Near-death experiences are real and we have the proof, say scientists

Originally posted by pause4thought
Wrong. 'NDE' can mean someone was clinically dead, but revived. It is then referred to as 'near'-death because the state was temporary in nature, whereas 'death' is normally understood as a permanent state.

Aye, you're just stating my position.

'Temporary death experience' would be an accurate description in some cases. It is just not a phrase that has caught on.

Doesn't really make sense, though, no?

If death is a permanent state, then it won't be temporary. Death is defined as the permanent suspension of biological activity. The problem for medicine is determining it without false positives.

The unwillingness of some people to open their minds to the possibility their preconceptions are wrong simply does not lend itself to getting to the bottom of a matter.

Evidence, dear.

I'm not a True Believer(TM), sorry.

Thousands of people have provided evidence of very real consciousness when brain activity has ceased to register on electronic devices, not to mention people blind from birth finding they could see, or sights and conversations being observed/heard subsequent to a person's near death/death.

There is a lot of evidence out there for those with an honest, open, enquiring mind.

The thousands of people reporting just shows that the experience is probably real (i.e., the patient perceives this stuff). I don't doubt that, and neither do you.

The sights/conversations doesn't really help. As people in anaethesia can report events during unconsciousness.

The ceased to register on electronic devices helps neither, as people in anaesthesia and a number of other conditions* can show no observable EEG activity. EEG can be a pretty poor indicator of brain death, given it only really assesses the activity of the top layer of neural tissue.

Lets just wait and see whether these near-dead patients are able to float their consciousness around the room and report the hidden stimuli. Although, one doctor has been doing this for years with nothing of interest to report.

*such as hypoxia

[edit on 9-11-2008 by melatonin]

Well for one, I can vouch for the feeling and ability to detach yourself from your physical and brain. I have astral traveled many times, and im not joking , im sure it may be hard for certain people to comprehend, but i feel that if you can astral travel and see you own body , and feel soooo different and detached it can be your brain. There must be something else going on. How can i explain being able to walk around the house , seeing my family in their rooms asleep, and so on...while in the astral state. i promise you no word of a lie your soul, spirit does exsit, the thing is there are many sceptics because they havent experienced it before, and probably wont for that reason they are sceptic. If you can reach these states through meditation and asral prjection...by christ there is something else when you die, you are a joke if you think otherwise. I hope all the dissmisers can have an experience that could change them..

peace

reply to post by Solomons

Can you answer why many people are revived from death and have no NDE?

A great question.

Whereas the evidence can indicate what happens, I can't claim it can answer the 'why' questions. I can only posit suggestions.

Perhaps some enter a deep coma rather than get to the very edge of death itself. Perhaps for others occurrences are not retained in the memory. These thoughts are speculative, and perhaps there are other possibilities.

On the other hand, there are so many reports of these experiences that they are no longer even regarded as a rarity. Check out the second video in the thread I linked to, which is a documentary put together by a hospital doctor as a result of the many testimonies he heard from his patients, for example.

Originally posted by Solomons
Can you answer why many people are revived from death and have no NDE.

They have no soul?

heh.

Although Van Lommel (the dutch study) tried to make this a problem for the neurobiological explanation of NDEs, it is a bigger problem for the dualist explanation.

As you note, it is probably due to how hypoxia alters memory formation and consolidation in the hippocampus - perhaps it is more extensive in some than others. Awfully neurobiological though, so some might think it's something to do with the neural receiver than allows the free-floating consciousness to connect with the meat.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by melatonin]

I had an employer who had a near life experience once and it frightened him so much that he hid in a bottle of vodka from that point on.

Originally posted by grover
I had an employer who had a near life experience once and it frightened him so much that he hid in a bottle of vodka from that point on.

Heh, the funniest arguments for NDEs are that atheists who experience them suddenly become believers in something or other.

I once spoke to a beast-like demon, I really did. I also floated around my room, out the window, and over the town I lived in at that time...wasn't an NDE though, heh.

reply to post by melatonin


I will not comment on what you say you experienced... I know better.

I jest about that employer... I also call him a smaller than life character... but there was seriousness in that post as well...

... a glimpse behind the veil can be a profoundly disturbing event for the soul unready for it.

I don't believe this neither i'll ever do.I'll just wait to die and if there's something more,i'll improvise.
It's one of the few things that i just don't believe.

Btw,i do have an honest,open mind.
Please don't judge those who don't believe what you do.

Originally posted by Interestinggg

So you are quoting most cases of induced coma post infarct?
Or are you speaking specifically about this article of the topic of this post?
Most cases of induced coma including a lucid NDE are not even quoted in the above topics article.
This is a specific program.
Where is your figures or links to these most numbers you quote?
Many of the cases in this specific article, if you would take the time to read it and stop looking like a dyslexic brainwashed fool, do include the testing of brain activity during the event.

I am not quoting anything. When I quote something I usually use quotation marks. Unlike others...

I have no figures or numbers.
I said I doubt...
Contrary to
I know ...
or
I am sure...

So quote for me all the cases where the patients were being monitored for their brain activity, when the patients went through this event, in this article.

Again... When you are rushed to the hospital with a cardiac arrest or probably even if you're just lying in a room waiting to be relieved, return home, but you suddenly have a cardiac arrest. I doubt the doctors will want to waste time and study your brain activity, instead of getting your heart working again.

Dr Parnia interviewed 63 cardiac arrest patients, that was the basis of his study.

reply to post by melatonin


I recognize that the evidence is not going to make you change your mind in the course of a single conversation. I'll just pick up a point or two:

The thousands of people reporting just shows that the experience is probably real (i.e., the patient perceives this stuff). I don't doubt that, and neither do you.

I recognize a fair-mindedness in this response. Thanks for being candid.

The ceased to register on electronic devices helps neither, as people in anaesthesia and a number of other conditions* can show no observable EEG activity. EEG can be a pretty poor indicator of brain death, given it only really assesses the activity of the top layer of neural tissue.

The problem is we are not dealing with amateurs who just look at a screen. EEG is just one of a host of measures taken to determine clinical death. And those looking for vital signs are professionals who have trained for years and practised the procedure times without number. Determining whether a patient has died is not taken lightly, either. Even if there were an occasional mistake it could not account for the myriad reports of conscious experiences.

Is not the honest answer that you recoil from the evidence for the existence of a part of the human psyche that survives physical death - call it what you may - that you reject a priori the possibility that a human being is anything more than a physical entity?

Lets just wait and see whether these near-dead patients are able to float their consciousness around the room and report the hidden stimuli.

The very reason such experiments are being conducted is that there have already been numerous reports of precisely such occurrences. The only difference is that they did not occur within the confines of a clinical study.

I just googled: ' NDE floating ceiling objects ' & got plenty of links. Rather than just dismissing evidence because it has not been gathered within the confines of a study, some would regard such testimonies as just another aspect of the valid evidence that has been accumulating for decades.

I suppose if you can only open your mind to something after it has been demonstrated in numerous trials you'll have to wait. I'm not ridiculing such an approach, just suggesting it limits a person's horizon and can blind them to the validity of a lot of evidence. N'est-ce pas?

Originally posted by Smugallo
Have any of you actually looked at any of the other articles on the source link? I quote "Britain's biggest banks use astrology to play the markets", "Mysterious ghostly orbs perplex researchers", "Mobile Phones are Killing Our Ghosts" Hmmm. Credible source? I don't think so.

I am not sure about the entire list above, but I have also heard that many banks and private individuals use Astrology as a method of playing markets. A lot of people appear to do that, for better or worse. Yes -- that is above top secret.

#

More on topic -- seems to me you could easily prove life after death via statistical analysis of these experiences.

This appears to be beyond simple anecdotal evidence, and may be agreeable to proof via actuarial methods. There are too many similar studies.

And -- unlike Ufology, where people might collaborate to defraud people for fame and profit -- I don't think many people are thinking about hoaxing after something like this occurs to them.

I believe it is probably true. We will all know the facts, one day, for sure.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by pause4thought
I recognize a fair-mindedness in this response. Thanks for being candid.

Cheers.

The problem is we are not dealing with amateurs who just look at a screen. EEG is just one of a host of measures taken to determine clinical death. And those looking for vital signs are professionals who have trained for years and practised the procedure times without number. Determining whether a patient has died is not taken lightly, either. Even if there were an occasional mistake it could not account for the myriad reports of conscious experiences.

Professionals or not, they know that EEG only measures the outer layer of cortex. It can't assess the subcortical regions of the brain very well at all. Therefore, using EEG to assess brain death is not going to be very useful.

Is not the honest answer that you recoil from the evidence for the existence of a part of the human psyche that survives physical death - call it what you may - that you reject a priori the possibility that a human being is anything more than a physical entity?

Nah, who wouldn't want to live in some way forever.

I just have high standards of evidence - anecdotes don't cut it.

I would say my position is fairly well along to a materialist position, but NDEs don't really register, as much of the evidence is little more than anecdotal for a dualist interpretation. The better evidence is readily explained in materialistic terms.

What leads me to a materialistic position is all the rest of the neuroscientific evidence. Perhaps read a Damasio book or two.

However, I am still open to new evidence. So lets see what Parnia produces. One caveat, though, I'm a little concerned about his new status a True Believer. This shows a misunderstanding about the nature of science:

It’s not possible to talk in terms of ‘life after death’. In scientific terms we can only say that there is now evidence that consciousness may carry on after clinical death. Our work will prove one way or the otherwhether a form of consciousness carries on after the body and brain has died.”

Eek!

It won't. It will just be one study that pushes the barometer one way or t'other. Replication is the norm. Indeed, even after 100 studies it won't be 'proven'.

We leave such claims to maths, logic, and religion.

The very reason such experiments are being conducted is that there have already been numerous reports of precisely such occurrences. The only difference is that they did not occur within the confines of a clinical study.

I just googled: ' NDE floating ceiling objects ' & got plenty of links. Rather than just dismissing evidence because it has not been gathered within the confines of a study, some would regard such testimonies as just another aspect of the valid evidence that has been accumulating for decades.

Anecdotes don't count. They might lead to a study like Parnia's, but they are not reliable evidence.

People report all kinds of stuff.

I suppose if you can only open your mind to something after it has been demonstrated in numerous trials you'll have to wait. I'm not ridiculing such an approach, just suggesting it limits a person's horizon and can blind them to the validity of a lot of evidence. N'est-ce pas?

As I noted, I am open to the evidence. It would need to be well-designed, well-interpreted, but I'd like to live forever.

I just won't believe it with little evidence because it makes me feel good.

The question is when Parnia's study reports, and it perhaps shows no evidence of free-floating consciousness, whether your Baysian-like 'belief' barometer would shift

Mine would either way.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Oceanborn


Hi OB.

I don't believe this neither i'll ever do... It's one of the few things that i just don't believe.

Btw,i do have an honest,open mind.

But if you've closed your mind to evidence as yet unseen, how can you have an open mind?

Please don't judge those who don't believe what you do.

Sorry if I came across like that. When suggesting the need for an honest, open, enquiring mind I was simply challenging anyone who feels absolutely sure there is no life beyond death to ask why they have closed their minds. Sometimes it seems the only answer is people don't want it to be true, so they reject evidence as a predetermined response.

Interesting that after having said "I don't believe this neither will I ever" you said "I'll just wait to die and if there's something more, i'll improvise." That suggests you're aware it is unreasonable to state categorically you can be certain it is not going to happen.

I enjoy these threads - they provide an interesting interface for faith and evidence. It's great to mull these things over with people who are not like-minded. It's fascinating, and I never wish to cause offense, just engage.

Notwithstanding this, your post brought to mind a story I heard many many years ago. Apocryphal it may be. But I do think it is worth mulling over.

A king once had a jester who was a highly-honoured member of his court. When the king was travelling the jester had responsibility for going ahead of the royal party to announce the impending arrival of the royal entourage and his majesty himself, that preparations might be made.

One day the jester's performance so pleased the king, the king rewarded his loyal servant with a magnificent fools-cap, and said "If you ever happen across one more worthy of this prize, pass it on".

After many years had passed the king lay dying. The jester asked what preparations the king had made for the journey ahead, and he replied "None".

With pain in his heart the jester announced he had never met a greater fool, and soberly laid his cap beside his master.




[edit on 9/11/08 by pause4thought]

The story isn't just making this up to those of you who think so, here's a link to the project's researchers.

www.mindbodysymposium.com...

reply to post by melatonin

What leads me to a materialistic position is all the rest of the neuroscientific evidence. Perhaps read a Damasio book or two.

I have studied neuroanatomy, neurology, neurolinguistics and a wide range of neurological disorders, some of which result in bizarre perceptions of reality. Perhaps read The Man who mistook his wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. It was on the introductory reading list before the course began, but was possibly the most interesting book I've come across on the subject.

I honestly intend to check out your suggestion. I feel an amazon order coming on.

You are, of course, right, that science doesn't 'prove' anything in absolute terms as it would take an infinite number of studies to discount every possible incorrect interpretation of any given evidence.

However given the fact that none of us has an infinite number of years to play with (well, not this side of eternity, anyway ) some of us are prepared to base our understanding of life on the basis of consideration of evidence gathered and studied to date.

The question is when Parnia's study reports, and it perhaps shows no evidence of free-floating consciousness, whether your Baysian-like 'belief' barometer would shift

Mine would either way.

Come on, Mel, you wouldn't want to open yourself up to a type II error would you? Much less base your philosophy of life on it?!

reply to post by pause4thought


I do have an honest,open mind.I surely have no idea what i will face in the afterlife (if there's after-life) but i don't believe in NDE.I have to say it like i did in my previous post so i can be clear.I just don't believe em.

I have no reason to block my mind from any after-life thoughts really.Like i said,if there's anything more than just life,i'll improvise.

After many years had passed the king lay dying. The jester asked what preparations the king had made for the journey ahead, and he replied "None". With pain in his heart the jester announced he had never met a greater fool, and soberly laid his cap beside his master.

Usually i enjoy stories but i didn't enjoy this one since it seems a bit biased to me.
Personally,i'd pass the cap to someone who wasted his life preparing for an after-life that it's just....possible.

reply to post by Oceanborn


Touché.

However my belief in the afterlife is based on thousands of years of prophesies concerning the Son of God coming into the world, giving his life as a sacrificial offering to God, and rising from the dead. Not to mention that someone lived a life that fitted the bill. And died a death that fitted the bill. And underwent a resurrection that...

You get the picture.

reply to post by pause4thought


Indeed.

Btw,i'm glad you didn't feel offended somehow from what i said since most of the times people tend to misjudge me.

Anyway,it's just a point of view after all.

Originally posted by pause4thought
I have studied neuroanatomy, neurology, neurolinguistics and a wide range of neurological disorders, some of which result in bizarre perceptions of reality. Perhaps read The Man who mistook his wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. It was on the introductory reading list before the course began, but was possibly the most interesting book I've come across on the subject.

It is an interesting book. Lots of interesting neurological cases. However, doesn't really come from a dualistic angle. He's an atheist.

I honestly intend to check out your suggestion. I feel an amazon order coming on.

Aye, Damasio's 'Descartes Error' is a good starting point, his second is worthwhile as well "feeling of what happens" (or something similar). Should be cheap in paperback.

However given the fact that none of us has an infinite number of years to play with (well, not this side of eternity, anyway

) some of us are prepared to base our understanding of life on the basis of consideration of evidence gathered and studied to date.

Of course. And we weight the evidence available and accept certain positions when supported by that evidence. At this point, the notion of consciousness surviving death has minimal beyond anecdote and wishful-thinking.

Come on, Mel, you wouldn't want to open yourself up to a type II error would you? Much less base your philosophy of life on it?!

A type II error?

It's a falsifiable hypothesis - if the evidence doesn't support, we reject. Of course, we'd still be open to better designed further studies. If the evidence supports, then, if the study was well-designed, it would be a first study to support such an idea. All you appear to be saying here is that even if the study does not support the hypothesis of consciousness existing after death, it would make no difference to you.

That's not an open-mind, rather the mind of a True Believer(TM). Philosophy is great. But we're talking about the real-world and science here.

I also note that you implicitily seem to want to go way beyond Parnia's potential conclusions. As he states, if the study shows the ability of patients to perceive and recall hidden stimuli during unconsciousness, the conclusion would be that consciousness can survive death in some way.

That's it.

It would suggest no need to prepare. But I can see how far you would push such a finding

Indeed, an atheist like David Chalmers would be chuffed with such a result.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


As I said in my last reply to oceanborn, my conviction that we continue a conscious existence after physical death is a result of examination of entirely different evidence.

So the outcomes of such trials make no difference to me whatsoever. If no-one had ever reported a NDE it would never have made a difference.

The fact that people do is simply no surprise.