K9!
New
Latest Near-Death Experience Research Hit Job |326|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
K9!
New
There have always been non-conformists. They are an underappreciated yet valuable minority. Just because it is difficult to go against the status quo doesn't make it impossible.
B
Baccarat
Status Quo is crumbling. The evidence is ancedotal;)
B
Baccarat
A forum like this is good for keep both "sides" sharp. I am not a skeptic.....but there are thing I am highly skeptical of. I had a few precog experiences, posted one story on here. I believe in ESP/Precog because I experienced it more then once. It happens randomly and suddenly. Even though I believe in precog/esp I am skeptical of a biblical GOD/crop circles/ chemtrails. I do think the official 9/11 story has alot of holes and inconsistencies in it, but I don't think every mass shooting is staged.
See where I am going with this?
"skeptics" seem to never question mainstream narrative. Why? And if you do please share it with us? Any topic from 9/11 global warming, alternative medicine? anything
See where I am going with this?
"skeptics" seem to never question mainstream narrative. Why? And if you do please share it with us? Any topic from 9/11 global warming, alternative medicine? anything
B
Baccarat
My point is I don't like the word Skeptic. Skepticism is a position. I am skeptical of certain claims
B
Baccarat
I'll be checking out your blog, just skimmed through it. grazed the part of your telepathy experience. My mother said she had it, never seen it personally would like to
Small Dog
New
I think an interview with Bill Storr would be very timely. His book - Skeptics (incidentally) - talks about how we form points of view and how we process information in this light. And many more. The book is an artful mix of deeply personal and scientific.
As to the mainstream (or other) science, it doesn't work on the rational template that we can imagine - the debate of the sides, eventually coming to the most reasonable conclusion. It is run by humans with ambitions and vulnerabilities, so it's no surprise it gets ugly quite often. The main reason is not that those opposing new ideas are inherently bad people or are conspirators trying to conceal the Truth. Sure, in some instances scientists defend their positions because new views undermine the foundation of their careers, but these instances are, in my opinion, rare. Neuroscience will not be thrown out of the window if someone proves that consciousness is external to the brain: the findings of fMRIs will still be valid, just will have to be incorporated into the new paradigm. Which, incidentally, will open scores of lines of research and career opportunities.
After reading about NDE I admit that there are aspects that cannot be explained based on the current idea of consciousness being generated by the brain. However, at this stage the evidence I have come across is, to use the police lingo, circumstantial. In order to get serious attention extraordinary phenomena need solid verification. I am not saying that testimonies of medical staff are worthless, but in order to change current views evidence needs to be very strong. That's why Parnia - the guy who is up to his neck in practical medicine - designed AWARE with pictures around the ward. It may not be an ideal way to verify OBEs, but I understand why he is trying: report of someone seeing a picture nobody else can during NDE constitutes very strong evidence for the phenomenon because it excludes everything else as an explanation.
If anything, debating on this forum made me find out a few things about myself, along the lines laid out in Storr's book. I don't believe consciousness is confined to the brain, and so should be quite accepting to the idea that NDEs are non-physical in origin. However, when it comes to discussing medical facts I cannot turn away from the meticulous and detailed way I was taught and was practicing medicine for three decades. It's like and architect arguing with the building engineer: the former will talk about ideas and concepts, while the latter will concentrate on how to make sure the roof doesn't fall down. I have been up most of the night, so this post is not terribly coherent, but that's just another side of being human.
Anyway, whatever the truth is, if it's comprehensible it will come out. Science is a tool, and if you have a hammer in your hand everything around looks like a nail. And so there are numerous people with hammers running around and breaking shit until someone comes along and pulls out a screwdriver, and the thing turns out to be a screw. And it will take a while to realise that it is both a nail and a screw, and also a piece of music. Go figure.
As to the mainstream (or other) science, it doesn't work on the rational template that we can imagine - the debate of the sides, eventually coming to the most reasonable conclusion. It is run by humans with ambitions and vulnerabilities, so it's no surprise it gets ugly quite often. The main reason is not that those opposing new ideas are inherently bad people or are conspirators trying to conceal the Truth. Sure, in some instances scientists defend their positions because new views undermine the foundation of their careers, but these instances are, in my opinion, rare. Neuroscience will not be thrown out of the window if someone proves that consciousness is external to the brain: the findings of fMRIs will still be valid, just will have to be incorporated into the new paradigm. Which, incidentally, will open scores of lines of research and career opportunities.
After reading about NDE I admit that there are aspects that cannot be explained based on the current idea of consciousness being generated by the brain. However, at this stage the evidence I have come across is, to use the police lingo, circumstantial. In order to get serious attention extraordinary phenomena need solid verification. I am not saying that testimonies of medical staff are worthless, but in order to change current views evidence needs to be very strong. That's why Parnia - the guy who is up to his neck in practical medicine - designed AWARE with pictures around the ward. It may not be an ideal way to verify OBEs, but I understand why he is trying: report of someone seeing a picture nobody else can during NDE constitutes very strong evidence for the phenomenon because it excludes everything else as an explanation.
If anything, debating on this forum made me find out a few things about myself, along the lines laid out in Storr's book. I don't believe consciousness is confined to the brain, and so should be quite accepting to the idea that NDEs are non-physical in origin. However, when it comes to discussing medical facts I cannot turn away from the meticulous and detailed way I was taught and was practicing medicine for three decades. It's like and architect arguing with the building engineer: the former will talk about ideas and concepts, while the latter will concentrate on how to make sure the roof doesn't fall down. I have been up most of the night, so this post is not terribly coherent, but that's just another side of being human.
Anyway, whatever the truth is, if it's comprehensible it will come out. Science is a tool, and if you have a hammer in your hand everything around looks like a nail. And so there are numerous people with hammers running around and breaking shit until someone comes along and pulls out a screwdriver, and the thing turns out to be a screw. And it will take a while to realise that it is both a nail and a screw, and also a piece of music. Go figure.
Max_B
Member
It hasn't had any new articles for a while, but what's there, still fits with my ideas.
gabriel
New
Really? You have a phenomenon where people lose all vital signs. They go to a place where they feel fully alive, meet deceased relatives and gain profound spiritual insights. The reluctantly return and are completely transformed. How is that circumstantial? What part of a nearly dead brain throws up that scenario? Why don't we access our dead brain when our healthy one eats burgers and watches TV?
Alex
Administrator
EthanT
Member
Gabriel, I agree with what you say, but I think Small Dog does have a point here:
I personally think it's ridiculous that most NDE evidence and observations are rejected as "anecdotal", or "circumstantial", but if the types of observations you mention above were enough, well, the debate would be over and NDEs would be accepted science by now. Unfortunately, we're dealing with certain social problems which prohibit this, whether, or not it's reasonable.
Clearly, it seems to me based on what Small Dog says above, he's not outright rejecting all NDE observations himself, but recognizes we need more to convince society as a whole. I think we all agree with that?
Stephen Wright
New
First, let me say that arguments against extended consciousness are well-developed. They need to be addressed, to have warranted belief in the mind's capability to affect objects outside the skull-cap. see:
It will take a a process model that ties together information processing in the brain with its objective place in the total environment. I am very clear that an ecological approach is essential and the idea of an infosphere, as a sub-system of a biosphere, is likewise needed for context. While I disagree with Fred Adams, I have a lot of respect for his PoV.
Last edited:
Arouet
Member
This is a point that is worth discussing. Accepting for the sake of the argument that the social prohibitions are dropped. What role do you think these reports should play in the scientific understanding of NDEs?
In science, I don't think we generally take the experiencer's interpretation of what is going on to be determinative. I don't mean from the psychological perspective, there, how they perceive the experience may be the most important thing. But in interpreting the experience or attempting to determine exactly what is going on, I'm not sure how to justify simply accepting the interpretation of the experiencer from an idealized science.
For example. Take a case when an experiencer recalls meeting someone who at first they did not recognize. Later, they see a picture of a person (dead relative, etc.) and then identify that person as the individual from the NDE. From a scientific point of view, should we accept that as the case without seriously considering if the person might have incorporated the image in the photograph into their recollections of the experience? Don't we have to consider that the person in the picture might have been visually similar to the person in the memory and a link is then made? We know this kind of thing happens in non-near-death contexts, so don't we have to consider it here? We know that people often experience seeing people they don't know in an NDE and never identify them. I don't think that can be justified to rule out this kind of possibility without investigation.
In such a case, rather than say we reject the report, we might justifiably say that based on the report we cannot form a reliable conclusion about it. That's not the same thing as rejecting the hypothesis, but rather that the evidence is not strong enough to accept the hypothesis.
Does anyone disagree with this assessment?
gabriel
New
People can examine the evidence and make a decision on that basis. They don't need the guidance of scientists most of whom know nothing about NDEs, and will look for a physiological cause long after the evidence for non-locality has stacked up. The most credible cases include pre-NDE phenomenon experiences, cases where the individual is a medical professional (Mary Neal for example), veridical NDEs and cases where a person's behaviour became transformed. People can disregard those testimonies or take them on board, they don't require the approval of skeptics to differentiate sincerity from exaggeration.
Personally I think Sam Parnia's Aware protocols were well intentioned but beyond optimistic, an opinion I've never wavered in. Even if doubt were raised in the minds of skeptics, or proved beyond reasonable doubt, that doubt would continue to be exploited by vested interests. The world we live in and the world of the NDE are so different that only experience will offer satisfaction to those who lack emotional insight.
Arouet
Member
Is your suggestion that taking them on board and accepting their sincerity lead to only one possible conclusion? Could one reasonably take their testimonies on board, assume their sincerity, accept their behavioural transformation and legitimately reach a different conclusion from you or consider it reasonable to look for physiological causes?
Alex
Administrator
did a "Look Inside" on Amazon, didn't find any mention of near-death experience, OBE, synchronicity, lucid dreaming or other interesting stuff. It's easy to remain a materialist when you ignore all the contrary data.
would love to have them on... please invite on my behalf.
gabriel
New
Like any other human interaction, one assesses their value and likelihood against background knowledge. I'm not a zombie, and don't require anyone else to validate truth for me, I can make a call on whether the data stacks up. For me conscious non-locality is far more likely than the alternatives, such as a nearly dead brain providing unprecedented knowledge and access to reality. Or all NDErs are lying or deluded. There's no middle ground that confronts the NDE phenomenon head on unless you can offer one? That lack of viable alternatives is why I find these kind of books so weak on facts or philosophy. They pretend there's a physicalist interpretation waiting in the wings by ignoring the data, or cherry picking it to absurdity.
David Bailey
Member
That sounds fine. The problem is that you seem to focus entirely on NDE's in a hospital setting, where resuscitation begins almost at once. This makes it fairly reasonable to discuss explanations based on the levels of oxygen maintained by CPR. However the idea that NDE's are explained that way, is blown out of the water by NDE's that happen in other circumstances - such as falling through ice into cold water. NDE's also seem to have happened down through history.
The danger then is that sceptics try to fit multiple explanations to the NDE data - confabulation after the heart has been restarted - residual conventional consciousness at the time the NDE was supposed to occur, psychological desire to deny death, etc etc. Each just about fits a subset of the cases (with lots of special pleading - I mean, is residual consciousness really an explanation for these vivid experiences) - and voila - what is there left to explain! None of the explanations fit the more extreme examples, so those have to be explained by fraud or distortion of the facts.
The most that medical science can explain, still leaves most of the NDE phenomenon unexplained - I mean why are NDE's about death and the idea of separating from the body, as opposed to any of the other things people dream about?
David
Last edited: