An Interesting Encounter With A Young Lady.

[_Ray A]

Well, I do regret that this thread has devolved into sniping in the way it has. I think that the topic of NDE and dream-related religious experiences is a valid one, and worthy of some comment from those who disbelieve them (as I also do).

I don't mind reading your critical comments, Seth. But I'd rather not be called "gullible" if I have a different view. There's nothing iron-clad or fixed about this, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd welcome your usual incisive criticisms.

[_marg]

Well, I do regret that this thread has devolved into sniping in the way it has. I think that the topic of NDE and dream-related religious experiences is a valid one, and worthy of some comment from those who disbelieve them (as I also do).

I don't mind reading your critical comments, Seth. But I'd rather not be called "gullible" if I have a different view. There's nothing iron-clad or fixed about this, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd welcome your usual incisive criticisms.

The word gullible exists for a reason. It describes a person too trusting of other's claims. You asked if I thought you gullible. I questioned you on the passenger's claims and asked if you thought that sleeping with Bible, and turning to Christianity and believing in a christian God would get rid her of nightmares. I believe you responded that you thought it possible. I interpreted based on the rest of this discussion that you pretty much had accepted the claims made by this girl.

There are other options besides accepting her claims

- she could have fabricated the story for reasons already given in this thread
- she could have had some nightmares once in a while, but they diminished over time.

The liklihood that the cure she gave actually works is virtually nil other than by coincidence. Maybe one time or a few by coincidence one's ailments would disappear at a time of religious involvement and, sleeping with a Bible and it so happened the occurrence was simultaneous,..and so a causal relationship is assumed. Repeated experiments would help determine if there is a true cause and effect. That's how science works, patterns are looked for or discovered and cause and effects are determined. But I highly doubt this woman was intellectually honest and tested her apparent observed cause and effect of nightmares disappearing due to sleeping with a Bible. If she had I'm virtually certain there would be no cause and effect. That you so easily buy into such a unlikely scenario is why I said you were gullible.

I'm not going to lie about that when you point blank asked me whether you are gullible and you responded as you did to my questioning.

[_Ray A]

marg, go over the thread and show me where I wrote that I believe everything the young woman said. Go over the OP as well, and you'll note that I was reporting what "she said", not what I believe. This is what I wrote in my first reply to you:

I can't say I don't buy it, but I simply don't know how deep her lack of belief was. Whatever changed her, she is better off for it, and so is society.

I was, and am open to explanations, not ridicule. Note my last sentence. Whatever changed her......

Does this sound like am "certain" about any of this?

[_marg]

marg, go over the thread and show me where I wrote that I believe everything the young woman said. Go over the OP as well, and you'll note that I was reporting what "she said", not what I believe. This is what I wrote in my first reply to you:

I can't say I don't buy it, but I simply don't know how deep her lack of belief was. Whatever changed her, she is better off for it, and so is society.

I was, and am open to explanations, not ridicule. Note my last sentence. Whatever changed her......

Does this sound like am "certain" about any of this?

Besides telling me that her alleged nightmares could have disappeared for the reasoning she gave... of sleeping with a Bible and going to Church, in that same post in which you responded to my questions for me to determine gullibility, you also said with regards to NDE's "I believe it's very possible they're real". By "real" I interpreted that (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think the experience by Storm truly happened physically, it wasn't just an implanted memory, a dream, hallucination, or some mental process going on. So that also added to my assessment.

As far as you being open to other explanations, no you aren't. You aren't open to the skeptical explanations that your passenger may have been pushing her religious outlook or that Storm may also have been pushing a personal agenda.

And by the way, why is society better off because of this women's alleged change from atheism to theism, or because she now goes to church? Do you think all the drunks you pick up are all non religious?

[_Ray A]

As far as you being open to other explanations, no you aren't.

What I'm not open to is you telling me what I think.

[_marg]

As far as you being open to other explanations, no you aren't.

What I'm not open to is you telling me what I think.

If you were open to what others think you wouldn't as an example have accused AS8 of unhealthy cynicism.

So what do you think? What do you think when you say with regards to NDE's that they are "real" How do you define "real" in that context. What is your thinking or reasoning when you say society is better off for your passenger's religious involvement?

[_Ray A]

So what do you think? What do you think when you say with regards to NDE's that they are "real" How do you define "real" in that context. What is your thinking or reasoning when you say society is better off for your passenger's religious involvement?

NDEs are real. Something happens to these people. People don't react like this unless something happened to them. What the exact source of this is, or nature of it is, I don't know. Storm could have had a "cultural spiritual experience", not uncommon in NDEs. Muslims don't have NDEs like Christians do, in the sense that "Jesus" doesn't figure in their experience. They don't suddenly convert to Christianity because Jesus appeared to them. Japanese don't have NDEs like westerners do. They sometimes describe a "cave", not a tunnel. So it's a phenomenon still under much investigation. It's pretty much still an open puzzle to the scientists, though most of them have opinions about what it is, like Blackmore. Atheists have NDEs, and some NDErs say that God doesn't even figure in what they experienced.

I like to believe there's a purpose to life, that we don't just come here for three score and ten years for no reason. I'm biased in that belief. But I don't think that belief is foolproof, or certain. I could be totally wrong. But I can't just magically hop the fence and say with certainty - when we die, that's it! That's what you appear to want me to do.

No one has provided any proof that death is final. But I'll even say that looking at it from a wholly materialistic POV, it would appear to be final. But when you have people being clinically dead for up to an hour and sometimes more, and coming back with lucid memories, any thinking person will pause and try to explain this. And that's what some scientists are doing. If in ten years time advanced technology can establish that death is indeed final I promise I'll accept the verdict, and keep drinking beer.

What I'm saying about dogma is that if you say you "know" that there is an afterlife, or "know" that death is final, then you're being dogmatic because not even science has answered this yet. I'm talking about people who've never had NDEs, because almost all NDErs say they "know" there is an afterlife. I can't "know" how they claim to know, because I've never experienced it.

[_marg]

So what do you think? What do you think when you say with regards to NDE's that they are "real" How do you define "real" in that context. What is your thinking or reasoning when you say society is better off for your passenger's religious involvement?

NDEs are real. Something happens to these people. People don't react like this unless something happened to them. What the exact source of this is, or nature of it is, I don't know. Storm could have had a "cultural spiritual experience", not uncommon in NDEs. Muslims don't have NDEs like Christians do, in the sense that "Jesus" doesn't figure in their experience. They don't suddenly convert to Christianity because Jesus appeared to them. Japanese don't have NDEs like westerners do. They sometimes describe a "cave", not a tunnel. So it's a phenomenon still under much investigation. It's pretty much still an open puzzle to the scientists, though most of them have opinions about what it is, like Blackmore. Atheists have NDEs, and some NDErs say that God doesn't even figure in what they experienced.

So when you say real do you mean something physical happens beyond mental brain processes in some afterlife or otherworldly dimension?

I think it can easily be agreed upon that some people have memories after an experience in which they are told they were brain dead/unconscious. I don't think it likely can be agreed upon that their memories occurred when the brain registered clinically dead/unconscious. I fail to see how it could possibly be determined that whatever people remember occurred when they in fact were clinically brain dead. Certainly it is easy to appreciate that people previous to an unconscious state may have mental experiences similar in some ways to one another, which they may well remember later when revived.

I like to believe there's a purpose to life, that we don't just come here for three score and ten years for no reason. I'm biased in that belief. But I don't think that belief is foolproof, or certain. I could be totally wrong. But I can't just magically hop the fence and say with certainty - when we die, that's it! That's what you appear to want me to do.

What you wish to believe should not skew what studies actually do reveal. What I want you to do Ray is accept that people can reject quite rationally the theory that there is some otherworldly after life phenomenon going on, without you thinking they are closed minded to do so.

No one has provided any proof that death is final.

You are looking at this backwards. No one has provided any proof that death is not final. "Final death is the accepted presumption until proven otherwise.

But I'll even say that looking at it from a wholly materialistic POV, it would appear to be final. But when you have people being clinically dead for up to an hour and sometimes more, and coming back with lucid memories, any thinking person will pause and try to explain this. And that's what some scientists are doing. If in ten years time advanced technology can establish that death is indeed final I promise I'll accept the verdict, and keep drinking beer.

This is one of these "issues" that I personally wouldn't involve myself spending much time on. For one I don't trust people's subjective anecdotal stories. You mentioned there is much variation depending upon a person's cultural background, that alone informs of the unreliability of their stories. So what is the benefit of spending lots of time reading about these experiences? Is it going to make any difference in the final analysis? Either there is an afterlife or there isn't. Whatever happens will happen irrespective of one's beliefs. Wishful thinking will make no difference.

What I'm saying about dogma is that if you say you "know" that there is an afterlife, or "know" that death is final, then you're being dogmatic because not even science has answered this yet. I'm talking about people who've never had NDEs, because almost all NDErs say they "know" there is an afterlife. I can't "know" how they claim to know, because I've never experienced it.

According to the study you gave, only a small minority claimed NDE, the majority experienced no such thing. As I mentioned previously "final death" is the accepted presumption until overturned by evidence. And the evidence would have to be objective that the experiences claimed did in fact occur in an unconscious clincally brain dead state, that it wasn't due to wishful thinking, implanted memories, preconscious state remembered etc.

The skeptical position enjoys presumption and is the rational position without objective evidence indicating otherwise.

[_Ray A]

According to the study you gave, only a small minority claimed NDE, the majority experienced no such thing. As I mentioned previously "final death" is the accepted presumption until overturned by evidence. And the evidence would have to be objective that the experiences claimed did in fact occur in an unconscious clincally brain dead state, that it wasn't due to wishful thinking, implanted memories, preconscious state remembered etc.

I've noted all your comments, and when I get back in about 30 mins. I'll reply to them with some of the explanations offered, and some of the intricacies you missed. But at any rate, our discussion seems to be on a better track now.

The authors noted that in their study only about 18% experienced NDE (studies vary), but this was their observation:

Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience. Patients' medication was also unrelated to frequency of NDE. Psychological factors are unlikely to be important as fear was not associated with NDE.

(My emphasis)

More later.

[_Ray A]

So when you say real do you mean something physical happens beyond mental brain processes in some afterlife or otherworldly dimension?

We're getting into metaphysics here, and that's where we deal with processes or phenomena "beyond physics". There's nothing wrong with that, but it's obviously not going to be conclusive. Yes, if the NDE reports are valid, and "something" happens beyond brain death then it's not going to be an observable phenomenon - yet. Which is why I mentioned that technology is being developed to try to determine if anything does happen beyond physical death. I know it sounds like science fiction, but it will be possible in the near future.

I think it can easily be agreed upon that some people have memories after an experience in which they are told they were brain dead/unconscious. I don't think it likely can be agreed upon that their memories occurred when the brain registered clinically dead/unconscious. I fail to see how it could possibly be determined that whatever people remember occurred when they in fact were clinically brain dead.

First of all, from the study (all emphasis here on is mine):

We included consecutive patients who were successfully resuscitated in coronary care units in ten Dutch hospitals during a research period varying between hospitals from 4 months to nearly 4 years (1988-92). The research period varied because of the requirement that all consecutive patients who had undergone successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were included. If this standard was not met we ended research in that hospital. All patients had been clinically dead, which we established mainly by electrocardiogram records. All patients gave written informed consent. We obtained ethics committee approval.

Certainly it is easy to appreciate that people previous to an unconscious state may have mental experiences similar in some ways to one another, which they may well remember later when revived.

This is obviously one of the most popular theories. From the study:

And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.

What you wish to believe should not skew what studies actually do reveal.

It does not. If I were convinced the cases were weak, I'd have abandoned study long ago, just like I have abandoned Book of Mormon "historicity". I'm not convinced, at this stage anyway, that near-death studies deserve to be put into the category of looking for Nephite civilisations.

What I want you to do Ray is accept that people can reject quite rationally the theory that there is some otherworldly after life phenomenon going on, without you thinking they are closed minded to do so.

And what I'd like you to do, marg, is accept that people who differ with your view on this are not necessary "gullible".

You are looking at this backwards. No one has provided any proof that death is not final. "Final death is the accepted presumption until proven otherwise.

Okay, would you like to do a survey of how many people believe in life after death? But I can already accept your rebuttal - it doesn't matter, because the majority isn't necessarily right. But let me take your argument a but further, marg. The "prove it" argument doesn't work in this case. We already have data strongly indicating the possibility of the survival of human consciousness beyond death. If you missed it, read the study. And there are lots more I can link for you. However, if you have already pre-determined that this isn't possible, then your "prove it" approach indicates closed-mindedness. Data are there, but you choose to say, "I won't go to the data, let the data come to me". That's why scientists are proactively investigating this, because data are there. So you can bury your head in the sand, or investigate.

This is one of these "issues" that I personally wouldn't involve myself spending much time on. For one I don't trust people's subjective anecdotal stories. You mentioned there is much variation depending upon a person's cultural background, that alone informs of the unreliability of their stories. So what is the benefit of spending lots of time reading about these experiences? Is it going to make any difference in the final analysis? Either there is an afterlife or there isn't. Whatever happens will happen irrespective of one's beliefs. Wishful thinking will make no difference.

"Wishful thinking" has nothing to do with this. I've already explained, marg, that data are available, data which challenge "accepted understandings". Why do you think Susan Blackmore spent more than 30 years studying parapsychology? Why did she not just sit back, sip on a rum-punch in a hammock and say "it's all BS"? Instead, she went on a quest to find answers to unsolved events backed up by solid but unexplained data.

According to the study you gave, only a small minority claimed NDE, the majority experienced no such thing. As I mentioned previously "final death" is the accepted presumption until overturned by evidence. And the evidence would have to be objective that the experiences claimed did in fact occur in an unconscious clincally brain dead state, that it wasn't due to wishful thinking, implanted memories, preconscious state remembered etc.

Once again, marg, this is all covered in the study by van Lommel, van Wees, Meyers and Elfferich. Three of them have Ph.Ds, and van Lommel is an MD specialising in cardiology. Maybe you should read how van Lommel became convinced that his many patients who referred to having "strange experiences" while clinically dead prodded him to study this much more, and not to rely on his assumptions and then personal beliefs!

The skeptical position enjoys presumption and is the rational position without objective evidence indicating otherwise.

So if I was your friend and told you your house was on fire, and you need to get there quickly, would you tell me "prove it"?