Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

[Nous]

What do you mean by "realistic interpretations of NDEs" ?

By “realistic interpretations of NDEs,” I mean that the experiencers' experiences--including (especially) veridical perceptions--were not hallucinations somehow produced by attenuated and disordered brain activity, and that the findings of the studies cited in the OP are not erroneous. What this means, for example, in the case of Dr. Rudy's patient is that the patient actually did have the veridical perceptions from a perspective outside of his body, just as Dr. Rudy claimed and as Dr. Amado-Cattaneo confirmed. What “realistic interpretation” of Pam Reynolds' experience would mean is that she actually did view her surgery (including the saw, thus enabling her to describe it) from the perspective that she claimed (above the surgeon's shoulder) and that she actually did somehow communicate with her dead grandmother and uncle.

In short, what I mean by “realistic interpretations of NDEs” is exactly what professor Carroll claimed or suggested (if he wasn't trying to knock down a straw man) would violate “the laws of physics” if “death is not final”.

 

[Nous]

"You quoted the paper's Statistical Analysis section"

I quoted the error.

So you are not claiming that these findings are in error:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

?

"haven't shown where the authors made any error in their statistical analysis."

Oh yes I did, but I can see how pointless it is to try to convince you of that.

You don't need to convince me of anything. All I am asking is that you clearly and unambiguously identify an error in their statistical analysis so that the editors of Lancet, van Lommel et al. and any statisticians I will forward your statement to can understand what you are talking about. .

"So you claim that the chi-squared and t tests cannot be used in cohort studies to determine associations? "

I claimed that they can not make valid causal inferences with an observational study; a study that has no random assignment. To which I provided appropriate citation to validate my statement.

So you are unable to quote any erroneous "causal inference" made by the authors?

"BTW, you didn't say whether you would be willing to put your name on your critique of this study. You will surely be lauded for finding this glaring error in this important paper that the Lancet reviewers somehow missed and that no one else has ever noticed. Perhaps one of your professors will even give you extra credit for finding such a "serious oversight" that no one else has ever noticed. Eh?"

Ah yes, your bulldog tactics.

As part of my homework very often I have to examine scientific studies and determine what the scope of inference is (can they make generalized inferences about the population, or can they make causal inferences). This is a very typical type of problem that I have been repeatedly tested on. I would turn my conclusion in for grading, and I would get it right. Determining scope of inferences is day one in stats, it is reviewed in every class after that, and it is always on the final exams, because it is such an essential parts of stats.

So you are unwilling to identify yourself as the first person who discovered this claimed statistical error in the van Lommel et at. paper, which no Lancet reviewer discovered and which no one else has ever identified before in the 16 years since this paper has been published?

I don't know why you are so offended at the offer to take credit for discovery of this "serious" error in this paper that you claim to have found.

 

[Koldo]

By “realistic interpretations of NDEs,” I mean that the experiencers' experiences--including (especially) veridical perceptions--were not hallucinations somehow produced by attenuated and disordered brain activity, and that the findings of the studies cited in the OP are not erroneous. What this means, for example, in the case of Dr. Rudy's patient is that the patient actually did have the veridical perceptions from a perspective outside of his body, just as Dr. Rudy claimed and as Dr. Amado-Cattaneo confirmed. What “realistic interpretation” of Pam Reynolds' experience would mean is that she actually did view her surgery (including the saw, thus enabling her to describe it) from the perspective that she claimed (above the surgeon's shoulder) and that she actually did somehow communicate with her dead grandmother and uncle.

In short, what I mean by “realistic interpretations of NDEs” is exactly what professor Carroll claimed or suggested (if he wasn't trying to knock down a straw man) would violate “the laws of physics” if “death is not final”.

I wouldn't call that a 'realistic interpretation', but rather a 'face value interpretation'.
Let's admit there are cases of veridical perception. What can we actually establish using that as a starting point ? Nothing, except there are cases of veridical perception.

 

[Nous]

I wouldn't call that a 'realistic interpretation', but rather a 'face value interpretation'.

You are welcomed to do so.

Let's admit there are cases of veridical perception. What can we actually establish using that as a starting point ? Nothing, except there are cases of veridical perception.

No, assuming the reliability of the evidence of veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective, we can conclude that consciousness and perception are not dependent upon a functioning brain.

 

[Koldo]

You are welcomed to do so.
No, assuming the reliability of the evidence of veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective, we can conclude that consciousness and perception are not dependent upon a functioning brain.

That is not possible to conclude at all.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So you are not claiming that these findings are in error:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

?

You don't need to convince me of anything. All I am asking is that you clearly and unambiguously identify an error in their statistical analysis so that the editors of Lancet, van Lommel et al. and any statisticians I will forward your statement to can understand what you are talking about. .

So you are unable to quote any erroneous "causal inference" made by the authors?

So you are unwilling to identify yourself as the first person who discovered this claimed statistical error in the van Lommel et at. paper, which no Lancet reviewer discovered and which no one else has ever identified before in the 16 years since this paper has been published?

I don't know why you are so offended at the offer to take credit for discovery of this "serious" error in this paper that you claim to have found.

"I don't know why you are so offended at the offer to take credit for disco"very of this "serious" error in this paper that you claim to have found."

I found a typo in a Bazooka Joe comic as well, and I have no plans to make a big fuse about that either. Let me know if you want to have a real conversation.
,

 

[Nous]

That is not possible to conclude at all.

What the hell does that mean? Go right ahead and account for the veridical perceptions of Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient, and the Parnia 2014 patient.

 

[Nous]

"I don't know why you are so offended at the offer to take credit for disco"very of this "serious" error in this paper that you claim to have found."

I found a typo in a Bazooka Joe comic as well, and I have no plans to make a big fuse about that either.

The difference between that and your goofy claims about the van Lommel study is that if you had found a typo on a bubblegum wrapper, you could have pointed it out, stated exactly what the error was, and shown how to correctly spell the word. Obviously you can't do any of those things regarding your claims of a some kind of error in the van Lommel et al. study that the Lancet reviewers supposedly missed completely and that no one else in the world has ever noticed.

All you have done here is demonstrated your inability to read and comprehend a simple sentence in which the authors state their statistical methods, namely their use of the Pearson chi-squared and t tests to test for associations between frequency of NDE and those factors that have been commonly proposed as causes of NDEs: hypoxia, drugs, religion, psychological response to fear of death. If you had read and comprehended what is stated in this paper, you would have seen the citations from the literature and discussion of those various proposals of the cause of NDEs. If you had read and comprehended the paper, you would have seen van Lommel et al. never inferred a cause-and-effect relationship about anything.

To determine whether there was an association between frequency of NDE and these factors that have often been proposed as causes of NDEs was the primary test and finding of the study. The suggestion that an anonymous poster on a internet board found an error in these statistical methods and findings that the Lancet reviewers did not notice, and which he cannot identify anyway, is nonsense on stilts. I have asked you about a half dozen times so far what statistical method the authors should have used in order to test for associations between having an NDE and those factors. As with my other questions, you can't seem to come up with any sort of answer.

You make it quite clear that the only reason you reject the scientific facts about NDEs is because the facts contradict your beliefs. It's exactly how young-earth creationists deal with the facts of geological radioactive dating.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The difference between that and your goofy claims

And that is were I stopped reading. What I said is academic and it was backed up by a reliable source. On top that, similar criticism has been made of his other works. You can argue it ad nauseam all you want, but repeating yourself over and over does not make you right.

 

[Nous]

And that is were I stopped reading.

You should read more; perhaps you would comprehend more. So far you have only demonstrated your inability to read and comprehend a simple sentence in a peer-reviewed paper where the authors stated their the statistical methodology.

What I said is academic and it was backed up by a reliable source.

You haven't been able to identify an error in the van Lommel et al. paper.

On top that, similar criticism has been made of his other works.

You haven't presented any scholarly "criticism" of any study or source cited in the OP.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You should read more; perhaps you would comprehend more. So far you have only demonstrated your inability to read and comprehend a simple sentence in a peer-reviewed paper where the authors stated their the statistical methodology.

You haven't been able to identify an error in the van Lommel et al. paper.

You haven't presented any scholarly "criticism" of any study or source cited in the OP.

Just more ad-hominem. Can't refute me, so you attack me.

 

[Nous]

Can't refute me, so you attack me.

Once again:

All you have done here is demonstrated your inability to read and comprehend a simple sentence in which the authors state their statistical methods, namely their use of the Pearson chi-squared and t tests to test for associations between frequency of NDE and those factors that have been commonly proposed as causes of NDEs: hypoxia, drugs, religion, psychological response to fear of death. If you had read and comprehended what is stated in this paper, you would have seen the citations from the literature and discussion of those various proposals of the cause of NDEs. If you had read and comprehended the paper, you would have seen van Lommel et al. never inferred a cause-and-effect relationship about anything.

To determine whether there was an association between frequency of NDE and these factors that have often been proposed as causes of NDEs was the primary test and finding of the study. The suggestion that an anonymous poster on a internet board found an error in these statistical methods and findings that the Lancet reviewers did not notice, and which he cannot identify anyway, is nonsense on stilts. I have asked you about a half dozen times so far what statistical method the authors should have used in order to test for associations between having an NDE and those factors. As with my other questions, you can't seem to come up with any sort of answer.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Once again:

Once again I didn't bother to read it. With all your ad-hominem attacks why on Earth would I want to?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have no problem with people believing in NDEs, but claiming it is science with the use of faulty studies is too close to lying. This is not science; it is pseudoscience.

 

[Nous]

I would think that most high school students would be able to understand this:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.​

And this:

Statistical analysis
We assessed causal factors for NDE with the Pearson [chi-squared] test for categorical and t test for ratio-scaled factors. Factors affecting depth of NDE were analysed with the Mann-Whitney test for categorical factors, and with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation for ratioscaled factors. Links between NDE and altered scores for questions from the life-change inventory were assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The sums of the individual scores were used to compare the responses to the life-change inventory in the second and third interview. Because few causes or relations exist for NDE, the null hypotheses are the absence of factors. Hence, all tests were two-tailed with significance shown by p values less than 0·05.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

But you want someone to believe that you have found some error here, which you haven't been able to actually identify, and which the Lancet reviewers were unable to discern, and which no one else in the world has even noticed?

Try waking up. You might enjoy the real world.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I would think that most high school students would be able to understand this:

Yet another ad-hominem attack. Repeated ad-hominem attacks is a sign of weakness in your position.

Now there is a reason why you need 6 years of college for a Masters in Statistics, and there is a reason people (including those in the scientific community) pay statisticians lots of money to do data analysis for them. Because it is not as simplistic as you believe it is, and most high school students would not be able to do it or fully understand it (most adults don't even seem able to grasp something as simple as: correlation does not necessitate causation).

This is from a statement from the American Statistical Association (ASA), due to wide spread misunderstanding and misuse of statistical methods by non-statisticians in other fields of science.

Practices that reduce data analysis or scientific inference to mechanical “bright-line” rules (such as “p < 0.05”) for justifying scientific claims or conclusions can lead to erroneous beliefs and poor decision making. A conclusion does not immediately become “true” on one side of the divide and “false” on the other. Researchers should bring many contextual factors into play to derive scientific inferences, including the design of a study, the quality of the measurements, the external evidence for the phenomenon under study, and the validity of assumptions that underlie the data analysis.

Simply because someone pumps out a hypothesis test that alone proves nothing.

 

[Nous]

Now there is a reason why you need 6 years of college for a Masters in Statistics, and there is a reason people (including those in the scientific community) pay statisticians lots of money to do data analysis for them. Because it is not as simplistic as you believe it is, and most high school students would not be able to do it or fully understand it (most adults don't even seem able to grasp something as simple as: correlation does not necessitate causation).

This is from a statement from the American Statistical Association (ASA), due to wide spread misunderstanding and misuse of statistical methods by non-statisticians in other fields of science.



Simply because someone pumps out a hypothesis test that alone proves nothing.

It's unfortunate that your claimed credentials have not enabled you to read and comprehend this:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.​

And this:

Statistical analysis
We assessed causal factors for NDE with the Pearson [chi-squared] test for categorical and t test for ratio-scaled factors. Factors affecting depth of NDE were analysed with the Mann-Whitney test for categorical factors, and with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation for ratioscaled factors. Links between NDE and altered scores for questions from the life-change inventory were assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The sums of the individual scores were used to compare the responses to the life-change inventory in the second and third interview. Because few causes or relations exist for NDE, the null hypotheses are the absence of factors. Hence, all tests were two-tailed with significance shown by p values less than 0·05.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

But you want someone to believe that you have found some error here, which you haven't been able to actually identify, and which the Lancet reviewers were unable to discern, and which no one else in the world has even noticed?

You don't know of anyone with a graduate degree in statistics who wouldn't laugh at what you've posted here, do you? If you do, name him/her. We can ask.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's unfortunate that your claimed credentials have not enabled you to read and comprehend this:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.​

And this:

Statistical analysis
We assessed causal factors for NDE with the Pearson [chi-squared] test for categorical and t test for ratio-scaled factors. Factors affecting depth of NDE were analysed with the Mann-Whitney test for categorical factors, and with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation for ratioscaled factors. Links between NDE and altered scores for questions from the life-change inventory were assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The sums of the individual scores were used to compare the responses to the life-change inventory in the second and third interview. Because few causes or relations exist for NDE, the null hypotheses are the absence of factors. Hence, all tests were two-tailed with significance shown by p values less than 0·05.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

But you want someone to believe that you have found some error here, which you haven't been able to actually identify, and which the Lancet reviewers were unable to discern, and which no one else in the world has even noticed?

You don't know of anyone with a graduate degree in statistics who wouldn't laugh at what you've posted here, do you?

It is people like you that make me glad I am me.

 

[Nous]

You don't know of anyone with a graduate degree in statistics who wouldn't laugh at what you've posted here, do you?

Well, apparently not.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well, apparently not.

You have a very odd sense of how academics work.