Mod+ 276. DR. ALAN HUGENOT, IANDS AND THE FUTURE OF NDE RESEARCH

If the mind is immaterial, and empirical evidence is information gathered through the senses, how can you know what's going on in someone else's mind? How can you possibly validate an NDE experience as being true?
- Genuine movement in a NDE does not happen within the mind.
- It is possible to access someone else thoughts, even merge with their experience.

Of course if one wants to use the materialist version of empirical then forget it.
 
- Genuine movement in a NDE does not happen within the mind.

where does it happen?

- It is possible to access someone else thoughts, even merge with their experience.

access someone else's thoughts?
Of course if one wants to use the materialist version of empirical then forget it.
Exactly, How can it be done.


I'm not against the idea of there being truth to the experiences, but don't know how you could prove them is my point.
 
I'm not against the idea of there being truth to the experiences, but don't know how you could prove them is my point.
Sheesh. How many times am I going to have to state that it depends on whether you're using the parameters favored by materialism or not. Whether you consider empirical (observation/experience) evidence, proof or not is up to you.
 
re Alan... the folks at IANDS introduced me to him as a board member, but I didn't really check beyond that.

re research, I think there are going to be real NDE researchers at the conf (I've spoken to at least one), but you may be right re the divide.
Bruce Greyson will be there, so yes, there are "real researchers", but there is no peer review process for scientific papers presented at IANDS conferences. Two years ago. one "researcher" presented a talk which was basically bad mouthing the keynote speaker (Eben Alexander). That "PhD" researcher used Esquire, The Huffington Post, and Time Magazine as his primary references. It was not a scientific talk, but it was framed as one which was pretty sad. So you never know what you'll get in terms of the scientific quality of the talks. To be fair, since that conference they do have someone to vet the scientific talks, but it wouldn't be peer review like at a scientific conference.

I think Bruce Greyson would have been a better candidate to talk about AWARE.
If you pay a visit to the conference website, you'll see that there will be two separate sessions - one specially dedicated to hardcore scientific and medical research, another is open to the widest ranges of philosophical, theological and spiritual stuff, personal experiences, popular opinion and the like.

Such separation is a good tactic for the researchers working outside the mainstream. It lets them to combine a scholarly approach with a popular outreach. For example, look at the "double" petition of Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 Truth - one part for the professionals (disclosure of degrees and affilations required), another one for a general population.
 
If you pay a visit to the conference website, you'll see that there will be two separate sessions - one specially dedicated to hardcore scientific and medical research, another is open to the widest ranges of philosophical, theological and spiritual stuff, personal experiences, popular opinion and the like.

Such separation is a good tactic for the researchers working outside the mainstream. It lets them to combine a scholarly approach with a popular outreach. For example, look at the "double" petition of Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 Truth - one part for the professionals (disclosure of degrees and affilations required), another one for a general population.
Yes, I've already pointed out the separate sessions in this year's conference. Personally, I think it's a bit sad. IANDS used to be a place where everyone came together, researchers and experiencers. But because of the "NDE celebrities" that have become the focus of the fund raising efforts for these conferences, the researchers have moved away from too much association with the experiencers. I understand why that's how things have gone. People want to see celebrities, and celebrities who have seen god are even better. It's become a bit of a circus.
 
Do you think that NDE research runs the risk of being co-opted by mainstream medical research?
They are stripping off the religious trappings - like what Jeffrey Martin is doing with non-duality.

Some people don't like religion and their bias will influence their interpretation of the data. They might be convinced by the evidence to accept that consciousness is not produced by the brain, but they might not be ready to accept the religious implications of NDEs or non-duality.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why Alex is so hostile of attempts to scientifically verify NDE's or OBE's by carrying out experiments. Most intelligent people question the reality of their experience and attempt to verify this experience - even if only for themselves. Science is a community activity where (hopefully) intelligent people get to together and question the reality of their experience as a group and then try to verify these experiences as objective phenomena. If you have already confirmed the reality of your experience then scientific evidence may not shake the "truth" of your experience but it would certainly be narrow-minded, in my opinion, not to be interested to know if there is a more objective evidence for the truth of one's experience. However, if Alex is a little tired of hearing about quantum theory in relation to this stuff I do share his frustration. Honestly, most materialist are not worried about quantum theory because it applies to particle physics and it does not require mention of consciousness to do particle physics. As far as we know, the collapse of the wave function could be caused by a physical measurement device as no scientist can prove that consciousness necessarily collapses the wave function. Physics shows that particles display quantum non-locality but that says nothing about the non-locality of mind or consciousness. At this time there are no real solid theories that connect our mental states of experience with quantum states in such a way that it could make real scientific predictions and be a useful scientific theory of NDEs or consciousness in general.
 
As far as we know, the collapse of the wave function could be caused by a physical measurement device as no scientist can prove that consciousness necessarily collapses the wave function.
There are Dr. Dean Radin's (et. al.) famous experiments on mind intention affecting a laser quantum system. Occurs to me that a "physical" measurement doing the same means there would have to be "something-like" consciousness within the physical measurement. Meaning mind and matter are not really separate?
 
Sheesh. How many times am I going to have to state that it depends on whether you're using the parameters favored by materialism or not. Whether you consider empirical (observation/experience) evidence, proof or not is up to you.



I favour any parameters that can establish the validity of NDEs beyond a preponderance of evidence.
 
I favour any parameters that can establish the validity of NDEs beyond a preponderance of evidence.
Hmmmm . . .I now am being to think that you, like a few others who post here have a hard time grasping some basic concepts. Perhaps the strength with which you hold your views prevents you from addressing to the root assumptions those views are based on. I come to this opinion because the exchange hasn't been about stating that your root assumptions are incorrect or correct but has been about simply identifying what they are.
 
Hmmmm . . .I now am being to think that you, like a few others who post here have a hard time grasping some basic concepts. Perhaps the strength with which you hold your views prevents you from addressing to the root assumptions those views are based on. I come to this opinion because the exchange hasn't been about stating that your root assumptions are incorrect or correct but has been about simply identifying what they are.
You're not that smart yourself, And I don't see you becoming the next mastermind either. Most of your responses are derogatory and insulting, much the same as a troll who inflames a discussion resulting in derailing threads, instead of logically attacking its premises.

You are full of yourself when there is nothing to really be full of.
 
Hmmmm . . .I now am being to think that you, like a few others who post here have a hard time grasping some basic concepts. Perhaps the strength with which you hold your views prevents you from addressing to the root assumptions those views are based on. I come to this opinion because the exchange hasn't been about stating that your root assumptions are incorrect or correct but has been about simply identifying what they are.

Get a hold of yourself, I responded with what I personally favour, But that say's nothing about what the whole scientific community finds as acceptable for NDE's. Obviously you have a hard time telling the difference.
 
Posted this is the wrong thread...Doh!
I will leave the stuff about materialism.

In my opinion mind and consciousness science is in a pre-Copernican stage. Materialism is an unproven metaphysical dogma; not science.
At the time of Copernicus the geocentric model was enforced by the power elites of that time...the priests and the aristocrats...who had nothing to gain and a lot to lose from allowing scientific investigation of the stars.
Today the dogma of materialism is enforced by the current power elites, the merchants, who have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from allowing scientific investigation of mind and consciousness.
 
Last edited:
I found this discussion to be one of the best of recent times. But I read some other posts above and it seems I am in a minority.
I would like to hear more from Hugenot.

In my opinion mind and consciousness science is in a pre-Copernican stage. Materialism is an unproven metaphysical dogma; not science.
At the time of Copernicus the geocentric model was enforced by the power elites of that time...the priests and the aristocrats...who had nothing to gain and a lot to lose from allowing scientific investigation of the stars.
Today the dogma of materialism is enforced by the current power elites, the merchants, who have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from allowing scientific investigation of mind and consciousness.
It really does feel like this to me as well. We are seeing the increased use of elitist authority and censorship to maintain the materialistic dogma, while there remains some very serious and valid questions regarding the nature of consciousness and even the nature of the fundamental aspects of reality itself. It's as if the discoveries in quantum physics never took place.

It was Neils Bohr himself who wrote, " "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

Why then are we still stuck on first base with these materialists and their long disproven faith?

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
It really does feel like this to me as well. We are seeing the increased use of elitist authority and censorship to maintain the materialistic dogma, while there remains some very serious and valid questions regarding the nature of consciousness and even the nature of the fundamental aspects of reality itself. It's as if the discoveries in quantum physics never took place.

It was Neils Bohr himself who wrote, " "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

Why then are we still stuck on first base with these materialists and their long disproven faith?

My Best,
Bertha
Hi Bertha
I actually posted this in the wrong thread. I meant to put in in the Huguenard thread...Doh!

But what I wrote about the merchant elites is relevant.
My main point is that human knowledge in any era is always dominated by the current power elite
who will restrict knowledge that does not serve their power.

Personally I am a materialist in the sense that I take matter to be real
exactly what its reality consists of, is another matter
We can be almost certain it does not consist of what we ordinarily mean by 'matter'
 
Hi Bertha
I actually posted this in the wrong thread. I meant to put in in the Huguenard thread...Doh!

But what I wrote about the merchant elites is relevant.
My main point is that human knowledge in any era is always dominated by the current power elite
who will restrict knowledge that does not serve their power.

Personally I am a materialist in the sense that I take matter to be real
exactly what its reality consists of, is another matter
We can be almost certain it does not consist of what we ordinarily mean by 'matter'
Hi David,

Given what we know now in quantum physics, why do you believe the fundamental particles of matter are real? In what sense are they real?

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Hi David,

Given what we know now in quantum physics, why do you believe the fundamental particles of matter are real? In what sense are they real?

My Best,
Bertha
For me matter is real in the sense that it is something objective and independent of the observer, or of mind; by which I do not mean unaffected by the observer or mind. I do not accept the theories about observers creating events or reality. I am not an idealist in that or any sense.

Exactly what matter is, is not known at this time. We have theories which are more or less technically useful, but are not yet philosophically coherent or complete.

My own intuition is that finally matter will resolve into what we call space and space will be found to be not emptiness but a plenum. I don’t think the physics which will express this is yet developed. But that is just an intuition; nothing more.

Do you believe matter is not real?
 
Do you believe matter is not real?
Yes I do believe the fundamental particles of reality are not real in the traditional "realist" sense. That is, of always being "physical" at a certain place and time - such as we assume is the case with say - billiard balls. I am not alone in this belief. Scientists such as Niels Bohr, John Von Neumann, Erwin Schrodinger, John Bell, Max Planck, Henry Stapp, John Wheeler, Werner Heisenberg, and many other scientists also came to the same scientific conclusion.

So I don't feel as if I'm going to far out on a limb here. These scientists were some of the best physicists we've had in the last century. I would imagine you've heard of some of them David.

You write:
For me matter is real in the sense that it is something objective and independent of the observer, or of mind; by which I do not mean unaffected by the observer or mind. I do not accept the theories about observers creating events or reality. I am not an idealist in that or any sense.
This is an interesting statement. I am curious what scientific data makes you believe matter is something objective and independent of the observer?

In fact, physicists in Australia recently conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment. A write-up you can find here: http://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html

How does this experiment work if particles are not dependent on the observer? And what makes them real when an observer is not present? I am curious what makes you believe that reality is independent and actually exists when not observed. Especially given John Bell's Inequality Principle was eventually proven?

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Top