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

Originally posted by pause4thought
Sorry Mel, you slipped up here. Science can't prove a negative, and the 'appearance of a negative' would not exactly form a firm basis for a conclusion either.

I did sort of suggest that earlier, so no slip at all.

ABE: Here...linky

I stated that if the data does not support the hypothesis, then we reject the hypothesis that consciousness exists after biological death, accepting the null. Later, better designed studies might support the hypothesis.

However, in general, falsifiability is the approach of science, if we take the Popperian hypothetico-deductive approach - which modern science tends to do.

It's too late to talk in those terms as the only 'evidence' that I could be wrong with respect to NDEs would be an absence of evidence of continuance of life. This is because a number of the reports come from people who have been clinically dead for a very considerable time, when even the most hardened skeptics cannot argue brain function was a factor.

Again, how do you know there was no brain activity?

This is an assumption.

Moreover, in belittling the the evidence provided by many thousands of first-hand testimonies and eye-witness accounts, calling it 'anecdotes', you leave a strong impression you are in denial with respect to the vast body of data already in existence. You have already been left behind - it is the very fact that so much evidence has accumulated that has effectively forced researchers to address the possibility of a phenomenon that is generally anathema to the atheist/humanist agenda.

Yes, of course, I'm in denial, rofl.

Not at all. This reply is downright dishonest. Either that or you misread my very straightforward argument entirely.

Nah, was a fair enough comment.

It is, however, interesting that rather than admitting the validity of the argument you resorted to a fallacious claim that I rejected scientific study of NDEs.

Nope, you suggest that you will reject scientific study when it doesn't support your pre-existing faith-based belief.

That's different. Your comments support such a claim.

Wrong again.

If you say-so.

With respect to NDEs and scientific investigations of the phenomenon I agree with many in this thread that

a) this is a truly fascinating subject

It is. The brain is very interesting, and I think this century will be painful for some as science and faith collide, and history ain't on your side.

b) if evidence tips the balance towards the reality of life after death it will have profound consequences for all of us - not least with respect to ATS discussions changing from 'what if' to 'what exactly'

OK.

But you're not bothered about evidence tipping the balance t'other way. It's a one way scale for you.

At the end of the day all of us have presuppositions. The problem for atheists is that theirs are based on a logical fallacy: that it is possible to be sure about a negative. Not surprisingly they are few and far between.

I think we can find evidence to support such negative positions. The problem is when people start to make claims of absolute truth or 'proving' negatives. On the reverse (i.e., taking a study as Truth), they find themselves in the position of the inductivist turkey.

However, in this case we're talking about a potentially testable and falsifiable hypothesis, otherwise Parnia is not doing science. The same can't be said of the god hypothesis, and dualism per se is quite similar (i.e., non-science).

Agnostics are more fair-minded, being prepared to accept there is much that lies beyond their knowledge and experience.

You misunderstand atheism, certainly my atheism, but whatever.

With respect to NDEs I say the fact that some scientists are prepared to entertain the possibility that their presuppositions were wrong all along shows they are open-minded.

But you appear not to. So you applaud scientists who will assess evidence on its merits, but will ignore the same scientists if they counter your belief.

Confirmation bias.

But going on your record in this thread, if as a result of their research they say they are convinced, you'll turn round and say they're closed-minded.

Don't be silly. I think I've made my position fairly clear, and so have you. But obfuscate away.

And if they invite others to open their minds (Heaven forbid) - you'll give your standard reply:

Uh-huh.

A standard? Heh.

Why should anyone listen to a hypocrite?

'Open your mind to accept my closed-minded belief'.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


The point of opening your mind is that sometimes your preconceived notions can prevent you from looking at a situation logically.

Because you consider the idea of NDE to be fantastic you require fantastic evidence.

Absolute evidence is difficult to obtain for anything let alone an occurrence that is difficult to reproduce.

I'm not saying I blame you, my point is that another person can easily look at the evidence and conclude "something" has happened, especially if they consider that "something" a reasonable possibility.

Your claim is a negative, you believe that something didn't happen, because it is unlikely the evidence must be explained by something else.

A possibility, but what?

Reasonable doubt varies from person to person.

Originally posted by Jezus
Your claim is a negative, you believe that something didn't happen, because it is unlikely the evidence must be explained by something else.

Nope, I accept that something happens to create an NDE.

I don't accept that this means minds float about. My claim/hypothesis would be a positive one - that NDEs are created by the brain during trauma. And further, that minds are what brains do.

reply to post by melatonin

'Open your mind to accept my closed-minded belief'.

I refuse to accept your challenge.

Originally posted by pause4thought
It is, however, interesting that rather than admitting the validity of the argument you resorted to a fallacious claim that I rejected scientific study of NDEs.

Nope, you suggest that you will reject scientific study when it doesn't support your pre-existing faith-based belief.

That's different. Your comments support such a claim.

Wrong yet again. I said no such thing. This is what I have actually said:

a) No scientific study can prove a negative, it can only record an absence of evidence - so it would be foolish to claim something is impossible on the basis of any scientific study

b) With respect to NDEs absence of evidence is already out of the question - unless you are in denial

c) If future NDE studies were to fail to provide strong indications of life after death they would have no impact on the already available evidence in the life of Christ, which some find convincing, while some don't

This is not the same as saying I will reject any future study that doesn't support my faith. I may well accept it as a well-designed, valid study that has failed to find the evidence it was looking for.

You are not furthering your cause by twisting what I have said.

My conviction that there is life after death is simply not based on NDEs.

Scientific studies cannot prove a negative. Get it?

Somebody please tell this guy he's puting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.



melatonin - I sincerely thank you for fulfilling the role of 'devil's advocate' in this discussion. At the end of the day it's given me the chance to dispel a number of misconceptions.

And with that I bid you 'Goodnight'!

i Knew 7 years ago this day would come. This is exciting especially the part where skeptics and atheists start squirming in their chairs.

Your intellectual box is about to be deconstructed, as the new age of science proving Spirituality is dawning on us all.

It's the marriage between the 2 that will usher in the greatest Enlightenment in all of humanity

reply to post by dominicus


Very well said, you deserve a star. And to this Darwin guy, the reason we know there was no brain activity is because it was being monitored on an EEG or other system like it in order to determine clinical death. Checking for brain activity is one of the ways they make sure you are dead. These people registered 0 activity. Read more into NDE's and you'll find this is a recurring element. It's unexplainable.

Even if we were to try to accept that these are hallucinations caused by '___' or another chemical in our brain, there would have to be evidence pointing to activity in the brain. Which there has been none in these cases. That is where the evidence for survival of consciousness lies.

[edit on 11/9/2008 by InterestedObserver]

Originally posted by pause4thought

'Open your mind to accept my closed-minded belief'.

I refuse to accept your challenge.

Damn!

Originally posted by pause4thought

Nope, you suggest that you would reject scientific study when it doesn't support your pre-existing faith-based belief.

That's different. Your comments support such a claim.

Wrong yet again. I said no such thing. This is what I have actually said

This is what you said...

We start with:

Originally posted by pause4thought
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.

...

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

I agree. T'is a failing. But I try my best to ensure it's not mine.

And the best evidence comes from well-controlled scientific studies, hopefully like the one Parnia is undertaking.

next:

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?

Here you are saying that I hold an a priori postion, that I wouldn't even accept that human being is more than physical. I take this that I won't accept minds float about. All I want is reliable evidence, Parnia might potentially produce the first. I will assess his results on their merits.

then:

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?

That I'm possibly blind to the validity of evidence.

and we move to:

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

Now I'm meant to be closed to future evidence, although I repeatedly stated otherwise.

And then the glorious claim:

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.

Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks very skillfully.

These are your words, not mine.

Trials would make no difference. The presence or not of NDEs makes no difference. Essentially you possess an a priori position protected by faith from evidence.

Wish I were so Bulletproof.

melatonin - I sincerely thank you for fulfilling the role of 'devil's advocate' in this discussion. At the end of the day it's given me the chance to dispel a number of misconceptions.

And with that I bid you 'Goodnight'!

No problem. Thanks for fulfilling the role of 'True Believer'. One of the reasons why I would closely assess anything coming from Parnia.

Night.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by neil a

a lot of scientist now believe the mind and brain are two different things

But does 'a lot' equate to the majority of scientists in related fields?

Regardless, I have always felt this to be true! The brain and the mind are separate.

I believe the Mind is a conscious force that can absorb all information and experience from existence. I believe it is the brains role not to process this information, so much as its role is to filter this information down to something that is more manageable to the Mind.

Originally posted by InterestedObserver
Very well said, you deserve a star. And to this Darwin guy, the reason we know there was no brain activity is because it was being monitored on an EEG or other system like it in order to determine clinical death. Checking for brain activity is one of the ways they make sure you are dead. These people registered 0 activity. Read more into NDE's and you'll find this is a recurring element. It's unexplainable.

Perhaps read my earlier posts. I covered this.

Cheers.

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, I accept that something happens to create an NDE.

I don't accept that this means minds float about. My claim/hypothesis would be a positive one - that NDEs are created by the brain during trauma. And further, that minds are what brains do.

But how could something the brain creates exist outside of the brain or while the brain is inactive?

I understand you believe that the evidence doesn't suggest this but that is the point you are DENYING the evidence because you think the claim is too fantastic and requires more conclusive evidence.

I'm not saying evidence for your claim doesn't exist but the evidence for your claim is not the same as the evidence complied.

Originally posted by Jezus
But how could something the brain creates exist outside of the brain or while the brain is inactive?

Well, on the second, I've pointed this out repeatedly. EEG is attached to the scalp and has a thick skull between it and the brain. In sum, it only really taps the outer region of the cortex. Thus, the evidence is questionable whether the brain is inactive. The brain is a pretty chunky thing and various other phenomena can show absent brain activity via EEG (e.g., Hypoxia).

On the first, who says anything creates stuff while out the brain? Just because an OBE might be present during an NDE doesn't mean the mind was actually floating about the place. That's another assumption. OBE can be produced in the lab, and some neurological patients show OBEs as a result of neural damage (Olaf Blanke's studies).

I understand you believe that the evidence doesn't suggest this but that is the point you are DENYING the evidence because you think the claim is too fantastic and requires more conclusive evidence.

I'm not saying evidence for your claim doesn't exist but the evidence for your claim is not the same as the evidence complied.

What evidence compiled? The anecdotes and personal testimony? Heh.

Van Lommel's study went wildly beyond the data. It was a prospective study, not one patient had EEG - they tend to not rush in and attach dozens of electrodes during resuscitation. It was essentially based on post-hoc interview. The interview data is fair enough, it gives us lots of insight into the experience as seen well after the event, and the after effects of NDE.

Other than that. Not much. Certainly nothing about floating minds. Didn't stop him writing books saying it proved the presence of disembodied minds, of course.

Ungh... I've had a near death experience myself... but that's just it, it was NEAR death. Not death. The brain in a near death incident is still very much operational... not conscious, but quite operational.

I had the same thing... floating above myself, I could see me and the people around me.

At first I questioned what had happened... but then I began realizing that the people positions around me were where I remembered them being before I went out.
And I already know what I look like.

I realized all it was, was my brain sparking out a bit because it couldn't get what it needed to re-gain consciousness. It couldn't get any input from any sensory organs (sight, sound, etc) so it just re-created what it new about the room until it could fill in the blanks once I was able to accept input from sensory.


Explaining this is just as hard as explaining deja vu.
People are going to continue thinking there's something mystical about it, when all it is, is the brain screwing up.
You, being part of that brain, can't see the fact that your brain has screwed up... because you screwed up along with it!

NDE can be chemically induced with injecting ketamines and dimethyltryptamine (which is naturally leased in small amount in the pineal gland), this alone should spark your critical thinking and come to your senses. Surely no scientific journal articles would even hint at the body and mind being separate in the way a lot of you are implying (and saying scientists believe), please provide a source to prove me wrong. Anyone who says scientists believe that NDE are actually the mind leaving the body, please provide a SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE FROM A JOURNAL, i don't understand why people quote sites off the internet which are clearly full of pseudoscience (#), and lies.

[edit on 9/11/08 by cheeser]

I think I’d rather keep this classed as inconclusive, having studied this subject in University and understand the arguments and that unempirical research does not count with the unimaginative.

Whilst these researchers are seeking academic glory and subsequent grants, I would caution them to consider the human cost of this research. I don’t see confirming people are worm food as kind, especially when they are on the way out. Saying that in these hard times proving continuation might encourage people to ‘cash in’ early, which nobody wants either, though it might help comfort people somewhat.

I think on this subject most people would prefer to be ignorant, my late aunty (who I plan to see again one day) used to tell me ‘if there is life after death then great, if not it does not really matter’.

Originally posted by Memysabu
I dont believe it at all.
Chemicals left over cause the experience.

Brain activity does not cease at the second of death.

This is a totally false belief on your part.

I was declared dead that is "Brain Dead" by doctors.

After 30 minutes I was checked and was confirmed Brain Dead!

The next stage I was going to be put through was embalming!

During this time I did Not know anything of the earth, friends or family including my wife and children but knew of a completely different world of consciousness that is the world that your universe has been created from.

In this state of consciousness I was aware of everything, all the universes worlds etc but the awareness had nothing at all to do with thought as thought is the result of decoding of a holographic program you call earth.

I was no longer aware as in thought of even the primate I was experiencing in the program called earth but I was only aware of the real self and that certainly is not a human primate......

I can assure you that many neurologists are now convinced that the Mind and the brain are two entirely different entities!

The reason I know this is because I have been used as a case study.

The Brain is now accepted by many as being a Decoder/Encoder and is separate than the Conscious state.

So your belief in the old understanding of chemical reactions and neurons going haywire is completely out of date and false.

But in truth you Shall find out the Truth of the mater when it is your time and you shall know first hand as you are unable and powerless to escape your fate!

It is only a matter of time maybe 1 day, maybe 1 week, maybe 1 year, but I can guarantee you shall find out as each second you live is one second closer for you to experience death and you do not know when your time of death shall be experienced!

It is marvellous what a little death will do to your understanding!

Whatever you think you can only come to know the truth in its due time.

What You expect to happen, Shall Not happen and what You do Not expect, Shall happen!



[edit on 9-11-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by InterestedObserver
...the reason we know there was no brain activity is because it was being monitored on an EEG or other system like it in order to determine clinical death. Checking for brain activity is one of the ways they make sure you are dead. These people registered 0 activity. Read more into NDE's and you'll find this is a recurring element. It's unexplainable.

The people have to wake up to tell about their "experiences".

People can have dreams in a sleep that lasts only minutes.
Like when you're just falling asleep and you wake up suddenly. Your dream is still fresh in your mind.

The dreams you have in the waking process, after a long sleep, are the ones most easily remembered.

It cannot be proven that the "experiences" people claim are out-of-body, near death, are not just a dream they had while they were waking up.



[edit on 9-11-2008 by mmariebored]

reply to post by cheeser


Dissociatives induce dissociation. In extreme doses they can be so pronounced that they either are, or resemble, out of body experiences. I have had experience with the substances in question.

NDE's experienced by people that clinically die, and are resurrected, are not the same. We can say it was not really death (in the sense that they didn't actually die) , but to reduce those cases down to a chemically induced dissociation is disregarding the circumstances of the case.

As far as I understood the theory that the pineal gland secretes '___' has not been substantiated. Am I wrong?

Also, '___' does NOT produce a uniformed experience amongst users. Just ask them Whereas NDE experiences shares many similarities.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by neil a

a lot of scientist now believe the mind and brain are two different things

But does 'a lot' equate to the majority of scientists in related fields?

Regardless, I have always felt this to be true! The brain and the mind are separate.

I believe the Mind is a conscious force that can absorb all information and experience from existence. I believe it is the brains role not to process this information, so much as its role is to filter this information down to something that is more manageable to the Mind.

Hi Lucid Lunacy,

You understand as what you have said is correct.

Its a pity others are so insecure, superstitious and allow their feelings and primate emotions to get in the way of research.

Good post................

reply to post by mmariebored


Greetings mmariebored[,

Try and tell me this again in about 16 or 17 Months time when a new Technology comes out, that uses an optical Interface to communicate with The True Mind.

I am one of the people involved with this product or technology right now!!!!

reply to post by johnsky


I agree johnsky, yours is the most logical explanation IMO.

Everyone talks about life after death and the spirit world. I think that when you die that's it, it's over, nothing nut nothingness. However, i do hope I'm wrong because that would be a wicked trip.

There is still much we do not know about our incredible minds. The Global Consciousness Project is interesting if you haven't checked it out.

Peace