NDE Research From a Christian Perspective (Podcast)

[Godot]

Remember, complex hallucinatory imagery is not the same as carrying out complex cognitively demanding tasks.....that is your fundamental error.

The task itself isn't the issue here, it's the capacity (or lackthereof) of the brain to carry out that task that is.

I note you slipped into the fundamental mental trap of assuming the NDE is happening when the brain EEG is flat and the brainstem response is absent. This has never been established.

As pacificwhim mentioned I addressed this very point in my previous post, please scroll up and read again, it's about halfway down.

From that starting point the rest of your reasoning borders on the perverse.

I hope you can elaborate as to why this is so.

Anyway, the point of my posts is not to argue that NDEs really are glimpses of the afterlife but to highlight the inconsistencies and paradoxes of the current naturalist explainations, which, as seen, simply cannot account for all aspects of this phenomenon without resorting to gap-filling leaps of faith that probably wouldn't be acceptable in any other branch of scientifc inquiry.

[Occam's chainsaw]

But you have not provided an argument against the dying-brain framework (which you need to to do). All you have done, as far as i can see, is contradict yourself and display a poor understanding of the debate.

Based on that - I cannot see how we can proceed beyond what is already there - written above.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

But you have not provided an argument against the dying-brain framework

How would this framework be falsified?

[Godot]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

But you have not provided an argument against the dying-brain framework (which you need to to do)

But I already have, twice in fact - clinically dead patients experiencing veridical OBE perception of their reanimation, the same one's Blackmore & Co. assert are incredibly lucky when it comes to guesswork, go back and read carefully.

The dying-brain hypothesis requires the brain to not be effectively dead, see?

As Lommel and Fenwick point out, when you're reanimating patients whose pupils don't dilate, eyes don't blink and who don't cough or gag as you're intubating them the very last thing you expect is for them to later be able to accurately recount the specific details of their reanimation, because as you were taught in medical school the absence of those brainstem reflexes indicates clinical or irreversible braindeath, which of course means their auditory and somatosensory cortexes most likely weren't open for business at the time, ergo "lucky guesses."

That's essentially the mystery here, we're not talking about a dying brain, we're talking about a brain that's already passed that stage and is now clinically dead yet bizarrely continues to observe, think, feel and remember:

Originally Posted by Pim van Lommel

In our prospective study of patients that were clinically dead (flat EEG, showing no electrical activity in the cortex, and loss of brain stem function evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex), the patients report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, or memory from early childhood occurred, as well as perceptions from a position out and above their "dead" body.

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Godot

That's essentially the mystery here, we're not talking about a dying brain, we're talking about a brain that's already passed that stage and is now clinically dead yet bizarrely continues to observe, think, feel and remember:

This is one of your fundamental errors. There is no evidence that NDEs occur during that time period (flat EEG) and you have provided none here

Maybe you could be more explicit and point me directly to the single crucial information that you find convincing in this regard.

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

How would this framework be falsified?

Easy - think about the fundamental assumption of the account. Now, its really easy to see how that can be falsified - it makes a clear brain / mind prediction. The big quesiton is, has any reliable evidence been produced that speaks to this. The big answer is - no, not yet.

I am totally open to the possibility of it being falsified - but let us be clear on what the evidence says thus far - before speculating too wildly.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

Easy - think about the fundamental assumption of the account. Now, its really easy to see how that can be falsified - it makes a clear brain / mind prediction. The big quesiton is, has any reliable evidence been produced that speaks to this. The big answer is - no, not yet.

I am totally open to the possibility of it being falsified - but let us be clear on what the evidence says thus far - before speculating too wildly.

So the dying brain framework can be falsified by establishing that the NDE occurs during flat EEG or clinical brain death?

[Occam's chainsaw]

According to the dying brain framework - the mind is what the brain does. From that its real easy.....

David - I have said to you before numerous times I am not having the same discussion with you here as I have had with you many times before - its boring and as i said the difference between probabilities and possibilities is often lost in discussions with you.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

According to the dying brain framework - the mind is what the brain does. From that its real easy.....

Which kind of brings us back to my hypothetical scenario.

Let us suppose someone had a cardiac arrest but instead of being immediately revived they were put into cryogenic suspension. Let us suppose that they were re-animated after years of cryogenic freezing and somehow their neural connections were re-established to a normal degree. Let us also suppose that, upon re-animation, this person reported that 'they' were having atypical OBE the whole time their body was frozen which lasted for years.

We might be tempted to view this account as an extreme extension of the conditions reported in a typical NDE. The main difference would be the length of time under conditions of 'clinical brain death'. It might appear from this account that experiences were occuring without brain activity that is thought to be necessary.

Do you think that this report would bring the assumptions of the dying brain framework into doubt?

Would this report establish that the experiences occured during cryogenic suspension merely by the length of time within which the experiences were reported to occur?

Or would some veridical 'marker' be necessary to establish that?

I guess we all have slightly different answers.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Godot

...and I actually don't mind that, doubt and wonder about an afterlife are fundamental driving forces in our lives and I like having them around, it keeps things interesting.

funny isn't it... this unknowable aspect of survival of consciousness seems to be an intrinsic part of our human experience.

Thanks for all your posts -- great reading.