Nde Q&a

[jacob]

Found this blog post about NDE where the author tells of more proof that NDEs are real plus some arguments against the various argument of the skeptics.

This blog, Thoughtful Living is specifically about NDEs.

[David Bailey]

Jacob,

Thanks for that article - which was very interesting.

David

[Occam's chainsaw]

But the information there is incorrect and fallacious - its just going around in circles talking nonsense about the brain.....

This has all been discussed here - so perhaps the best strategy would be to read both sources and then realise why that link about is flawed.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

But the information there is incorrect and fallacious - its just going around in circles talking nonsense about the brain.....

This has all been discussed here - so perhaps the best strategy would be to read both sources and then realise why that link about is flawed.

I haven't read every reply to every thread in the forums and I think most other readers have not either. There are also new people who may have joined since those other disucssions too. You may have noticed I'm not shy of including links in my posts - that's why. So if it's been discussed before I'd still be interested in looking at links pointing to what your views are along with anything more you care to say about what you think the flaws in the linked articles are.

[David Bailey]

Occam,

You obviously have some interest in the possible existence of ψ, so perhaps you should try the following experiment. Assuming you are yourself involved in (or at least have some detailed appreciation of) some area of science, take home a few important relevant papers in your area. Try reading them in the same super-critical way that you view most of the subjects that we discuss here - up to and possibly including the idea that the researchers have cheated in their work (as Jan Hendrik Schön did for quite some time).

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

David

[Eteponge]

Hey, that's my article! Interesting seeing it linked here, as re-posted on that guy's blog. I gave that guy permission to post it on his Website awhile back when he sent me a PM requesting permission on YouTube, after he saw my YouTube Video that I made from an earlier version of the article. He linked to my YouTube & MySpace accounts. My article can also be viewed here...

Eteponge's Blog

Originally Posted by occam's chainsaw

But the information there is incorrect and fallacious - its just going around in circles talking nonsense about the brain.....

Got any proof of that? I mean, actual objective evidence which objectively debunks the research findings of multiple medical doctors including Peter Fenwick a respected neuropsychiatrist, Pim Van Lommel a cardiologist, Sam Parnia, Bruce Greyson, Ian Stevenson, Melvin Morse, Michael Sabom, and numerous others, who will tell you the same thing.

“Simultaneous recording of heart rate and brain output show that within 11 seconds of the heart stopping, the brainwaves go flat. Now, if you read the literature on this, some skeptical people claim that in this state there is still brain activity, but, in fact, the data are against this in both animals and humans. The brain is not functioning, and you are not going to get your electrical activity back again until the heart restarts.” (Dr. Peter Fenwick)

Dr. Sam Parnia: “During cardiac arrest brainstem activity is rapidly lost. It should not be able to sustain such lucid processes or allow the formation of lasting memories.”

Pim Van Lommel’s well-known research study published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, also notes that cerebral activity flatlines within 4 to 20 seconds of cardiac arrest.

Now if you have a little something called OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the above is not true, OBJECTIVELY DISPROVING the above medical professional's statements, then you might have some substance behind your statement.

(I have heard some skeptics speculate that "there *might* be something still firing on in there that EEG can't pick up!" But even if that is the case, can you prove that the brain can still produce images in this state, and that you can remember them? Oh, and while you're at it, you'll also need to explain how Veridical Details exist while OBE and in the NDE State that this undetectable limited brain activity somehow "produces". Also, the argument comparing it to anesthesia states is a red herring because they are totally different states. In anesthesia, where someone is under, they have plenty of brain activity going on, their consciousness is simply "in the clutch" so to speak.)

Regardless, that is NOT the core of my argument (as you in error implied), but rather it is just ONE ARGUMENT of MANY (and a rebuttal of a common skeptical argument to the contrary). I go through Skeptic Argument # X and Y and give counter-evidence and counter-data. The core of the evidence is actually in the VERIDICAL DETAILS that highly suggests there is something going on there.

Being able to accurately tell the doctors what they were doing while they were clinically dead, what clothes they wore, what procedures and instruments they used, and any conversations being said, including accurate blow by blow accounts of their own resuscitation from a bird's eye point of view, the whole of which can later be checked and verified to be true.

Often times they also describe what was happening out in the hallway, who was sitting in the waiting room, what was happening on the other side of the building, and conversations being said at these same locations, all while they were clinically dead elsewhere. The events witnessed, heard, and experienced later being verified to be true. Even obscure objects on the roof have been seen and verified.

There are also accounts of experiencers meeting deceased relatives during an NDE that the person did not know was dead, such as a relative or a friend, and finding out that they were in fact deceased after the fact, and learning information from them that they could not have otherwise known.

There are many accounts of children and adult NDErs learning about relatives and siblings who had died before their own birth that they never met or were never told about, etc.

Also, people are blind, including those who have been blind since birth have been able to accurately perceive visual surroundings during their experience. Many people have also been informed of knowledge far beyond their personal capacity. Etc.

And of course, experiments and research conducted to try to verify the accuracy of these encounters.

I know I will probably get hit by Keith Augustine's article in response (as it's truely the skeptic's biggest "trump card" attack), so I'm glad I've already written a portion regarding that perticular article...

Sources such as Keith Augustine's article will prey upon the perceived weakness of certain NDEs, out of their full context, while ignoring alternative explainations and far better and far stronger NDE examples, in an attempt to bring all NDEs down. The "weird" NDEs he presents are without context, and his sources are usually Christian Fundamentalist Anti-NDE Books (Not Kidding), and short excerpts from Books of NDE Researchers, taken out of their full context and presented without the full explaination of the NDE Researchers who are presenting them. His alternative explainations of Veridical NDEs ignore pesky facts and additional and alternative information that he convienently ignored to come to his conclusions.

The bulk of his arguments against specific veridical cases, revolve largely around presenting totally unprovable unverifiable highly speculative "coulda-woulda-shouldas" regarding how they "could have seen/heard those things naturally" while ignoring well presented alternative explainations, the full context of the specific cases, and ignoring all of the known facts and circumstances surrounding the matter at hand that conflict with his hastey conclusions. His arguments often revolve around presenting a totally one-sided view of things, ignoring what the other side has to fully say regarding it, and comes up with his own conclusion without the full data being presented there. There are times where he partially or very briefly and shortly presents what the other side has to say, but certainly not all of it, as much of what he does not present is very damning to his side of the argument.

Michael Prescott has written several articles on the Shoe on the Roof case and Pam Reynolds and the Blind NDEr and a critique of Keith Augustine's article itself on his blog...

Michael Prescott's Blog

Keith Augustine did not present the FULL FACTS & DATA of those cases when he critiqued them, therefore he was attacking a half-truthed strawman without the full story, he left out important information that conflicted with his conclusions, and in the case of Maria's Shoe, used a provably biased-beyond-objectiveness and easily rebuttable piece as his source.

Chris Carter has also written an excellent article criticing Keith Augustine...

Rebuttal to Keith Augustine's attack of "Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?" Chris Carter (SurvivalAfterDeath.org)

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Eteponge

Got any proof of that? I mean, actual objective evidence which objectively debunks the research findings of multiple medical doctors including Peter Fenwick a respected neuropsychiatrist, Pim Van Lommel a cardiologist, Sam Parnia, Bruce Greyson, Ian Stevenson, Melvin Morse, Michael Sabom, and numerous others, who will tell you the same thing.

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.

[Eteponge]

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.

[Occam's chainsaw]

I wish all the best for your future reading.

My adivce, if I may, would be to broaden ones scope outside of the sceptics and believers to some degree and go in search of independent scientific research - with no NDE agenda either way. - like cognitive neuroscience.

I wish you all the very best with that.

The reason is some in NDE circles are going around, literally, in circles (particularly people like Prescott, Fenwick, van Lommel etc) because they are not up to speed with the latest brain science or clearly do not understand it. Their reasoning is very poor indeed.

If you do this - my hunch is you will really start to see applications and failings of this new knowledge - from which I am sure you will generate useful thoughts and questions. This, could be seen as a form of progression.

[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