Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[KWED]

So making observations, asking questions and sharing data and ideas is "quackery" to you.

making observations - that person claimed to recover from an ailment after being touched by a faith healer.
asking questions - was it his touch that cured them?
sharing data - ask other faith healers if they have cured anyone by touching them

Yep, quackery.

 

[KWED]

These are all hypotheticals. You seem to just want to ignore all of the actually documented cases of fraud and fakery.

Ah, but people admitting to lying could be lying about lying, but we can trust their original claim completely.
Apparently.

 

[KWED]

Why don't some people catch COVID, others get a mild case and some die. Seems awfully arbitrary.

If everyone is exposed to Covid, eventually everyone will get it.
Also, you seem to be implying that most people should remember past lives, but not with the same degree of detail.

The point is that science does not explain everything related to a phenomenon initially in a large number of cases.

So therefore, lack of explanation = magic?

The discrepancy is real and investigation is warranted.

What "discrepancy"?
The only discrepancy here is between the claims and the evidence to support them.

Claims are nothing.

Glad we are clear on that.

[Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation] - PubMed

Worldwide, children can be found who reported that they have memories of a previous life. More than 2,500 cases have been studied and their specifications have been published and preserved in the archives of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia (United States). ... In many cases, the revelations of the children have been verified and have corresponded to a particular individual, already dead. A good number of these children have marks and birth defects corresponding to wounds on the body of his previous personality. Many have behaviors related to their claims to their former life: phobias, philias, and attachments. Others seem to recognize people and places of his supposed previous life, and some of their assertions have been made under controlled conditions. The hypothesis of reincarnation is controversial. We can never say that it does not occur, or will obtain conclusive evidence that it happens. The cases that have been described so far, isolated or combined, do not provide irrefutable proof of reincarnation, but they supply evidence that suggest its reality.

[ The problem with this type of "research" is that it is usually conducted under severe confirmation bias. I have yet to see one where the actual, verifiable evidence supports reincarnation as the best possible explanation. The reports often seem to embellish or brush over details. I'd be interested in looking at any specific cases you think are particularly convincing. (Don't worry if you don't have any. It is quite common for apologists to accept an article in a pro-spiritual publication that says things like "there are many convincing cases" as evidence that those cases are actually convincing.)

 

[KWED]

The evidence for this is in hundreds of NDEs that have been verified by surgeons and medical personal present at the time it happens. It's OK with me if others believe or not. I had the experience myself and know for me there is no doubt.

Yes, people often lose vital signs and are resuscitated during surgery, severe trauma, etc. Those people sometimes report having experiences whilst unconscious. That is not being questioned. It is all perfectly reasonable and well understood by medical science.

The problem is with the claims that during those experiences, the "soul" left the body for a while and existed independent of the physical brain.
Not only is there is zero evidence to support those claims, but it would contradict what we know about how the brain and mind work.
Therefore it can be dismissed as unlikely.

 

[sun rise]

If everyone is exposed to Covid, eventually everyone will get it.
Also, you seem to be implying that most people should remember past lives, but not with the same degree of detail.

Go back and read what I wrote.

What "discrepancy"?

Go back and read what I wrote which was in answer to the discrepancy about why some people don't remember past lives.

So therefore, lack of explanation = magic?

Go back and read what I wrote.

I have yet to see one where the actual, verifiable evidence supports reincarnation as the best possible explanation.

I see. You won't accept research as valid unless and until there is a "best possible explanation". Science does not work that way. The phenomenon is real and as that paper summarized there has been validated evidence.

I've said a number of times that there are alternative explanations.

But I know you'll dismiss the evidence as published in peer reviewed scientific journals no matter what I produce so I won't waste time.

If you want to read the papers and offer a critique such as a journal would solicit before presentation, I'll read it.

I rely on the verified science published peer reviewed journals some of which is under controlled conditions that there is something for which reincarnation is a valid hypothesis. So far you've not offered anything but prejudgement, dismissal of evidence and bias.

 

[We Never Know]

Near Death experiences are Testable (so lets test them)

Near Death Experiences (NDE) is a topic that I find fascinating, but for whatever reason (procrastination) I haven’t done any detailed research

But before doing any research I would like to know if I am applying the scientific method correctly.

· If there are verified examples of NDE I will conclude that NDE are probably real.

With this I mean that if the guy who had this experience most be capable of providing information about the external world that he could have not known before or during his “coma”

For example if he has an NDE in the hospital and he went to the room above and he provides an accurate description of who was in that room, what clothes where they using, what where they talking about etc. NDE should be considered real.

If such examples are inexistent then alleged NDE are probably just dreams or hallucinations.

So the next step is to do some research and see if there are verifiable examples of NDEs

So before doing the research would you add something? appart from verifiable examples would you add something else.

If anyone was dead for 15-20 minutes and was revived, no one, no test, nor any science will be able to verify what they experienced/might have experienced, except for themselves.
As for believing what the person said they experienced, thats up to the listeners. Its either true or false and for them to decide.

 

[Lekatt]

Yes, people often lose vital signs and are resuscitated during surgery, severe trauma, etc. Those people sometimes report having experiences whilst unconscious. That is not being questioned. It is all perfectly reasonable and well understood by medical science.

The problem is with the claims that during those experiences, the "soul" left the body for a while and existed independent of the physical brain.
Not only is there is zero evidence to support those claims, but it would contradict what we know about how the brain and mind work.
Therefore it can be dismissed as unlikely.

What you are saying is NOT the case in the video or in hundreds of others. Please watch the video. The doctor clearly states what happened. If you don't like the word soul then use spirit. We are all spiritual energy before we become humans. It's OK if you don't believe, but please don't misquote the clear and present evidence available in the video. Love

 

[KWED]

Go back and read what I wrote.
Go back and read what I wrote which was in answer to the discrepancy about why some people don't remember past lives.
Go back and read what I wrote.

I have. My posts are reasonable responses to you statements.
Perhaps you didn't understand the implications of what you wrote?

I see. You won't accept research as valid unless and until there is a "best possible explanation". Science does not work that way.

I can see you have misunderstood something, somewhere.
I accept any research as valid if it is conducted properly. Simply accepting people's claims is not "research".
The "best available explanation" is whichever of the hypotheses has the best supporting evidence/argument and requires the fewest unsupported assumptions. If an hypothesis does not offer a reasonable explanation for an observation, or if there isn't actually an observation to explain, then it can be dismissed.
That is how science works.

The phenomenon is real

The phenomenon of people claiming to have lived previous lives is real. Whether they actually did has not been proven, merely claimed.

and as that paper summarized there has been validated evidence.

You seem to be using the term "validated evidence" somewhat loosely.
If someone claims that they were once person X and gives details, and those details are available for other to check - well, I'm sure you can see the problem...

I've said a number of times that there are alternative explanations.

Indeed. And some of them are better than reincarnation. Therefore it is unreasonable to insist that reincarnation is the best explanation.

But I know you'll dismiss the evidence as published in peer reviewed scientific journals no matter what I produce so I won't waste time.

Oh, I love it when this happens.
"I can prove it, but I'm not going to".

I rely on the verified science published peer reviewed journals some of which is under controlled conditions

Why don't you cite a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that presents evidence for reincarnation, rather than just claiming it exists?
And this is another common trait of believers in the supernatural. You bang on about "science and evidence says..." if you find one poorly-conducted study that that might sound like it supports your case, but steadfastly ignore all the other, more rigorous studies that contradict it. We see it with anti-vaxxers and other conspiracy theorists as well.
"You can't trust scientists because this scientist said so".

that there is something for which reincarnation is a valid hypothesis.

I have never claimed that actual reincarnation isn't an hypothesis to explain people claiming to have been reincarnated. It is just that those hypotheses have no supporting evidence, just anecdote and speculation. As you admit, there are better explanations than "magic".

So far you've not offered anything but prejudgement, dismissal of evidence and bias.

Not quite. I have pointed out that what you (and other supporters of the supernatural) claim as "evidence" is actually no such thing. It is a common trait amongst those who believe in magic to accept anything that sounds like it might support their existing conclusion.

 

[KWED]

What you are saying is NOT the case in the video or in hundreds of others. Please watch the video. The doctor clearly states what happened. If you don't like the word soul then use spirit. We are all spiritual energy before we become humans. It's OK if you don't believe, but please don't misquote the clear and present evidence available in the video. Love

Firstly, what video?
Second, it is irrelevant what an individual claims. What matters is what the evidence shows. And the evidence thus far shows no sign of a "spirit" that can exist independently of the physical brain. The evidence also shows that consciousness appears to be a product of the physical brain and can be altered by altering the brain.
Furthermore, every attempt to demonstrate an independent "spirit" has failed.
In light of all this, it seems odd to insist that such a thing must exist. Kisses.

 

[Lekatt]

Firstly, what video?
Second, it is irrelevant what an individual claims. What matters is what the evidence shows. And the evidence thus far shows no sign of a "spirit" that can exist independently of the physical brain. The evidence also shows that consciousness appears to be a product of the physical brain and can be altered by altering the brain.
Furthermore, every attempt to demonstrate an independent "spirit" has failed.
In light of all this, it seems odd to insist that such a thing must exist. Kisses.

We must be posting in different Forums. You don't demonstrate spirit, you are spirit.

 

[sun rise]

Why don't you cite a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that presents evidence for reincarnation, rather than just claiming it exists?

I have never claimed that actual reincarnation isn't an hypothesis to explain people claiming to have been reincarnated. It is just that those hypotheses have no supporting evidence, just anecdote and speculation. As you admit, there are better explanations than "magic".

I have never claimed that actual reincarnation isn't an hypothesis to explain people claiming to have been reincarnated. It is just that those hypotheses have no supporting evidence,

Jim B. Tucker

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...formity-and-Children-s-Past-Life-Memories.pdf

 

[KWED]

You don't demonstrate spirit, you are spirit.

That is just an opinion unsupported by evidence.
You are free to hold it, but don't expect any rational person to take it seriously.

 

[KWED]

Jim B. Tucker
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...formity-and-Children-s-Past-Life-Memories.pdf

Did you actually read that paper? It contains no evidence to show that reincarnation actually happens. In fact, it specifically states that it is not making any claims about the actual cause of the subjects' "past life" memories (their quote marks). It later goes on to list a variety of possible explanations for such memories, including parental influence, and as if to make it absolutely clear, they say "The possibility that children’s past-life statements may be fantasies independent of any parental influence merits further attention as well."

If that is what you consider "evidence for reincarnation", then I suggest "evidence" may not mean what you think it means.

Perhaps this is another case of someone reading a headline and then assuming the content. I see it regularly with people looking to confirm their existing position rather than looking to form a position based on evidence.

 

[Lekatt]

In answer to the negative posts.
If I wanted to build a house I would talk to a builder with experience. I would not call on someone who said he knew how to build a house but had never built one.

In regard to NDEs if you want to know more about them you read the personal accounts of those who experienced them. You don't take the opinions or theories of those who don't have the experience because they would not know what they are like.

So if you are interested in finding out the truth read a lot of personal experiences. At least 200 of them. A pattern of truth will begin to show through about them so you can make up your own mind.

There are all over the net, my site has over 300. Do not listen to science or anyone who has not had the experience. Some may try to fake it, but reading a lot of them, it will be easy to tell the difference between the real and the fake.

Science itself is no measure of the NDE. Those scientists such as the surgeon of Pam Reynolds is now a believer. So are many other doctors and medical staff who where present when the NDE happened.

Don't listen to those with no experience, it is a waste of time.

Love

 

[night912]

If one person lied it would not affect my position on a large body of stories. I would still believe in veridical NDEs. To change my mind I would need to think they are almost all lies and that would be hard to fathom in all these cases under my judgment of general human honesty.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again.

Come on, man. I would have a big problem with getting the rapist wrong which changes the main facts of the story. The example we were discussing would be more like getting the color of the rapist's shirt wrong but the right rapist. She told her aunt he had on a red shirt but the aunt got mixed up and told the police a blue shirt.

And most of the veridical NDE stories probably don't have even those trivial detail errors.

The main fact of her story was that she was raped by her cousin. Care to explain how the main fact of her aunt's story was not about her getting raped by her cousin?

 

[George-ananda]

The main fact of her story was that she was raped by her cousin. Care to explain how the main fact of her aunt's story was not about her getting raped by her cousin?

The main fact was which cousin exactly.

 

[sun rise]

Did you actually read that paper? It contains no evidence to show that reincarnation actually happens. In fact, it specifically states that it is not making any claims about the actual cause of the subjects' "past life" memories (their quote marks). It later goes on to list a variety of possible explanations for such memories, including parental influence, and as if to make it absolutely clear, they say "The possibility that children’s past-life statements may be fantasies independent of any parental influence merits further attention as well."

If that is what you consider "evidence for reincarnation", then I suggest "evidence" may not mean what you think it means.

Perhaps this is another case of someone reading a headline and then assuming the content. I see it regularly with people looking to confirm their existing position rather than looking to form a position based on evidence.

You ignored what I've written and attacked me for something I did not claim.

To repeat it once again in simpler terms:

I rely on the verified science published peer reviewed journals

some of which is under controlled conditions

that there is something

for which reincarnation is a valid hypothesis.

 

[sun rise]

Also the conclusion of the paper which supports my statement:

Among children who report memories of a previous
life, gender nonconformity is strongly associated
with a purported life as a member of a
different sex. This association may offer insights
into contributors to gender nonconformity in
children who do not express such memories. In
clinical settings, when past-life memories are present
in conjunction with GNC, it may be beneficial
to address this connection in focused
psychotherapy. It is possible that currently
unidentified hormonal or neurochemical factors
could predispose affected children to both phenomena,
or as Stevenson and Keil (2005) suggested,
perhaps a previously unrecognized factor
of consciousness may be involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You ignored what I've written and attacked me for something I did not claim.

To repeat it once again in simpler terms:

I rely on the verified science published peer reviewed journals

some of which is under controlled conditions

that there is something

for which reincarnation is a valid hypothesis.

You don't seem to be aware of what makes a hypothesis "valid" in the scientific sense.

 

[KWED]

You ignored what I've written and attacked me for something I did not claim.

To repeat it once again in simpler terms:

I rely on the verified science published peer reviewed journals

some of which is under controlled conditions

that there is something

for which reincarnation is a valid hypothesis.

It is an hypothesis, but not a very good one. There are other explanations which better explain the claims.
Do you accept this?

The paper you cited did not hypothesise about the nature of the claims, it merely accepted that the claim had been made, and even accepted that the claims could be fantasy, so it does not support your case. The paper was about the relationship between the claim and a related trait, not about the source of the claim. Seems a lot like confirmation bias at work.

So, if you want to claim that there are peer-reviewed papers of experiments conducted under controlled conditions that show any kind of evidence for reincarnation - please provide links. Thanks.