Continued: The Debate With marg on NDEs.

[_marg]

I'm think I'm going to leave you to digest the article before replying to your post..and I'll reply later..either in a few hours or tonight. I really don't want to go on tangents until we deal fully with how Lommel can conclude that there is more than physiology going on in NDE. He's jumped to an extraordinary conclusion, so his evidence needs to be strong it must commensurate with the conclusion/claim he's making.

I'm not a scientist, nor studied this in great depth as you've noted Ray, but even I could find holes in Lommels' reasoning/findings..which was essentially though not explicitly said ..that consciousness exists outside the body.

[_Ray A]

Ray,I just did a search because I was going to print out what the various scientists had to say and in the citations from Sebastain Dieguez is a reference for a Lancet article about Lommels Lancet article. You had mentioned previously why hasn't anyone counter Lommel's Lancet article in the Lancet.

Well here is one and because I had to register I'll make it easy for you and copy it all. I skimmed the first paragraph and briefly noted the person is making the same or similar points I've brought up.
---------------

The Lancet, Volume 358, Issue 9298, Pages 2010 - 2011, 15 December 2001
<Previous Article|Next Article>
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07133-1 Cite or Link Using DOI
Dying to know the truth: visions of a dying brain, or false memories?

by Christopher C. French

I think it's an interesting commentary on the article, and I'm going to go through it in more detail later (read it once but need to dissect it piecemeal).

This is apparently his entry on Wiki.

After Googling his name I also found this article in New Scientist.

Christopher French, at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths College, London, says the team's paper is "intriguing", though he notes that van Lommel's team failed to contact the patients for corroboration. He points out that NDEs are impossible to objectively verify - and that out of body experiences have not been proved to exist.

But, in a commentary on the research, he writes: "the out of body component of the NDE offers probably the best hope of launching any kind of attack on current concepts of the relationship between consciousness and brain function."

If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness, French and Van Lommel think.

.

[_Ray A]

I'm think I'm going to leave you to digest the article before replying to your post..and I'll reply later..either in a few hours or tonight. I really don't want to go on tangents until we deal fully with how Lommel can conclude that there is more than physiology going on in NDE. He's jumped to an extraordinary conclusion, so his evidence needs to be strong it must commensurate with the conclusion/claim he's making.

And I agree with this. The problem, as French noted, was a lack of corroboration. That doesn't mean the cases were bogus, nor his conclusions false, just that corroboration was not sufficient, an important factor in scientific research. This is why the UK medical team are working on that corroboration, if it's possible.

In regard to Sam Parnia, I will mention more about that later. I will be off for a while as well.

[_marg]

"But, in a commentary on the research, he writes: "the out of body component of the NDE offers probably the best hope of launching any kind of attack on current concepts of the relationship between consciousness and brain function."

The reason for this Ray is that the claim of out of body experiences are quite specific. Many claim that in actuality they can observe their body from outside their body and they observe the goings on elsewhere.

So the claim can objectively be shown to not be the case, if as parnia is doing staging a test.

It's a little like the Book of Mormon the more specific the Book of Mormon is about facts the more it can be disproven.

NDE's claims which aren't specific such as the light, the tunnel of some outer dimension..which can not be accessed by the definition of it, can not be disproven.

This is why Ray, believers will never stop believing despite Parnia's findings which will likely be that no one passed the objective test. Eventually what will happen is fewer people will claim specifics such as what they saw and heard in the room at the time of their NDE and for NDE believers the focus will be on the outer dimension type experience.

But the fact is perception is not reality. Sure people perceive it is, perceive they were really in a tunnel etc. but the mind easily plays tricks on people, especially when under some sort of unusual stress.

If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness, French and Van Lommel think.

.[/quote]

Yes of course, but Lommel made a conclusion in his article which he had no justification to do. That article is shoddy science. And quite frankly I'm of the opinion now, that Lommel is a bit of a crackpot. He no longer is a cardiologist, he apparently quit to devote his time to NDE's. So why hasn't he done the test Parnia is doing or has done. Why was he so willing to rely on anecdotal evidence instead which is notoriously unreliable. He doesn't sound like he has much of a scientific attitude when it comes to NDE's.

[_marg]

I'm think I'm going to leave you to digest the article before replying to your post..and I'll reply later..either in a few hours or tonight. I really don't want to go on tangents until we deal fully with how Lommel can conclude that there is more than physiology going on in NDE. He's jumped to an extraordinary conclusion, so his evidence needs to be strong it must commensurate with the conclusion/claim he's making.

And I agree with this. The problem, as French noted, was a lack of corroboration. That doesn't mean the cases were bogus, nor his conclusions false, just that corroboration was not sufficient, an important factor in scientific research. This is why the UK medical team are working on that corroboration, if it's possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence should commensurate with the claim made. Lommels' claim was ultimately that because physiology can not completely account for NDE's then consciousness must necessarily exist outside the body. And the evidence he used was the subjective evidence from patients and nurses who recounted what they heard and saw when they were theoretically fully unconscious. The anecdotal evidence does not commensurate the with claim that consciousness exists outside the body.

In addition Lommel never established the NDE's occurred when in fact a patient was fully unconscious.

Ray scientists shouldn't go around making claims unjustified in research articles and that is what he has done. I believe part of the reason more hasn't been said against him though maybe it has and I'm not aware of it, is because he doesn't explicitly say in the article "consciousness exists outside the brain" and so because it's all so rather vague what he is claiming it's sort of under the radar. To argue against him one first has to establish what he is saying and the average person especially believers don't really follow it, they aren't really motivated to follow it.

[_Ray A]

But the fact is perception is not reality. Sure people perceive it is, perceive they were really in a tunnel etc. but the mind easily plays tricks on people, especially when under some sort of unusual stress.

Okay, I've gone for my walk, but I haven't gone to buy my beer yet.

Let me put this little test example to you.

1) At 11am this morning I made myself a sandwich from left over blackfish, and added lettuce, tomato, mustard and tobasco sauce, and ate it.

Do you believe me?

[_Ray A]

Yes of course, but Lommel made a conclusion in his article which he had no justification to do. That article is shoddy science. And quite frankly I'm of the opinion now, that Lommel is a bit of a crackpot. He no longer is a cardiologist, he apparently quit to devote his time to NDE's. So why hasn't he done the test Parnia is doing or has done. Why was he so willing to rely on anecdotal evidence instead which is notoriously unreliable. He doesn't sound like he has much of a scientific attitude when it comes to NDE's.

See, this is where you tend to get a bit extreme. Even Chris French said the van Lommel article (and he wasn't the only author of the study) was "intriguing", but "noted" that he didn't have sufficient corroboration. That doesn't mean that Chris French disbelieves the account! He was just pointing out that it was not corroborated. Both agreed that future studies had the potential to show that consciousness does not reside in the brain. That is, pending further investigation.

There's no need to label him a "crackpot", and this is where you begin to show intolerance for other viewpoints, which isn't healthy, and certainly not scientific. Perhaps no scientific study is ever perfect. If they all were, there would be no replies, no criticisms, no reviews.

So I think you need to settle down and discuss this rationally.

[_rcrocket]

No corroboration.

No witnesses to objective components of the experience.

No science demonstrating that the event occurred or is statistically likely to occur.

No effect other than what a hallucination might effect.

Whether it occurred or not, it is as if it didn't occur. Now perhaps you'll get a team of scientists into your kitchen and reconstruct the timing and content of your sandwich, and then I might have a basis to believe. Or open you up and examine your stomach contents. Or perhaps a friend in your kitchen saw it happen and can attest to the sandwich, or at least perhaps to bread in your pantry and fish in your fridge. But, if your post was just a hypothetical, and in the absence of such tests, it is as good as if if never occurred.

[_JAK]

The inherent problem in any report of near death perspective is that it’s made by individuals who are personally involved. Death, the approach of death, or a believed certainty that death is eminent, all make individuals subjective and emotional in their view. “Near death” is not death. No one is interviewing people who are dead, embalmed, or buried. So near death is not death.

Ray:
“I think we all realise (realize) that, JAK.”

JAK:
You don’t appear to realize that.

There are numerous examples of the perception that death is emanate. People on a plane which appears certain to crash are gripped by fear and believe they are near death. Only those who survive the experience are able to give a report. If the plane crashes and kills all aboard, there is no report by the dead. What they thought or contemplated cannot be known by those investigating the crash. Nor can they be interviewed about their perspective moments before they were dead.

Ray:
“But those who survived the crash can give a report. I don't think this is a very good or pertinent example.”

JAK:
Of course it’s pertinent. What is asserted in out of body experience? It’s an extraordinary claim. It’s unjustified with any evidence let alone extraordinary evidence. Near death tells nothing about death. And the claim for non-science or non-medical fails to present anything for objective, peer-reviewed analysis.

However, persons in a medical setting who contemplate their impending death may have hours or weeks to contemplate. Such individuals are also likely to be on medications which alter their perceptions. Morphine, for example produces a sedative effect. It also may produce hallucinations. Neither medical near death nor the plane near death example are likely to produce rational, objective thinking.

Ray:
“NDEs have occurred after drowning (but naturally being resuscitated), accidents, sudden heart attacks, etc., none of which gives a person a chance to be on morphine for months, nor to even have time to contemplate death. That is, no time for "irrational thinking", or even much thinking. When you have a stroke, as a friend of mine did last year, and you lose consciousness within seconds, I presume all you really wonder is "what's happening?" I've had the experience of losing consciousness (as most may have had), and I honestly can't say I had much time to think about anything, not even whether my life insurance policy was up to date.”

JAK:
No statement was made about “on morphine for months” as you misstate in reference to my comment. Personal anecdotes only demonstrate the validity of my observations. You or others who claim some NDE assertion is emotion filled both before and after the attempt to pin-point some NDE. There is no refutation here in the attempt to shift the analysis and subject. There is no refutation that confronting the reality of death is an emotional experience. That is the case whether in an instant as some of your examples or over the time of an extended illness which ends in death.

None of that is genuinely after death. If such individuals made “report,” they did not die. To leap to the conclusion that thinking exists past death, burial, cremation, etc. is an irrational leap to conclusion. No serious, objectively reviewed evidence is presented. Speculation is easy.

Ray:
“Evidence is presented. Maybe you just haven't read it, or prefer to ignore it.”

JAK:
No evidence has been presented that thought or consciousness exists in individuals who are dead. “Near death” recall does not support your statement. Dead people tell no stories.

It appears in your discussions with marg that you wish to believe something for which no objective data has been presented – let alone established.

Ray:
“See above.”

JAK:
You’re making the argument, you need to present the evidence. You have not done that.

When you claim that we must wait for further evidence, you irrationally extend willing suspension of disbelief.

Ray:
“Those with open minds, who've read the evidence, have a different opinion.”

JAK:
You imply all without stating it. Pseudo science is not science. marg has read the “evidence” and does not agree, nor do I. You imply general consensus which does not exist.

No evidence has been presented or has established that any level of thought exists beyond death – the real thing. A report of someone living, no matter how close the brush was with death, is a report of someone living who makes a report or even a claim for what he/she saw or experienced. Such report is subjective and most likely fraught with emotion of fear and gratitude for the fact that such a person did not die.

Ray:
“See above. "Most likely" scenarios don't establish much either. They too are speculation.”

JAK:
The burden of proof is on you who make claim. It’s not on the skeptic. You have made no effort to refute that people facing what they believe to be eminent death are people who are emotional and in emotional distress. That emotional distress and fear can account for irrational leaps to conclusion. It’s not speculation that people facing death have emotional responses to that fact. It’s not speculation.

You have not made a case for what appears to be your implied claims in your discussions with marg. She, on the other hand, has provided detailed analysis of problems with what some have described as “near death experience.” None of them gives meaningful insight or justification to conclude that there exists some level of consciousness after death. While superstition/religion make a variety of “claims,” none of those claims can be regarded as reliable.

Have you read van Lommel's article?

JAK:
It’s not persuasive. In NewScientist even Lommel reports only:

Eighteen per cent reported an NDE - classed as a memory of "a special state of consciousness, including specific elements such as out-of-body experience, pleasant feelings and seeing a tunnel."

18% (if correct) is weak support for the claims. In addition, weasel expressions such as “special state” and “out of body” are vague. They are expressions of feelings. They are emotional responses. Emotional responses can be addressed by psychiatry/psychology. That fact is contrary to the opening paragraph claiming: “Medical explanations cannot account for near death experiences…” Both psychiatry and psychology recognize fear as a human emotion. People respond differently to fear. Psychiatry and psychology are a part of medicine. Psychiatry offers medical explanations.

[_JAK]

But the fact is perception is not reality. Sure people perceive it is, perceive they were really in a tunnel etc. but the mind easily plays tricks on people, especially when under some sort of unusual stress.

Okay, I've gone for my walk, but I haven't gone to buy my beer yet.

Let me put this little test example to you.

1) At 11am this morning I made myself a sandwich from left over blackfish, and added lettuce, tomato, mustard and tobasco sauce, and ate it.

Do you believe me?

Why should we not believe you? There is NO extraordinary claim here. Even if it’s false, it’s of no consequence.