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.