lostindc wrote:They said they were similar in kind, but with some differences. Easily explainable by either the subjectivity of personal narrative or the other myriad chemicals in the brain other than Ketamine at the time of NDEs.
No, they, being researchers, including myself, state that a minor portion of the nde is similar to the ketamine experience but in no way do we think they are the same. In fact, we believe they are very different experiences. The problem is that you, and others, such as Blackmore, believe that they are the same type of experiences but this is not the case at even face value. Again I gave an example of a ketamine experience and of course you can find numerous other examples of these experiences and the nde on the interwebs. They are different, not the same. Just because we have hair and so does a cat does not make us a cat, plainly illogical.
So let's be specific. What specific differences are there between natural NDEs and those simulated with ketamine?
lostindc wrote:Actually, your source admits that it CAN replicate them - just not to your source's satisfaction.
No, he leads the audience by saying a small portion of scientists believe they can replicate a nde with the use of ketamine and then offers an example and then asks the audience if this is the same as a nde to which the reply is 'no.' He was leading the pro-ketamine audience towards a dramatic letdown.
No they are not the same. For instance an anesthesiologist studying this particular subject states:
Only a few percent of NDEs are predominantly frightening, and even these frightening NDEs are generally not dream-like or hallucinatory. This anesthesiologist’s observations are some of the most objective and reliable observations about experiences associated with Ketamine. Experiences reported during NDEs are very different from Ketamine experiences. There is no evidence that Ketamine consistently reproduces any element of NDE.
I think we won't get anywhere unless we talk about what those elements are. Are they consistent across every NDE? Which elements are in NDEs that aren't in Ketamine highs? Do the other drugs that are released into the brain account for possible discrepancies?
lostindc wrote:They are self-contradictory statements.
more explaination please, not sure where we are going with this.
I thought this was sufficiently plain.
"Ketamine is an anesthetic drug that acts like glutamate and is sometimes used as a street drug because of its pleasant subjective effects."
vs.
"NDErs mostly report positive feelings from the experience whereas ketamine experiences more often report differently. "
Statement one makes taking Ketamine to out to be a pleasant, trippy experience. Statement two suggests a lot of negative experiences are being had. Which is it?
And haven't we heard of negative NDEs, too? What about that "X Minutes in Hell" guy?
So they claim. They don't explain how, at least in the quotes you've chosen to share. Can you elaborate?lostindc wrote:I'm not a researcher. But if I were, I'd do a better job of documenting my research.
Again, documentation is not the problem, documentation has and is thorough in this field and conducted by some of the best research doctors throughout the world (e.g. parnia and cohorts), rather the problem is finding a source without having to bend actuality to suit the goal. In plain english: there is an absence of actual ketamine experiences matching ndes.
I look forward to discussing this as well.lostindc wrote:It's relevant to the discussion, but I'm willing to shelve it as long as we can return to it later [in regards to evidences in favor of ndes].
Evidences for nde's are the easiest part of the argument so I am more than looking forward to opening the topic. Will the evidence prove there is a God, afterlife, etc.? No, rather the evidence will point to a soul/consciousness separate from the physical body and capable of surviving the death of the body.
lostindc wrote:How does one come to the conclusion that spiritual worlds even exist, if not through religious tradition? Certainly we have no compelling evidence to think that such places are real. If we can explain NDEs via physical (chemical) processes, there is no need to posit an unfalsifiable "shadow" cause for NDEs in the absence of good evidence for the spiritual.
Example: We know why the wind blows - it's fully explained. Positing that, in addition to physical causes, God flies through the clouds and blows the air spiritually from his mouth, has no explanatory power and is unscientific. It also violates the principle of Occam's razor.
Fair question, but as evolutionists, which I am a party to, often state: the absence of physical evidence at this point does not disqualify the possibilities. Likewise, just because a phenomenon cannot be explained does not mean it is not possible.
Anything is possible. Possible isn't the same as plausible or evidenced based. There's no reason to infer the existence of an afterlife with compelling evidence for it.
lostindc wrote:Anyways, I see ketamine as a friend to the pro-nde argument. To be mystified by the ability of Ketamine to create some sort of transcendental experience with slight similarities to other transcendental experiences does not disqualify the others. Ketamine may point to consciousness capable of leaving the physical realm or a delusion. Whatever the ketamine experience is, it is not the same as the nde.
Again, I'd like to see more than the assertion of you and your sources that this is the case. And again, even if they are not identical, the fact that they're at LEAST similar is meaningful. That's a blow to the NDE faithful. Ordinary scientific explanations for the phenomena render the supernatural explanation entirely extraneous and valueless.