Hellish NDEs

#24
She believed that NDE was produced by the euphoric effect of endogenous opioids and endorphins released by the dying brain.
I think the real point is that the contents of the NDE are incredibly suggestive of a bigger picture, and sometimes they provide information that the patient couldn't have known otherwise.
I have a suspicion that these chemical explanations for NDE's are just too Ad Hoc. I mean, if NDE's were always seen with a bluish tint, or were always hellish, or whatever, who would doubt that some conventional explanation would be found to 'explain' those observations.

David
 
#25
I do not like her deduction myself, I believe that NDE is real, however, part of that is my wishful thinking.
Blackmore is not credible.
"Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that [her beliefs on about 12 different research topics]. I found no psychic phenomena—only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a skeptic."​

1. Ponzi scheme science. The above is called, 'employing linear inductive inference from anecdote, to prove the null hypothesis' (Hempel's Paradox). It is scientific fraud (it is also indicative of a well concealed God Complex). Be very wary of a person who does not grasp the limitations of the mode of inference they have employed. This is the same trick implied by the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. The way a faker follows up a Hempel Paradox shell game is to enlist the aid of a vigilante bandwagon or club bullyinig to help reinforce their contention, before it can be visibly challenged by real science. This is a form of Ponzi Scheme, wherein the influx of support is used to finance any potential 'loss' from the original corrupt science.

2. Pseudo-skepticism. Skepticism is not a conclusion, it is a method of disciplined mind. Skepticism is not an identity, nor a state of denial, it is a mode of thinking BEFORE conducting science, not AFTER it. She became a skeptic 'after doing science' - a key warning flag of deceit. This is not how it works at all. Skepticism is the journey, and not a particular destination. Never trust a researcher who has not learned this, as they have not actually done science - they have simply foisted sciencey-sounding anecdotes.

3. Religion of Negative Reactance. The case where one suddenly 'sees the light' and jumps from one extremist position to the contrathetical extremist position, in short order - never having spent any time whatsoever inside the discipline of a neutral state of mind. She believed this, and now she believes that. This is fakery. She has never existed in any other state of mind, and thrives off of the false surety/security of 'belief'. Be wary of a person who cannot exist, except inside a state of belief/fanaticism. This is a big indicator of lack of personal integrity.

4. Religious anchoring bias. She is a celebrated activist member of a fundamentalist religious cult: nihilism. She could never publish any finding to the contrary, even if she found one.

5. Self Aggrandizement is the Top Priority. She took an immediate celebrity leadership role inside this religious cult (a warning flag) and has always depended upon it for her celebrity, authority, publishing merit, money and echo chamber of belief. There is no journey here. No discovery... only a gigantic focus upon self. Each 'discovery' is packaged so as to increase her celebration as an authority.

This is a costume. Be wary of people wearing such costumes.
 
Last edited:
#26
Blackmore is not credible.
"Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that [her beliefs on about 12 different research topics]. I found no psychic phenomena—only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a skeptic."​

1. Ponzi scheme science. The above is called, 'employing linear inductive inference from anecdote, to prove the null hypothesis' (Hempel's Paradox). It is scientific fraud (it is also indicative of a well concealed God Complex). Be very wary of a person who does not grasp the limitations of the mode of inference they have employed. This is the same trick implied by the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. The way a faker follows up a Hempel Paradox shell game is to enlist the aid of a vigilante bandwagon or club bullyinig to help reinforce their contention, before it can be visibly challenged by real science. This is a form of Ponzi Scheme, wherein the influx of support is used to finance any potential 'loss' from the original corrupt science.

2. Pseudo-skepticism. Skepticism is not a conclusion, it is a method of disciplined mind. Skepticism is not an identity, nor a state of denial, it is a mode of thinking BEFORE conducting science, not AFTER it. She became a skeptic 'after doing science' - a key warning flag of deceit. This is not how it works at all. Skepticism is the journey, and not a particular destination. Never trust a researcher who has not learned this, as they have not actually done science - they have simply foisted sciencey-sounding anecdotes.

3. Religion of Negative Reactance. The case where one suddenly 'sees the light' and jumps from one extremist position to the contrathetical extremist position, in short order - never having spent any time whatsoever inside the discipline of a neutral state of mind. She believed this, and now she believes that. This is fakery. She has never existed in any other state of mind, and thrives off of the false surety/security of 'belief'. Be wary of a person who cannot exist, except inside a state of belief/fanaticism. This is a big indicator of lack of personal integrity.

4. Religious anchoring bias. She is a celebrated activist member of a fundamentalist religious cult: nihilism. She could never publish any finding to the contrary, even if she found one.

5. Self Aggrandizement is the Top Priority. She took an immediate celebrity leadership role inside this religious cult (a warning flag) and has always depended upon it for her celebrity, authority, publishing merit, money and echo chamber of belief. There is no journey here. No discovery... only a gigantic focus upon self. Each 'discovery' is packaged so as to increase her celebration as an authority.

This is a costume. Be wary of people wearing such costumes.
Good points. That's my point with people like Laurence Krauss and Sean Carroll who dismiss apoiri the evidence without even investigating it. Laurence Krauss called on the Dali Lama to resign for his beliefs in reincarnation, but when asked if he even bothered to look at the evidence, he said no. The same goes with Sean Carroll. He says there can be no life after death because you are made of atoms, what is there left of you? He is assuming without evidence that we already know exactly how conciousness is produced (we don't). He also says the only proof we have are some legends and sketchy witnesses, etc.. really? Have you bothered to look at the evidence at all? It's clear that people like this don't, so they cannot even be properly described as skeptics.
 
#28
Richard Dawkins is much in the same way. He describes himself as a serious scientist, yet when Rupert Sheldrake wanted to go through and debate his evidence on ESP, Dawkins refused.
 
#30
I used to also respect people like Shermer and Randi, but after seeing how frequently he misquoted Graham Hancock on the Joe Rogan Podcast, I was done with him. It is clear that his mission is to debunk rather than explain the evidence.
 
#31
I have been watching the Hellish NDE's phenom for some time. They bear a distinctly common set of differences from pleasant NDE's.

The vast majority (as in really ALL) of hellish NDE's I have examined were experienced by people who were exhibiting extremes of self-obsession (see video below), in major depression, really nasty/dark people in real life, or were attempting suicide. Most did not actually 'die' with the confirmation of a code-call. Most all were experiences by people who passed out in their kitchen and then woke back up, or passed out on their bed with a heart attack and were magically healed so that they did not have to go to the hospital when they woke up, or walked away from an auto accident in which they 'died', or like the one below, just fell asleep and dreamed how childish and self-obsessed they were, and so they became even more childish and self obsessed as a result. Now they want to take that childish self obsession out on others too, by beating others with a religious stick.

Hmmmm...When a person comes back from their purported 'NDE' abusing others and selling even more terror than the Hell Worshipers are already selling to begin with... Not a lot of respect for this...


Let's be careful to not give credence to those who have nefarious goals in mind when they relate their 'NDE'
There is a reporting bias, I suspect. But consider closely the direction of that bias.

I believe, but cannot prove, the true rate of hellish NDE's would be revealed by new cases of PTSD. This realm is experienced as ''more real' and this world is like a dream. Combine that with *actual* torture.

We don't know the rules or if there are rule makers. "God" or perhaps some encredible power has supervenience over us-- our minds, our experiences when we die. We can attribute all we like. We don't know.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA2c2XpNpE5x/newcomb-s-problem-and-regret-of-rationality

If a god gave us causal powers we are part of its game.
 
Last edited:
#32
We don't know the rules or if there are rule makers. "God" or perhaps some encredible power has supervenience over us-- our minds, our experiences when we die. We can attribute all we like. We don't know.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA2c2XpNpE5x/newcomb-s-problem-and-regret-of-rationality
Good stuff superQ...

Yeah, I do not have to be an irrationalist in order to choose 'Box B Only' - all I have to do is falsify the strict bounding principle of 'no agency exists in this game'. Once I have accomplished that falsification (what we as real skeptics have actually done)... then everything is up for grabs.

In this case, we are constrained to two box choices. But in real life - to constrain the possibilities or bias them to the negative (as you mention) is foolishness.
 
#33
Good stuff superQ...

Yeah, I do not have to be an irrationalist in order to choose 'Box B Only' - all I have to do is falsify the strict bounding principle of 'no agency exists in this game'. Once I have accomplished that falsification (what we as real skeptics have actually done)... then everything is up for grabs.

In this case, we are constrained to two box choices. But in real life - to constrain the possibilities or bias them to the negative (as you mention) is foolishness.
Yudkowsky, to the extent I understand his worldview, one boxes because he believes the super AI has already predicted your state of mind -- nevermind consciousness, we are in robot land now.

From the article, "But it is agreed even among causal decision theorists that if you have the power to precommit yourself to take one box, in Newcomb's Problem, then you should do so. If you can precommit yourself before Omega examines you; then you are directly causing box B to be filled. "

I am a one boxer myself.

Yudkowsky started the blog 'lesswrong' due to his fear of AGI not being friendly. He believes the brain causes our sense of self awareness and when we die, that's it. Let's just say global workspace theory or Tononi's ideas are contradicted by NDE's -- iff we were to get good enough data. Not sure we ever will. I mean in 10 or 20 years.

I asked alex many years ago what he expect to see when we have technology that can output current perceptions from the brain during death. He equivocated. The brain may not be our true selves. I hope not!

But i want to know.
 
#34
I asked alex many years ago what he expect to see when we have technology that can output current perceptions from the brain during death. He equivocated. The brain may not be our true selves. I hope not!

But i want to know.
I fathom that over the years, as I have run stochastic and discrete models, there are two reasons why models fail to converge (produce an answer). Well three - but let's say in this case, supra-reality is coherent and indeed has an 'answer' in some sense. The first is when assumptions are grossly wrong. The second is, when the domain being modeled is larger than the assumption set going into it, can force to be descriptive.

I think we have a bit of both occurring here. Our assumptions are wrong, yes - however, when we answer a question and subsequently fix an assumption, we then gain the realization that this simply served to produced four more questions. This is a domain mismatch. Like trying to reduce 5 linear equations with only 2 variables known - it is unsolvable.

The only thing I bristle at, is calling this shortfall 'gaps' in our knowledge. These are not gaps, they are vast oceans of unknown. Our solution very possibly does not reside inside the electron firings of the brain alone. Enough to where one cannot make a claim to simplicity, nor likelihood - those facets of abductive skepticism which are enforced upon us as truth.
 
#35
I asked alex many years ago what he expect to see when we have technology that can output current perceptions from the brain during death. He equivocated. The brain may not be our true selves. I hope not!
Why wait for technology? There are rare cases of shared NDE's (possibly a slight misnomer) where one person dies and someone close to them shares the death experience before waking again in this reality.

David
 
#36
I fathom that over the years, as I have run stochastic and discrete models, there are two reasons why models fail to converge (produce an answer). Well three - but let's say in this case, supra-reality is coherent and indeed has an 'answer' in some sense. The first is when assumptions are grossly wrong. The second is, when the domain being modeled is larger than the assumption set going into it, can force to be descriptive.

I think we have a bit of both occurring here. Our assumptions are wrong, yes - however, when we answer a question and subsequently fix an assumption, we then gain the realization that this simply served to produced four more questions. This is a domain mismatch. Like trying to reduce 5 linear equations with only 2 variables known - it is unsolvable.

The only thing I bristle at, is calling this shortfall 'gaps' in our knowledge. These are not gaps, they are vast oceans of unknown. Our solution very possibly does not reside inside the electron firings of the brain alone. Enough to where one cannot make a claim to simplicity, nor likelihood - those facets of abductive skepticism which are enforced upon us as truth.
Yes but the scientific worldview is predicated (ie this is our faith) on promissory notes that the unknown is small by pointing out IT WORKS and focusing on that which is knowable. For funding.

I still want more and better AWARE studies, to confirm of course, not to disclude yet I know elimination of hypothesis is so vital. But I am just an animal. A political one.

I loved how Aleks pointed out Parnia was on both sides. Just like God, just like good and evil.

Knock knock?
Who's there?
The funding train!


Even Ed May says he plays both sides, yet the anger in his new thinking allowed video was palpable! Guys the inquisition isn't "science says' but death itself. Is there an afterlife? Someone find out without dying first. I didn't want to say it but there are grains of truths in so called terror management theory.
 
Top