185 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Cybele, on 13 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Kindly point me towards the peer-reveiwed journal articles. I have full access to a fair amount.

Start here.
http://iands.org/pub...th-studies.html

Besides that psychology, social sciences, and conciousness studies all obtain evidences through " anecdotes" it really the only way we can quantify internal experiences.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 October 2012 - 04:44 AM.

[Cybele]

Seeker79, on 13 October 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Start here.
http://iands.org/pub...th-studies.html

I happened upon this earlier. Looks like I'd have to buy the articles; I don't think my institution would give me access to this particular journal. Nonetheless, I look into it a bit more. Thanks.

Seeker79, on 13 October 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Besides that psychology, social sciences, and conciousness studies all obtain evidences through " anecdotes" it really the only way we can quantify internal experiences.

Psychology and other social science fields also involve both observational studies (cohort, case-control) and randomized controlled trials (the most rigorous study design). Studies involving "anecdotes" and case studies may be starting points for more rigorous research into a particular topic, but are not very scientific in and of themselves.

It is, in fact, possible to study internal experiences through experimental manipulation. It is possible to learn a great deal about childhood development in infants, who cannot speak, through experiments. Further, we can study moods and learning through fMRI, watching the brain "in action".

One might say that NDEs are anecdotal starting points for research into stimulating the brain experimentally to reproduce such experiences, but literature consisting solely of such anecdotes would not be scientific.

Edited by Cybele, 13 October 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[Seeker79]

Cybele, on 13 October 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

I happened upon this earlier. Looks like I'd have to buy the articles; I don't think my institution would give me access to this particular journal. Nonetheless, I look into it a bit more. Thanks.



Psychology and other social science fields also involve both observational studies (cohort, case-control) and randomized controlled trials (the most rigorous study design). Studies involving "anecdotes" and case studies may be starting points for more rigorous research into a particular topic, but are not very scientific in and of themselves.

It is, in fact, possible to study internal experiences through experimental manipulation. It is possible to learn a great deal about childhood development in infants, who cannot speak, through experiments. Further, we can study moods and learning through fMRI, watching the brain "in action".

One might say that NDEs are anecdotal starting points for research into stimulating the brain experimentally to reproduce such experiences, but literature consisting solely of such anecdotes would not be scientific.

Well sure.... But collecting data on NDEs that can be analyzed is defiantly a solid start to proper research. Thousands of experiencers have been interviewed. This is a form of observation. Its wrong to just say "oh well its all anecdotal"... It's not just "some" stories. Unfortunately... And fortunately it is unethical to bring someone to the brink of death or start doing unhelpful research when they are dieing, so experimentation  can only be random. Mabey the AWARE study will have something to offer. I know there was one attempt to place pictures of letters faceing up at some ers and trauma rooms. We have a rough statistic of about how many people look down on themselves and their doctors during these events, and can make a rough prediction about how many people should guess the letter above chance. With enough data points it should be possible to evenchually tell with a decent amount of certainty if the OBE above the operating room portion of some of these experiences is occuring in real time or not. But it all starts with a solid statistical analysis of many many anecdotes. To write it off because it comes from people is ludecres and not at all the way REAL science operates.

Plural of anecdote does not make true, but the more plural it becomes the more likely it is.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 October 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[Mbyte]

Typical meterialistic thinking dismisses consciousness as merely created by the biological process and brain activity. Once the body ceases to work, the illusion ceases to be created and the consciousness becomes no more. What I constantly see with skeptics is that they always talk about how religion is bad and psychics decieve people. Doing bad things like decieving people to think there is something more is the crime of the century however skeptics systimatically drive people to think of themselves as noting more than illusions. Why do skeptics place such a devine cherishment and respect for consciousnesss while at the same time it is merely an illusion. Skeptics say it's wrong for charlatan psychics to cause people more mental anguish while at the same time they dismiss the same consciouness by saying "what makes you so special, the universe is vastly bigger than you, you are just an organic smudge compared to the universe" How can skeptics be rightously moral when at the same time the morality they are upholding is merely an evolutionary byproduct that is no more significant that a well working eye

[Ashiene]

If he is not Christian he will not see this 'vision' of the afterlife. His beliefs have influenced his delusions.

[thewild]

I am not christian, but I believe in an afterlife. We have no clue how each of our lives will end, and even if our afterlife exists for the mere minutes as our brains shut down, that space of time in the physical world could be seen as infinite to the mind as it dies. Problem is, we can only see one side of this, the physical. MHO, don't taze me bro
Edited to add that I do believe in a soul and another form of consciousness, because there is just too much to a existence than can fit in one lifetime. Sure, it's a daydream and only backed up by anecdotes but it works for me.

Edited by thewild, 13 October 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[Cybele]

Seeker79, on 13 October 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Plural of anecdote does not make true, but the more plural it becomes the more likely it is.

The more likely what is? No one doubts that people experience these things subjectively--the point of contention is on the interpretation. Do more anecdotal accounts of bigfoot or UFO sightings make bigfoot and aliens more likely to be real, or do they point to a common tendency in human thinking and biology? You can't control for confounding or test hypotheses when listening to stories.

Further, consider the possibility that people with NDEs who report things that don't match up with reality (aren't corroborated after the fact) are not talked about as much as those who do, because of course the former is not as interesting and doesn't attract publicity. By collecting accounts from people who want to share their stories (who will most likely have reported something "supernatural"), you are not getting an accurate picture, an unbiased sample, of all people with NDEs--you have self-selection bias.

And it is seems to me, from what I've read, that near death-like experiences can occur under the influence of certain drugs, such as ketamine. So although probably not ethically sound, I don't think it's true to say that one couldn't conduct experiments on this general subject.

A study like the one you mention would be interesting.

Edited by Cybele, 13 October 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[SUPERSquatch]

Seeker79, on 13 October 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Been over this half a dozen times aswell. Just look back on this thread or the other one. Different cultures interpret many things from their own perspectives. Including simple simple conversations.

Okay, well is that really proof of a single religion, say Christianity, or an afterlife? More likely, it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that is making these "hallucinations" appear.

[Habitat]

Seems to me for every person who desperately wants to believe in an afterlife, there is someone equally desperate to believe the opposite. I can understand the motivation of the former, but where is the reward for the latter position ?

[Hawkin]

kcoutch, on 13 October 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

my experience with meningitis was much different.  I was given last rights and died and had an outer body experience.  I met Jesus and my guardian angel.  I saw faces of relatives that I didn't know but knew they were relatives.  Things were calm but very bright and He was very handsome and the bluest eyes I had ever seen.  He held my hand and spoke to me telling me that I would be alright and that It wasn't my time.  He asked what he could do for me and I asked him to turn the lights out.  He laughed and said he would do that and that was all I could remember.  I spent 7 hours in a coma after that.

Kristen

My sister claimed she had an out of body experience when she was having a difficult birth with her son.
She claimed she rose above her body and could see the doctor and nurses working on her.

[thewild]

Habitat, on 14 October 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Seems to me for every person who desperately wants to believe in an afterlife, there is someone equally desperate to believe the opposite. I can understand the motivation of the former, but where is the reward for the latter position ?

A more content life free of extra worry over something they cannot control? Everybody dies at some point.

[alexb]

Habitat, on 14 October 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Seems to me for every person who desperately wants to believe in an afterlife, there is someone equally desperate to believe the opposite. I can understand the motivation of the former, but where is the reward for the latter position ?

Should what you believe, be based on which theory is more rewarding?

[Habitat]

alexb, on 16 October 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

Should what you believe, be based on which theory is more rewarding?

Not at all, but it is all too clear to me that there are many  people on these boards who are very resistant psychologically to the idea there may be a persistence beyond death. Explain that one to me. If I was 100% confident there was no afterlife, I wouldn't be wasting my valuable, limited ( it all ends, irrefutably, at death, remember) time arguing the toss with talk of hallucinations and chemical imbalances and whatever. Be assured, they don't want to argue about the possible existence of the Easter Bunny, but they are not retiring from this particular discussion. Why ? I reckon I know the answer, the old nagging doubt.....but of course it could all be part of a crusade for truth, a very selective crusade that doesn't seem to extend to say, the advertising industry, that has been bull******** people for ever.

[Seeker79]

Cybele, on 13 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

The more likely what is? No one doubts that people experience these things subjectively--the point of contention is on the interpretation. Do more anecdotal accounts of bigfoot or UFO sightings make bigfoot and aliens more likely to be real, or do they point to a common tendency in human thinking and biology? You can't control for confounding or test hypotheses when listening to stories.

Further, consider the possibility that people with NDEs who report things that don't match up with reality (aren't corroborated after the fact) are not talked about as much as those who do, because of course the former is not as interesting and doesn't attract publicity. By collecting accounts from people who want to share their stories (who will most likely have reported something "supernatural"), you are not getting an accurate picture, an unbiased sample, of all people with NDEs--you have self-selection bias.

And it is seems to me, from what I've read, that near death-like experiences can occur under the influence of certain drugs, such as ketamine. So although probably not ethically sound, I don't think it's true to say that one couldn't conduct experiments on this general subject.

A study like the one you mention would be interesting.

If 10,000 report a UFO sighting, or big foot, then yes.... Even if not true it is more likely to be before we know for sure.

NDEs/OBEs go back as far as recorded history and presumably prehistory. Millions and millions of people, not even counting the people who actually died and do not get to report what happened just before or during the process. In fact a big foot like creature actually did exist at one time.
http://m.io9.com/587...ot-really-exist
( a long standing memory perhaps, from our homo erectus ancestors)

Another north America example is  sasquach modern humans may have interacted with some sort of large Mamal weather it be a bear or some sort of giant sloth, or an actual ferrel or insane person. Most Likely the original inspiration. Oral traditions have a very long life. ( see islanders around Sumatra and how their ancient  oral traditions protected them from the tsunami, or the dreaming songs in australia that are actually oral maps )

The point is to write it of as delusion or mass hysteria is silly.  These are all eronius assumptions from skeptics unwilling to think critically or logically.

Just as skeptics think NDEs are explainable, so are their simplistic answers.

Drugs can induce and NDE---- very few in any full blown NDE experiences with all the elements come from drug inducement ketamine included, only a superficial resemblance. it would not matter any way. There is no question that NDEs occurre in an altered state of conciousness which fits perfectly with the brain as a receiver of conciousness rather than a producer view.

Varience in experiences ( one sees Buddha, one sees Jesus) ---- this is by far the easiest to explain. Actual scientific research ( just ignored) shows that people interprete everything from a culturally specific perspective. Any experience is going to be tainted by the goggles of the experiencer  ( just ask a marriage counseler). It's prooven psychology ( sorry don't have site for you, but skeptics should agree, they often site this very phenomenon). Quite obviously experiences of a transcendent nature are going to have this same psychological effect. A journey into the spirit world is not going to be some ridged mechanical roller coaster ride that is the same for everyone like a Disney ride any more than a drive to the grocery store is. Take a drive to a different town. There will be many elements that are similar, but each drive is going to be a different experience. Go fishing, fewer elements will be the same, but some are, and each and every trip will be quite different, but you are still fishing.

The assumption that because an experience can be induced its now a hullucination---- a completely illogical assumption.... Silly even. See my previous posts on the matter.

One by one, the arguments skeptics use fall away.

The most evident is the materialistic premis/assumption. Even reductionism shows that it is false. The fact of the matter, and prooven by cold hard, repeatable science. Is that quantum mechanics shows that we are made up of things that are simply manifestations of a more fundamental immaterial reality. partice wave duality, the delayed choice quantum eraser, Josephson junction, quantum tunneling, etc etc etc. and that true randomness is built into the very fabric of reality thereby defeating determinism and makeing it possible for free will.

--- Mabey. If a fairly equal amount of people reported OBEs that doctors did not corroborate, then that would be something to look at. I can understand that they don't get as much attention, but the research just does not show very much if any of that, and the arguments supporting the skeptical view amount to little more than grasping at straws from a dying premis.

[Vox]

How about this for immortality...

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, there is a finite amount of energy in the Universe. Therefore what makes me, me, will exist forever. Time can be portrayed as infinite, so hopefully what makes me, me will assemble again some time in the future, as per the blind watchmaker principle. Since I can only recollect what happens during consciousness, my memories will be lost (as a consequence of 'death') but my consciousness will be forever enduring as I live each 'episode' in my other respective 'lives'.

So a theory on immortality without mentioning God...

Yup, I don't listen to myself much either!