Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[mikkel_the_dane]

When in doubt, refer to the OED...
Reality - The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So where does an idealistic or notional idea of them actually exist, or is an idealistic or notional idea of them actually a case of non-existence?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is to respond to? Most of these are second hand accounts. Some are just made up. Some are real mysteries, but a mystery does not automatically mean afterlife.

Remember that Harvard neurosurgeon who wrote a book about his NDE, and we were all supposed to believe it was true because he was a neurosurgeon? Then little tidbits came out - like how he had been intubated at a time when he claimed to have called out for God's help (you cannot talk, much less call out, with a tube down your throat)... how he described test results that are not outcomes of the tests he described, etc.

People make things up. Sometimes, they really believe that these things happened to them. Lack of oxygen to the brain does weird things to people.

Looked up Pam Reynolds:

Reynolds' near-death experience has been put forward as evidence supporting an afterlife by proponents such as cardiologist Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death. According to Sabom, Reynold's experience occurred during a period in which her brain had completely ceased to function.[6]

Critics say that the amount of time which Reynolds was "flatlined" is generally misrepresented and suggest that her NDE occurred while under general anaesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest.[7][8][9]

Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynolds' ability to perceive events during her surgery was the result of "anesthesia awareness".[10]

According to the psychologist Chris French:

Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists.[2]​

​

Just to add there are surgeries where doctors need patients to be semi conscious. So if someone knew what their surgeon did it's because they were conscious. My former friend had heart surgery (I believe), and she felt a swab in her but couldn't say anything. Extremely rare cases where patients are aware during general anesthesia. 'I couldn't move': Patients who wake up during surgery | CNN

 

[KWED]

So where does an idealistic or notional idea of them actually exist, or is an idealistic or notional idea of them actually a case of non-existence?

The "idea" only exists in the minds of the people holding them. It's a concept you should be all too familiar with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The "idea" only exists in the minds of the people holding them. It's a concept you should be all too familiar with.

And the mind is in the world?

 

[KWED]

Just to add there are surgeries where doctors need patients to be semi conscious. So if someone knew what their surgeon did it's because they were conscious. My former friend had heart surgery (I believe), and she felt a swab in her but couldn't say anything. Extremely rare cases where patients are aware during general anesthesia. 'I couldn't move': Patients who wake up during surgery | CNN

Indeed. General anaesthetic often involves two processes - one to sedate the mind and the other to paralyse the body. It is quite possible for one to work less effectively than the other.

I also find people who "died" on the operating table claiming that they saw "an operating theatre with doctors and nurses desperately trying to resuscitate me" quite unremarkable.

 

[KWED]

And the mind is in the world?

So you are claiming that anything we might imagine or hallucinate is "reality"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you are claiming that anything we might imagine or hallucinate is "reality"?

No, that the status of reality as independent of the mind is unknown and thus science relies on axioms and not proofs.

 

[KWED]

No, that the status of reality as independent of the mind is unknown and thus science relies on axioms and not proofs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, I like your evidence. A
Could you use words?

 

[gnostic]

No, that the status of reality as independent of the mind is unknown and thus science relies on axioms and not proofs.

Sciences, particularly natural sciences or physical sciences, indeed don’t rely on proofs. What sciences do rely on, are evidence. The more evidence, the better to determine if a theory or hypothesis is probable or improbable.

So yes, I agreed that part of your statement that sciences don’t rely on proofs.

But with axioms, no.

In sciences, no statements, no concepts and no assumptions in models (eg theories or hypotheses) are considered true by default.

To be considered “scientific”, the models have to undergo tests, to find evidence.

And the tests can come from observations of the evidence or experiments.

Axiom, on the other hand, are assumptions and statements, are considered true by default, due to be self-evident or due to being “well-established”. Axioms don’t require evidence or testing.

Without tests, and without evidence, then any concepts, statements or assumptions are considered without substances, hence they are not science.

No statements in a new and untested hypothesis are considered true without testing and without evidence. Sciences are opposite axioms.

Axioms are more aligned with mathematics than with sciences.

But of course, some sciences, especially in physics, have and included some mathematical statements, like equations and constants, but these are equations are part of explanations that needed to be tested too. So the equations might not be true, if the evidence doesn’t support the equations.

Sciences always required evidence and explanatory models are subjected to the processes of Scientific Method (hence required testings, whereas axioms don’t.

It is funny how some people (especially creationists) tends to ignore that all scientific theories must be tested, hence sciences relied on evidence, not axioms.

You got it backwards.

 

[KWED]

Yeah, I like your evidence. A
Could you use words?

That is the confused emoji - meaning "I have no idea what you are on about".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is the confused emoji - meaning "I have no idea what you are on about".

That can't be the case. If I am wrong in my thinking, you know that is the case and can explain it.

 

[Lekatt]

When in doubt, refer to the OED...
Reality - The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Over the years our really wise people have said things like "wisdom is when you know that you don't know anything." Nothing is as it appears with us humans. History is subject to change and does all the time with each telling of it. Most of science is theory, and theory is just a guess. There is no science of people, psychology, psychiatry are not sciences. I wanted to be a psychologist but quit finding they were not teaching anything new, just bigger words. All knowledge is open to interpretation. Life is wonderful if you keep learning and stop thinking you know.

 

[KWED]

Over the years our really wise people have said things like "wisdom is when you know that you don't know anything."

Whoever said that obviously isn't "really wise" because plenty of wise people know quite a lot. Even your average Joe knows a fair amount of stuff.

Nothing is as it appears with us humans.

How would you know?
Some things must be as they seem, or maths and science wouldn't work.

History is subject to change and does all the time with each telling of it.

People's telling of history might change, but the events don't.

Most of science is theory, and theory is just a guess.

Wrong. A scientific theory is an explanation for an observation that is supported by a large body of evidence.

There is no science of people,

Human biology? Demography? Anthropology?

psychology, psychiatry are not sciences.

Psychiarty is.

I wanted to be a psychologist but quit finding they were not teaching anything new

lol. "wisdom is when you know that you don't know anything."

 

[Lekatt]

The whole is more than the sum of its parts: Aristotle.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because I experience it. How do you know your life is real?

You completely missed the point of my story, it would seem.

Of course you experienced. I experienced sleep paralysis as well. The problem is, you're attributing causation where it is not warranted, nor in evidence. Like if I had concluded that my sleep paralysis experiences were actually events where I was being kidnapped by aliens. I experienced the event, but how do I know it is what I think it is?

Please notice that my questions were, How do you know that your NDE is what you think it is?

And ...

How do you know the spiritual world exists at all, what does it look like and what are it's properties?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Over the years our really wise people have said things like "wisdom is when you know that you don't know anything."

Well that's just silly. We may not know everything but we do know a lot of things.

Nothing is as it appears with us humans.

Nothing at all? That seems a rather silly claim as well.

History is subject to change and does all the time with each telling of it.

History can't change because it's already happened.
I think you mean our interpretation of historical events changes as we learn more?

Most of science is theory, and theory is just a guess.

No. Scientific theories aren't just guesses.
A scientific theory is a a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts." They are testable and falsifiable and predictions can be made based on what should be observed, if the scientific theory is true.
What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

There is no science of people, psychology, psychiatry are not sciences.

How about biology or genetics?
Psychiatry incorporates medical knowledge so that's a science as well.

I wanted to be a psychologist but quit finding they were not teaching anything new, just bigger words. All knowledge is open to interpretation. Life is wonderful if you keep learning and stop thinking you know.

They teach plenty of "new" things as we learn more about the brain and human behaviour. We've come a long way on our knowledge in those areas in just the last couple of decades, so I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about with this one.

 

[Lekatt]

You completely missed the point of my story, it would seem.

Of course you experienced. I experienced sleep paralysis as well. The problem is, you're attributing causation where it is not warranted, nor in evidence. Like if I had concluded that my sleep paralysis experiences were actually events where I was being kidnapped by aliens. I experienced the event, but how do I know it is what I think it is?

Please notice that my questions were, How do you know that your NDE is what you think it is?

And ...

How do you know the spiritual world exists at all, what does it look like and what are it's properties?

I not only experience it, I lived it, and I am still living it. if you would read some of the experiences and listen to the videos it may help. There are an estimated 10 million Americans who have had the experience. Yes, some of them have been verified by those in attendance at the time it happened. Many scientists are now believers. Your brain study will not produce anything. It is the spirit that controls the body. The brain is only the interface. I know I will never convince some, especially those who will not read the literature. So it is OK if you don't believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I not only experience it, I lived it, and I am still living it. if you would read some of the experiences and listen to the videos it may help. There are an estimated 10 million Americans who have had the experience. Yes, some of them have been verified by those in attendance at the time it happened. Many scientists are now believers. Your brain study will not produce anything. It is the spirit that controls the body. The brain is only the interface. I know I will never convince some, especially those who will not read the literature. So it is OK if you don't believe.

It's pretty hard to convince people without any evidence in your favour. Unsupported claims don't get us anywhere.
Hence my little illustration that I'm sorry to say, I still don't think you've grasped the point of, as you are still making unsupported truth claims about spirits and brains and whatnot.

P.S. I've read the literature, as I said in my post that was meant to illustrate my point.

 

[Lekatt]

It's pretty hard to convince people without any evidence in your favour. Unsupported claims don't get us anywhere.
Hence my little illustration that I'm sorry to say, I still don't think you've grasped the point of, as you are still making unsupported truth claims about spirits and brains and whatnot.

P.S. I've read the literature, as I said in my post that was meant to illustrate my point.

If the literature was read the evidence would be read also. The video I posted has evidence with it and so do hundreds of other NDEs. It is OK not to believe, those without the experience I can understand.