Mod+ 242. OLIVER HOCKENHULL, NEURONS TO NIRVANA

That is a very remarkable story - and must have been proof beyond doubt to you that there is another reality to be accessed - which is not hallucinatory, but which contains information about the future!

Maybe I am a bit surprised you don't want to explore it further.

Well I am, but not with drugs...

I think people generally take drugs because it tends to be a nice experience, and makes them feel good... they wouldn't take them if they were horrible. My experience was horrendous... from what I was told, it's relatively rare, and perhaps '...I was wired up a bit differently...'? Who knows... I'm already very sensitive so I now feel no need to increase my sensitivity, and certainly not if there was any risk of having that experience again... a couple more of those, and I could see myself developing mental health problems.

Once bitten twice shy...
 
There is one really important way in which DMT and NDEs are very similar, in neither case are the people actually dead, but still alive, and we know that the human mind is capable of all sorts of imaginings.
 
I think the reason DMT doesn't have long lasting effects is because it doesn't last very long.

Ayahuasca, which is DMT + monoamine oxidase inhibitor, is a much more profound spiritual experience given the accounts I've read. But even DMT had managed to assist people in Strassman's study to some extent.

Speaking strategically I think that if people want a paradigm shift then something like ayahuasca is more likely to make people consider there's something beyond the material. Not to mention the anecdotal reports of Psi being boosted by psychedelics.

The most obvious way to empower psychodelic effects is to combine them with something else. AFAIR, there are two such combinations: psychedelic + sensory deprivation (John Lilly) and psychedelic + ceremonial magick (Timothy Leary). Both these techniques were successfully used by Robert Anton Wilson in his consciousness-altering self-experiments as well.
 
There is one really important way in which DMT and NDEs are very similar, in neither case are the people actually dead, but still alive, and we know that the human mind is capable of all sorts of imaginings.
This is a matter of definition. It is common among sceptics to declare that anyone who is alive and able to recount their supposed 'near-death experience' was never actually dead in the first place. Thus by this verbal sleight of hand the whole concept of the NDE is neatly eliminated. However the medical evidence tells a different story, and it is only by dismissing and ignoring factual evidence that such a position is sustainable. As such, it isn't a valid position.
 
This is a matter of definition. It is common among sceptics to declare that anyone who is alive and able to recount their supposed 'near-death experience' was never actually dead in the first place. Thus by this verbal sleight of hand the whole concept of the NDE is neatly eliminated. However the medical evidence tells a different story, and it is only by dismissing and ignoring factual evidence that such a position is sustainable. As such, it isn't a valid position.

Well it is theoretically possible it's all imagination, but it seems to me only someone desperate to avoid the greater questions - or hoping to use disbelief as a false badge of intellectual superiority - would ever stop their research there and not consider the more interesting evidence.
 
This is a matter of definition. It is common among sceptics to declare that anyone who is alive and able to recount their supposed 'near-death experience' was never actually dead in the first place. Thus by this verbal sleight of hand the whole concept of the NDE is neatly eliminated. However the medical evidence tells a different story, and it is only by dismissing and ignoring factual evidence that such a position is sustainable. As such, it isn't a valid position.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a perfectly valid position to accept that Near Death experients could not have been 'biologically dead'. 'Clinically dead' during cardiac arrest, sure, but not 'biologically dead' (what I commonly refer to as 'dead'). Otherwise they would have suffered massive cell damage, and could not have been resuscitated and later recall their experience.

There are also some full blown NDE-like STE's, with many of the identical NDE elements which did not apparently occur near death. So my position, in which the NDE experient could not have been biologically dead continues to make sense to me. The interesting part of these experiences for me, is their correlation with changes in endogenous EEG measurements.
 
Well it is theoretically possible it's all imagination, but it seems to me only someone desperate to avoid the greater questions - or hoping to use disbelief as a false badge of intellectual superiority - would ever stop their research there and not consider the more interesting evidence.
Well, there are two separate questions. One is, was the person ever "dead" at any time during their experience. The other, is to question the timing of any experiences which were recalled. Of course some experiences take place when a person is definitely not dead, and indeed is functioning normally, which includes the interesting phenomenon of "Shared Death Experiences" as for example described by Moody in Glimpses of Eternity.
 
This is a matter of definition. It is common among sceptics to declare that anyone who is alive and able to recount their supposed 'near-death experience' was never actually dead in the first place. Thus by this verbal sleight of hand the whole concept of the NDE is neatly eliminated. However the medical evidence tells a different story, and it is only by dismissing and ignoring factual evidence that such a position is sustainable. As such, it isn't a valid position.

The 'medical evidence'? In how many cases of NDE have death certificates been issued? In how many cases did the doctor speak into the microphone above the patient recording; ''time of death is...."?
There's nothing wrong with just admitting that people have really good imaginations, and that our minds can get weirded out by things like drugs, booze, accidents, etc. I even know a guy who swears he can put himself into an altered state of consciousness, the type they call 'lucid dreaming', whereby he gets to bang Anna Kournikova! No problem, but surely nobody would say he really did it, right?
 
Well, there are two separate questions. One is, was the person ever "dead" at any time during their experience. The other, is to question the timing of any experiences which were recalled. Of course some experiences take place when a person is definitely not dead, and indeed is functioning normally, which includes the interesting phenomenon of "Shared Death Experiences" as for example described by Moody in Glimpses of Eternity.
If the guy is alive and functioning normally, isn't that then what we used to call 'pretending', or 'day-dreaming'? I suppose a guy might want to pretend he's dead.
 
Well it is theoretically possible it's all imagination, but it seems to me only someone desperate to avoid the greater questions - or hoping to use disbelief as a false badge of intellectual superiority - would ever stop their research there and not consider the more interesting evidence.

There is no need to presume that someone might be 'desperate to avoid' anything, or look for 'false badges'. He might be simply saying that in the absence of evidence, it's probably just imagination, it's the most likely solution.
 
There is no need to presume that someone might be 'desperate to avoid' anything, or look for 'false badges'. He might be simply saying that in the absence of evidence, it's probably just imagination, it's the most likely solution.

At which point we can say someone hasn't read the evidence. Which brings us back full circle to why skeptics are so desperate to evangelize their lack of curiosity.

eta: Keep in mind even Sam Harris thinks there's something weird going on.
 
If the guy is alive and functioning normally, isn't that then what we used to call 'pretending', or 'day-dreaming'? I suppose a guy might want to pretend he's dead.
Whether you believe in a supernatural explanation or a materialistic one, to suggest an NDE is similar to 'pretending' or 'day-dreaming' indicates a lack of research into the phenomenon. You may find the type of discussion more to your liking in the Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics sub-forum. This has actually been one of the most discussed, debated, and dissected topics on this site.
 
When I did a paper for my theology professor on possession, I found that even if you take the skeptical approach - as I did - there's still something incredibly fascinating going on. And my professor told me about things he'd seen* during his Santeria initiation that he couldn't explain with ease that only adds to the question.

It's similar with ayahuasca. I know one guy who hated the thought of being a meat-puppet and always took drugs to forget this - at one point overdosing on LSD and being taken in by ten cops. Just lucky he didn't hurt a kid in the neighborhood in all honesty. Same guy takes ayahuasca** and tells me he's no longer a materialist, that he's seen the higher reality.

This was a guy who wasn't an intellectual slouch - studied at Cambridge - nor was he unfamiliar with the materialist doctrine. (Though he didn't go out of his way to share the bad news.) Something weird is going on here, even if it's just imagination it's not something one can easily dismiss.

*People wounding themselves and then being healed by the end of the ceremony. Not a smoking gun, but I can't see why anyone would just hand wave away such a thing. This was a tenured prof who had no reason to lie to me after all, and since this was a Catholic college he probably had more reason not to say anything to me about it.

**I don't necessarily recommend just taking these drugs at home - seems to me without some preparation you're more likely to hulk out and hurt someone. Though Neurosoup has more expertise than I do on such matters.

I think setting, as well as the drug taken, may be incredibly important. The ritualized context of a shamanic initiation or Ayahuasca Church may make all the difference. This may also be why LSD, manufactured as opposed to natural, doesn't offer the same reliability in experience that ayahuasca seems to....though the psychological benefits of LSD in a safe medical context seems to have some good evidence as well.
 
At which point we can say someone hasn't read the evidence. Which brings us back full circle to why skeptics are so desperate to evangelize their lack of curiosity.

eta: Keep in mind even Sam Harris thinks there's something weird going on.

No, it's rather that what YOU call evidence, is not, but just anecdotes. That a sceptic asks for evidence does NOT mean they're desperate, or evangelizing, or not curious. In fact I would say I
'm so curious that I keep looking at what you call evidence, but notice you don't have it. If a sceptic were not curious, they wouldn't bother putting you on the spot to prove your case, but rather do something else with their time.

That somebody else says something weird is going on, it does not follow that it means there are ghosts. That would be jumping to conclusions, which is false logic.

I too say it's really weird and amazing whenever I see some magicians like Penn and Teller do their tricks. But it would be false logic to presume anything else but illusion.
 
Whether you believe in a supernatural explanation or a materialistic one, to suggest an NDE is similar to 'pretending' or 'day-dreaming' indicates a lack of research into the phenomenon. You may find the type of discussion more to your liking in the Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics sub-forum. This has actually been one of the most discussed, debated, and dissected topics on this site.
Yes, I admit I don't do any research at all into NDEs, but I DO look at what you guys say is research, and all I see is the collecting of stories.
 
No, it's rather that what YOU call evidence, is not, but just anecdotes. That a sceptic asks for evidence does NOT mean they're desperate, or evangelizing, or not curious. In fact I would say I
'm so curious that I keep looking at what you call evidence, but notice you don't have it. If a sceptic were not curious, they wouldn't bother putting you on the spot to prove your case, but rather do something else with their time.

That somebody else says something weird is going on, it does not follow that it means there are ghosts. That would be jumping to conclusions, which is false logic.

I too say it's really weird and amazing whenever I see some magicians like Penn and Teller do their tricks. But it would be false logic to presume anything else but illusion.

No need for all caps bro. You're entitled to your faith in materialism. But as with any faith, just remember if you're going to try and evangelize people are going to call you on your sermons.

As for putting me on the spot, like I said I'm not here to attack your personal faith in materialism. Personally I have no idea if any of this anomalous stuff is objectively real - I'm just pointing out to any lurkers that any rushed dismissal of these phenomena as illusory is not to be trusted.

"Certain linguistic anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain. Dulls critical thinking."

"Well, I don't use ten dollar words as much as you, but for a guy who sees no point in existence, you sure fret about it an awful lot; and you still sound panicked."
-True Detective
 
When I did a paper for my theology professor on possession, I found that even if you take the skeptical approach - as I did - there's still something incredibly fascinating going on. And my professor told me about things he'd seen* during his Santeria initiation that he couldn't explain with ease that only adds to the question.

It's similar with ayahuasca. I know one guy who hated the thought of being a meat-puppet and always took drugs to forget this - at one point overdosing on LSD and being taken in by ten cops. Just lucky he didn't hurt a kid in the neighborhood in all honesty. Same guy takes ayahuasca** and tells me he's no longer a materialist, that he's seen the higher reality.

This was a guy who wasn't an intellectual slouch - studied at Cambridge - nor was he unfamiliar with the materialist doctrine. (Though he didn't go out of his way to share the bad news.) Something weird is going on here, even if it's just imagination it's not something one can easily dismiss.

*People wounding themselves and then being healed by the end of the ceremony. Not a smoking gun, but I can't see why anyone would just hand wave away such a thing. This was a tenured prof who had no reason to lie to me after all, and since this was a Catholic college he probably had more reason not to say anything to me about it.

**I don't necessarily recommend just taking these drugs at home - seems to me without some preparation you're more likely to hulk out and hurt someone. Though Neurosoup has more expertise than I do on such matters.

I think setting, as well as the drug taken, may be incredibly important. The ritualized context of a shamanic initiation or Ayahuasca Church may make all the difference. This may also be why LSD, manufactured as opposed to natural, doesn't offer the same reliability in experience that ayahuasca seems to....though the psychological benefits of LSD in a safe medical context seems to have some good evidence as well.

There is not problem if a person imagines something and says it 'fascinating', or says he can't 'explain' what's going on. The problems come when such people jump to conclusions. So we can believe a guy if he says he talked to Jesus or a ghost say, but if he tries to claim that it really was jesus or a ghost, then we have good reason to be suspicious. His claim does NOT constitute evidence.
 
There is not problem if a person imagines something and says it 'fascinating', or says he can't 'explain' what's going on. The problems come when such people jump to conclusions. So we can believe a guy if he says he talked to Jesus or a ghost say, but if he tries to claim that it really was jesus or a ghost, then we have good reason to be suspicious. His claim does NOT constitute evidence.

Assuming it's just all in his head is jumping to conclusions.
 
No need for all caps bro. You're entitled to your faith in materialism. But as with any faith, just remember if you're going to try and evangelize people are going to call you on your sermons.

As for putting me on the spot, like I said I'm not here to attack your personal faith in materialism. Personally I have no idea if any of this anomalous stuff is objectively real - I'm just pointing out to any lurkers that any rushed dismissal of these phenomena as illusory is not to be trusted.

"Certain linguistic anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain. Dulls critical thinking."

"Well, I don't use ten dollar words as much as you, but for a guy who sees no point in existence, you sure fret about it an awful lot; and you still sound panicked."
-True Detective

My comment does indicate any 'faith', unless you mean empirical reason-based faith. For example I do indeed have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it has done so every other morning. That's a rational faith, unlike an irrational one like says that; ''since I don't undersand X, it must mean that ..........".
So, we both hold the same position in that neither of us has ''any idea if any of the anomalous stuff is objectively real''.
 
Back
Top