Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[Magic Man]

To my friendly foes; Magic Man, Corrhiza, Mr. Sprinkles, Honest Joe, Alceste, etc.
　
For the multiple contributers out there who've been asking me for better details on NDE experiences: A quick search of the internet found that there is an entire book on the subject of NDEs of the Blind by two NDE scientists called:

Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind
by Dr. Kenneth Ring and Dr. Sharon Cooper
　
Here's the Amazon description I found of the book:

"This book investigates the astonishing claim that blind persons, including those blind from birth, can actually "see" during near-death or out-of-body episodes. The authors present their findings in scrupulous detail, investigating case histories of blind persons who have actually reported visual experiences under these conditions."

The reason I'm including the description is the phrase 'in scrupulous detail'. That is just what people on this thread have been asking for. I read that 24 of the 31 patients studied had information not explainable without sight.

The book is available through Amazon. I'd give you the link but RF might give me another hand-slap for providing a link to something for sale. It might be at your local library.

If you want to continue saying there is zero evidence for anything paranormal without looking at the alleged evidence, then I can't respect your opinion.

I don't really have the time right now to read this book. If I get a chance, I might see whether the library has it, but I'm definitely not paying for it.

Of course they're going to say they used "scrupulous detail". These books and articles always say something like that to make it sound good. Usually you find that it's anything but. I can't say for sure whether that's the case here, but it's like the boy who cried wolf. At a certain point, you stop taking their claims seriously.

You claim we're claiming zero evidence without looking at it, but what are you doing? You're claiming NDEs are true without looking at them. When asked for examples you copied and pasted 3 from a blog that were supposedly in a book, and there were barely any real details. I would expect someone who has been convinced of the veracity of these stories to be able to provide at least one or two that helped convince them.

I've looked at the alleged evidence. That's why we've been talking about the fact that these stories never end up holding up to questioning. I haven't looked at these specific examples, but I'd have to guess if they really were the smoking-gun stories they're supposed to be, we'd have heard more about them. I can't possibly look at all the evidence there is. That's why I ask you for examples. If you wouldn't respect my opinion because I haven't read this one book you just brought up, there's something wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. So now, I'm throwing blind witnesses at you, not just ones that don't see so well, LOL.

My comeback would be that NDEs are different from store robberies. The concept of store robberies is understood. So in your example, we're just interested in finding out who did the robbery with a presumption of innocence. With the NDE, the entire concept is not understood so what we're interested in is learning about the concept. So all information pro/con should be included with the intelligence to consider the quality of the information.

You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that just like we would throw out the witness's testimony in that case, we throw out inaccurate or unreliable testimonies in the case of NDEs. When the witness's testimony fails basic questioning, we conclude that it can't be used as evidence. That's all I'm doing with the NDE stories I've been presented with.

 

[mycorrhiza]

To my friendly foes; Magic Man, Corrhiza, Mr. Sprinkles, Honest Joe, Alceste, etc.

It's not "My Corrhiza" It comes from Mykos (fungus) and riza (roots).
　

For the multiple contributers out there who've been asking me for better details on NDE experiences: A quick search of the internet found that there is an entire book on the subject of NDEs of the Blind by two NDE scientists called:

Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind
by Dr. Kenneth Ring and Dr. Sharon Cooper
　
Here's the Amazon description I found of the book:

"This book investigates the astonishing claim that blind persons, including those blind from birth, can actually "see" during near-death or out-of-body episodes. The authors present their findings in scrupulous detail, investigating case histories of blind persons who have actually reported visual experiences under these conditions."

The reason I'm including the description is the phrase 'in scrupulous detail'. That is just what people on this thread have been asking for. I read that 24 of the 31 patients studied had information not explainable without sight.

The book is available through Amazon. I'd give you the link but RF might give me another hand-slap for providing a link to something for sale. It might be at your local library.

If you want to continue saying there is zero evidence for anything paranormal without looking at the alleged evidence, then I can't respect your opinion.

I doubt that this book is available at my library, and I don't feel like buying it since it costs over $15 plus the shipping to Sweden . If the cases are good evidence, then I'm sure they must be available on the internet somewhere. That a book claims something happen, however, doesn't mean it did. It would be much better if we could see the original studies.

While I haven't read this book, I have read other so-called veridicial NDEs, and none of them have held up. Some things seen were flat out wrong, other could easily be guessed or learned about prior to or after the NDE. Sometimes the questions asked were leading and sometimes the cases were recorded so long after the event that all we have as evidence is the words of the NDE subject. If you do find the studies that book is based on available online, then I would be glad to read them, though! If they were recorded shortly after the NDE, contained no leading questions and the details couldn't by any possibility have been learned prior to or after the NDE, then they're on the way towards actually being evidence.

I'm open to the possibility of NDEs being supernatural, but I would need better evidence than stories. So far, the evidence put forward for NDE is no better than the evidence for demonic possession, alien abductions or the Loch Ness monster.

The best bet for NDE is the continuation of the "hidden symbol" method. So far there have been no confirmed cases, but let's say that they put these up in every operating room in every hospital across the entire US, then we should, if NDE is supernatural, find cases where the patients actually see the symbols.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I haven't looked at these specific examples, but I'd have to guess if they really were the smoking-gun stories they're supposed to be, we'd have heard more about them.

Indeed. To think that the science page of the New York Times has been wasting precious inches reporting some squiggles that might be the signature of an insignificant little particle, when far more momentous discoveries are within the easy reach of any journalist with an audio recorder.

Like you, I am open to hearing the stories which supposedly demonstrate paranormal NDEs ... but I've seen how these stories pan out enough times that I am not holding my breath.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The best bet for NDE is the continuation of the "hidden symbol" method. So far there have been no confirmed cases, but let's say that they put these up in every operating room in every hospital across the entire US, then we should, if NDE is supernatural, find cases where the patients actually see the symbols.

I agree, but I want to point something out: it's interesting to consider why it would be necessary to "put these up in every operating room in every hospital", simply in order to find a few cases. If the phenomenon is real, why is the signal-to-noise ratio so tiny? Why isn't there a big, indisputable signal? For example, I would only need to give a few people an eye exam in order to "find cases" where vision is demonstrated. A common feature of paranormal claims is that expectations are lowered almost to zero, so we expect the phenomenon to be just barely detectable above the noise. How convenient.

This is always a red flag in science -- physics, chemistry, biology, you name it. I'm not picking on paranormal claims. The response to a low signal-to-noise claim is to raise the standard of evidence necessary to prove the claim. But proponents of paranormal claims seem to think that if the phenomenon is barely detectable then you should lower your standards of evidence in order to detect it.

Just an observation.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree, but I want to point something out: it's interesting to consider why it would be necessary to "put these up in every operating room in every hospital", simply in order to find a few cases. If the phenomenon is real, why is the signal-to-noise ratio so tiny? Why isn't there a big, indisputable signal? For example, I would only need to give a few people an eye exam in order to "find cases" where vision is demonstrated. A common feature of paranormal claims is that expectations are lowered almost to zero, so we expect the phenomenon to be just barely detectable above the noise. How convenient.

This is always a red flag in science -- physics, chemistry, biology, you name it. I'm not picking on paranormal claims. The response to a low signal-to-noise claim is to raise the standard of evidence necessary to prove the claim. But proponents of paranormal claims seem to think that if the phenomenon is barely detectable then you should lower your standards of evidence in order to detect it.

Just an observation.

Good point. If consciousness does exist outside the physical brain, and/or an afterlife exists, why do only some people who almost die report such experiences? I mean, sure, like dreams some people might forget, so not everyone would report it. But you'd expect at least a significant number to, like 50%, not the 1-2% we hear about.

 

[George-ananda]

The guy's old room-mate told me that a number of details from my dream were true, including that his friend committed suicide. So, it's fun to believe that I zipped from Vancouver over to Nurtingen in my dream and poked around the flat where I met my friend, only to discover that his room-mate had died, the place had been damaged by fire and renovated as student apartments (all of which my friend claims is true). However, there are a number of other possibilities. First and foremost is that my friend who confirmed all the details has a sense of humour that makes no sense to me. Another possible explanation is that I'm remembering it incorrectly, or reporting it incorrectly. Memory is a *****.

I prefer an explanation where I don't have to believe my friend has a twisted sense of humour or that I'm delusional - I like to think that our consciousness is not completely imprisoned in the meat of our bodies - that information can somehow be transmitted and / or received without conscious effort. That makes sense to me because we are mostly composed of empty space and our thoughts are basically electricity, which really jumps around. However, I'm happy to wait for science to explain it to me, even if that means I wait forever and get no answers. If I were to try to conjure up an explanation to believe in based on religious faith, I am certain it would be wrong. Whatever it is is a natural phenomenon, and the natural can be empirically investigated and understood.

Edit: Oh yeah, to answer your question, I don't know. I barely knew the guy, and Nurtingen is a long way from Vancouver.

Interesting story, thanks for providing more details. It would be odd that a person would straight-face like/prank about someone's suicide and not 'fess up'. But it is a possibility; there are odd people.

Now for your world-view. I take it you're agnostic on the queation of NDEs, spirituality, etc.. as science can't give us definitive answers. And your certain any religious faith belief would be wrong.

Well a modern philosopher who I respect says: Narrow Science trumps Narrow Religion but Broad Science/Spirituality trumps them both. Broad Science/Spirituality is what I appreciate; it certainly accepts all of physical science but it also learns from the scientific analysis of human experience, gifted psychic subjects in a laboratory, people in deep meditative states, psychic research etc.. (no 'faith'is involved)

 

[Alceste]

Interesting story, thanks for providing more details. It would be odd that a person would straight-face like/prank about someone's suicide and not 'fess up'. But it is a possibility; there are odd people.

Now for your world-view. I take it you're agnostic on the queation of NDEs, spirituality, etc.. as science can't give us definitive answers. And your certain any religious faith belief would be wrong.

Well a modern philosopher who I respect says: Narrow Science trumps Narrow Religion but Broad Science/Spirituality trumps them both. Broad Science/Spirituality is what I appreciate; it certainly accepts all of physical science but it also learns from the scientific analysis of human experience, gifted psychic subjects in a laboratory, people in deep meditative states, psychic research etc.. (no 'faith'is involved)

Yes, you pretty much have it. I'm confident that inexplicable events (or at least perceptions) are fairly common and certain that religious faith is a hindrance to understanding why they occur. Religious faith has a long history of impeding discovery.

On the other hand, I also recognize that researching these events is currently a little problematic, as there is a materialist concept of consciousness prevalent in science at this time, and a researcher can be quickly branded a quack for attempting to do research on things like OBE's.

 

[Magic Man]

Well a modern philosopher who I respect says: Narrow Science trumps Narrow Religion but Broad Science/Spirituality trumps them both. Broad Science/Spirituality is what I appreciate; it certainly accepts all of physical science but it also learns from the scientific analysis of human experience, gifted psychic subjects in a laboratory, people in deep meditative states, psychic research etc.. (no 'faith'is involved)

I'm not sure what distinction is meant by "broad science" and "narrow science", but science just investigates questions.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't really have the time right now to read this book. If I get a chance, I might see whether the library has it, but I'm definitely not paying for it.

I can understand that. But that does tell me you are comfortable with your world-view and would be comfortable if nothing changes. For some people. maybe zero times; maybe once; maybe twice in a lifetime there is a world-view paradigm tipping point. Something internal makes you hungry for and accepting of change. But these are not common events.

You claim we're claiming zero evidence without looking at it, but what are you doing? You're claiming NDEs are true without looking at them. When asked for examples you copied and pasted 3 from a blog that were supposedly in a book, and there were barely any real details. I would expect someone who has been convinced of the veracity of these stories to be able to provide at least one or two that helped convince them.

As for me personally, I was pretty well read-up on this phenomena decades ago and I try to check for new stuff but it's not my number one interest.

What you've been asking me for is what I would call EUREKA cases. Where everyone of reason must be stunned. No such thing I keep trying to say.when human testimony and subjective experience is involved.
　

I've looked at the alleged evidence. That's why we've been talking about the fact that these stories never end up holding up to questioning. I haven't looked at these specific examples, but I'd have to guess if they really were the smoking-gun stories they're supposed to be, we'd have heard more about them.

Above I expressed my opinion again on 'smoking-gun' stories. These things, because of there against-the-grain and unfashionable position in modern science are side articles in society. Put it on the cover of Newsweek and Newsweek is under attack.

I can't possibly look at all the evidence there is. That's why I ask you for examples. If you wouldn't respect my opinion because I haven't read this one book you just brought up, there's something wrong.

Well, I would consider your opinions as coming from one comfortable with a particular world-view and would prefer his world-view unchanged. This is the way with 99% of us.

 

[George-ananda]

You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that just like we would throw out the witness's testimony in that case, we throw out inaccurate or unreliable testimonies in the case of NDEs. When the witness's testimony fails basic questioning, we conclude that it can't be used as evidence. That's all I'm doing with the NDE stories I've been presented with.

You say I missed the point of your analogy and I say you missed the point of my comeback. The NDE is not on trial; we're at the fact gathering stage of an investigation. All Information (along with quality of information) must be considered.

 

[McBell]

we're at the fact gathering stage of an investigation. All Information (along with quality of information) must be considered.

The problem here is that the only 'fact' is that there are people who claim to have OBE and NDE...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Good point. If consciousness does exist outside the physical brain, and/or an afterlife exists, why do only some people who almost die report such experiences? I mean, sure, like dreams some people might forget, so not everyone would report it. But you'd expect at least a significant number to, like 50%, not the 1-2% we hear about.

Right. And furthermore, you wouldn't expect so many false alarms. How many stories have you heard about someone who claims to have color vision, and it turns out they were mistaken/exaggerating/hallucinating? And yet when it comes to paranormal claims, the number of such false stories is too many to count. When a girl breaks your heart that often it's time to dump her and move on.

 

[Me Myself]

The problem here is that the only 'fact' is that there are people who claim to have OBE and NDE...

This.

I must say I am surprised the thread has gone this long. Scientist simply has no evidence.

Yes, I believe maybe he did have an outer body experience, but maybe he didn´t. There is simply no evidence.

Bringing other cases of alleged OBE would be for another thread, and instead of giving a gazillion undetailed cases, I pair or even a single very detailed case with sources and evidence might be enough to contemplate answers beyond something akin to vivid dreaming when in this cases.

 

[George-ananda]

It's not "My Corrhiza" It comes from Mykos (fungus) and riza (roots).

Oh, how obvious. I won't ask.??

I doubt that this book is available at my library, and I don't feel like buying it since it costs over $15 plus the shipping to Sweden

What could there possibly be better to do in Sweden in December and January for cripes sake. I would love to visit there in the better months though.
　

If the cases are good evidence, then I'm sure they must be available on the internet somewhere. That a book claims something happen, however, doesn't mean it did. It would be much better if we could see the original studies.
While I haven't read this book, I have read other so-called veridicial NDEs, and none of them have held up. Some things seen were flat out wrong, other could easily be guessed or learned about prior to or after the NDE. Sometimes the questions asked were leading and sometimes the cases were recorded so long after the event that all we have as evidence is the words of the NDE subject. If you do find the studies that book is based on available online, then I would be glad to read them, though! If they were recorded shortly after the NDE, contained no leading questions and the details couldn't by any possibility have been learned prior to or after the NDE, then they're on the way towards actually being evidence.
I'm open to the possibility of NDEs being supernatural, but I would need better evidence than stories. So far, the evidence put forward for NDE is no better than the evidence for demonic possession, alien abductions or the Loch Ness monster.

Shortly after a NDE a patient, is probably in ICU, etc. and the last thing on everyone's mind is whether the patient had an NDE.
Please also see my response on your other issues in my immediately preceding posts to Magic Man which could almost have been addressed to you. You two seem to be of the same school of thought and I responded to that.

The best bet for NDE is the continuation of the "hidden symbol" method. So far there have been no confirmed cases, but let's say that they put these up in every operating room in every hospital across the entire US, then we should, if NDE is supernatural, find cases where the patients actually see the symbols.

I'm for the 'hidden symbol' method too. But if you think it out a level deeper, it's better suited to gifted subjects of controlled OOBE experiments. In the NDE, the situation is too chaotic and nobody is giving the idea of an NDE much thought. The patient is probably not in a clear, coherent, communicative state for some time. The NDE usually takes days, weeks, months to come out.

I stated in a previous post on this thread that Stanford physicists received fantastic odds against chance with gifted OOBE subjects. So you may be thinking, why wasn't this plasterd on the front page of the Stockholm Daily then. Because of the unpopularity of anything revolutionary to science these things always get relegated to side stories and don't go much farther. Serious respectable scientists consider these studies as conducted by pseudo-scientists not deserving of serious respectabilty.

 

[George-ananda]

Indeed. To think that the science page of the New York Times has been wasting precious inches reporting some squiggles that might be the signature of an insignificant little particle, when far more momentous discoveries are within the easy reach of any journalist with an audio recorder.

The New York Times is concerned with what respectable scientists are doing (in the editor's minds). The scientists on their staff are too respectable and serious to cover psuedo-science (as they call it). They would lose the respect of 'real' scientists then.

 

[George-ananda]

If the phenomenon is real, why is the signal-to-noise ratio so tiny?

Because 99% of the 'signals' do die and don't talk later.

 

[Me Myself]

George ananda, let´s make this simple:

Which irrefutable evidence does this scientist give to show that his experience can ONLY be explained as an OBE ?

Mind you, I think maybe it was, but what we think or not it´s not the question. I am asking if there is any certainty by means of evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Good point. If consciousness does exist outside the physical brain, and/or an afterlife exists, why do only some people who almost die report such experiences? I mean, sure, like dreams some people might forget, so not everyone would report it. But you'd expect at least a significant number to, like 50%, not the 1-2% we hear about.

Because the full seperation process is only intended to occur at death. The seperation process is triggered by fatal trauma to the brain. In some rare cases, more common in recent times due to greater medical technology, the brain is restored and consciousness must return. There's probably some variance in sensitivity to the seperation triggers between individuals.

 

[George-ananda]

Which irrefutable evidence does this scientist give to show that his experience can ONLY be explained as an OBE ?

None. If he ever did use the term 'irrefutable' then I would disagree.