165. Dr. Caroline Watt Defends, There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences
by Alex Tsakiris | Mar 20 | Near-Death Experience | 0 comments
Share68
Tweet
68SHARES
Interview with Parapsychology researcher Dr. Caroline Watt explains why, despite criticism, she maintains, “there is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences.”
Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with University of Edinburgh professor Dr. Caroline Watt, co-author of, There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them. During the interview Watt discusses her research into near-death experiences:
Alex Tsakiris: The other thing that upset me about the paper was the way it was picked up by so many science publications; Scientific America, NPR, BBC, Discovery, Discovery News. It’s not a strong paper. Yet, it gets echoed back through the mainstream science media as some kind of breakthrough about near-death experiences. Even though it directly contradicts all the leading researchers in the NDE field.
Dr. Caroline Watt: The leading researchers in the NDE field may publish their papers and have them reported as well. It’s an open forum. If it says something interesting, then it will be reported. Everybody can have a say. It’s not like I have some kind of privileged access.
Alex Tsakiris: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that what gets picked up and perpetuated through the science media is reflective of the current position, even if that position isn’t supported by the best data.
I’m saying your paper got traction even though there’s not a lot behind it. I’m saying you cited references incorrectly. And you referenced skeptics like Dr. Susan Blackmore who admits to not being current in the field.
Dr. Caroline Watt: As I said, it was intended to be a provocative piece. It’s not claiming to be balanced. The paper, if it wasn’t limited to two or three pages, I could have dealt more thoroughly with many different aspects because there’s more to near-death experiences then the dying brain hypothesis. It would have been a longer and more in-depth paper, but that wasn’t the paper that we wrote.
To be picky, she used the word "Paranormal".Yeah, let's be pedantic. What does she mean by supernatural? Supernatural is like Spiritual. Its a word we use to define a boundary. Everything is natural essentially, but we distinguish between what is natural and what is 'man-made'[outside nature?]. Likewise 'supernatural' is still kinda natural but beyond accepted theories about nature - ventures into the spiirtual and mystical - but still natural.
Its totally obvious to me no one can know who is really right here.Yeah, let's be pedantic. What does she mean by supernatural? Supernatural is like Spiritual. Its a word we use to define a boundary. Everything is natural essentially, but we distinguish between what is natural and what is 'man-made'[outside nature?]. Likewise 'supernatural' is still kinda natural but beyond accepted theories about nature - ventures into the spiirtual and mystical - but still natural.
Well as you know, the problem with saying that the that the brain causes experience, is that materialists say that as an article of faith, but then can't tell you how it works.Its totally obvious to me no one can know who is really right here.
Until there is a good theory...all we have is description and experience. But what causes experience? If not the brain, what?
Very likely, but it is probably best not to jump to conclusions. Consciousness obviously is a fundamental component of physics.Right, consciousness. All that exists is experience within consciousness.
I don't really follow where the organising comes in!Than when we die, we die. That is just an historical system we are contacting. Consciousness lives on but we do not organise it. I think that is the key takeaway. Something else organizes our minds -- not us. We make decisions, it seems, but we do not determine the outcome. Something else does.
We die and what do we take with us? Our treasure presumably is our experience. But what use is that in a place like 'heaven' or whatever exists beyond this world? To exist beyond death means we must be part of a higher order process, a larger system. That system has its own ends and treats us like we treat our arms and legs.Well as you know, the problem with saying that the that the brain causes experience, is that materialists say that as an article of faith, but then can't tell you how it works.
There was a time in my life when I was committed to the materialist view of life. I was quite fascinated by the idea that computers can be made to be conscious, but always in the back of my mind was the caveat that there was really no way those machines could be aware of anything. This problem isn't a temporary one, is goes way back into history.
The fundamental (though excusable at the time) mistake was to take matter and energy as primitive. They can't explain experience - which means they can't explain consciousness.
Very likely, but it is probably best not to jump to conclusions. Consciousness obviously is a fundamental component of physics.
I don't really follow where the organising comes in!
David
I think it only makes sense to speculate so far. Think of the point when scientists began to realise that the atomic theory of matter had real consequences, and developed the kinetic theory of gasses. That was a wonderful leap forward, but just as with ideas about consciousness, that left some serious unanswered questions - notably what force hold atoms together in solids, and holds atoms linked to other atoms in the form of molecules. That is now unraveled by means of Quantum Mechanics, but QM has its own problems........We die and what do we take with us? Our treasure presumably is our experience. But what use is that in a place like 'heaven' or whatever exists beyond this world? To exist beyond death means we must be part of a higher order process, a larger system. That system has its own ends and treats us like we treat our arms and legs.
How do we know that is true? I think we will find out.
Well, it depends on whose information you trust. What I see in multiple different ways is this:I think it only makes sense to speculate so far. Think of the point when scientists began to realise that the atomic theory of matter had real consequences, and developed the kinetic theory of gasses. That was a wonderful leap forward, but just as with ideas about consciousness, that left some serious unanswered questions - notably what force hold atoms together in solids, and holds atoms linked to other atoms in the form of molecules. That is now unraveled by means of Quantum Mechanics, but QM has its own problems........
You seem convinced by dystopian visions of reality, whereas somehow I'm not!
David
Karl Jansen also once stated the following...
“After 12 years of studying ketamine, I now believe that there most definitely is a soul that is independent of experience. It exists when we begin, and may persist when we end. Ketamine is a door to a place we cannot normally get to; it is definitely not evidence that such a place does not exist.”
Jansen, Karl. (1997). Response to Commentaries on “The Ketamine Model of the Near-Death Experience.” Journal of Near-Death Studies. 16, 79-95.
Karl Jansen's book Ketamine: Dreams and Realities is available on Kindle Unlimited so I took a look at it. He gives evidence that ketamine can produce NDEs including accounts from someone who experienced both.
The paranormal aspects of NDEs (veridical NDE's, shared NDE's) are definitive. If there is a substance that can loose the soul from the body it does not contradict the evidence that NDEs are prarnormal
However, I have read that Ketamine trips are not like NDE's, but maybe those studies are out of date, so I am wondering if anyone knows of any current studies that show differences between Ketamine trips and NDE's or if there are any researchers who dispute Jansen's claims. Is Jansen generally correct or is he pushing a few rare cases to argue something the totality of the evidence does not support?
If you will Google "differences between Ketamine trips and NDEs" you'll get quite a few results.
The paranormal aspects of NDEs (veridical NDE's, shared NDE's) are definitive. If there is a substance that can loose the soul from the body it does not contradict the evidence that NDEs are prarnormal
However, I have read that Ketamine trips are not like NDE's, but maybe those studies are out of date, so I am wondering if anyone knows of any current studies that show differences between Ketamine trips and NDE's or if there are any researchers who dispute Jansen's claims. Is Jansen generally correct or is he pushing a few rare cases to argue something the totality of the evidence does not support?
I know. It returns 151,000 results and it uses a secret algorithm to decide which to show first and which to show 151,000th. Because of my past experiences with search engines, I would prefer to pose my question to people on this forum who have a conscious understanding of it rather than to a silicon machine using a secret algorithm programmed by progressive materialist atheists.
I am wondering if anyone knows of any current studies that show differences between Ketamine trips and NDE's or if there are any researchers who dispute Jansen's claims that there are none. Is Jansen generally correct or is he pushing a few rare cases to argue something the totality of the evidence does not support?
To be picky, she used the word "Paranormal".
David
1. We are blended beings
2. The afterlife is a kind of posthuman state
3. Getting off track means pain