|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 4:22:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2021 4:52:23 GMT
That's an extremely long article that seems quite rambling. I gave up about 1/3 of the way in. Anything in it you particularly want to discuss? Right now the best evidence is that NDEs are the products of a dying brain. Lots of people don't want to accept that because it makes them happier to believe in an afterlife or that their experience was just as "real" as the reality they experience daily. Of course, in one sense it is since even our daily experience of reality is created in large part by our brains, and there's no reason the same brain that renders our experience of external reality can't render non-reality so that it feels just as real, which is why people have similarly powerful experiences under the influences of various psychoactive drugs like DMT or even (to a lesser extent) cannabis. I do think that article (what I read of it) minimizes the amount of discrepancies in NDE reports, especially across cultures. Best overview I know of the subject is here: infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html and it does take into account how NDEs differ a lot based on cultural expectations. There are some commonalities, but just as many differences. I also remember Sam Harris posting a pretty devastating critique of Eban Alexander's NDE report back when it happened: samharris.org/this-must-be-heaven/ |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 5:18:18 GMT
That's an extremely long article that seems quite rambling. I gave up about 1/3 of the way in. Anything in it you particularly want to discuss? Right now the best evidence is that NDEs are the products of a dying brain. Lots of people don't want to accept that because it makes them happier to believe in an afterlife or that their experience was just as "real" as the reality they experience daily. Of course, in one sense it is since even our daily experience of reality is created in large part by our brains, and there's no reason the same brain that renders our experience of external reality can't render non-reality so that it feels just as real, which is why people have similarly powerful experiences under the influences of various psychoactive drugs like DMT or even (to a lesser extent) cannabis. I do think that article (what I read of it) minimizes the amount of discrepancies in NDE reports, especially across cultures. Best overview I know of the subject is here: infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html and it does take into account how NDEs differ a lot based on cultural expectations. There are some commonalities, but just as many differences. I also remember Sam Harris posting a pretty devastating critique of Eban Alexander's NDE report back when it happened: samharris.org/this-must-be-heaven/I highly enjoyed the entire article. I was just curious what other people's opinions about it are. Yours is boring, because we mostly agree.  Thank you for more information to read. The DMT stuff is interesting as well and I think the silly speculations regarding it are fun.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 25, 2021 5:43:36 GMT
For me the evidence boils down to three things. Could they experience something that they shouldn't have been able to experience in the real world that they can verify? Were their brain cells active during the experience of death? And were their experiences limited enough that they comply with the limitations of the human brain under extreme circumstances?
To my knowledge nobody has done the latter two but according to the Netflix series Surviving Death in the first episode, the former has happened and whether it's specific to death or not, it's up to the skeptics to explain it or somehow dismiss it since it goes against mainstream views of cognition.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 6:31:21 GMT
For me the evidence boils down to three things. Could they experience something that they shouldn't have been able to experience in the real world that they can verify? Were their brain cells active during the experience of death? And were their experiences limited enough that they comply with the limitations of the human brain under extreme circumstances? To my knowledge nobody has done the latter two but according to the Netflix series Surviving Death in the first episode, the former has happened and whether it's specific to death or not, it's up to the skeptics to explain it or somehow dismiss it since it goes against mainstream views of cognition. Well, it isn't up to skeptics to explain anything as far as I'm concerned. They could just say "I don't know" and that seems to be the position taken by most people on the subject off stuff that can't be explained...if the actual thing happened in the first place. Does the Netflix episode give all of the information 100% accurately? Could a mistake have been made? etc. What exactly is the claim being made in the episode you watched?
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 25, 2021 6:45:56 GMT
For me the evidence boils down to three things. Could they experience something that they shouldn't have been able to experience in the real world that they can verify? Were their brain cells active during the experience of death? And were their experiences limited enough that they comply with the limitations of the human brain under extreme circumstances? To my knowledge nobody has done the latter two but according to the Netflix series Surviving Death in the first episode, the former has happened and whether it's specific to death or not, it's up to the skeptics to explain it or somehow dismiss it since it goes against mainstream views of cognition. Well, it isn't up to skeptics to explain anything as far as I'm concerned. They could just say "I don't know" and that seems to be the position taken by most people on the subject off stuff that can't be explained...if the actual thing happened in the first place. Does the Netflix episode give all of the information 100% accurately? Could a mistake have been made? etc. What exactly is the claim being made in the episode you watched? The claim is that the patient, a female patient, saw and recognized surgical tools that they had never seen before and described them in a way that they knew what they were when she couldn't have seen anything at the time. You know as well as I do that a scientific theory is supposed to explain as many facts as possible. The more facts a theory can explain, the better the theory is, and we should prefer a theory that explains more facts to one that explains less.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 7:08:49 GMT
Well, it isn't up to skeptics to explain anything as far as I'm concerned. They could just say "I don't know" and that seems to be the position taken by most people on the subject off stuff that can't be explained...if the actual thing happened in the first place. Does the Netflix episode give all of the information 100% accurately? Could a mistake have been made? etc. What exactly is the claim being made in the episode you watched? The claim is that the patient, a female patient, saw and recognized surgical tools that they had never seen before and described them in a way that they knew what they were when she couldn't have seen anything at the time. You know as well as I do that a scientific theory is supposed to explain as many facts as possible. The more facts a theory can explain, the better the theory is, and we should prefer a theory that explains more facts to one that explains less. I agree with that. I am talking about just the state of being skeptical though. With the tool thing there are other possibilities that we just might not be aware of. I am not one of those people that is just "Nope. Nope. Nope." I do give pause when I read about certain things, but that is where it ends for me. Until something is explained to my satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2021 7:11:12 GMT
Well, it isn't up to skeptics to explain anything as far as I'm concerned. They could just say "I don't know" and that seems to be the position taken by most people on the subject off stuff that can't be explained...if the actual thing happened in the first place. Does the Netflix episode give all of the information 100% accurately? Could a mistake have been made? etc. What exactly is the claim being made in the episode you watched? The claim is that the patient, a female patient, saw and recognized surgical tools that they had never seen before and described them in a way that they knew what they were when she couldn't have seen anything at the time. You know as well as I do that a scientific theory is supposed to explain as many facts as possible. The more facts a theory can explain, the better the theory is, and we should prefer a theory that explains more facts to one that explains less. The patient could've easily seen such tools in any number of films or TV shows depicting surgeries. You know, there's a few hospitals that have actually taken to putting scrolling digital messages up high on shelves so that if any NDEs actually floated out of their bodies they'd be able to read them. So far, nobody has. Curious that the only cases we hear are things like this where the patient could've easily imagined such things even if they never saw them. Also, any hypothesis is designed to explain facts but the way it does that (thus becoming a theory) is to make empirical predictions. The problem with supernatural accounts of NDEs is they don't do this, just like no supernatural claims do this in general. I also wouldn't say theories are better if they can explain a lot of facts. The limits of theories are just as important sometimes as what they do explain. If you have a theory that can explain anything you probably have a theory that explains nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 7:18:34 GMT
The claim is that the patient, a female patient, saw and recognized surgical tools that they had never seen before and described them in a way that they knew what they were when she couldn't have seen anything at the time. You know as well as I do that a scientific theory is supposed to explain as many facts as possible. The more facts a theory can explain, the better the theory is, and we should prefer a theory that explains more facts to one that explains less. The patient could've easily seen such tools in any number of films or TV shows depicting surgeries. You know, there's a few hospitals that have actually taken to putting scrolling digital messages up high on shelves so that if any NDEs actually floated out of their bodies they'd be able to read them. So far, nobody has. Curious that the only cases we hear are things like this where the patient could've easily imagined such things even if they never saw them. Also, any hypothesis is designed to explain facts but the way it does that (thus becoming a theory) is to make empirical predictions. The problem with supernatural accounts of NDEs is they don't do this, just like no supernatural claims do this in general. I also wouldn't say theories are better if they can explain a lot of facts. The limits of theories are just as important sometimes as what they do explain. If you have a theory that can explain anything you probably have a theory that explains nothing. The thing is that the one in the article said that she described exactly what type of saw they were using and it is claimed that she had no way of knowing what type of saw they were using. It wasn't that they were using a saw, it is that she knew exactly what the saw looked like apparently. I am not sure if that is the same one or if the article just does a poor job of explaining the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2021 8:29:25 GMT
The patient could've easily seen such tools in any number of films or TV shows depicting surgeries. You know, there's a few hospitals that have actually taken to putting scrolling digital messages up high on shelves so that if any NDEs actually floated out of their bodies they'd be able to read them. So far, nobody has. Curious that the only cases we hear are things like this where the patient could've easily imagined such things even if they never saw them. Also, any hypothesis is designed to explain facts but the way it does that (thus becoming a theory) is to make empirical predictions. The problem with supernatural accounts of NDEs is they don't do this, just like no supernatural claims do this in general. I also wouldn't say theories are better if they can explain a lot of facts. The limits of theories are just as important sometimes as what they do explain. If you have a theory that can explain anything you probably have a theory that explains nothing. The thing is that the one in the article said that she described exactly what type of saw they were using and it is claimed that she had no way of knowing what type of saw they were using. It wasn't that they were using a saw, it is that she knew exactly what the saw looked like apparently. I am not sure if that is the same one or if the article just does a poor job of explaining the circumstances. I'd have to know the details, but I doubt surgical saws are so unique that she was able to describe some super-specific one that she would've/could've never seen in a film or TV show that used surgical saws. And of course this is all assuming there was no way she could've seen it (or one like it) prior to or after her surgery.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 25, 2021 9:35:31 GMT
My biggest issue with NDEs isn't really a scientific one, it's that I just don't think that's how an afterlife, if there were such a thing, would work. Like your soul leaves your body danders round Heaven for a bit and then goes: "Oh crap, turns out I'm not actually dead, gotta go!" It seems so silly to me on an intuitive level.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 21:18:50 GMT
The article is about research into and problems encountered studying NDEs, not about Near Death Experiences themselves which the author rightly takes no stand on. I have not read much on NDEs that much, but I have alien abduction claimants and there are parallels. Abductees’ descriptions of aliens and alien spacecraft tend to follow current trends in science fiction tropes. Under hypnosis, famous abductee Betty Hill says while on board the spaceship, an alien pulls down a paper chart to show her what star system he came from. Pulling down a paper chart on a space ship in the 1970s would not seem that odd, but now that we readily have LED screens, it seems antiquated. One thing the author touches on briefly are the cultural aspects in NDEs. Like abductees, the subjects experiences often follows a cultural pattern specific to their personal beliefs or assumptions. Such as a Catholic will experience a Catholic image laden “place.” A Protestant’s will be more like their preconceived notions of an afterlife. In 2003 or 2004, ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury after an IED blew up beside the Army convoy he was covering for the Nightly News. He was in a medically induced coma for several weeks. Being a reporter, as soon as he was able, he chronicled everything he remembered and did not recall any NDE or out-of-body, transcendental experiences. He went from being a tank in Iraq in an instant to waking up in Bethesda Navy Hospital in Maryland the next. And he notes, he was raised in well-educated, secular home and an atheist himself. His matter-of-fact near death experience story reflects the WASP pragmatism in which he was raised. My point here is, descriptions of NDEs occur after the incident, so any memories are awash in the cultural tropes individuals are exposed too that help explain their idea of an after-life. The bigger picture is how down through the ages, our brain activity, whether NDEs or other psychotropic experiences, have been interpreted as experiences of a divine, magical other world and how this have so profoundly shaped our world. I agree with your assessment, it is just the ones that claim seemingly impossible things that are hard to warp my mind around.
I just don't except that those are accurate and that there aren't scientific explanations for them if they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 21:56:00 GMT
Another thing the article points to is the assumption, even in the science community, that the NDE is happening while the patient’s brain cells are dying from lack of oxygen, rather than when the resuscitation itself floods the cells with oxygen again. In a way, that sudden burst of chemical activity mirrors the brain function used in spiritual practices such as fasting, sleep deprivation, psychotropic drugs, extreme sports, etc, but especially, and I forget the term, but when people will literally tap or drill a small hole into through their skulls, which then causes a massive blood and brain chemical rush...if it doesn’t kill them. It’s called opening the third eye and per archeological record, has been practiced for thousands of years. A much safe, though less spectacular method to this altered state is tapping yourself on the forehead. The author mentions Campbell and in many cultures, the “spirit quest” or “walkabout” people often go on for spiritual enlightenment. Certainly humans have been experiencing this epiphenomena for many generations and have used it as “proof” of the spiritual realm. I haven't read much about that kind of stuff beside the basic, but is there any scientific research about how it works? And where do we draw the line to where something involving the brain sounds too unbelievable? Like if the shoe story is true in what it is alluding to? I mean are we saying that the opened mind can see the future and stuff like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 25, 2021 22:07:47 GMT
I haven't read much about that kind of stuff beside the basic, but is there any scientific research about how it works? And where do we draw the line to where something involving the brain sounds too unbelievable? Like if the shoe story is true in what it is alluding to? I mean are we saying that the opened mind can see the future and stuff like that? It’s pointed out above how difficult it is just to get human test subjects and then there is little control over any such study. I think the clincher is the simple placing objects on high selves in operating rooms to see if the recovered patients who claimed out-of-body phenomenon might see them. So far, I think no one has credibly seen the objects. I mean about the "third eye" thing in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 26, 2021 3:14:53 GMT
Another thing the article points to is the assumption, even in the science community, that the NDE is happening while the patient’s brain cells are dying from lack of oxygen, rather than when the resuscitation itself floods the cells with oxygen again. In a way, that sudden burst of chemical activity mirrors the brain function used in spiritual practices such as fasting, sleep deprivation, psychotropic drugs, extreme sports, etc, but especially, and I forget the term, but when people will literally tap or drill a small hole into through their skulls, which then causes a massive blood and brain chemical rush...if it doesn’t kill them. It’s called opening the third eye and per archeological record, has been practiced for thousands of years. A much safe, though less spectacular method to this altered state is tapping yourself on the forehead. The author mentions Campbell and in many cultures, the “spirit quest” or “walkabout” people often go on for spiritual enlightenment. Certainly humans have been experiencing this epiphenomena for many generations and have used it as “proof” of the spiritual realm. Tapping yourself on the forehead? Is that really a thing? Going into a trance state is very easy for me. I can go into a light trance within 3 seconds, and a deeper trance in less than 30, purely at will. I usually don't like to go too deep because it leaves me feeling stoned for a few hours afterward, and I find that annoying. I did ayahuasca with a shaman in Peru, and I couldn't really tell any difference between that and my usual spiritual experiences. But to be honest, I actually haven't practiced my spirituality for a few years now. I had an experience that blew my mind into a thousand pieces, and after that, I just didn't want to grow anymore. I had seen enough. I used to have premonitions quite often, and it's definitely less now. I'm kind of okay with that. I feel like a wimp for walking away, because it was nothing bad or scary, but I just think it's better for us not to know. I think we're here to focus on life, and too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Maybe someday I'll be ready to go back to my spiritual path, but even now, I still feel shellshocked. My puny mortal brain couldn't cope with too much woo. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 26, 2021 17:13:36 GMT
That's an extremely long article that seems quite rambling. I gave up about 1/3 of the way in. Anything in it you particularly want to discuss? Yeah...I had the same reaction. Just too long and rambling. I probably got through 1/2 and skimmed the rest.
Clearly something is happening to these people...IOW, I don't believe they're making it up whole clothe.
I believe it is the activity of a still living but stressed nervous system. Clearly they weren't actually dead in that...they 'lived' on to tell of it. Given the paucity of understanding of what exactly the brain does and how it does it, I think it is premature to conclude these reports are a good basis for believing in an afterlife or a 'spirit' world,
It is a fascinating phenomenon; I see them as on the same order as accounts of UFOs. There are some accounts of UFO sightings that, unless the person/people are lying outright, seem pretty inexplicable.
But a few tangential points.
NDEs and vivid dreams may be the source of 'alien abductions' reports. They may be among the 'bad' experiences no one wants to talk about.
I believe these NDES/coupled with dreams and hallucinations (due to various stimuli) are likely the source of most, if not all spiritual/supernatural/religious beliefs. For sure NOW, humans have a greater ability to bring people back from the 'brink' so to speak, but surely early humans also went through NDEs and came back to act on what happened or to give their accounts.
I guess one point I wonder is....with what apparatus are those people's 'spirits' or 'souls' seeing things? Sight isn't just a direct...we see stuff and know what it is and it is exactly what we 'see.' As I understand it, there's a ton of 'neurological' processing going on to turn the photons that stimulate the cells in our eyes and make the signals our eyes send our brains into a spatial concept of the world around us. As I understand it, the 'image' of the world around us isn't literally what the world around us actually is. So why would a spirit/soul with no physical and neurological apparatus, seem to "see" the very things we as awake humans see and views that are very much like what we see with our eyes/nervous system/brain? In the case of the person 'seeing' the sneaker where no one would have been able to see it, why would that section of reality LOOK like a sneaker and not just atoms and electrons and empty space which is what most of the physical world is, again, as I understand it, education.jlab.org/qa/how-much-of-an-atom-is-empty-space.html So why would a spirit "looking at" (for want of a better phrase) atoms see them as forming people, tables, chairs and sneakers?
And this segues into...do blind people have NDEs where they 'see' things? If so...I'd like to know what their experience is. And if NOT, why can't their 'spirit' see things? In fact, it would seem people whose eyes are damaged/gone should be able to see just as well and vividly as any "sighted" person...if, in fact, we 'see' with our souls/spirits.
I don't think there is a spirit world or a supernatural, but so what if there is? With the wide variation of what people believe about this other world, I feel as comfortable ignoring it as trying to figure out what it is and using what I or others think as a basis for any decision making. At a minimum, IF one can make incorrect decisions or have incorrect beliefs about the supernatural and those incorrect decisions/beliefs can have negative consequences, I feel I am as safe NOT making such decisions or forming such beliefs and forming them as opposed to having them and they end up being the wrong ones. I don't want to be in the position as Homer Simpson imagines..."what if we pick the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder.”
|
|
