovering over the operating room in the OBE state, they describe events around them in typical earthly sequences. It seems that only when they go beyond does the no-time element come into play. There are exceptions I can think of. One amazing account from a war zone describes
              time slowing down to super slow motion.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Pollux View Post
                I believe that those participating in that experiment were experienced Lucid Dreamers who have gained control in being able to induce lucid dreams at will.
                They were told that they should try to mimic an NDE using their abilities via lucid dreams.

                This is exactly my impression. And the differences between these OBE/dreams and real NDEs underscores the fascinating consistency of NDEs. True NDEs seem to be more organized. These lucid dream/ OBEs Are forced and deliberate experiences. Radugas technique focuses on “deepening" and other techniques to increase the clarity of the experience because they are typically very hazy and short. Once one has deepened it through artificially stimulating the senses, it can seem hyper real, however. But there is a tendency for everything to go hazy. In real NDEs, people don't go to a bright light and suddenly end up in there backyard for no recognizable reason and with nothing happening.

                "Inside the light at the end of the tunnel, something spherical and hazy appeared – something quite familiar. I lost my concentration for a split second while scrutinizing the haze, and began to fall. I fell from the tunnel and found myself gliding 100 yards east of my home. Upon touchdown, I was returned to my body."

                Sorry debunkers, I could recognize this from a pool of real NDEs every time. This is a lucid dream. Maybe lucid dreams are related to NDEs somehow, but this is clearly not like a real NDE. It is someone having a lucid dream trying to mimic an NDE.
                Last edited by TheSurvivalIndex; February 24th, 2012, 12:16 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  I have studied computer science and mathematics at University and what i love about my own field of study is that it's exact science. You can make a formal proof of your claim based on the axioms of your mathematical system and then it's end of discussion.

                  The problem with psychology and parapsychology is the subjective dimension. At the end of the day you can argue endlessly whether this is the same experience as an nde or not. I think you need study participants who have had a real nde and this lucid dream to evaluate whether they feel it's the same experience or not.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by sbu View Post
                    I think you need study participants who have had a real nde and this lucid dream to evaluate whether they feel it's the same experience or not.

                    Yes exactly! Same goes for the NDEs experienced via these giant centrifuges and also NDEs precipitated by drugs such as ketamine. In the case of ketamine induced NDEs approximately only 30% of the experiencers thought it was real compared to nearly 100% for those NDEs precipitated by being near death. I still think though that artificially induced NDEs are getting a glimpse of some external reality, albeit in a confused and distorted form.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by sbu View Post
                      I have studied computer science and mathematics at University and what i love about my own field of study is that it's exact science. You can make a formal proof of your claim based on the axioms of your mathematical system and then it's end of discussion.


                      Although, there is Geodel's Incompleteness Theorem:

                      "The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, a corollary of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

                      Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Comments on this study from Dr Penny Sartori.
                        OOBE Research Simulating Experiment Dr Penny Sartori

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Levis View Post
                          Comments on this study from Dr Penny Sartori.
                          OOBE Research Simulating Experiment Dr Penny Sartori
                          Where are her comments on this link?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by TheSurvivalIndex View Post
                            Where are her comments on this link?
                            hmmm, don't know, for some reason she deleted it.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X