174. Dr. Raymond Moody On Understanding Near-Death Experiences as Nonsense (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Interview with psychologist and renown near-death experience researcher discusses how our language and system of logic limits our understanding of near-death experience accounts. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with renown ne...

Click here to read more ...

[anonymous]

Awesome! That interview disconfused me about so many things I can't even contemplate it!

[sbu]

Impressive how unscientific some of these podcast discussions are, e.g.:

Alex Tsakiris: You know, it’s amazing to me that 35 years after your book, we’re still taking seriously people like Dr. Sam Parnia, who I’m sure is a hard-working, extremely intelligent guy, well-meaning, but really? We’re going to put pictures above the bed and see? What are we trying to do here, 35 years have gone. How much human experience do we have to deny?

Dr. Raymond Moody: Yeah, yeah. About that one in particular and in connection with that study was that this could possibly prove life after death and to me that was astonishing to read. I felt Plato pretty much put the kibosh on that one 2,300 years ago when he pointed out that even if you could prove that something leaves the body it doesn’t mean that it would continue to exist after the demolishment of the body.

Sam Parnia has never claimed he is trying to proof life after death. He is looking to provide some scientific evidence for all the nice anecdotes regarding consciousness thoughts during flat EEGs. I think your defensive stance on the AWARE study is due to at the bottom of your heart you expect a negative outcome.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by sbu

Sam Parnia has never claimed he is trying to proof life after death. He is looking to provide some scientific evidence for all the nice anecdotes regarding consciousness thoughts during flat EEGs. I think your defensive stance on the AWARE study is due to at the bottom of your heart you expect a negative outcome.

This is not news to anyone, honestly. Most PROPONENTS outwardly expect a negative outcome for various reasons.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Iyace

This is not news to anyone, honestly. Most PROPONENTS outwardly expect a negative outcome for various reasons.

I came in kind of late in the game on the AWARE stuff, but it's my understanding that proponents (and non-proponents!) have questioned the design of the (veridical part of the) study from the very start even.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by EthanT

I came in kind of late in the game on the AWARE stuff, but it's my understanding that proponents (and non-proponents!) have questioned the design of the (veridical part of the) study from the very start even.

For very good reasons, might I add.

Veridical components are rare in ndes

Ndes themselves are relatively rare

Ndes themselves which are consisting of various components that are outside of the 'death moment' are even rarer themselves.

[sbu]

Originally Posted by Iyace

For very good reasons, might I add.

Veridical components are rare in ndes

Ndes themselves are relatively rare

Ndes themselves which are consisting of various components that are outside of the 'death moment' are even rarer themselves.

Can't you see that that you and Alex are arguing that the paranormal aspect of NDEs are unfalsifiable? The AWARE study is the worlds largest prospective NDE study to date by many miles. If you dismiss its results before they are even published I think it proves that the materialist sceptics have a point.

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by sbu

If you dismiss its results before they are even published I think it proves that the materialist sceptics have a point.

A guy hides pictures in a room and expects a disembodied mind to pick them out and return with the data? That's as primitive as a 'what does the soul weigh' question. Sam Parnia's heart is in the right place unquestionably, but AWARE is literalism gone mad.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by sbu

Can't you see that that you and Alex are arguing that the paranormal aspect of NDEs are unfalsifiable? The AWARE study is the worlds largest prospective NDE study to date by many miles. If you dismiss its results before they are even published I think it proves that the materialist sceptics have a point.

I think it proves that propenents (and non-propenents) think that portion of the study has a bad design.

Asking NDE'rs to noticed a hidden card-like visual cue may very well be like asking a bunch of folks who witnessed a robbery what color shoe laces the robber was wearing. More than likely, everybody was staring at his gun instead and nobody noticed.

If we're lucky maybe some will notice the visual cue in the AWARE study, but based on my example above and on the rarities Iyace mentioned above, it's not likely.

I think that is what people are arguing (and have been for some time)

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by gabriel

A guy hides pictures in a room and expects a disembodied mind to pick them out and return with the data? That's as primitive as a 'what does the soul weigh' question. Sam Parnia's heart is in the right place unquestionably, but AWARE is literalism gone mad.

Well, not quite. It would only be relevant if the person reported being in a position where in order to, say, look at their body, the image would be directly in the line of site. So if no one reports being in such a position, obviously you cannot draw any conclusions about that. But what if a number do report being in such a position and not seeing the image. Are we justified in drawing any conclusions then? At least to conclude that its problematic?

Certainly if they do report seeing the images proponents will celebrate the study.