No evidence for the afterlife?

[Kai]

The problem with the debate is that both polarized sides, where they are evident, are "trying too hard" to make a phenomenon into what they want it to be. We don't know what it is, and there can be several more things it could be than simply "hallucination" or "life after death". Even if it *does* lend evidence to non-extinction of consciousness, this is no particular confirmation that what is seen in many NDEs is remotely realistic. Again, another problem with the afterlife interpretation of NDEs, is that these experiences by way of content tell us nothing about an afterlife. They tell us about human ideals and longings and cultural imagery.

[really]

Originally Posted by Kai

The problem with the debate is that both polarized sides, where they are evident, are "trying too hard" to make a phenomenon into what they want it to be. We don't know what it is, and there can be several more things it could be than simply "hallucination" or "life after death". Even if it *does* lend evidence to non-extinction of consciousness, this is no particular confirmation that what is seen in many NDEs is remotely realistic. Again, another problem with the afterlife interpretation of NDEs, is that these experiences by way of content tell us nothing about an afterlife. They tell us about human ideals and longings and cultural imagery.

I think Carl Sagan once said "We don't see the world as it is, but as we wish it to be."
Spinning this a bit differently: we don't see the evidence for what it is ,or is not, but for what we wish it to be.

I think this is a point rarely discussed by proponents and strong believers of psi. In all my time on forums I've not seen it.

[Kai]

I do find it curious, though, that ndes seem to have a relatively high frequency in children, with melvin morse pinning it at 95% of cardiac arrest patients. What are your thoughts on this?

it could be any one of a number of things, Iyace, including that the boundaries between reality and imagination are not yet firmly established in young children, indeed do not really become firmly established until quite a bit later in childhood. Children also have a lot "more to lose" in the way of life, if they die.

I am reminded of Ring's study from the 80s suggesting a correlation with those who suffered some form of abuse or emotional trauma during their lives...one strong reaction to which appears to be a deeper withdrawing into the world of the imagination and interior imagery.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Scott

A two year gap for memories to change and be molded by each retelling leaves more than a little room for saying the Reynold's case as being less than strong.

This is not the same thing as saying that it "doesn't exist" or "is folkloric." Please characterize them correctly to avoid misunderstandings. To someone who is aware of these cases (like myself and others here) describing OBE/NDE cases this way is inflammatory and invites unwelcome responses. If you disagree with the validity of the cases, please say so, but do avoid suggesting that they either do not exist or are folklore.

AP

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Pollux

How the hell do YOU KNOW that?

Let's cut down on the caps here, please. This line of comments connected to the "folklore" comment is being checked for moderation. Please be advised that further comments on this track, unless they can advance either position with justification, risk deletion.

AP

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by paqart

This is not the same thing as saying that it "doesn't exist" or "is folkloric." Please characterize them correctly to avoid misunderstandings. To someone who is aware of these cases (like myself and others here) describing OBE/NDE cases this way is inflammatory and invites unwelcome responses. If you disagree with the validity of the cases, please say so, but do avoid suggesting that they either do not exist or are folklore.

AP

Yeah, I actually agree here. Kai, I get where you're coming from with using the word folkloric - and I don't think you intend to defend, but I think it's going to inevitably happen given the subject matter and the attachment many proponents have to it.

You might may to use a word that doesn't connote flights of fantasy so much!

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Kai

Well, I don’t see how you can know this, because human beings have all kinds of motivations that enter into “relating stories” that are not scientific in agenda, especially mythically charged stories.

Kai,

If this is all you've got, you need to stop this line of argument. It is derailing the thread to repeat what amounts to the title of the thread as if it is a mantra instead of a legitimate question. As asked, this thread is asking for evidence of the afterlife, not arguments against it, particularly weak, unjustified arguments that are not based on data but assumptions about the data.

For the sake of brevity, I won't answer your lengthy posts point by point, but it is clear that you do need to read more on the subject before you assume that you have the authority to make the statements you have made. Until you have that authority, you need justification, and you haven't given any that is linked to the data you are criticizing. This makes your statements specious, and that will only dull the quality of this thread.

If you want to encourage people to actually discuss the thread as intended, you need to let them present evidence without immediately characterizing their statements or the cases involved in a manner that is effectively ridicule.

If you want to respond to this post, send me a PM.

AP

[Kai]

For the sake of brevity, I won't answer your lengthy posts point by point, but it is clear that you do need to read more on the subject before you assume that you have the authority to make the statements you have made. Until you have that authority, you need justification, and you haven't given any that is linked to the data you are criticizing. This makes your statements specious, and that will only dull the quality of this thread.

I think it is a bit much to make comments like this (which are false accusations actually) and not be prepared to justify them in the public space. Moderation or not. It smacks of "hit and run" criticism. I will abide by your moderation requests, but there is actually no content in your post that intellectually justifies your assertions above. You appear to just want to make them, and hope that sticks. Perhaps you are used to that kind of debate. I don't know. Well, it doesn't stick. And yes, I will happily address these matters for you in PM...but you have not yet provided any actual material to address. If you can specify what you think I am missing or have overlooked in this debate, I will continue the conversation with you there. I should remark though that the chances that I have really overlooked them are pretty slim.

[Kai]

Yeah, I actually agree here. Kai, I get where you're coming from with using the word folkloric - and I don't think you intend to defend, but I think it's going to inevitably happen given the subject matter and the attachment many proponents have to it.

I understand what you are saying Arouet: my point is about structures of evidence Any word that suitably maintains the difference between the two structure of evidence can be substituted: "verbal accounting" if you prefer, though I think this says less, actually, than "folkloric". There has been misrepresentation of what I said on this thread. I did not say that NDEs were folkloric (necessarily). I said that the present means of assessing them to be "veridical" is operating in that space, as opposed to the scientific space.

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Kai

Well, I don’t see how you can know this, because human beings have all kinds of motivations that enter into “relating stories” that are not scientific in agenda, especially mythically charged stories Strictly speaking the acquiring of tales related to strongly extraordinary claims is tapping folklore in the cultural space. “Out of body experiences” have been such a term for the past 100 years or so in our cultural space; not so much before that. Again, that research is being done in a folkloric space does not necessarily signify that NDEs (or whatever) are *only* folklore. It simply signifies that such an investigative technique is relying upon subjetive relating, with no proper control of how belief modulates behavior, agenda, the vicissitudes of memory, fabrication, self-promotion, misperception…and many other things.

What are you talking about?
If a researcher of NDE´s are talking to a NDE-experincer it IS a first-hand account, thus not folklore?
I begin to think you are joking.

I wasn’t discussing whether private subjective experiences are experiences to the subject. I already know that they are. If you look back, you’ll discover that my comments are in relation to phenomena associated with near death or out of body experiences which, to become non-anecdotal evidence, would need to be demonstrated beyond socio-cultural story space. I am little impressed at this point by *how many* people say they “rose above their bodies”. Maybe they did. But the claim can’t really be evaluated further without proper testing. As evidence for the literal truth of itself, it's a claim being made in the wrong episteme (folkloric, as opposed to scientific).

Again, the comparision was in relation to you saying first-hand interviews of NDE-cases are folklore.
We need a rehearsal of the word folklore:

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary
the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth.
a body of popular myths or beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people:

Well, you are arguing for something of your own creation here. I have already said that accounts and stories can be considered a prima facie evidence in terms of science. They just aren’t scientific evidence on their own (again, as previously said). And they need to go on to actually *be* examined by a scientific process.

So the research for NDE would be done even if nobody was claiming these experiences? Did you read what I wrote?

Originally Posted by Pollux

The foundation for NDE to be researched in the first place IS because of the accounts.

A more careful reading would have disclosed that I said “at one stage at least” in that remark, which was true. It is no longer true because of the multiple fluid channels by which these stories propagate.

So, you dont have a comprehensive view of the NDE-cases as of date?