Continued: The Debate With marg on NDEs.

[_dartagnan]

But the fact is perception is not reality.

Never?

Says who?

If this is true, then there can be no such thing as known reality since everything we know is "perceived" through our senses. The question is, are there other senses science has yet to discover? Must all senses be testable in a laboratory? There seems to be plenty of evidence that at least thousands of people claim similar experiences. Calling it a self induced delusion is convenient for those unwilling to open their minds to a nonmaterialistic worldview.

Incidentally, I forget the name of the bird, but there is a certain species of birds that are indigenous to the coast of Alaska (or Canada, I forget) and when they are able to fly, they travel one at a time more than a thousand miles over water to a specific Island in the Pacific. Scientists don't understand why they do this, or even how they know where the Island is. But the evidence is clear that these birds have a sense that is not measurable using the scientific method. It is simply enough to acknowledge it exists. The same with other weird animal senses, such as their ability to predict bad weather patterns long before they occur.

So why can't some humans exercise an unknown sense? Because it throws the materialistic paradigm into a tailspin, so it is little wonder the atheists are the first to shoot it down instantly.

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.

Well Neo, how do you know that everything you think you know isn't really just a result of your mind playing tricks on you? This claim can be made in both directons but neither side can prove it either way. As Dennis Miller once asked, "What do you really know beyond a reasonable doubt? How do you know that you're not still tripping on bad acid someone slipped you years ago?"

[_Ray A]

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.

I think Bob gets my point.

Well here's the truth. I did have a blackfish sandwich this morning, but I don't know if it was 11am, and I put tabasco sauce on it, but not lettuce, tomato or mustard.

Now, do you believe my qualification? (marg)

Well I can tell you it's true, and whether you accept it or not it did happen. But still, how would you know I'm telling the truth in this qualification, unless you followed Bob's prescription?

Later I'll go over what I see as some of the weaknesses in evaluating NDEs.

[_dartagnan]

What makes NDEs "extraordinary"? It seems to me that the sheer number of testimonies make it more ordinary than some are willing to admit. Its just that not everyone dies from drowning or heart attack (or whatever) and is then revived. The movie Flatliners comes to mind.

[_Ray A]

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

It is of consequence. I could be an inveterate liar. Is that of no consequence? But I was telling the truth.

You will recall that I said I have on one occasion lost consciousness, but during that time I didn't have an NDE or OBE. Now what if I said I saw a bright light, a beautiful place with flowers, filled with peace, and I was told by a clear voice, "it's not your time, go back".

What would be the difference?

[_marg]

Couple of things Ray, I am discussing with you not with others such as Dart, Crockket. One person at a time. I also want to focus on one issue at a time with the first one being an assessment of Lommel's Lancet article.

I also expect an intellectually honest discussion with no or at least few ad homs and just sticking with the issues. I'm putting for reference purposes 3 other scientists I have brought forward who offer critical analysis of Lommel in articles and give reasoning why the conclusion is flawed. They are

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-13.html Dr. M. Cirslip

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-18.html#feature Dr. Sebastian Dieguez

http://www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/pam-reynolds.html Dr. Woerlee

You have mentioned Parnia before. Of note the first citations Dr. French uses is Parnia so it looks like some results of that test might be available. I don't know if those articles can be tracked down at a reasonable cost in a short period of time or not. I'd pay under $5 if they could be bought off the net. So if you are able to track those articles for me because you said you are interested in their results let me know.


1 Parnia S, Waller DG, Yeates R, Fenwick P. A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors. Resuscitation 2001; 48: 149-156. CrossRef | PubMed
2 Parnia S, Fenwick P. Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness? Resuscitation (in press).

I will address your last post, but I have no time this evening for this board..at least I doubt it.

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

It is of consequence. I could be an inveterate liar. Is that of no consequence? But I was telling the truth.

You will recall that I said I have on one occasion lost consciousness, but during that time I didn't have an NDE or OBE. Now what if I said I saw a bright light, a beautiful place with flowers, filled with peace, and I was told by a clear voice, "it's not your time, go back".

What would be the difference?

Ray the evidence should commensurate with the claim. Whether or not you ate a particular sandwich for questions of how the world operates..which science tries to address and provides answers and NDE assessment fits within that parameter..does not apply to your posed question. It may be of consequence to you what you ate, but without any good reasons it is of no consequence to me what you ate nor to the vast majority of people. You could give them reason such as they'd win a certain amount of money if they guessed right but that's another issue.

So I don't require any evidence of what you ate. Whatever you tell me you ate I will accept without question. In this case your say so is all I need. The evidence "your say so" commensurates with the claim you ate X, because it is of no consequence to me.

Now conciousness outside the body and claims that science backs this up is another story. I am interested in an article in the Lancet by a scientist who says physiology can not account for out of body experiences. People's subjective experiences are problematic, because what they experience may indeed feel real, but that is not very good evidence that they are indeed real. And in some cases in Lommel's studies people may have reported NDE but may have appreciate they did not happen in some outer dimensional world which is what Lommel wishes to present.

[_Ray A]

Now conciousness outside the body and claims that science backs this up is another story. I am interested in an article in the Lancet by a scientist who says physiology can not account for out of body experiences. People's subjective experiences are problematic, because what they experience may indeed feel real, but that is not very good evidence that they are indeed real. And in some cases in Lommel's studies people may have reported NDE but may have appreciate they did not happen in some outer dimensional world which is what Lommel wishes to present.

Okay, I'd be interested to read that. The first question I'd ask is this: Did this person experience an NDE, a "core NDE"?

Blackmore didn't. She had an OBE while under the influence of marijuana (some of my MJ-smoking friends have described similar to me).

No one has claimed that science "backs OBEs/NDEs". "Science" is still investigating it, and trying to reach a conclusion like courts try to reach a conclusion, by evaluating evidence, and using strict methods within legal requirements. Sometimes criminals will be acquitted for lack of evidence, and sometimes innocent people will be convicted (see the Lindy Chamberlain case).

I'm also aware of the 'false positives" in the Lancet study. Some "NDErs" were later discovered not to have had NDEs at all. And some only remembered them later.

Now here's something to contemplate. if there is such a thing as "repressed memory", that is, for some reason people "blocking out" NDE, and only remembering it later, what might that say for Kerry Packer? Is it possible that he repressed this memory because he didn't want to face it? Couldn't face it? Of course I'm only speculating. I should make that clear.

But overall, this is a very complex phenomenon for which there are no easy answers, because of the variations.

In any case, I'm glad to see you're doing a lot more reading.

[_JAK]

Now conciousness outside the body and claims that science backs this up is another story. I am interested in an article in the Lancet by a scientist who says physiology can not account for out of body experiences. People's subjective experiences are problematic, because what they experience may indeed feel real, but that is not very good evidence that they are indeed real. And in some cases in Lommel's studies people may have reported NDE but may have appreciate they did not happen in some outer dimensional world which is what Lommel wishes to present.

Okay, I'd be interested to read that. The first question I'd ask is this: Did this person experience an NDE, a "core NDE"?

Blackmore didn't. She had an OBE while under the influence of marijuana (some of my MJ-smoking friends have described similar to me).

No one has claimed that science "backs OBEs/NDEs". "Science" is still investigating it, and trying to reach a conclusion like courts try to reach a conclusion, by evaluating evidence, and using strict methods within legal requirements. Sometimes criminals will be acquitted for lack of evidence, and sometimes innocent people will be convicted (see the Lindy Chamberlain case).

I'm also aware of the 'false positives" in the Lancet study. Some "NDErs" were later discovered not to have had NDEs at all. And some only remembered them later.

Now here's something to contemplate. if there is such a thing as "repressed memory", that is, for some reason people "blocking out" NDE, and only remembering it later, what might that say for Kerry Packer? Is it possible that he repressed this memory because he didn't want to face it? Couldn't face it? Of course I'm only speculating. I should make that clear.

But overall, this is a very complex phenomenon for which there are no easy answers, because of the variations.

In any case, I'm glad to see you're doing a lot more reading.

Ray,

No one on drugs medically used for health purposes or recreational drugs from the street has reliability in what they report. Their mental faculties are manipulated by the drugs. Their reports are not credible. Second, they are unimportant except wherein medical science may determine some predictable side effects of drugs.

You have not demonstrated that genuine science (as opposed to pseudo science) is much interested in any antidotal claims of NDE or OBE.

Ray states:
"Science" is still investigating it, and trying to reach a conclusion like courts try to reach a conclusion, by evaluating evidence, and using strict methods within legal requirements. Sometimes criminals will be acquitted for lack of evidence, and sometimes innocent people will be convicted (see the Lindy Chamberlain case).

JAK:
While genuine science has many academic areas to pursue, your elevation of claimed NDE or OBE to interest of “courts” is exaggeration. Lindy Chamberlain case has been a closed case according to this link. The hype of a TV movie, etc. does not supply credibility to a case officially unsolved. In police work, there are thousands upon thousands of cases unsolved and which are sufficiently old to make further evidence-gathering impossible.

Ray states:
I'm also aware of the 'false positives" in the Lancet study. Some "NDErs" were later discovered not to have had NDEs at all. And some only remembered them later.

JAK:
That should tell you something about reliability on any claims.

Ray states with multiple assumptions:
Now here's something to contemplate. if there is such a thing as "repressed memory", that is, for some reason people "blocking out" NDE, and only remembering it later, what might that say for Kerry Packer? Is it possible that he repressed this memory because he didn't want to face it? Couldn't face it? Of course I'm only speculating. I should make that clear.

JAK:
Certainly, a case can be made for “repressed memory” which has nothing to do with any claims of NDE. Speculation in your example is unreliable. What appears unclear to you is that you’re elevating speculation beyond rational. You’re giving it credibility which is unwarranted.

Ray states with assumption:
But overall, this is a very complex phenomenon for which there are no easy answers, because of the variations.

JAK:
This assume the validity of what is yet to be established. Only those who survive a close call with death or an imagined close call with death are talking. Those who are dead are not. As for OBE, no credible evidence has been established with consensus science. Anecdotally, when I look over Lake Michigan at the cold lake and imagine my comfortable, warm place in southern Florida, see the palm trees, feel the warm air, I am having an OBE experience. I’m not in Florida, but I can think about being there, how it feels, how it smells, how the sea food tastes, etc. Psychiatry recognizes mental contemplation of what is not. Psychiatry recognizes dreams. Dreams have been documented by EEG study See and observation. Those too might be called OBEs. However, that does not establish anything paranormal. Imagination, enjoying science fiction, contemplating places and experiences other than the one current do not constitute something paranormal.

Contrary to your above statement, there may be “easy answers” to mental perceptions. In the case of people on drugs (medical and legal or illegal), the evidence is established for thought/mind alteration. Often people who are drunk have the perception that they are quite capable of driving a car. The law says otherwise. The science says otherwise. The mental processes of the one who is drunk are not reliable.

You appear to manufacture complexity where a simple answer will suffice and is likely more accurate.

[_marg]

My initial reaction to this thread you started Ray, because I haven't yet looked at the content of it, is what a [personal attack deleted] you are and why would I want to waste one more second of my life talking with you. Let's see I can go out for lunch, some shopping and movie with an extremely intelligent wonderful person who has just asked me to do that. Or can spend my time here with a [personal attack deleted]. choices..choices. I think I'll go out

Quick comment with words Shades deleted from my post. Not one of them was out of context, such as "prick", and could have a double meaning. Not one was vulgar or slang. I used 3 legitimate descriptive words. I don't mind them being deleted. I think the impact was even more forceful with them deleted and that big red stamp, especially the immediate visual.

But I used the word "under-handed" which is really no worse than what Ray called me for a month in discussion and as well on his attack thread ...."biased" which was meant in the context of the discussion as being dishonest. I used "low-life" which speaks to someone's intregity and was not worse than a month long of Ray telling me not only am I "biased" (dishonestly) but that I'm "closed-minded" In the context he used "closed minded" it was meant to infer I was intellectually dishonest, unwilling to look at evidence and arguments for NDE's. And the 3rd descriptive word I used was a word which sounds like Mormon but take the middle "m" out. I thought it better I not actually write the word in case Shades decides to stamp it out again. That too, was no worse than Ray telling me I wasn't worth responding to on issue, because I hadn't read as much as he had over the years. I was according to him too ignorant relative to his knowledge to discuss the issues with.

As I said I actually liked the Shades stamp. I think the impact I intended was greater with it. However I didn't use vulgar words, which might be assumed by its use.

[_JAK]

My initial reaction to this thread you started Ray, because I haven't yet looked at the content of it, is what a [personal attack deleted] you are and why would I want to waste one more second of my life talking with you. Let's see I can go out for lunch, some shopping and movie with an extremely intelligent wonderful person who has just asked me to do that. Or can spend my time here with a [personal attack deleted]. choices..choices. I think I'll go out

Quick comment with words Shades deleted from my post. Not one of them was out of context, such as "prick", and could have a double meaning. Not one was vulgar or slang. I used 3 legitimate descriptive words. I don't mind them being deleted. I think the impact was even more forceful with them deleted and that big red stamp, especially the immediate visual.

But I used the word "under-handed" which is really no worse than what Ray called me for a month in discussion and as well on his attack thread ...."biased" which was meant in the context of the discussion as being dishonest. I used "low-life" which speaks to someone's intregity and was not worse than a month long of Ray telling me not only am I "biased" (dishonestly) but that I'm "closed-minded" In the context he used "closed minded" it was meant to infer I was intellectually dishonest, unwilling to look at evidence and arguments for NDE's. And the 3rd descriptive word I used was a word which sounds like Mormon but take the middle "m" out. I thought it better I not actually write the word in case Shades decides to stamp it out again. That too, was no worse than Ray telling me I wasn't worth responding to on issue, because I hadn't read as much as he had over the years. I was according to him too ignorant relative to his knowledge to discuss the issues with.

As I said I actually liked the Shades stamp. I think the impact I intended was greater with it. However I didn't use vulgar words, which might be assumed by its use.

Well marg,

Editing is inherently subjective. There is a clear conflict of interests when those who participate in a discussion also take it upon themselves to act as editors either in that discussion or in other discussions which may be tangentially related or connected to what such people edit.

That said, I quite agree with your analysis regarding the general tenor of the discussion.

[_marg]

JAK,

I decided to not continue the discussion of NDE's with Ray. It's an interesting topic, but I didn't get any sense that he was motivated nor that he was able to critically evaluate what many scientists had to say whether they were proposing a para normal explanation which one study by Lommel et al. was doing or a naturalistic one, which the rest of the scientists that I came across all did. He was unable to see holes in the Lommel study and pretty much dismissed all other scientists. His responses to me were one or a combination of the following, that I was closed minded, biased and ill informed therefore anything I said should be dismissed. Although he made an attempt to address issues in this thread, I've lost interest in further discussion with him, and I'm sure he likewise with me.