DMT in Rat Brain? Implications?

[JCearley]

A common proponent argument on this forum is broadly an argument from incredulity; there is no possible way that concepts such as consciousness or qualia could arise from a material brain.

Okay but that is a separate argument, not a response to what I said. Why does a conscious produced by a brain need a special interface to something it is already created by? You avoided that question.

If the proponent position now factors in a mundane chemical compound, where does that leave us?

Isn't it a good thing that proponents might be considering a chemical compound as important? Skeptics are always crying for a mechanistic explanation, so I don't see that they can complain if a prospective mechanistic connection can be investigated. Hypotheses surrounding DMT are largely falsifiable, so there's nothing unscientific about it.

 

[fls]

How would that list prevent them from recording "a variety of other experiences" in the free form text box?

If they say no to all those elements, they may not regard their experience as belonging on an NDE site.

Recall is a more difficult memory task than recognition. Providing specific examples of some kinds of experiences changes the task to one of recognition for NDE elements, while non-NDE elements would have to be recalled.

Even though the space is unlimited, the time and attention of the NDEer isn't.

The NDERF database represents a highly selected sample. Prospectively collected cohort samples (such as Sartori's study), show much more variety in the reported experiences. Even then, summaries tend to focus on which of the typical NDE elements were present, and leave out elements perceived as unrelated (some of which sound more like DMT descriptions). Or people with rich experiences, but without any 'NDE elements' are left out altogether.

Linda

 

[steve001]

Che? Your logic is interesting... as you also equally assume that there is no soul and that it can't disconnect.

I am assuming nothing. You are per this quote of yours.

I personally think its more likely given what we know about the similarity and consistencies of NDE's that Option 2 is very likely.

I would say most people who are well read in NDE, OBE, Mediumship research etc etc would say Choice 2 is more parsimonious and assumes the least. Without empirical evidence for the existence/non existence of a soul... you can only rely on anecdotal evidence and that is overwhelming in favour of the existence of a soul.

Think of parsimonious as a conservative judgement. Yes, without empirical evidence or non evidence of a soul you can only say what you feel in your heart to be true - what people want to be true. That get's us nowhere closer to the truth.
Anecdotes can't be cross examined, looked at under a microscope etc.. Anecdotes are evidence, but evidence of what? Are they the objective truth regardless of ones personal convictions or the interpretive narrative longings of human beings?

It may not be the definitive absolute answer... but if you put the 2 hypothesis side by side "Existence of Soul" Vs "Conciousness is in the brain only" there is literally nothing to back up the Materialist explanation... yet there is lots to favour the existence of soul hypothesis.

The underlined is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[malf]

Okay but that is a separate argument, not a response to what I said. Why does a conscious produced by a brain need a special interface to something it is already created by? You avoided that question.

Again the limitations of my vocabulary, I suspect. I am referring to consciousness emerging from material brain. Interface may not be the perfect word but I'm struggling to find a better one... integrate? Interact? Even from a material viewpoint it "feels" like there's an interface.

Isn't it a good thing that proponents might be considering a chemical compound as important? Skeptics are always crying for a mechanistic explanation, so I don't see that they can complain if a prospective mechanistic connection can be investigated. Hypotheses surrounding DMT are largely falsifiable, so there's nothing unscientific about it.

Agreed. As long as we're honest about that :)

 

[chuck.drake]

If they say no to all those elements, they may not regard their experience as belonging on an NDE site.

So are you saying that you think a significant number of people encounter this list (from the questionnaire)

Out of body experience
Passing into or through a tunnel
Presence of unearthly beings
Unearthly light
Presence of deceased persons
Darkness
An unearthly landscape or city
Void
Boundary or point of no return
Strong emotional tone
Special knowledge or purpose
Awareness of past events in your life
Awareness of the future
'Hellish' imagery
None of the above

And then they see that their experience didn't have any of these elements, and then decide not to post their experience? Is that what you are saying?

Recall is a more difficult memory task than recognition. Providing specific examples of some kinds of experiences changes the task to one of recognition for NDE elements, while non-NDE elements would have to be recalled.

But my point was it is easy to see people quite frequently including elements that are not "typical" in their response. It is evident by even the most cursory glance at only a few of the thousands of responses that this is so.

Are you saying that because they provide this list beforehand that people are more inclined to only include elements from the list? Is that what you are saying?

Even though the space is unlimited, the time and attention of the NDEer isn't.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. People come to the site to voluntarily record an experience that they think fits the description of being a NDE. How does the time the person allows to the task and the attention allowed to the task effect what details they enter into the free form field? Can you explain more of what you mean here?

The NDERF database represents a highly selected sample.

Can you explain how it is a highly selected when the entire possible participating audience is anyone with internet access? I probably don't understand what highly selected sample means. Can you explain?

Prospectively collected cohort samples (such as Sartori's study), show much more variety in the reported experiences.

I saw that you said this before so I got the Sartori book from the library over inter-loan. I didn't really see that as the case. The experiences were recorded in more depth it seemed (repeated interviews revealing the same data mainly), but the elements seemed fairly standard. Can you provide examples of something that isn't likely to be seen in some of the NDERF records as well?

Even then, summaries tend to focus on which of the typical NDE elements were present, and leave out elements perceived as unrelated (some of which sound more like DMT descriptions). Or people with rich experiences, but without any 'NDE elements' are left out altogether.

Can you provide direct examples of "some" elements that sound like DMT experiences?

Thanks!

Chuck

 

[Frank Matera]

Think of parsimonious as a conservative judgement. Yes, without empirical evidence or non evidence of a soul you can only say what you feel in your heart to be true - what people want to be true. That get's us nowhere closer to the truth.
Anecdotes can't be cross examined, looked at under a microscope etc.. Anecdotes are evidence, but evidence of what? Are they the objective truth regardless of ones personal convictions or the interpretive narrative longings of human beings?

If a patient who is clinically dead on an operating table during a brain surgery can recite conversations between surgeons and nurses whilst in a state where it would have been physically impossible for her to be able to see or hear... that is a piece of evidence. Yes it's anecdotal but there were multiple witnesses to this and all with high credibility.. not an individual NDE.

So just because materialist science does not have an explanation for what occured doesn't mean we automatically file it under the "It was more than likely the non-objective interpretive narrative longings of a human being" or in this case "several human beings" and disregard it. Nearly all new scientific discoveries were found exactly the same way... you observe something which cannot be explained by what we currently understand and then take 100 years for dogmatic scientists to fight it tooth and nail until finally it is accepted as truth and then future generations look back on the skeptic science community shaking their head at how they could not have believed doctors washing their hands prior to delivering babies reduced the risk of the babies dying from infection.

I've got no doubt 100 years from now the same will happen with consciousness. They'll look back on the materialist scientists today fighting tooth and nail to discredit and write off evidence as "just humans wanting to believe". I prefer to be in the "Lets find an answer" camp not the "Let's find an answer that fits my beliefs and current science" camp that most materialists are stuck in.

The underlined is a bit of an overstatement.

Not an overstatement at all. Most scientists will tell you they have absolutely no evidence at all for how consciousness is generated... otherwise known as "The hard problem". They have a bunch of hypothesis which some people seemingly accept and pass off as fact even though there is a multitude of evidence that points to it being unlikely that consciousness is generated solely by the brain.

If it was as easy as inventing an X-Ray machine for the soul and conciousness and seeing the answer that would be all good and well... but maybe we are using a materialistic way of looking for something that isn't materialistic and that is our problem. It's a pity because Materialist scientists have had access to the one physical item they say drives conciousness... the brain... and they have continually failed to find anything.

Any normal person would think maybe our fishing rod is in a pond instead of the river and that's why we can't find anything.

 

[malf]

....It's a pity because Materialist scientists have had access to the one physical item they say drives consciousness... the brain... and they have continually failed to find anything.

Really?!? (I can ignore the evil material scientist strawman arguments, but this line floored me)

 

[JCearley]

Really?!? (I can ignore the evil material scientist strawman arguments, but this line floored me)

I imagine it to be a prod at the usual "Parapsychology hasn't proven their topic in over 75 years!" trope; namely that neurology has failed to explain consciousness in over 75 years of research. Though I agree the constant insistence on saying "materialist" isn't helpful.

 

[Frank Matera]

Really?!? (I can ignore the evil material scientist strawman arguments, but this line floored me)

It has? Where have they proven the brain is the creator of conciousness?

I imagine it to be a prod at the usual "Parapsychology hasn't proven their topic in over 75 years!" trope; namely that neurology has failed to explain consciousness in over 75 years of research. Though I agree the constant insistence on saying "materialist" isn't helpful.

Fair point. Even though it is materialism that is the problem I probably need to stop making a point of it.

 

[Arouet]

Nearly all new scientific discoveries were found exactly the same way... you observe something which cannot be explained by what we currently understand and then take 100 years for dogmatic scientists to fight it tooth and nail until finally it is accepted as truth and then future generations look back on the skeptic science community shaking their head at how they could not have believed doctors washing their hands prior to delivering babies reduced the risk of the babies dying from infection.

First of all, there are new scientific discoveries every day - they don't all take 100 years to be accepted. And those new scientific discoveries lie is a sea of false leads and dead ends. There are plenty of preliminary studies that look promising that aren't realised. Part of the scientific method is to give new discoveries a hard time so that the wheat gets separated from the chaff. And while its pithy to suggest that it happens simply because the old guard die what really goes on is that work continues to be done getting stronger and stronger and stronger. We are doing correct hypotheses no favours by lowering the standards of what we consider to be reliable by accepting paradigm shifts before they are ripe because it won't just be the correct ones we shift to but increased incorrect ones.

There is a lot of interesting work that has been done in parapsychology presenting some very interesting connundrums that beg for explanation - but we also have to consider that to date there is very little that has been explained. That's not an intrinsically negative thing - explanations take time and if psi is real then by its nature explanations will likely take longer than others.

And with regard to the hand washing thing: first of all, before the understanding of germs I can believe that doctors would not have believed not washing their hands could be that dangerous. But more particularly, with regard to that paper, as we discussed in the other forum, it appears that the guy didn't even publish the initial findings himself but did it through his students and in a manner that wasn't particularly clear. Further work was done which made the case better. I know its popular to present these things as if they should be so initially overwhelming in their prowess but its often not that simple. 20/20 hindsight.

I prefer to be in the "Lets find an answer" camp not the "Let's find an answer that fits my beliefs and current science" camp that most materialists are stuck in.

No one here has suggested we not look for answers. A lot of the discussion that goes on even from the skeptic side is towards figuring out how we might get some answers.

It's a pity because Materialist scientists have had access to the one physical item they say drives conciousness... the brain... and they have continually failed to find anything.

Seems to me they've been making steady progress. The understanding of how the brain works continues to grow. Given its complexity I don't think it reasonable to expect figuring it out to be particularly quick, especially since even with all our technology to date our ability to really scan the brain is still rather limited.

 

[JCearley]

There is a lot of interesting work that has been done in parapsychology presenting some very interesting connundrums that beg for explanation - but we also have to consider that to date there is very little that has been explained. That's not an intrinsically negative thing - explanations take time and if psi is real then by its nature explanations will likely take longer than others.

Right, like neurology. It doesn't seem to me that neurology has predictive power either: what predicted epilepsy*? Or did they find it by studying people who had seizures until bumbling in to the triggers?

* I'm not a neurologist and I don't have connections to neuroscience journals, I've gotten the impression from the forum and what little neuroscience articles I've looked at that the field is almost entirely based on measuring correlates and then declaring correlation = causation.

 

[malf]

It has? Where have they proven the brain is the creator of conciousness?

You specifically said "they have continually failed to find anything". Perversely, this discussion thread was started as a result of a brain study... There is a lot of neurological studies out there and our knowledge base on brain function grows by the day.

I doubt that they'll ever successfully explain "consciousness" or "soul" to everyone's satisfaction, if for no other reason than those words mean different things to different people.

 

[malf]

Right, like neurology. It doesn't seem to me that neurology has predictive power either: what predicted epilepsy*? Or did they find it by studying people who had seizures until bumbling in to the triggers?

* I'm not a neurologist and I don't have connections to neuroscience journals, I've gotten the impression from the forum and what little neuroscience articles I've looked at that the field is almost entirely based on measuring correlates and then declaring correlation = causation.

Neurology, like most of medicine, tends to be reactive rather than predictive when it comes to the appearance of conditions and diseases. A neurologist could look at a brain pathology and predict the extent of damage (changes to motor function, personality etc) but, as you say, based on correlates.

The clever stuff (and somewhat predictive) is working out mechanisms and coming up with treatments. Your example, epilepsy, can be controlled extremely well with mood stabilisers. Here is not the place for a discussion on "big pharma" but the sheer genius of developing a drug like Prozac cannot be underestimated.

 

[JCearley]

The clever stuff (and somewhat predictive) is working out mechanisms and coming up with treatments. Your example, epilepsy, can be controlled extremely well with mood stabilisers. Here is not the place for a discussion on "big pharma" but the sheer genius of developing a drug like Prozac cannot be underestimated.

I didn't bring "big pharma" in to the conversation in the first place.

 

[malf]

I didn't bring "big pharma" in to the conversation in the first place.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you did. Just didn't want the motives of the big drug companies brought up in order to discredit the academic work of the developers...

 

[Haruhi]

Choice 1 is more parsimonious. It assumes the least.
Choice 2 assumes much more. It assumes there's a soul and that it can disconnect.
Until there's really firm evidence that 2 is correct the best choice right now is 1.

Right, except that I argue that there is firm evidence that option 2 is correct, due to psychic research. As Frank Matera wrote, OBEs, NDEs, mediumship, etc., are converging evidence that there is something like a soul that persists after death.

Regarding 2. If a drug, a material chemical compound, can interact with an "immaterial soul" as you describe, could not an "immaterial soul" arise from a combination of material chemical compounds and 100billion neurones, synapses and glia?

I believe that here "immaterial" only means that it is not made of ordinary matter, but it still material.

A common proponent argument on this forum is broadly an argument from incredulity; there is no possible way that concepts such as consciousness or qualia could arise from a material brain. The proponent receiver position just appears to shift that problem (and add an extra step).

That's not my argument. My argument is that the most likely interpretation of OBEs, NDEs, mediumship, etc.. is that there is a material vehicle for mind that persists after organic death.

 

[fls]

So are you saying that you think a significant number of people encounter this list (from the questionnaire)

Out of body experience
Passing into or through a tunnel
Presence of unearthly beings
Unearthly light
Presence of deceased persons
Darkness
An unearthly landscape or city
Void
Boundary or point of no return
Strong emotional tone
Special knowledge or purpose
Awareness of past events in your life
Awareness of the future
'Hellish' imagery
None of the above

And then they see that their experience didn't have any of these elements, and then decide not to post their experience? Is that what you are saying?

Basically, yes. If they hear about something called "Near Death Experiences", they will eventually come across descriptions of experiences which include those elements. Whether or not they regard their own experience as an NDE will depend upon whether their experience has anything in common with those descriptions.

If you read Sartori's book, you will remember that she interviewed people about their experiences in the ICU, and many more accounts were given than the handful that were eventually labelled NDE. And those which were labelled NDE did not differ from the other accounts except that they included at least one element from that list (and received a minimum score on the Greyson Scale).

Weird experience which includes something from that list = NDE
Weird experience which doesn't include something from that list /= NDE

That's why you can't draw conclusions about what people experience at the time of critical events (with respect to whether they are DMT-like) by looking a small sample of experiences which may have been selected on the basis of whether DMT-like experiences are absent (some kinds of hallucinatory experiences are excluded from consideration as "NDE").

But my point was it is easy to see people quite frequently including elements that are not "typical" in their response. It is evident by even the most cursory glance at only a few of the thousands of responses that this is so.

That isn't the point, though. Looking only at the information which was included doesn't tell you anything about the far, far, far larger pool of information which wasn't (except under conditions of random sampling).

Are you saying that because they provide this list beforehand that people are more inclined to only include elements from the list? Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that people are more inclined to include those elements they remember. And that providing the list will make it much easier to remember elements which are NDE elements over non-NDE elements.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. People come to the site to voluntarily record an experience that they think fits the description of being a NDE. How does the time the person allows to the task and the attention allowed to the task effect what details they enter into the free form field? Can you explain more of what you mean here?

Providing a long, detailed report takes more time and attention than a short report with little detail. A short report with less detail is more likely to include information perceived as most relevant.

Can you explain how it is a highly selected when the entire possible participating audience is anyone with internet access? I probably don't understand what highly selected sample means. Can you explain?

A selected sample is one where the characteristics of the sample differ from the characteristics of the population from which it is drawn. If your population is "anyone with internet access", a miniscule sample of "the stories told by people who happen to come across the NDERF site and have the time an inclination to tell a story" will differ from stories told through random sampling or by interviewing a cohort (when the cohort is formed in a way which is unrelated to the characteristics of interest).

I saw that you said this before so I got the Sartori book from the library over inter-loan. I didn't really see that as the case. The experiences were recorded in more depth it seemed (repeated interviews revealing the same data mainly), but the elements seemed fairly standard. Can you provide examples of something that isn't likely to be seen in some of the NDERF records as well?

What about the appendixes with all the interviews which weren't labelled as NDEs and were not "fairly standard"? Did you read them?

Linda

 

[Haruhi]

Weird experience which includes something from that list = NDE
Weird experience which doesn't include something from that list /= NDE

I do not think so. NDEs are defined as experiences in a situation next to death, so that in fact most NDEs have features of that list, although not all NDEs have these features and there are experiences that have these features but do not occur in a situation next to death.

 

[fls]

I do not think so. NDEs are defined as experiences in a situation next to death, so that in fact most NDEs have features of that list, although not all NDEs have these features and there are experiences that have these features but do not occur in a situation next to death.

Why are under the impression that most experiences near death have those features? Interviews of people who have been in critical situations reveals a broader variety of experiences than the NDE.

Linda

 

[JCearley]

I do not think so. NDEs are defined as experiences in a situation next to death, so that in fact most NDEs have features of that list, although not all NDEs have these features and there are experiences that have these features but do not occur in a situation next to death.

NDE researchers do actually sort the experiences by how well they match a "standard NDE" model. I suspect this could be because only the veridical instances are interesting, so they would prefer to keep the anecdotes that suggest the current medical understanding has been violated as opposed to advocating the completely crazy ones.

Three researchers coded the experiences according to the weighted core experience index.1In this scoring system, depth of NDE is measured with weighted scores assigned to elements of the content of the experience. Scores between 1 and 5 denote superficial NDE, but we included these events because all patients underwent transformational changes as well. Scores of 6 or more denote core experiences, and scores of 10 or greater are deep experiences.