Originally posted by OrdoI'd like to know how one can set up a scientific study on people who die, and then un-die. Its not like its a controlled experiment.
I think thats to an extent what I was saying. As far as I know people happen to be in the right place at the right time for some of these cases.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't really appeal to "another person" and expect people to take the claim seriously. At least give us a field or place of employment so we can go look for his work.
Don't put words into my mouth. This is why I specified I need to do further reasearch. I could actually give you some sources but until I've had a look at it myself I won't give them to you.
Originally posted by Deadline
I think thats to an extent what I was saying. As far as I know people happen to be in the right place at the right time for some of these cases.
Unlikely. Scientific studies are immensely complex and require a huge degree of standarization among subjects, not even including data collection.
Most NDE "studies" I know of are phone surveys.
Originally posted by DeadlineBecause NDEs are intriguing. At the very least, they are life-changing experiences, usually for the better. But until some conclusive scientific proof is found (and I'd be quite happy with that), the sincere pursuit of truth demands that one...
I don't know about that there seem to be alot of scientific people that disagree...
Originally posted by Digi
Apply Occum's Razor
Originally posted by Ordo
Unlikely. Scientific studies are immensely complex and require a huge degree of standarization among subjects, not even including data collection.Most NDE "studies" I know of are phone surveys.
There are actually scientists that have actually done reasearch. There is one person im looking at right now who actually had an interview with a skeptical website.
Originally posted by Mindship
Because NDEs are intriguing. At the very least, they are life-changing experiences, usually for the better. But until some conclusive scientific proof is found (and I'd be quite happy with that), the sincere pursuit of truth demands that one...
Except neurochemstry does not explain why people who have brain activity have NDEs.
Originally posted by Deadline
Don't put words into my mouth. This is why I specified I need to do further reasearch. I could actually give you some sources but until I've had a look at it myself I won't give them to you.
Why not just give all of us those sources rather than make it sound like you're going remove the ones that disagree with you? I'm not saying you will, of course, but that just seems pointlessly suspicious.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why not just give all of us those sources rather than make it sound like you're going remove the ones that disagree with you? I'm not saying you will, of course, but that just seems pointlessly suspicious.
Um I haven't had a good look at them yet? I don't know I thought that was a simple explanation. 😕
Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, Deadline. But I don't see how it's dictating a definition when my "definition" was simply to tell you what they are called: Near-Death Experiences. I would assume that something called a near death experience would be both near death and an experience. But maybe I'm wrong.
srug
Anyway, be sure to find the evidence that I mentioned (which exists in many controlled studies) to compare against whatever else you find. Also, for your idea of an NDE to be applicable at all, you'd have to first prove that we can experience anything at all during complete brain death. And also that the brain is ever truly "dead" during an NDE: again, like I said, electrical signals are sent in the brain entire days after physical death...there's always activity. "Brain dead" usually just refers to being cognitively unresponsive, not a complete lack of electrical activity.
You seem hostile toward accepting ideas about this subject, and I don't want to make you upset. No one is saying you shouldn't seek out your own answers. But others, both scientists and laypeople, have looked into this extensively in the past. It's ok to consider what they have to say without taking it as preaching.
Originally posted by OrdoI'd heard of a surgeon who, intrigued by NDEs/OBEs reported by some of his patients in recovery, placed a small scrolling marque on top of a cabinet in the OR (he told no patients about it). He figured, if people really were leaving their bodies, they should be able to read what the marque was saying.
I'd like to know how one can set up a scientific study on people who die, and then un-die. Its not like its a controlled experiment.
After several more reports of NDEs/OBEs during this experiment, not one mentioned the marque.
Now, one could argue that, given the extraordinary circumstances of 1) surgery, and 2) an unexpected experience like an NDE/OBE, the patient's natural focus would be on their body/surgery (indeed this is what patients do report on). I've often wondered if results would've been different had the surgeon at least told the patient about the marque and why it was there. I don't think that would've been a contaminating variable, since the patient's "job" was simply to report what it was scrolling (iirc, it generated random messages).
With regard to what some patients did report -- what the OR team said while they were under; accurate scenes of the surgery itself, things they wouldn't be able to see even if awake because of operating screens -- I regard that as heresay. Highly intriguing, but still heresay.
Along the same lines, years ago when I was heavily into lucid dreaming, I dreamt once that I got out of bed in the middle of the night, walked into my parents' bedroom, saw them asleep, and spoke to them. I figured if they could report any of this back to me the next day, I'd have proof that I was really there.
The next day they volunteered nothing. When I asked if they remembered any dreams, they said no. So much for my own experiment. At the very least, clearly, studies have to account for a host of possible intervening variables.
Originally posted by DeadlineI'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't see NDEs and brain activity as mutually exclusive. Only that neurochemistry offers a minimal explanation, so to speak, if not necessarily an exhaustive one.
Except neurochemstry does not explain why people who have brain activity have NDEs.
Originally posted by Mindship
Along the same lines, years ago when I was heavily into lucid dreaming, I dreamt once that I got out of bed in the middle of the night, walked into my parents' bedroom, saw them asleep, and spoke to them. I figured if they could report any of this back to me the next day, I'd have proof that I was really there.The next day they volunteered nothing. When I asked if they remembered any dreams, they said no. So much for my own experiment. At the very least, clearly, studies have to account for a host of possible intervening variables.
At least form my own experience (ie non-scientific), it hasnt been correlated. I once tried to sleepwalk in a hotel, luckily the bolt on the door stopped me from leaving and didn't remeber a thing about it (my parents told me).
I also once dreamed that I got up, showered, ate, went to class, sat through and took notes on an entire lecture, came back to the dorm, reset my alarm, an took a nap. When I got up form my "nap" it was me waking up in the mornign from my dream (which was horribly vivid) and I went through and started the day I had already partially completed in my dream.
All of this has no point, I'm just blabbing.
Though I'll repeat that Occam's razor does not really apply to bio as there are too many other forces involved. Evolution horribly complicates things. Its nifty, but about as useful as a kinetic sculpture as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by MindshipI'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't see NDEs and brain activity as mutually exclusive. Only that neurochemistry offers a minimal explanation, so to speak, if not necessarily an exhaustive one.
Yes thanks for that.
Originally posted by Digi
Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, Deadline. But I don't see how it's dictating a definition when my "definition" was simply to tell you what they are called: Near-Death Experiences. I would assume that something called a near death experience would be both near death and an experience. But maybe I'm wrong.srug
I didn't say you were putting words into my mouth. That defintion is fine just thought you were defintion hijacking.
Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, be sure to find the evidence that I mentioned (which exists in many controlled studies) to compare against whatever else you find. Also, for your idea of an NDE to be applicable at all, you'd have to first prove that we can experience anything at all during complete brain death. And also that the brain is ever truly "dead" during an NDE: again, like I said, electrical signals are sent in the brain entire days after physical death...there's always activity. "Brain dead" usually just refers to being cognitively unresponsive, not a complete lack of electrical activity.
Thats a good point but there are explanations that can counter that.
Originally posted by Digi
You seem hostile toward accepting ideas about this subject, and I don't want to make you upset. No one is saying you shouldn't seek out your own answers. But others, both scientists and laypeople, have looked into this extensively in the past. It's ok to consider what they have to say without taking it as preaching.
You are kidding yourself. I don't have as much time as I used to be on this forum and I could explain coherently and presciely what my beef is. I was actually coming to terms that there was no afterlife and no supernatural but that doesn't matter because im an inherently religous person ( in otherwords I would still be religous while acknowledging there is no supernatural eg gods, afterlife etc). However at my stage in my reasearch it seems that eventhough there is no conclusive proof there is plausible proof.
Im not going to go into specifics right now but what I dislike about athiests and skeptics is that there seems to be alot of dishonesty going on. The problem with human beings in general is that they are not objective regardless of what you believe in. One would think that the arguments and defintions created are entirely objective but when you take a closer look this is not the case. When humans have discussions there is always alot more going on apart from logic, emotions and ego are often involved as well.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'd be interested to hear what you mean by this.
Just because something isn't real doesn't mean you can't get inspiration from it. Spiderman may not be real but doesn't mean you can't learn moral lessons from his adventures, same with mythology. There are other reason but I won't go into those.
Originally posted by Deadline
Im not going to go into specifics right now but what I dislike about athiests and skeptics is that there seems to be alot of dishonesty going on. The problem with human beings in general is that they are not objective regardless of what you believe in. One would think that the arguments and defintions created are entirely objective but when you take a closer look this is not the case. When humans have discussions there is always alot more going on apart from logic, emotions and ego are often involved as well.
Yeah? Whats your point? Everyone has a POV. The key is trying to include other POVs. What is constant from everyone's POV is generally considered to be truth/fact.
And this is why atheism, skepticism, whatever you want to call it, wins the argument. (Not saying that athiests are right, because a lot arent, but the principle itself).
Every religion is based on tradition. Beyond that, there is little but circumstantial, inconclusive, or individual evidence. The problem with relgion in general is that it makes positive assumptions. The universe is a specific way and every other option is wrong. Each religion has its own positive assumptions, ones that may or may not conflict with others. Atheism is a negative assumption and since there is really nothgng backing up the claims of religion, this is a much more tenable position. It only accepts the shared experiences of all humans. It is a baseline.
Atheism does not dismiss spiritualism or emotion, that is your own, flawed interpretation. What atheism dismisses is that these experiences relate to god.
This flaw is even imbedded in our language. We call these things "supernatural" experiences, above nature, when in truth an athiest would say that these expereiences are very natural (not above)to have, whether you call them enlightenment, NDEs...whatever.
No matter what the powerful experience, someone will ascribe a meaning to it. The problem is when people use these experiences to justify religion (re: inconclusive, indivudual evidence). Its not that they're not inspirational, but they're not evidence for a self-reinforcing delusion.
This phenomenon is not restricted to religion either, its the same with ESP, alien abductions, and Spiderman.
Originally posted by Ordo
Yeah? Whats your point? Everyone has a POV. The key is trying to include other POVs. What is constant from everyone's POV is generally considered to be truth/fact.And this is why atheism, skepticism, whatever you want to call it, wins the argument. (Not saying that athiests are right, because a lot arent, but the principle itself).
Every religion is based on tradition. Beyond that, there is little but circumstantial, inconclusive, or individual evidence. The problem with relgion in general is that it makes positive assumptions. The universe is a specific way and every other option is wrong. Each religion has its own positive assumptions, ones that may or may not conflict with others. Atheism is a negative assumption and since there is really nothgng backing up the claims of religion, this is a much more tenable position. It only accepts the shared experiences of all humans. It is a baseline.
Atheism does not dismiss spiritualism or emotion, that is your own, flawed interpretation. What atheism dismisses is that these experiences relate to god.
This flaw is even imbedded in our language. We call these things "supernatural" experiences, above nature, when in truth an athiest would say that these expereiences are very natural (not above)to have, whether you call them enlightenment, NDEs...whatever.
No matter what the powerful experience, someone will ascribe a meaning to it. The problem is when people use these experiences to justify religion (re: inconclusive, indivudual evidence). Its not that they're not inspirational, but they're not evidence for a self-reinforcing delusion.
This phenomenon is not restricted to religion either, its the same with ESP, alien abductions, and Spiderman.
I dunno man I think you miseed the point I made it quite clear. Athiets and skeptics are not as objective as they like to believe they are and thats often due them being human beings who actually are trying to prove they are superior instead of being objective.
Im saying there are more things involved in debates apart from just logic...its ego as well.
Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno man I think you miseed the point I made it quite clear. Athiets and skeptics are not as objective as they like to believe they are and thats often due them being human beings who actually are trying to prove they are superior instead of being objective.
Are you saying that atheists and skeptics are on average less objective than believers, or that they are on average less objective than they think they are?
Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno man I think you miseed the point I made it quite clear. Athiets and skeptics are not as objective as they like to believe they are and thats often due them being human beings who actually are trying to prove they are superior instead of being objective.Im saying there are more things involved in debates apart from just logic...its ego as well.
Is this not a good reason to go looking for evidence then?
Originally posted by OrdoOccam's Razor, IMO, always applies. But as more and more variables are involved, then indeed one has to be more and more prudent about controlling those which may contaminate results. By the time you get to psychological phenomena, it's even harder to control than with bio.
Though I'll repeat that Occam's razor does not really apply to bio as there are too many other forces involved.
Case in point: for my Master's Thesis, I ran experiments correlating eye-movements with verbal predicates, the hypothesis being that if the match was statistically significant, they were both reflecting a common hidden variable: the dominant sensory mode comprising the subject's mental map.
The results showed no statistically significant correlation. I was inclined to immediately conclude that the overall theory regarding mental maps was incorrect. However, upon debriefing the subjects afterwards, some told me that they moved their eyes a certain way because one wall was closer than another (ie, the small experimental room had a door closer to one side, so I had set up the subject area closer to the far wall). I began to wonder if cultural differences regarding eye-contact could also have contaminated results; and given some of the responses I'd been getting, it seemed almost obvious (in hindsight), that intelligence and educational level may've been biasing responses as well. Fortunately, my professor still thought it was a good study, in fact good enough to submit for publication in a professional journal.
Nonetheless, by the time we get to rare, esoteric phenomena outside the dominant empirical paradigm...while Occam's Razor should still be in effect, I would agree that one has to be very, very, very careful about conclusions drawn.