The Van Lommel Lancet NDE paper

[Arouet]

As I said, I received a few more comments from Pim van Lommel and Ruud van Wees, two of the original four authors of the Lancet paper:

Van Wees:
Our methodology was correlative, i.e. aimed at the discovery of possible causality, and not experimental i.e. aimed at proving causality. But when a mundane factor does nor correlate with an NDE yes or no, then this factor becomes less plausible as causal factor.

I agree with him to a certain extent - as I said above: I think we can agree that the induced experiences are not identifical to the NDE. But my question is how far can we take that? Ie: can we take it much further than saying that the particular induced experience is not sufficient to completely explain NDEs? That is: can we use the fact that the induced experiences are different to conclude that elements of the induced experiences are not invovled - ie : similar brain processes - are not invovled? I would think that one would need an experiment directly aimed at that question in order to answer that question.

Van Lommel:
I have read Arout's critique with interest but a detailed reaction costs me too much time (which I hardly have nowadays). He has given a very systematic and neatly arranged description of our study, but some of his conclusions I cannot agree with. I suggest him to read my article in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, to be downloaded from my website.

Ok- I will take that paper as the next to review!

Thanks again, Smitthy. I appreciate you doing this, and please tell them if you get the chance that I appreciate that they took the time to respond.

 

[Smithy]

Thanks again, Smithy. I appreciate you doing this, and please tell them if you get the chance that I appreciate that they took the time to respond.

I will tell them. Smithy

 

[Arouet]

I've gone through Dr. Van Lommel's paper in the Journal of Cousciousness Studies as he suggested above in Smithy's post: http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/Nonlocal-Consciousness-article-JCS-2013.pdf.

It is very long and so I'm not going to summarize it here as I did the other paper. I might be missing something but I don't see how it addresses the issues I raised in my analysis above. I agree that the paper raises - as does the first paper - a number of intriguing questions and areas to further explore. He's gone into more detail in this paper on those intriguing questions and I fully agree that they are areas worthy of study and further investigation. But he loses me when he makes the jump from there is good reason to question whether NDEs are physically based to we've determined that they are not.

Here's one example: (pp14-15)

If there was a physiological explanation such as a lack of oxygen in the brain (anoxia) for the occurrence of this enhanced consciousness, one might have expected all patients in our study to have reported an NDE. They had all been unconscious as a result of their cardiac arrest, which caused the loss of blood pressure, the cessation of breathing, and the loss of all body and brainstem reflexes. And it is also well established that people without any lack of oxygen in the brain, like in depression or meditation, can experience an ‘NDE’. Likewise the gravity of the medical situation, such as long-term coma after a complicated resuscitation, failed to explain why patients did or did not report an NDE, except in the case of lingering memory defects.

Van Lommel makes a number of completely untested assumptions here. Why should we expect if NDEs are physiologically based that everyone would have them? How does he reach this conclusion? He doesn't explain, but rather states it as a fact.

He spends some time going over the possibilities that have been raised such as Anoxia. He echoes Bruce Greyson who he quotes at p.17:

no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of an NDE.
The paradoxical occurrence of a heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a
period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes
during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain.

I agree 100% that what they have set out "raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function." But where he goes too far is with the suggestion that because the individual explanations on there own don't seem to explain what's going on with NDEs that therefore it's not physiological.

But why should we expect ONE thing like anoxia to be responsible for everything that goes on during the NDE? Why should the fact that no "one physiological or psychological model" that they've reviewed lead us to believe that the cause can't be physiological or psychological? They haven't established this. They haven't established why we should expect there to be a sigular, isolated cause rather than a more complex collection of brain processes. They haven't established whether brain processes similar to what go on during anoxia aren't involved during an NDE - whether the person is suffering from anoxia or not. They haven't established whether similar brain processes to any of the items on the list couldn't be triggered during the NDE - whether the person's heart has stopped or not. I'm not criticizing them for not having demonstrated that - its not an easy thing to demonstrate - but rather I'm criticizing them for concluding that based on the very limited of physiological factors they actually looked at they should conclude that physiological factors aren't involved.

Let me be clear: my argument is not that what Van Lommel has set out should let us conclude that NDEs must be physiologically based. I'm simply suggesting that Van Lommel et al. have not demonstrated that they are not physiologically based. I think they've overstated the case. They have set forth some pretty good reasons to question the assumptions that NDEs are physically based. What they haven't done, from what I can see, is answer the question to any degree of confidence. There are simply too many questions outstanding!

Again, I'm open to being wrong here. I may have missed something or misunderstood something - if I have please point them out to me! I don't think there is anything dogmatic in the way I've set this out but I might just not see it. I've set out an analysis here. I've pointed to specific areas that I disagree with and said why. I haven't made any blanket conclusions. If you think I'm wrong tell me, but please tell me why you think I'm wrong. Let's try and have an actual discussion here rather than point me to links that don't address what I've written!

 

[Smithy]

But why should we expect ONE thing like anoxia to be responsible for everything that goes on during the NDE? !

Well - the underlying thing may be some statements from one of Van Lommel's adversaries, i.e. Prof Dr Dick Swaab, neurobiologist in the Netherlands, and considered to be one of the foremost experts in the field. Swaab not so long ago stated that ALL elements of the NDE may in various ways be explained by anoxia. There you are. Discussion closed. :D

For the rest I agree with you that the paper is too long and detailed to be summarized. And it is more for the medical experts rather than for us to discuss it.

 

[Arouet]

It may turn out to be one thing, or not. That's not the point though. The point is why should we expect it to be one thing?

We don't need medical experts to analyse if Van Lommel's logical arguments hold up. The argument that you and Alex have made is that these papers have established that NDEs can't be physically based. That they have carefully and in a controlled manner established that. That's what I'm trying to evaluate. What are you and Alex seeing in these papers that I'm not?

If you are not willing to analyse these papers further, why don't you suggest what NDE paper you will agree to discuss in detail?

If none of you are willing to dig into these papers in any more than the most cursory way then I think you lose the right to label my analysis as skeptical silliness (I'm addressing this last part to Alex more than you Smithy).

 

[Max_B]

As I brought up earlier in this thread, Lommel's 'Non-local Consciousness' paper, often fails to mention alternative possibilities, and makes plenty of strong assertions - as you've noticed - which common sense tell you cannot be as certain as he makes out. It's interesting to a point, but once you realise he's not being unbiased it loses a little of it's credibility in my opinion.

However, the good news is, that in the very same issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies is a paper by Johnjoe McFadden "The CEMI Field Theory - Closing the Loop". I don't entirely agree with his ideas, but the paper is damn interesting, more interesting than Lommel's in my view. :-)

 

[Smithy]

It may turn out to be one thing, or not. That's not the point though. The point is why should we expect it to be one thing?

We don't need medical experts to analyse if Van Lommel's logical arguments hold up. The argument that you and Alex have made is that these papers have established that NDEs can't be physically based. That they have carefully and in a controlled manner established that. That's what I'm trying to evaluate. What are you and Alex seeing in these papers that I'm not?

If you are not willing to analyse these papers further, why don't you suggest what NDE paper you will agree to discuss in detail?

If none of you are willing to dig into these papers in any more than the most cursory way then I think you lose the right to label my analysis as skeptical silliness (I'm addressing this last part to Alex more than you Smithy).

Arouet - if you deduced from what I said about Swaab that I was not willing to discuss this paper, then I apoligize. I am always willing to discuss papers - provided I feel capable of doing so. But honestly, I don't feel so keen to say much about this one. This is a very specialized text, and therefore I think that Van Lommel should be the prime discussiant, not me. Therefore I shall forward your text to him, and hopefully he will find it relevant enough to devote some time to it. I will let you know in due course.

In any case, as with the other paper I wish to commend you for your work in this matter. Again, a good job, thanks for that.

Today I have to go out, and as for the other topics I am involved in, you won't find me here for some time: I am a freelance editor, and just received two new assignments which require much attention. Perhaps just two or three more posts and that will be it for the time being.

 

[Smithy]

As I brought up earlier in this thread, Lommel's 'Non-local Consciousness' paper, often fails to mention alternative possibilities, and makes plenty of strong assertions - as you've noticed - which common sense tell you cannot be as certain as he makes out. It's interesting to a point, but once you realise he's not being unbiased it loses a little of it's credibility in my opinion.

Elsewhere - on the other forum I believe - I have seen your alternative possibility. Are not you very personally biased about your own ideas? Personal bias is natural - nobody can escape from that. Your possibility seems to go into the direction of super-psi, i.e. the paranormal. I know that Van Lommel has a strong aversion against the paranormal...

 

[fls]

I've gone through Dr. Van Lommel's paper in the Journal of Cousciousness Studies as he suggested above in Smithy's post: http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/Nonlocal-Consciousness-article-JCS-2013.pdf.

It is very long and so I'm not going to summarize it here as I did the other paper. I might be missing something but I don't see how it addresses the issues I raised in my analysis above. I agree that the paper raises - as does the first paper - a number of intriguing questions and areas to further explore. He's gone into more detail in this paper on those intriguing questions and I fully agree that they are areas worthy of study and further investigation. But he loses me when he makes the jump from there is good reason to question whether NDEs are physically based to we've determined that they are not.

I agree 100% that what they have set out "raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function." But where he goes too far is with the suggestion that because the individual explanations on there own don't seem to explain what's going on with NDEs that therefore it's not physiological.

But why should we expect ONE thing like anoxia to be responsible for everything that goes on during the NDE? Why should the fact that no "one physiological or psychological model" that they've reviewed lead us to believe that the cause can't be physiological or psychological? They haven't established this. They haven't established why we should expect there to be a sigular, isolated cause rather than a more complex collection of brain processes. They haven't established whether brain processes similar to what go on during anoxia aren't involved during an NDE - whether the person is suffering from anoxia or not. They haven't established whether similar brain processes to any of the items on the list couldn't be triggered during the NDE - whether the person's heart has stopped or not. I'm not criticizing them for not having demonstrated that - its not an easy thing to demonstrate - but rather I'm criticizing them for concluding that based on the very limited of physiological factors they actually looked at they should conclude that physiological factors aren't involved.

Let me be clear: my argument is not that what Van Lommel has set out should let us conclude that NDEs must be physiologically based. I'm simply suggesting that Van Lommel et al. have not demonstrated that they are not physiologically based. I think they've overstated the case. They have set forth some pretty good reasons to question the assumptions that NDEs are physically based. What they haven't done, from what I can see, is answer the question to any degree of confidence. There are simply too many questions outstanding!

I agree. Usually you see a researcher try to make the case (that it's not physiological), in order to justify a specific research study which tests the idea. But this paper isn't a report on any studies which specifically test the idea, so it doesn't establish whether physiological factors aren't involved. And as I mentioned before, it is odd for a medical doctor to suggest that any single cause is necessary and sufficient, and to reject various possibilities on that basis, given that little else (I can't think of any exceptions offhand) seems to work that way in medicine.

Linda

 

[Arouet]

Smithy: tried to send you a PM but it told me a couldn't. Do you have private conversations turned off or something?

 

[Smithy]

Smithy: tried to send you a PM but it told me a couldn't. Do you have private conversations turned off or something?

Edit (12-5-2013) - since you (Arouet) did not respond to me directly via my mail address, I have removed it.

BTW, I have sent your contribution to Van Lommel. Usually he is pretty quick in responding to my mails, but if he isn't it may be due to him being on tour, in the Netherlands or abroad.

 

[Smithy]

For Arouet.

I got home just an hour ago.
Re the above, I don't know what the settings are. Have to look it up.
Anyway, you can contact me via rhsATrudolfhsmit.nl

BTW, I have sent your contribution to Van Lommel. Usually he is pretty quick in responding to my mails, but if he isn't it may be due to him being on tour, in the Netherlands or abroad.

First of all, Arouet, I am still waiting for your PM. (edit 12-5-2013: see the previous post)

Secondly, I got a brief response from Van Lommel. He read your paper with interest, and is appreciative of it.
However, due to various commitments (lectures elsewhere as well as writing two new, large papers) he has little time to respond in detail. Sorry.