Nde Q&a

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Occam,

Maybe you will need to repeat yourself somewhat, but that would be better than just making vague disparaging remarks against various researchers. At the very least, put up the details somewhere and link to them. You can't assume everyone has read each of your posts in minute detail!

Just what neuroscience results are you referring to here in connection with NDE's.

David

I am certainly not repeating myself - you don't have to leave your armchair to find discussions here and elsewhere on the matter. There are at least two threads in this forum where quite a bit of detail is discussed.

The result of that discussion is that the NDE is a fascinating, striking and very meaningful experience. However, it poses no serious challenge at all to current views of consciosuness (i.e., survival). Most survivalist arguments are based on, or include, fallacious arguments due to recruting premises that are demonstrably false or recruting fallacies in the reasoning. Both lead to error.

I think the NDE should be researched intensively and we can learn a great deal from it. My current view is that the dying-brain framework presents the most parsimonious account of the evidence - but it is not complete and much refinement is needed. Whether that refinement will be to the benefit of survivalists is open to debate - but if the advances of the last 20 years are anything to go by - I would say it they won't like the data that is likely to emerge in thecoming years.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

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.

Go on doing what? You don't even bother explaining why, for instance, "Stevenson is not really worth bothering with". Do you have any idea of just how extensive his work is? He has investigated literally thousands of cases, published in mainstream journals... You can't dismiss his work in one sweeping remark. That's not very scientific.

[Lekatt]

Originally Posted by Eteponge

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.

Thanks for letting me post it. It has got a lot of attention and is very good. Near death experiences are real, I had one, no guessing at all. No matter what the skeptics say the research is accurate and correct. It will take time, but sooner or later all will have to face the truth. On the other side there is no physical proof of anything in the brain remotely resembling consciousness. All Brain research relies on brain electrical activity only. Another source:

Stan Grof, M.D., researcher and author of Books of the Dead and Holotropic Mind, stated “The most extraordinary and fascinating aspect of NDEs is the occurrence of `veridical’ (verifying) out-of-body-experiences (OOBEs), a term used for experiences of disembodied consciousness with accurate extrasensory perception. Thanatological studies have repeatedly confirmed that people who are unconscious or even clinically dead can have OOBEs during which they observe their bodies and the rescue procedures from above, or perceive events in remote locations. Current thanatological research now focuses on confirmation of some preliminary observations of these experiences occurring with congenitally blind people.”
(excerpts from “Toward Heaven On Earth: Remembering Your Soul)

We are spiritual and eternal.

[Lekatt]

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.

If your have any real evidence other than theories you need to post it here. So show us the "loads" of evidence you allude to here in a post as we have shown our evidence. Real evidence as in the research being done on near death experiences. Science is full of opinions, guesses, and theories, I would like to see something a little more substantial. Near death experiences are real, I know because I had one.


Discuss this video in a scientific way. It was scientists that produced it.

The AfterEffect, pg2, Pam Reynolds | Thoughtful Living

then you may want to discuss this series of videos produced by scientists. I will link only the first one.

The Day I Died. Part 1. | Thoughtful Living

Skeptics have no logical arguments left that haven't been debunked by NDE researchers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Can you honestly say that any of that research holds up under your approach?

Yes.

~~ Paul

[sr332603]

NeuroLogica Blog » Studying Near Death Experiences

According to my understanding, people who believe that NDE's are evidence of spiritualism (I will call them NDEers for short) are relying on two assumptions:

1) the brain is not active enough during CPR to cause hallucinations, and 2) the hallucinations actually occurred during CPR, and not before or after.

As far as I can tell, neither of these two assumptions have been accurately answered by NDEers, especially point 2.

Care to comment?

[Lekatt]

Originally Posted by sr332603

NeuroLogica Blog » Studying Near Death Experiences

According to my understanding, people who believe that NDE's are evidence of spiritualism (I will call them NDEers for short) are relying on two assumptions:

1) the brain is not active enough during CPR to cause hallucinations, and 2) the hallucinations actually occurred during CPR, and not before or after.

As far as I can tell, neither of these two assumptions have been accurately answered by NDEers, especially point 2.

Care to comment?

No, I don't mind commenting. The research done on near death experiences ruled out the possibility of hallucination years ago. If you will watch the videos provided above in my former post you will see that near death experiences are real spiritual experiences. I know there will be a lot of skeptics in denial of the research, but it is clean and true. We humans are spiritual beings and have always been that way. Now, through near death experiences we can see the evidence of that fact. Scientists have no physical evidence to show the brain creates consciousness, it is only a theory they have and nothing more. I challenge you to watch the videos and read about the research.

[anonymous]

Evidence of psychic perception comes from NDEs when the experiencer is revived and has information that they couldn't have obtained with their normal senses even if they had been conscious.

Veridical NDE's:

"People See Verified Events While Out-Of-Body"
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html

"The NDE and Out-of-Body: Kevin Williams' research conclusions"
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research11.html

"Individual NDE Experiences" published by the Near Death Experience Research Foundation
http://www.nderf.org/archives_1stHalf2002.htm
(Search the page for "veridical" to find these types of cases.)


There have been several hypotheses advanced to explain NDE's by means of ordinary biological phenomena. None of these hypotheses account for all the observed phenomena that have been reported to occur during NDE's. For more information see:


Michael Prescott discusses chapter 6 of the book "Irreducible Mind" by Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, et al.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...cible_min.html

Michael Tymn discusses the section on NDE's in chapter 2 "Where Are You?" in the book "Your Eternal Self" by R. Craig Hogan, Ph.D.
http://metgat.gaia.com/blog/2008/3/d..._nde_debunkers

Scientific Theories of the NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts01.html

[Lekatt]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Evidence of psychic perception comes from NDEs when the experiencer is revived and has information that they couldn't have obtained with their normal senses even if they had been conscious.

Veridical NDE's:

"People See Verified Events While Out-Of-Body"
People see verified events while out-of-body

"The NDE and Out-of-Body: Kevin Williams' research conclusions"
Out-of-body - near-death experiences

"Individual NDE Experiences" published by the Near Death Experience Research Foundation
Near Death Experience Archives 1/1/02-6/30/02
(Search the page for "veridical" to find these types of cases.)


There have been several hypotheses advanced to explain NDE's by means of ordinary biological phenomena. None of these hypotheses account for all the observed phenomena that have been reported to occur during NDE's. For more information see:


Michael Prescott discusses chapter 6 of the book "Irreducible Mind" by Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, et al.
Michael Prescott's Blog: Irreducible Mind and the NDE

Michael Tymn discusses the section on NDE's in chapter 2 "Where Are You?" in the book "Your Eternal Self" by R. Craig Hogan, Ph.D.
Debunking the NDE Debunkers by Michael Tymn — Gaia Community

Scientific Theories of the NDE
Scientific theories of the near-death experience

Thanks for the post. I believe the jury is in on near death experiences and now we need to start using what we have learned from them to help people live better lives.

[sr332603]

Originally Posted by Lekatt

No, I don't mind commenting. The research done on near death experiences ruled out the possibility of hallucination years ago. If you will watch the videos provided above in my former post you will see that near death experiences are real spiritual experiences. I know there will be a lot of skeptics in denial of the research, but it is clean and true. We humans are spiritual beings and have always been that way. Now, through near death experiences we can see the evidence of that fact. Scientists have no physical evidence to show the brain creates consciousness, it is only a theory they have and nothing more. I challenge you to watch the videos and read about the research.

That may be one of the least-supported statements I have ever read. In what way could researches rule out hallucinations from reported near death experiences?