Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on September 07, 2020, 03:14:19 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here are two articles about NDE's that are interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170063/
****************
The combination of the preceding nine lines of evidence converges on the conclusion that near-death experiences are medically inexplicable. Any one or several of the nine lines of evidence would likely be reasonably convincing to many, but the combination of all of the presented nine lines of evidence provides powerful evidence that NDEs are, in a word, real.
****************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Here are two articles about NDE's that are interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170063/
****************
The combination of the preceding nine lines of evidence converges on the conclusion that near-death experiences are medically inexplicable.
There's always a counter view!
Interesting.....
https://tinyurl.com/CanBeExplainedNDE
"Near-Death Experiences Now Found to Have Scientific Explanations"
-
And another, by Dr Susan Blackmore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM1IEobgw0Y
Nobody, to my knowledge, has disagreed with the idea that NDEs are real, certainly not me. The problem is, of course, how to explain them.
-
There has always been a scientific explanation for NDEs even though people did not know what it was. Such an explanation will always need updating as new information is discovered, but the main point is that the person did not completely die so it has never been an after-death experience however many millions believe it to be true!
-
The discussions seem to be more about the experiences rather than the observing experiencer. We all have memories most of which are probably false. It is possible that NDE's are just the resurrection of such memories. We have all had NLE's , near life experiences in the womb but there doesn't seem to be any discussions about this. Is it because there is no memory, perhaps. Perhaps the experiencer has to evolve as such throughout a lifetime of experiences and memories. Whether the subject experiencer can be sustained after death of the body and its memories remains to be seen. It could be that 'spiritual' practices are attempts to facilitate this.
-
Whether the subject experiencer can be sustained after death of the body and its memories remains to be seen. It could be that 'spiritual' practices are attempts to facilitate this.
How do you tell the difference between what you call 'spiritual practices' and any other thought practices?
-
How do you tell the difference between what you call 'spiritual practices' and any other thought practices?
You will need to accept that this is just my take on the subject, others are available. I also distinguish 'spiritual' from 'religious'. Religions to me are the variety of beliefs, doctrines and thought practices which have grown over time, often to support a predominant power structure.
My view is that there is one basic 'spiritual' practice which is meditation, but this practice can take many forms. They are mostly designed to promote inner stillness rather than inner agitation associated with thoughts and emotions. By inner stillness, I don't mean inner deadness or dreamless sleep. There are a variety of words associated with this 'inner state' like bliss, ananda, paradise, heaven, love, life, union, all of which arise in consciousness.
-
Hi everyone,
The fact is that people who have had the NDE know it to be an after-death and after-life experience. Most other people in the world believe it to be so too.
Only the scientific community have been looking for convoluted ways of explaining NDE's through physical reactions in the brain.
Now however it appears that many doctors and researchers also accept that NDE's cannot be explained through mere brain related reactions.
That is a positive sign IMO.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
It is very difficult to provide evidence of inner experiences including that which is associated with imagery that appears consciously when the body is in a near death like state. There is also the problem of memory when coming out of that state and whether it is accurate in detail or semi fictional. This is also the interpretation of the experience. e.g.is it anymore significant than a vivid dream or nightmare. Perhaps it is better to think in terms of consciousness, sub consciousness and unconsciousness rather than life and death.
-
Hi everyone,
The fact is that people who have had the NDE know it to be an after-death and after-life experience.
How? The fact that you can ask them about it means that they did not die, so how would they know what an after death experience is?
-
John Cleese did something about NDEs on YouTube it could be taken with a pinch of salt if you like but it's certainly entertaining/interesting and worth a look.
-
How? The fact that you can ask them about it means that they did not die, so how would they know what an after death experience is?
We will only go around in circles with this line of argument.
You cannot argue beginning with the assumption that death has to be final and no one can ever come back from the dead.......and then conclude that death is final and no one can ever come back from the dead!
NDE's are evidence that, at least in some cases, people can come back from the dead. The NDE's are the evidence that death is not final in all cases. Clinical evidence and the opinion of doctors also corroborate this fact.
Science has to take this matter seriously and change its stand about death, as many researchers are advocating....instead of holding on to its traditional stand and try to circumvent the evidence.
-
We will only go around in circles with this line of argument.
It's a fairly straight forward question. Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?
You cannot argue beginning with the assumption that death has to be final
The question does not assume that death has to be final.
and no one can ever come back from the dead.......and then conclude that death is final and no one can ever come back from the dead!
Who has ever come back from the dead and how do you know they were dead?
NDE's are evidence that, at least in some cases, people can come back from the dead.
This is circular reasoning. Even the name: "near death experience" denies the idea that the people were ever actually dead.
-
I believe brains starved of oxygen are inclined to hallucinate, surely the cause of NDEs are more likely to be caused by something more like this than anything otherworldly.
By the way good to see you're back Sriram and shouting it all out again.
Kind regards to you, ippy.
I've had to up the ugly pills again.
-
It's a fairly straight forward question. Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?
The question does not assume that death has to be final.
Who has ever come back from the dead and how do you know they were dead?
This is circular reasoning. Even the name: "near death experience" denies the idea that the people were ever actually dead.
Well....I am glad that at least some researchers and people of science are now thinking differently from you. That is the silver lining. :)
Cheers.
-
I believe brains starved of oxygen are inclined to hallucinate, surely the cause of NDEs are more likely to be caused by something more like this than anything otherworldly.
By the way good to see you're back Sriram and shouting it all out again.
Kind regards to you, ippy.
I've had to up the ugly pills again.
:D :D
-
Well....I am glad that at least some researchers and people of science are now thinking differently from you. That is the silver lining. :)
Cheers.
Please answer my question. How do people know that a particular experience is similar to experiences after death if they haven't been dead before?
-
'Near death' is not 'after death'.
I had one a few months ago and it was not unpleasant.
-
Please answer my question. How do people know that a particular experience is similar to experiences after death if they haven't been dead before?
Obviously it can't be proved, but anyone having the experience can be convinced: for example they might suddenly recall (or imagine they remember) many previous lives and/or deaths.
It is based on what they feel, so seems more a question of interpretation rather than fact.
-
Please answer my question. How do people know that a particular experience is similar to experiences after death if they haven't been dead before?
Please read the first link I have given in the OP. Nothing more I can say.
Just because someone has called it 'Near' death experience does not mean that that word would itself define and limit the phenomenon. Researchers like Dr.Sam Parnia have confirmed that these are 'after-death' experiences.
-
Please read the first link I have given in the OP. Nothing more I can say.
Just because someone has called it 'Near' death experience does not mean that that word would itself define and limit the phenomenon. Researchers like Dr.Sam Parnia have confirmed that these are 'after-death' experiences.
Wriggle, evasion, wriggle, evasion etc
-
Wriggle, evasion, wriggle, evasion etc
It isn't really wriggling. The problem in discussions on this is that it we define death as a state that is irreversible then we declare these experiences as having to happen before death. If, however, death is defined as a state with certain physical conditions e.g. Lack of observable brain activity for x period of time then in theory an after 'death' experience might be possible. Unless the discussion is based on an agreed definition, it is simply people talking past each other.
It is worth noting though that even if we take the second definition, it isn't clear how we can tell when exactly the experiences occur.
-
Hi everyone,
Here are two articles about NDE's that are interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170063/
[/quote,]
The only interesting aspect of these two articles is that they got published at all, and I do wonder about the editorial standards of this journal: the first is a definitional and methodological mess and the second starts with a dash of confirmation bias and descends into woo.
These articles are only 'science' if the term is prefixed with 'pseudo'.
-
Hi everyone,
Here are two articles about NDE's that are interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170063/
The only interesting aspect of these two articles is that they got published at all, and I do wonder about the editorial standards of this journal: the first is a definitional and methodological mess and the second starts with a dash of confirmation bias and descends into woo.
These articles are only 'science' if the term is prefixed with 'pseudo'.
-
It isn't really wriggling. The problem in discussions on this is that it we define death as a state that is irreversible then we declare these experiences as having to happen before death. If, however, death is defined as a state with certain physical conditions e.g. Lack of observable brain activity for x period of time then in theory an after 'death' experience might be possible. Unless the discussion is based on an agreed definition, it is simply people talking past each other.
It is worth noting though that even if we take the second definition, it isn't clear how we can tell when exactly the experiences occur.
Agreed, of course, but I think in the end it boils down to wishful thinking on the part of those who just cannot accept that the actual, final death is just that - actual and final.
I always think that Michael Rosen expressed it all best in the essay he wrote to help himself come to terms with the death of his son from meningitis.
-
It is worth noting though that even if we take the second definition, it isn't clear how we can tell when exactly the experiences occur.
Exactly, the first "line of evidence" in the first article is stated as "Lucid, organized experiences while unconscious, comatose, or clinically dead". Obviously they can't interview the person at the time, so what they are dealing with is a memory, so how do you tell when the memory was formed? It could easily be the result of entering or recovering from that state.
-
Please read the first link I have given in the OP. Nothing more I can say.
Just because someone has called it 'Near' death experience does not mean that that word would itself define and limit the phenomenon. Researchers like Dr.Sam Parnia have confirmed that these are 'after-death' experiences.
You simply can't answer it can you.
-
It isn't really wriggling. The problem in discussions on this is that it we define death as a state that is irreversible then we declare these experiences as having to happen before death. If, however, death is defined as a state with certain physical conditions e.g. Lack of observable brain activity for x period of time then in theory an after 'death' experience might be possible. Unless the discussion is based on an agreed definition, it is simply people talking past each other.
It is worth noting though that even if we take the second definition, it isn't clear how we can tell when exactly the experiences occur.
If death is defined as lack of brain activity, we still can't be sure that the NDE's occurred while the person was dead. In fact, the evidence would appear to be that they don't, because of the lack of brain activity, although I would grant that Sriram doesn't believe brain activity is necessary for a person to have experiences.
-
You simply can't answer it can you.
What can I answer? I have already linked the opinions of doctors in the field. I am not a researcher. Check the first link.
-
If death is defined as lack of brain activity, we still can't be sure that the NDE's occurred while the person was dead. In fact, the evidence would appear to be that they don't, because of the lack of brain activity, although I would grant that Sriram doesn't believe brain activity is necessary for a person to have experiences.
Yes indeed. Experiences are had by Consciousness or Soul or whatever you want to call it. The brain is only a conduit for having physical experiences.....but not essential for non physical experiences.
NDE is a non physical experience and the brain is not necessary. That is the whole idea of the Soul...or Consciousness being independent of the body and brain.
-
Yes indeed. Experiences are had by Consciousness or Soul or whatever you want to call it. The brain is only a conduit for having physical experiences.....but not essential for non physical experiences.
That's just your assertion. You have no evidence that it is true.
NDE is a non physical experience and the brain is not necessary.
How do you know? Nobody without a brain has ever had an NDE. Nobody with a brain has verifiably had an NDE while the brain was not functioning.
-
Agreed, of course, but I think in the end it boils down to wishful thinking on the part of those who just cannot accept that the actual, final death is just that - actual and final.
I always think that Michael Rosen expressed it all best in the essay he wrote to help himself come to terms with the death of his son from meningitis.
https://www.allaboutgod.com/john-stott-annihilationism-
-
Yes indeed. Experiences are had by Consciousness or Soul or whatever you want to call it. The brain is only a conduit for having physical experiences.....but not essential for non physical experiences.
Consciousness doesn't 'have' experience. Consciousness is experience.
-
NDE is a non physical experience and the brain is not necessary.
Seeing and hearing are non physical then? Amazing what you learn here.
-
That's just your assertion. You have no evidence that it is true.How do you know? Nobody without a brain has ever had an NDE. Nobody with a brain has verifiably had an NDE while the brain was not functioning.
Yes....there is no evidence....in the form that you want it! According to me, NDE's are the evidence for it....and it fits in with the traditional idea of an incorporeal soul.
-
Consciousness doesn't 'have' experience. Consciousness is experience.
What? All experiences are had by something...the Subject...the Self. That is Consciousness.
-
Yes....there is no evidence....in the form that you want it! According to me, NDE's are the evidence for it....and it fits in with the traditional idea of an incorporeal soul.
The problem there is, of course, and as we see from the efforts of Alan, that the 'soul' idea is without any rational supporting arguments or evidence.
-
What? All experiences are had by something...the Subject...the Self. That is Consciousness.
it wouldn't make any sense to say that my consciousness is conscious. You could that I am conscious or you are conscious, but you cannot say that your consciousness is conscious. You keep mixing up consciousness and self as if they were interchangeable. Consciousness is a temporal state, or a process, but not a thing. You wouldn't refer to your metabolism as if it were a thing. These are things that livings things do.
We may have to let go of the intuition that experience is 'had' by an experiencer, also. I think the experiencer is also a mental construction, as is the experience itself. All part of the phenomenology of conscious mind.
-
The odd thing is that Sriram seems to be selling a version of dualism, thus, something "has" an experience. I suppose AB would say that the soul has it! Trouble is, nobody can find this something.
-
it wouldn't make any sense to say that my consciousness is conscious. You could that I am conscious or you are conscious, but you cannot say that your consciousness is conscious. You keep mixing up consciousness and self as if they were interchangeable. Consciousness is a temporal state, or a process, but not a thing. You wouldn't refer to your metabolism as if it were a thing. These are things that livings things do.
We may have to let go of the intuition that experience is 'had' by an experiencer, also. I think the experiencer is also a mental construction, as is the experience itself. All part of the phenomenology of conscious mind.
I don't think Sriram is mixing up consciousness and self, he is trying to use 'near fit' English words to represent the word 'Atman' which is used in Hindu philosophies to represent the subject 'I' or 'Self' with a capital 'S' to distinguish it from Ahamkara or ego (self with a small 's') which most people identify with. A number of the Yogic practices are dedicated to disidentifying with egoic practices and structures which includes concepts and conceptualising so that consciousness is recognised in its pristine state, free from the constraints of the Ahamkara. The observing consciousness and the observed consciousness are as one.
You say 'I think the experiencer is also a mental construction, as is the experience itself.' From the 'Hindu' perspective this is only so when attempting to convey the outcome of the practices in thoughts and words to others. This is why inner stillness and conscious detachment from mental activities has precedence over conceptualising about 'self'.
-
Hi everyone,
Most of you don't agree with my views and don't believe in any incorporeal entity that could exist outside the body. This is old news and it is fine!
However, why many of you are unable the understand the concept of an incorporeal, 'alive and experiencing' entity that exits outside the body, is what is surprising. The idea is as old as the hills and I am sure your grandmothers (or mothers) will be able to explain the idea to you.
All over the world the traditional idea is about a soul that inhabits the body and exits at the time of death. The soul (the Subject, Self, you) is a living, experiencing and active entity by itself and only occupies the body the way a person could be sitting inside a robot. When the person leaves the robot he continues to see and experience everything, probably with greater freedom than before. Why this idea is so alien to many of you and why you seem to think of it as unheard of......is what is surprising!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Most of you don't agree with my views and don't believe in any incorporeal entity that could exist outside the body. This is old news and it is fine!
However, why many of you are unable the understand the concept of an incorporeal, 'alive and experiencing' entity that exits outside the body, is what is surprising. The idea is as old as the hills and I am sure your grandmothers (or mothers) will be able to explain the idea to you.
All over the world the traditional idea is about a soul that inhabits the body and exits at the time of death. The soul (the Subject, Self, you) is a living, experiencing and active entity by itself and only occupies the body the way a person could be sitting inside a robot. When the person leaves the robot he continues to see and experience everything, probably with greater freedom than before. Why this idea is so alien to many of you and why you seem to think of it as unheard of......is what is surprising!
Cheers.
Sriram
I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science. There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain. The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.
-
I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science. There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain. The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.
I am not talking about what you believe or what I believe. We know all that.
I am asking why some people are pretending not to understand or comprehend a concept that is an old and traditional idea all over the world. Nothing new about the idea of a soul that is capable of living outside the body! No reason to go into a tizzy about it!
-
I am not talking about what you believe or what I believe. We know all that.
I am asking why some people are pretending not to understand or comprehend a concept that is an old and traditional idea all over the world. Nothing new about the idea of a soul that is capable of living outside the body! No reason to go into a tizzy about it!
If you have particular people in mind then be clearer who you are talking about otherwise how will anyone know. Off the top of my head I can't remember having come across someone pretending to fail to understand these traditional beliefs.
-
I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science. There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain. The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.
The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore. There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true. That is what I am talking about.
-
The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore. There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true. That is what I am talking about.
That doesn't equate to people pretending to not understand traditional beliefs.
-
I am not talking about what you believe or what I believe. We know all that.
I am asking why some people are pretending not to understand or comprehend a concept that is an old and traditional idea all over the world. Nothing new about the idea of a soul that is capable of living outside the body! No reason to go into a tizzy about it!
I don't think any of us are pretending or getting 'in a tizzy', as you suggest, since the 'soul' idea is not new: it is simply that many of us view the idea of 'soul' as being groundless superstition (just like 'Gods') that dates from antiquity.
Even if the 'soul' idea survives due to the tradition aspect you mention that, taken in isolation, would be a fallacious argument anyway, and since the alleged evidence, such as the two links in your OP, contains more holes than the average colander then, as things stand, there are no good reasons to take the 'soul' idea seriously even though some people remain wedded to the idea due to tradition(s).
-
The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore. There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true. That is what I am talking about.
I think that here, Sriram, you are making a fallacious appeal to authority where, judged on the likes of the links in your OP, the authorities you cite aren't especially authoritative.
-
The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore. There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true. That is what I am talking about.
In other words there are many thousands of people who are gullible enough, and are fearful of reality or death and ho prefer to believe fantasy enough, to believe there is such a thing as an experience after death to which some have, they believe, approached.
-
I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science. There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain. The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.
I think there is the usual confusion over words here because of the differences between Western thought and Eastern thought. 'Soul' is a translation of the New Testament Greek word 'psyche' which has become associated with 'mind' with its mental forms and processes and is studied as such in psychology. The Hindu word 'Atman' is more associated with a simple consciousness free from its attachments to such a mind. From a Hindu perspective, if you die with those attachments this determines the nature of your reincarnation. NDE's may lend credibility to this belief. I suppose that the Abrahamic version is if you die with evil attachments you go to Hell or maybe have them purged in Purgatory.
-
I think that here, Sriram, you are making a fallacious appeal to authority where, judged on the likes of the links in your OP, the authorities you cite aren't especially authoritative.
All of you make appeal to scientific authority all the time. Why shouldn't I? You are conveniently dismissing the work of certain doctors and researchers as questionable.
There are many like Dr.Raymond Moody and Dr.Sam Parnia who are professional psychologists and doctors and who have studied NDE's and written about it.
-
All of you make appeal to scientific authority all the time. Why shouldn't I? You are conveniently dismissing the work of certain doctors and researchers as questionable.
That would be because the examples cited in your OP are questionable
There are many like Dr.Raymond Moody and Dr.Sam Parnia who are professional psychologists and doctors and who have studied NDE's and written about it.
Moody has been exposed, via criticisms of his 'work', as being a woo-merchant.
-
Yes....there is no evidence....
Thank you for the admission.
in the form that you want it!
The only qualifications I apply to evidence is that it is evidence of the phenomenon under investigation, not just somebody imagining the phenomenon and that it is not easily explainable by other means.
I think the are reasonable criteria. The only reason why you don't accept them is because, when applied to NDEs, the evidence goes up in a puff of smoke.
According to me, NDE's are the evidence for it....and it fits in with the traditional idea of an incorporeal soul.
That's just your confirmation bias.
How do you know what happens after death? You don't. How do you know NDEs happen while people are dead? You don't. How do you know NDEs are not just like dreams? You don't.
-
However, why many of you are unable the understand the concept of an incorporeal, 'alive and experiencing' entity that exits outside the body, is what is surprising. The idea is as old as the hills and I am sure your grandmothers (or mothers) will be able to explain the idea to you.
No. We all understand it. We just don't have any good reason to believe it exists and we are challenging your assertion that it does.
-
Sriram loves to bring up the subject of NDEs and OBEs from time to time. As always, he sees the existence of NDEs as some sort of evidence that consciousness is something which has an existence outside the brain, and that it points to some sort of afterlife. As always, he never provides new evidence that his pet theories are any more correct than previously. As always, I suggest, he never seriously considers alternative explanations.
Take his reference to Sam Parnia, for instance. He is quite correct in saying that Parnia sees these as after death experiences, What he doesn't tell you is that Parnia himself suggests that our definition of death has changed with the increasing medical understanding and technology at our disposal, and that he sees it as a process rather than an exact event. Parnia has also suggested that:
The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated.
A person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Moving from a conscious state to an unconscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flatlines
3) Moving from an unconscious state to a conscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.
This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only a phenomenon related to No 2.
My position on the idea that NDEs are not a function of the brain/mind is as follows:
1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays little or no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.
2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.
3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.
4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.
In response to these:
a) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.
b) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.
c) Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inclusive results. However this area, I believe, would benefit from more widespread and co-ordinated testing.
d) There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo, and in only one of 55 reports from India. I would accept, however, that this area would greatly benefit from further data.
So what about actual scientific tests to establish whether anyone having an OBE can actually see something which would be hidden from view unless the person was having a floating OBE. To my knowledge there have been at least 5 totally blind tests(no living person would know the content of the visual target) from 1990 to 2006, all of them in recognized hospitals. None have resulted in anything but negative data so far. Since then Sam Parnia has conducted such tests in his famous Aware 2 Study, again with negative results.
I think the most damning statement on this so important subject of veridical evidence is contained in this email from 2006, by an eminent NDE researcher, Kenneth Ring, who was discussing this with Bruce Greyson:
There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests (experiencers) can, at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs.....but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class(as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses--I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few such cases at least by now?....
To sum up.
I agree that NDEs happen.
I would welcome further scientific research in this area.
I see no evidence that they are linked to the idea of an 'afterlife' or non-local consciousness.
I am very willing to adjust my position in the light of objective and extensive scientific research.
-
If you want a near death experience, take up philosophy. ;)
-
Sriram loves to bring up the subject of NDEs and OBEs from time to time. As always, he sees the existence of NDEs as some sort of evidence that consciousness is something which has an existence outside the brain, and that it points to some sort of afterlife. As always, he never provides new evidence that his pet theories are any more correct than previously. As always, I suggest, he never seriously considers alternative explanations.
Take his reference to Sam Parnia, for instance. He is quite correct in saying that Parnia sees these as after death experiences, What he doesn't tell you is that Parnia himself suggests that our definition of death has changed with the increasing medical understanding and technology at our disposal, and that he sees it as a process rather than an exact event. Parnia has also suggested that:
A person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Moving from a conscious state to an unconscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flatlines
3) Moving from an unconscious state to a conscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.
This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only a phenomenon related to No 2.
My position on the idea that NDEs are not a function of the brain/mind is as follows:
1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays little or no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.
2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.
3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.
4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.
In response to these:
a) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.
b) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.
c) Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inclusive results. However this area, I believe, would benefit from more widespread and co-ordinated testing.
d) There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo, and in only one of 55 reports from India. I would accept, however, that this area would greatly benefit from further data.
So what about actual scientific tests to establish whether anyone having an OBE can actually see something which would be hidden from view unless the person was having a floating OBE. To my knowledge there have been at least 5 totally blind tests(no living person would know the content of the visual target) from 1990 to 2006, all of them in recognized hospitals. None have resulted in anything but negative data so far. Since then Sam Parnia has conducted such tests in his famous Aware 2 Study, again with negative results.
I think the most damning statement on this so important subject of veridical evidence is contained in this email from 2006, by an eminent NDE researcher, Kenneth Ring, who was discussing this with Bruce Greyson:
To sum up.
I agree that NDEs happen.
I would welcome further scientific research in this area.
I see no evidence that they are linked to the idea of an 'afterlife' or non-local consciousness.
I am very willing to adjust my position in the light of objective and extensive scientific research.
I agree with that. There is no clinching proof that these are after-life experiences....and there is little possibility that there will ever be any such proof...given the nature of the phenomenon.
As of now there is a strong possibility that NDE's are actual after-death experiences that offer us a window into the other world, that most people around the world accept as true anyway.
More and more researchers, as I have linked, also are starting to accept this as a strong possibility. That is all I am talking about.
-
I agree with that. There is no clinching proof that these are after-life experiences....and there is little possibility that there will ever be any such proof...given the nature of the phenomenon.
Therefore, in the absence of any suitable method, 'after-life' is a meaningless term.
As of now there is a strong possibility that NDE's are actual after-death experiences that offer us a window into the other world, that most people around the world accept as true anyway.
There isn't, there being no credible evidence, and your 'most people' point is a straight up argumentum ad populum.
More and more researchers, as I have linked, also are starting to accept this as a strong possibility. That is all I am talking about.
The problem there is that what (and whom) you've cited, such as the links in the OP, aren't credible.
-
I agree with that. There is no clinching proof that these are after-life experiences....and there is little possibility that there will ever be any such proof...given the nature of the phenomenon.
As of now there is a strong possibility that NDE's are actual after-death experiences that offer us a window into the other world, that most people around the world accept as true anyway.
More and more researchers, as I have linked, also are starting to accept this as a strong possibility. That is all I am talking about.
I mentioned evidence, not proof, and, for me, the lack of evidence does not lead to the idea of a 'strong possibility' at all, only conjecture. The idea that most people consider NDEs as a 'window' into another world doesn't concern me in the slightest.
On the subject of the two researchers for which you have provided links in the opening post, let's look at them in more detail, shall we?
First, with his 9 Lines of evidence is Jeffrey Long. He isn't exactly a recent convert is he? Right now, I have in front of me a book called "The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, a 30 year Investigation' open at a Chapter 6 which was written by Long, in collusion with two other researchers(Janice Miner Holden and Jason Maclurg) where they say much the same things as in your linked article. It was written in 2009.
Second, let's take Eben Alexander III, the writer of your second linked article. His first book on NDEs, 'Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife' was written in 2012 and based on his own personal NDE, experienced in 2008. Again, he's not that recent a convert, is he?
Incidentally Eben Alexander III has had a somewhat checkered medical career, reprimanded twice by the Virginia Board of Medicine, (once for altering his operative report), was forced to pay a fine to the medical Board and and had to complete ethics and professionalism training to maintain an unrestricted medical license in the state. That doesn't exactly boost my confidence in his intellectual honesty.
-
Clutching at straws...!
-
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.
As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach
In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..
it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.
Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.
*************
-
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.
As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach
In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..
it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.
Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.
*************
All very nice I'm sure for those who view 'spirituality' as being something other than just the abstract thoughts and feelings produced in functioning neurology, and there seems to be nothing problematic about the conclusion that all this is physiological given there is no credible evidence that consciousness exists independently of a functioning brain or that feelings of 'spirituality' are intrinsically different from any other abstract feelings.
All I see here is a mix of wishful thinking, pseudoscience and the pervasive influence of tradition and/or cultural biases and, I have to say, a degree of gullibility.
-
All very nice I'm sure for those who view 'spirituality' as being something other than just the abstract thoughts and feelings produced in functioning neurology, and there seems to be nothing problematic about the conclusion that all this is physiological given there is no credible evidence that consciousness exists independently of a functioning brain or that feelings of 'spirituality' are intrinsically different from any other abstract feelings.
All I see here is a mix of wishful thinking, pseudoscience and the pervasive influence of tradition and/or cultural biases and, I have to say, a degree of gullibility.
There are others who don't view 'spirituality' that way. Some see their 'spiritual' practice as a means of identifying with a consciousness free from thoughts and emotions no matter whether abstract, wishful or otherwise. It is the inner' state' of being that is sought rather than scientific or pseudoscientific, neurological or physiological explanations. Whether this 'conscious state' continues after the physical body ceases to function, I doubt if there is any scientific way of discovering this, but who knows. A graveyard might be a good place to start.
-
All very nice I'm sure for those who view 'spirituality' as being something other than just the abstract thoughts and feelings produced in functioning neurology, and there seems to be nothing problematic about the conclusion that all this is physiological given there is no credible evidence that consciousness exists independently of a functioning brain or that feelings of 'spirituality' are intrinsically different from any other abstract feelings.
All I see here is a mix of wishful thinking, pseudoscience and the pervasive influence of tradition and/or cultural biases and, I have to say, a degree of gullibility.
You are just rubbishing all views that are different from yours....and getting back to your comfort zone.
Regardless of your 'old school' views, there is no doubt that NDE's are now gaining importance and more and more researchers are finding credence in the experiences related by the patients. That is as it should be.
-
You are just rubbishing all views that are different from yours....and getting back to your comfort zone.
Regardless of your 'old school' views, there is no doubt that NDE's are now gaining importance and more and more researchers are finding credence in the experiences related by the patients. That is as it should be.
If 'old school' means asking for credible evidence then I am happy to be guilty, and I'd also say that what some of these 'researchers' produce is highly suspect based on the links in your OP and the reputation of the likes of Raymond Moody.
-
Gordon
Hear, hear, to all your posts above.
-
...
Regardless of your 'old school' views, there is no doubt that NDE's are now gaining importance and more and more researchers are finding credence in the experiences related by the patients. That is as it should be.
What do you think is important about it?
-
Hi everyone,
It is amazing how anyone can think that a piece of flesh like the brain, that eventually rots, can by itself be responsible for all mental processes and can figure out what sort of imagery to create during death and so on. For whom is it creating these images anyway...for itself?
The brain is clearly a hardware platform that is just a part of the total system which includes many other unknown and subtle factors.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
It is amazing how anyone can think that a piece of flesh like the brain, that eventually rots, can by itself be responsible for all mental processes and can figure out what sort of imagery to create during death and so on. For whom is it creating these images anyway...for itself?
The brain is clearly a hardware platform that is just a part of the total system which includes many other unknown and subtle factors.
Cheers.
Sriram
Echoes of Mr Burns here. No science, no rationale, no evidence, what really drives your thinking is nothing more substantial than incredulity. Incredulity that the most complex thing in the known universe, as they say, could in fact synthesise the sophisticated information flows that that we refer to as conscious experience. It is a case of incredulity licensing woo that lacks the level of rigour and detail that is the hallmark of truthful objective enquiry.
-
Hi everyone,
It is amazing how anyone can think that a piece of flesh like the brain, that eventually rots, can by itself be responsible for all mental processes and can figure out what sort of imagery to create during death and so on. For whom is it creating these images anyway...for itself?
The brain is clearly a hardware platform that is just a part of the total system which includes many other unknown and subtle factors.
Cheers.
Sriram
The evidence to date suggests that all mental processes and mental experiences are due to biological processing in the brain and I've yet to see any credible evidence to the contrary, such as there being aspects of consciousness that are known to be external to our biology.
That some of these processes and experiences can feel odd or unusual isn't in itself any great surprise: most of us have experienced this during dreams, some of us have experienced this via the effects of certain drugs and then there are the effects arising from illness and trauma, and the treatment of these, that impacts on neurological functioning and mental experiences, and then there are conditions such as synesthesia and certain forms of epilepsy that can produce such effects without there being any risk of imminent death.
No need for pseudoscience and woo.
-
It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one.
Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.
Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.
-
It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one.
A difference that is easy to establish, so not an issue.
Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.
Nobody claimed life was random, but your "introduce externally" is speculation without a suitable methodology, and reads as being personal incredulity.
Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.
Finding out anything requires some underlying methodology though, along with the discipline that arises from this, and it is more dysfunctional to consider that anything is possible without a reliable and valid way to investigate - since otherwise any old nonsense might be proposed as being possible.
-
It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one.
Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.
Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.
I don't claim life to be 'random', in fact, I would tend to favour the line of research that says it is inevitable, given thermodynamic and other law.
I am alive, but there was no sense in which life had to 'be induced' into me. Rather, I am a continuation of the life of my parents. Life is a process of self-replication, remember ?
-
Sriram,
To take the last two sentences of Post 70:
Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt.
Incredulity(the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something), by itself, doesn't get you very far at all. You simply shut off certain possibilities by being incredulous. Doubt, however, can be a very positive state if it allows you to consider different approaches and evaluate them according to evidence.
If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.
Completely agreed. Why is it, then, that in Post 67 you illustrate your incredulity in the first sentence and a cocksure approach in your last sentence. Surely it isn't a case of one rule for Sriram, and another rule for everyone else, is it? :)
Incidentally here are two pieces of very recent research which might shed some light on NDEs.
This one compares anecdotal experiences of NDE recollections with those from people who have taken certain drugs, especially ketamine and compares them linguistically.
Certain similarities were found. Interesting, but obviously not conclusive as the article makes clear.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-found-in-understanding-near-death-experiences/
The second one is a study which suggests that one in 10 people experience NDEs, and that NDEs are as common amongst those who were not in imminent danger of death as those that were.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/sh-oi1062519.php
Just thought I would throw these in, in the interests of a balanced approach. :)
-
If you want a near death experience, take up philosophy. ;)
Or listen to cricket or a golf commentary on the radio, golf just about pips the cricket commentary but not by much.
-
It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one.
This computer on which I'm typing is a wonderful tool to communicate with the world and do many other tasks. Yet when I switch it off, it's just an inert lump of metal and plastic. It's all physics and electrons specifically. There's no magic computer-soul that departs when I remove the power.
Why does a human brain have to be different?
Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.
I don't know anybody who claims life is random. It certainly does require an energy source, which is why it goes away if you stop eating and/or breathing for too long.
Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.
There's nobody on this board more cocksure about what life is to the exclusion of all possibilities than you.
-
This computer on which I'm typing is a wonderful tool to communicate with the world and do many other tasks. Yet when I switch it off, it's just an inert lump of metal and plastic. It's all physics and electrons specifically. There's no magic computer-soul that departs when I remove the power.
Why does a human brain have to be different?
YOU depart when you switch off the computer. You are the soul or Self of the computer because of whom it exists.
-
Sriram,
To take the last two sentences of Post 70:
Incredulity(the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something), by itself, doesn't get you very far at all. You simply shut off certain possibilities by being incredulous. Doubt, however, can be a very positive state if it allows you to consider different approaches and evaluate them according to evidence.
Completely agreed. Why is it, then, that in Post 67 you illustrate your incredulity in the first sentence and a cocksure approach in your last sentence. Surely it isn't a case of one rule for Sriram, and another rule for everyone else, is it? :)
Incidentally here are two pieces of very recent research which might shed some light on NDEs.
This one compares anecdotal experiences of NDE recollections with those from people who have taken certain drugs, especially ketamine and compares them linguistically.
Certain similarities were found. Interesting, but obviously not conclusive as the article makes clear.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-found-in-understanding-near-death-experiences/
The second one is a study which suggests that one in 10 people experience NDEs, and that NDEs are as common amongst those who were not in imminent danger of death as those that were.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/sh-oi1062519.php
Just thought I would throw these in, in the interests of a balanced approach. :)
It is possible that even people who are not dying can have OBE's and such experiences. After all, the soul only occupies the body. It can leave the body anytime temporarily for whatever reason.... In fact, this only establishes that the Self is independent of the body.....and it is not the brain coming up with some sort of a imagery during death....due to certain chemicals....or whatever...
-
It is possible that even people who are not dying can have OBE's and such experiences. After all, the soul only occupies the body. It can leave the body anytime temporarily for whatever reason.... In fact, this only establishes that the Self is independent of the body.....and it is not the brain coming up with some sort of a imagery during death....due to certain chemicals....or whatever...
I had an OBE once, about three or four years back. Although I had a peculiar sensation of floating out of my body at the time, I don't see any problems in hindsight with the mundane explanation that it was a temporary aberration in the normal functioning of interoception and/or proprioception, some sort of body mapping abnormality. It is quite easy to induce altered states of consciousness, just a couple of pints of good strong beer does the trick usually.
-
It is possible that even people who are not dying can have OBE's and such experiences. After all, the soul only occupies the body. It can leave the body anytime temporarily for whatever reason.... In fact, this only establishes that the Self is independent of the body.....and it is not the brain coming up with some sort of a imagery during death....due to certain chemicals....or whatever...
Evidence for 'souls' and 'Self independent of the body' is what exactly?
-
Evidence for 'souls' and 'Self independent of the body' is what exactly?
Only if and when we understand the possibilities, study the phenomenon and look for evidence will we find it. Gravitational waves did not show themselves to us. It took decades of effort to detect them....
-
I had an OBE once, about three or four years back. Although I had a peculiar sensation of floating out of my body at the time, I don't see any problems in hindsight with the mundane explanation that it was a temporary aberration in the normal functioning of interoception and/or proprioception, some sort of body mapping abnormality. It is quite easy to induce altered states of consciousness, just a couple of pints of good strong beer does the trick usually.
Having OBE's could be quite normal and natural. Not necessarily only at the point of death. Sometimes the soul or Self could suddenly get shocked out of the body for some reason. Anyone can have an OBE.
Attempting to explain it only as a brain related phenomenon is quite a cop out actually...
-
Having OBE's could be quite normal and natural. Not necessarily only at the point of death. Sometimes the soul or Self could suddenly get shocked out of the body for some reason. Anyone can have an OBE.
Attempting to explain it only as a brain related phenomenon is quite a cop out actually...
Not a cop out, it is merely being true to principles of evidence based reasoning. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, to paraphrase Carl Sagan.
-
Only if and when we understand the possibilities, study the phenomenon and look for evidence will we find it. Gravitational waves did not show themselves to us. It took decades of effort to detect them....
That is a spurious comparison though: gravitational waves were predicted, notably by Einstein, and involved a description of their cause sufficient to design a method to detect them - in this case when the technology was capable of being built.
As regards both 'souls' or ideas of 'self independent of the body' there is no comparable theory that predicts the cause of these so as to develop a method to detect them - as things stand they are no more that notions grounded in traditional beliefs and religious superstitions.
-
Not a cop out, it is merely being true to principles of evidence based reasoning. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, to paraphrase Carl Sagan.
And evidence needs lots of sincere efforts to find. We didn't find out that the sun is a huge ball of burning hydrogen just by looking at it. It took centuries of effort and study....and lot of 'out of the box' thinking. 'Old school' thinking is not enough.
-
That is a spurious comparison though: gravitational waves were predicted, notably by Einstein, and involved a description of their cause sufficient to design a method to detect them - in this case when the technology was capable of being built.
As regards both 'souls' or ideas of 'self independent of the body' there is no comparable theory that predicts the cause of these so as to develop a method to detect them - as things stand they are no more that notions grounded in traditional beliefs and religious superstitions.
No...they are not just traditional beliefs. Atheists like to dismiss them that way.
The idea of souls has evidence in the form of NDE's and OBE's. That is what we have been talking about....!
You people keep clutching at straws to rubbish such matters when in fact they need to be taken seriously.... as many scientists seem to be doing in recent years. That is good news.
-
No...they are not just traditional beliefs.
I suspect that is all they are.
Atheists like to dismiss them that way.
Because, in the absence of any credible evidence, they are easily dismissed.
The idea of souls has evidence in the form of NDE's and OBE's. That is what we have been talking about....!
You people keep clutching at straws to rubbish such matters when in fact they need to be taken seriously.... as many scientists seem to be doing in recent years. That is good news.
Yet we don't see 'serious' science, so I think you are over-egging the pudding there, but we do get wishful thinking, pseudoscience and woo - plus avoidance that NDE's are most likely a biological process. As far as I can see OBE claims are nothing but groundless woo.
-
And evidence needs lots of sincere efforts to find. We didn't find out that the sun is a huge ball of burning hydrogen just by looking at it. It took centuries of effort and study....and lot of 'out of the box' thinking. 'Old school' thinking is not enough.
That's why we do science, and by such means we have come a log way in understanding the nature of life, and that journey has has taken us further and further away from naive ancient notions. The real 'old school thinking' is that which persists in religious circles, despite modernity. it is going to take more than a tiny handful of fringe researchers investigating curious mental phenomena to reverse the unstoppable juggernaut of life sciences.
-
NDE's and OBE's are not religious beliefs......
-
NDE's and OBE's are not religious beliefs......
Funny then, isn't it, how those with religious beliefs aare the ones who are far more likely to put forward that NDEs and OBEs are provable, but totally fail to provide any objective evidence of it, or the names of the 'many scientists' who apparently are researching them!
-
NDE's and OBE's are not religious beliefs......
They are connected though. Many religions feature mind/body dualism and that is what is implied in any literal interpretation of these phenomena.
-
They are connected though. Many religions feature mind/body dualism and that is what is implied in any literal interpretation of these phenomena.
No. NDE's and OBE's are independent of religious beliefs and even atheists and scientists, doctors.....even you... have these experiences. They are secular and are in most cases very similar.
It is the attempt to dub them as religious and to explain them away as brain related that is the issue.
The article that I linked earlier in post 60 is good. Pl read it.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
-
Only if and when we understand the possibilities, study the phenomenon and look for evidence will we find it. Gravitational waves did not show themselves to us. It took decades of effort to detect them....
So? It took decades to realise that luminiferous ether, an invisible substance with mysterious properties, which was believed to serve as the medium for the propagation of light, didn't actually exist.
-
Having OBE's could be quite normal and natural. Not necessarily only at the point of death. Sometimes the soul or Self could suddenly get shocked out of the body for some reason. Anyone can have an OBE.
Attempting to explain it only as a brain related phenomenon is quite a cop out actually...
Or, alternatively, it could be how the brain works in/react to certain situations.
Attempting to explain it only as a non brain related phenomenon is quite a cop out actually.
-
And evidence needs lots of sincere efforts to find. We didn't find out that the sun is a huge ball of burning hydrogen just by looking at it. It took centuries of effort and study....and lot of 'out of the box' thinking. 'Old school' thinking is not enough.
Indeed, it needs observation, hypothesis, experimentation and prediction, in fact the whole scientific method. 'Old school' thinking about the soul is nowhere near enough.
-
No...they are not just traditional beliefs. Atheists like to dismiss them that way.
The idea of souls has evidence in the form of NDE's and OBE's. That is what we have been talking about....!
You people keep clutching at straws to rubbish such matters when in fact they need to be taken seriously.... as many scientists seem to be doing in recent years. That is good news.
Yes, ideas of the soul are based upon traditional beliefs, which are often linked to various religions and schools of philosophy.
Anecdotal accounts of NDEs and OBEs are not serious scientific evidence at all, and that's all you've got so far.
You keep clutching at straws to rubbish scientific explanations when in fact they should be taken seriously.... as many scientists seem to be doing over many years.
-
No. NDE's and OBE's are independent of religious beliefs and even atheists and scientists, doctors.....even you... have these experiences. They are secular and are in most cases very similar.
It is the attempt to dub them as religious and to explain them away as brain related that is the issue.
The article that I linked earlier in post 60 is good. Pl read it.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
Of course many people have such experiences, but it's often the religious and the 'spiritual' who latch on to them, often to fortify their dualist beliefs.
Here is an excellent book. You can read the introduction to it here:
https://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you_dont_have_a_soul_the_real_science_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/
The book is entitled 'The Soul Fallacy' by Julien Musolino.
-
I had an OBE once, about three or four years back. Although I had a peculiar sensation of floating out of my body at the time, I don't see any problems in hindsight with the mundane explanation that it was a temporary aberration in the normal functioning of interoception and/or proprioception, some sort of body mapping abnormality. It is quite easy to induce altered states of consciousness, just a couple of pints of good strong beer does the trick usually.
I get that when I see Woolwich Wanderers going up above Spurs in the Premiership tables.
,
-
No. NDE's and OBE's are independent of religious beliefs and even atheists and scientists, doctors.....even you... have these experiences. They are secular and are in most cases very similar.
It is the attempt to dub them as religious and to explain them away as brain related that is the issue.
The article that I linked earlier in post 60 is good. Pl read it.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
Superstitious religious superstition religion?
What's the difference, come to think of it can you explain the difference, I very much doubt it Sriram.
Regards Sriram, ippy.