More bad news for our friends who believe in the soul & NDEs

[_Some Schmo]

I have no doubt that this is a strategy you use liberally (lying to yourself to get a good night's rest). In fact, your view of scientists is likely the biggest BS story you tell yourself... well, other than all your primary religious fantasies, of course.

Oh, are you done with your Pop-Tart and having something to say to the big people? Okay, here, climb up on your booster seat and we'll all listen. Now.... go ahead.

I understand that your mock condescension is the only way you can handle what I have to say (which is to say, you can't handle it at all), so have your fun. We both know deep down who's really living like a child, and I don't mind you having your daily pretend time with me. At least it's a distraction from your pretend time with your fantasy sky daddy, so I suppose it's a good thing.

*shrug*

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo states:

I appreciate the apparently good faith effort here, but so far this isn't very convincing.

I am not hear to convince you about the validity of the nde.

You aren't? Why are you here then?

You've got NDE adherants admitting that Ketamine produces NDE-like experiences, yet objecting because not every subjective NDE experience was identical to subjective Katamine experiences - yet they admit they're generally same types of experiences.

One clear statement made by NDE researchers is NDEs are very much different from Ketamine experiences and Ketamine can only replicate a fraction of a NDE in each individual Ketamine experience.

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.

Then we have the LDS-like testimony, "I now believe that there most definitely is a soul that is independent of experience." Based on what, exactly? They don't say.

Apparently, his research all of which follows rigorous standards. We can dive into these particular studies if you want to discuss evidence for NDEs but right now I thought we were discussing Ketamine, a drug, and whether it can cause replication of the NDE, which it cannot. Those researchers that claim it can only spout rhetoric and not raw research. A comparison of the differences of a Ketamine experience and a NDE has been completed by Dr. Fenwick and by Lommel. Also, see the example in my previous post of a ketamine experience. This is the most common ketamine experience that researchers try to equate with the nde.

Actually, your source admits that it CAN replicate them - just not to your source's satisfaction.

And then there's the self contradiction about whether Ketamine being positive or not:


"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. "

From surveys comparing the responses from individuals experiencing both the above conclusions were found. These are not guesses.

They are self-contradictory statements.

Then there's this gem:

"I cannot recall one person who had a non-drug affiliated genuine greyson scale nde and also experienced drug use, such as LSD, Ketamine, etc that say they are similar in anyway, just researchers." Hardly an argument. Easily explained by confirmation bias - the strong desire to believe in NDEs - or perhaps by other chemicals released during trauma. The "I cannot recall" doesn't inspire confidence either.

If you can find one please do post. I believe you will have a great deal of trouble finding one reputable statement by a non-anonymous person.

I'm not a researcher. But if I were, I'd do a better job of documenting my research.

"In addition, Ketamine does not explain away the accuracies of out-of-body perceptions in people who lacked any brain activity whatsoever."- That's making the large assumption that people experiencing this level of trauma can accurately track time.

When you want to discuss certain evidences we can dive into the subject, right now we are focused on Ketamine.

It's relevant to the discussion, but I'm willing to shelve it as long as we can return to it later.

Do you have any thoughts on the statement I posted earlier:

"The ketamine model/hypothesis is an argument of a relationship between human biology and the transcendental experience. One can easily come to the conclusion that the mind is an entryway between the physical and spiritual worlds and therefore ketamine should not be used as a tool to demystify the nde."

Perhaps ketamine is a helpful tool in proving the nde?

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.

Responses in blue.

[_Hoops]

I understand that your mock condescension

No mocking involved. It is entirely real.

[_Some Schmo]

I understand that your mock condescension

No mocking involved. It is entirely real.

Well, I suppose a krill can condescend to a whale, but that doesn't mean it's meaningful to the whale.

Have fun then, kiddo! Just make sure you're in bed by 8.

(See, the effect of my condescension toward you probably affects you the same way yours affects me, assuming it affects you not at all... or maybe it does which is way you habitually spout this nonsense).

[_lostindc]

You aren't? Why are you here then?

For fun, I can never imagine an actually intellectually stimulating conversation taking place in such a forum, especially when biases will not change between either poster.

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.

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.

They are self-contradictory statements.

more explaination please, not sure where we are going with this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[_Themis]

Also, it is not very clear whether ketamine experiences actually replicate ndes. In fact, most nders suggest this is not the case at all. NDErs mostly report positive feelings from the experience whereas ketamine experiences more often report differently. I cannot recall one person who had a non-drug affiliated genuine greyson scale nde and also experienced drug use, such as LSD, Ketamine, etc that say they are similar in anyway, just researchers.

I wouldn't think this would be a surprise to anyone, especially researchers. Even if we ignore the possibilites of supernatural things going on, or people having a spirit, taking ketamine will never exactly replicate what is going on in the brain chemically during a NDE. Even different drugs will have different effects.

In addition, Ketamine does not explain away the accuracies of out-of-body perceptions in people who lacked any brain activity whatsoever.

Tarski brought this up in another thread, but can you provide how they determined when a person was having an out-of-body experience. Was it before, during, or after brain activity stopped?

Bump

[_lostindc]

Bump

I believe Buffalo and I will get to the point of answering some of these questions in this thread. If you really want an answer right now a simple web search will give you the pro-nde arguments in regards to these particular inquiries, perhaps not the actual research data but some high-level data. Particularly pay attention to research on the nde with obe elements within cardiac arrests.

Here is one rhetorical question, you need not answer in this thread, does it matter if a complete OBE occurs with brain activity or not, especially if the OBEr is witnessing activities/conversations in say a room far down the hall of the hospital or in a whole different region and accurately retells these activities even though they never left the bed? What if these same activities are verified from unbiased sources?

As of right now I prefer to continue with solely Buffalo.

[_Themis]

I believe Buffalo and I will get to the point of answering some of these questions in this thread. If you really want an answer right now a simple web search will give you the pro-nde arguments in regards to these particular inquiries, perhaps not the actual research data but some high-level data. Particularly pay attention to research on the nde with obe elements within cardiac arrests.

My one point is that researches giving drugs to people would not replicate the NDE in any exact way. The problem is the researches do not understand very well what is going on chemically to be able to try and duplicate it to see if they can replicate the NDE expereince accurately. That they can use some drugs to show that similarities to the NDE is very interesting. I doubt any objective researcher would think they could replicate it exactly at this point.

Here is one rhetorical question, you need not answer in this thread, does it matter if a complete OBE occurs with brain activity or not, especially if the OBEr is witnessing activities/conversations in say a room far down the hall of the hospital or in a whole different region and accurately retells these activities even though they never left the bed? What if these same activities are verified from unbiased sources?

You are bringing up two different questions here. If the OBE is happening while brain activity is going on then it means that it could be happening solely in the brain. Accurately describing events they could not possibility have known would be important in establishing being out of their body. One of my questions is how we can know that an OBE is happening when the brain is not active.

As of right now I prefer to continue with solely Buffalo.

That is your choice, but it does seem you are less interesting in discussing or educating on an issue, and more interested in trying to embarrass Buffalo.

[_asbestosman]

Well, I suppose a krill can condescend to a whale, but that doesn't mean it's meaningful to the whale.

Oh come one Schmo. You're not so out of shape that people refer to you as a whale.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, I suppose a krill can condescend to a whale, but that doesn't mean it's meaningful to the whale.

Oh come one Schmo. You're not so out of shape that people refer to you as a whale.

Well, no... but I have been told to shut my blowhole.