I'll address (re-address) this first:
marg wrote: You've indicated time and again you have little to no appreciation of what the skeptic position is.
I understand what the skeptic position is. Blackmore had more than adequately shown what it is. After investing 30 years of study she remains a skeptic. My main criticism was that you have only been studying this a very short time, read only a few articles on the Internet, yet you have said that it's a "waste of time", and "science has explained it all". That is simply
not true. In other words, you had
already drawn conclusions without any serious study. That's why I didn't take you seriously.
marg wrote: Your comment above that I can't wait for evidence or live with uncertainty indicates that. I'll repeat it once more for you...the skeptic position in which one rejects paranormal NDE claims does not mean one is closed minded to new evidence,
How can you be open to new evidence when you haven't fully studied the already existing evidence? It's statements like this that baffled me.
marg wrote: nor that one can't live with uncertainty. It means one hasn't made a leap of faith to believe in the paranormal claims, like you have and other NDE paranormal adherents..because evidence does not warrant it.
I have not made a "leap of faith". Would you consider your belief in the Spalding Theory a "leap of faith"? Would you consider those who disagree with the Spalding Theory as making "a leap of faith". While Spalding has nothing to do with NDEs, methodology does. The variance in opinions about NDEs is about as wide as the variance in Spalding studies.
And once again:
marg wrote: It is wise to reject extraordinary claims, to not take all of them seriously just because people claim them. People only have so much time in their lives they can't and shouldn't remain agnostic on all claims.
That is very
unwise. And there's nothing wrong with remaining agnostic on something if you don't have all the evidence, and on-going studies are being conducted. That position is akin to saying, "I haven't seen any evidence of extra-terrestrial life anywhere in the Universe, therefore there is none".
marg wrote:Notice the underlined portions Ray. Does it sound like I would continue talking to you, when up until now you've not addressed issues and points I have already brought up. I criticized Lommels article, gave reasons why it was flawed, did you address those criticisms? I brought up what other scientists had to say in criticizing Lommel's conclusions ..did you address their reasoning? Throughout the whole discussion all you did was keep throwing out ad homs. So why on earth would I want to continue when up until now it's been a waste of time? You want me now to go read more when you've given no indication of reading the article by the scientists I gave? I did read the Lommel article you presented, I did read his response to Shermer...and I did discuss them. But you didn't discuss anything. There is no reason for me to think you've changed. There is no point to go onto other stuff, when the previous was never dealt with properly.
You want to demonstrate you can think? Show me that you understand the criticisms of Lommel, what I and the scientists presented, use your reasoning why the criticisms are flawed and then you will have demonstrated you are trying to reason and discuss rationally.
To begin with, here is what I consider to be some pretty good criticisms of the van Lommel article:
Jody Long. I endorse all of them. And as I said before, the fact that only 12% had "core" NDEs is still a mixed signal. I'm really not sure I agree with van Lommel's reasoning on that one.
First I'll take Mark Crislip:
I think he makes some substantial criticisms, and he mainly focuses on exactly what brain death is, arguing that van Lommel's and Chopra's definitions of brain death isn't technically correct, because blood is still being pumped. But he speculates: Some of the NDEs were, it seems, implanted memories. He has no way of knowing this. Crislip can't answer questions like this in the van Lommel study (my emphasis):
During the pilot phase in one of the hospitals, a coronary-care-unit nurse reported a veridical out-of-body experience of a resuscitated patient:
"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
Greyson reports (my emphasis):
Greyson claims that "No one physiological or psychological model by itself explains all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of 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."
Like it or not there is no explanation for this, and events like this are
common in the NDE literature. Even though these people are "apparently clinically dead" they still manifest "lucid awareness" of what's going on about them. That's what the UK study is trying to determine, whether these long-existing reports can be verified.
marg wrote:I didn't read your wiki link I noticed some comment about more work needed or complaint so I went to the page and saw some comments such as:
This is a Terrible Article
This article is in need of some serious work. It seems to be entirely written by someone who completely believes that NDEs are a connection with the afterlife and that they are unexplainable by normal means. The article is very misleading at times as well. For instance, It leads one to believe multiple times that clincal death means one is actually dead which is not true, one is not truly dead until brain death has occured. Also, it makes one believe that our understanding of the brain and its complex systems is relatively complete which definitely not true. It lists very few possible biological explanations (when there are many) for NDEs and those that it does list it gives very little description to and seems to cast off as implausible. Did anyone else notice that the "citations" for all the "proof" for a paranormal explanations are substantially lacking (e.x. [Ring, Cooper, 1999])? Some please clean this stuff up.
So while I didn't read the wiki I believe this person..because frankly I think that is the biggest hole in NDE paranormal theory... a lack of appreciation that when a person experiences an NDE they are not completely unconscious. But this has been discussed by those 2 scientist I brought forward and you ignored.
They
are completely unconscious! What is disputed is whether or not they are clinically dead. I'm also wondering why this person didn't do the "cleaning up" himself/herself. Because of a lack of expertise on the subject?
As far as the Wiki article is concerned:
Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus – an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time. Eventually for most articles, all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached. In reality, the process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles fluid or changeable for a long time while they find their "neutral approach" that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is occasionally made harder by extreme-viewpoint contributors. Wikipedia operates a full editorial dispute resolution process, one that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth, but one that also permits disagreements to last for months before poor-quality or biased edits are removed.
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
There is further discussion about the entry
Here, which has both pro and con entries. If you want to believe that particular entry that's your perogative.
I don't see how the person who made the entry you quote could say:
It lists very few possible biological explanations (when there are many) for NDEs and those that it does list it gives very little description to and seems to cast off as implausible.
Nonsense. The whole section on "Biological analysis and theories" is devoted to skeptical commentary, including a reference to the ketamine:
Dr. Karl Jansen, a New Zealand-born psychiatrist, has reproduced the effects of NDEs through the use of ketamine, thus giving strong evidence that near death experiences are simply a set of physical responses.
.
And a link is provided to skeptical replies in letters to the editor of
The Lancet Here. (PDF)
Note Richard T L Couper's reply to
The Lancet:
Sir—Pim van Lommel and colleagues’ study1 reminds me of an apocryphal comment attributed to Kerry Packer, Australia’s wealthiest man. Packer had a myocardial infarction while riding a polo pony. A nearby ambulance crew resuscitated him. Packer reported his experience with the telling comment: “Mate, I tell you there
is nothing there”. He was obviously not keen to repeat the experience and promptly equipped the New South Wales ambulance service with
defibrillators.
The most fascinating part of van Lommel and colleagues’ study, which is noted by the researchers, although it subsequently attracts little attention, is the association of these events with spiritual beliefs and subsequent strengthening of these beliefs. Taking this association further, I wonder whether some of these experiences have
led to some of the myths, legends, and religious beliefs we hold today.
Paranormal phenomena such as ghosts, and religious events such as
reincarnation could be explained through distortion over the ages of neardeath experiences. Bruno Bettelheim2 drew our attention to the importance of myth, legend, and fairytale as a roadmap to overcoming adversity on the pathway to maturity. Near-death experiences may prove to be a fountainhead for these devices and, as such, be central to spirituality rather than stemming from it.
The other element that does not attract comment is the overwhelmingly positive nature of the near-death experience. This postivity could represent the optimism of the human spirit, or maybe it ensures that the experience is subject to recall and recounting. It may also underpin one of the most quoted biblical phrases from
Psalm 23: “Yea, though I walk through the shadow of the valley of death, I will fear no evil”.
It is a pity that Kerry Packer, who, in
his rare public utterances tells it as he
sees it, could offer no further insight
into the presence of the human soul.
Actually, Kerry didn't say, "Mate, I tell you there is nothing there." He actually said, "There isn't a damned thing there." But I suppose that would not have been Lancet-approved. Indentally, my brother was a very good friend of Kerry Packer (who has since died), and has mentioned his experience in some of his writings on the subject. His speculation is that because Kerry was an atheist and unbeliever in life after death he was less-prone to experience an NDE, but I don't buy that, for the simple reason that many atheists (like Howard Storm) did have NDEs.