Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will agree that the proper thing is for science to accept that we have something they can not explain going on in these Veridical NDE cases.

Science always acknowledges ignorance. In fact, the whole point of science is to focus on those things of which we are ignorant, study it and come up with answers.

The only reason why we still train biologists for example, is because there is still more to learn about biology.
So the very fact that working scientists even exist at all, is an acknowledgement that there are unknowns waiting to be turned into knowns.

And the scientific method, seems to be the most successful at that.
It's track record of answering hard questions, is pretty impressive, wouldn't you agree?

However, I, being pro-science but not a follower of scientism, considers other wisdom traditions such as Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others.

If by this you are trying to imply that I am a "follower of scientism", then I'm going to need you to explain what exactly you mean by that.

Because it sounds to me like you really mean "secular", considering what followed.

So my belief is that the astral/mental body separates from the physical body at times of death inducing trauma and those bodies can travel independent of the physical body and then have access to information beyond the reach of the physical senses (called Veridical NDEs).

And that belief is based not on evidence, but on more beliefs. Theistic beliefs, to be specific. Like the existence of "souls" and all.

These beliefs are not in evidence. They are just a priori religious assumptions.
It's a belief you can hold, but it is not a belief you can rationally justify.

When a person enters death threatening trauma I would not expect documentation more than what we see with people giving first, second and third hand reports as have been handed down to us.

I would also not expect people that have entered death threatening trauma and survive, to be very trustworthy concerning what they think happened.

And being aware of things like the telephone game, confirmation bias, type 2 cognition errors (false positives) and other such human psychological weaknesses.... I certainly wouldn't trust 1st, 2nd and 3rd hand conclusions of those "testimonies".

What more should we expect from the real world conditions of these events?

Considering what death is in the real world, I don't expect anything particular at all, actually.
At best, I expect a dying brain deprived of oxygen, to act in a certain way and give the person quite a strange experience.

I happen to believe in the likelihood of bigfoot, alien abductions and 'reproductive' experimentation too but let's not go there in this thread.

owkay then

At least you are consistent, I guess.

 

[George-ananda]

Science always acknowledges ignorance. In fact, the whole point of science is to focus on those things of which we are ignorant, study it and come up with answers.

The only reason why we still train biologists for example, is because there is still more to learn about biology.
So the very fact that working scientists even exist at all, is an acknowledgement that there are unknowns waiting to be turned into knowns.

Again, we are in agreement about science and the scientific method being a good thing.

And the scientific method, seems to be the most successful at that.
It's track record of answering hard questions, is pretty impressive, wouldn't you agree?

It is successful only in the domain of that which is directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments.

If by this you are trying to imply that I am a "follower of scientism", then I'm going to need you to explain what exactly you mean by that.

Let's go with the dictionary then.

scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Or Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

And that belief is based not on evidence, but on more beliefs. Theistic beliefs, to be specific. Like the existence of "souls" and all.

These beliefs are not in evidence. They are just a priori religious assumptions.
It's a belief you can hold, but it is not a belief you can rationally justify.

Now we are getting to our disagreement. The wisdom traditions I respect in addition to science (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others) are developed from the direct observations and direct experiences of many spiritual plane masters followed by bringing this information to others.

My assumption here is that in addition to physical senses we have so-called 'psychic' senses that can also tell us about reality.

Your attempt to write these direct observations off as 'religious assumptions' and 'beliefs' is where our main difference lies in this discussion. I hold these teachings to be valuable information and among the world's wisdom traditions along with science.

So, when I hear about NDEs and Veridical NDEs I consider them in the light of not only science but also in the light of other wisdom traditions I respect.

To me the many different types of phenomena colloquially called spiritual/paranormal have shown to me the intellectual impoverishment that comes from only concerning myself with physical science (scientism). Actually the real important stuff about life is still beyond current science.

I would also not expect people that have entered death threatening trauma and survive, to be very trustworthy concerning what they think happened.

That is exactly why sober descriptions of mundane things and events that can later be verified is so striking and important to our judgment as to what is occurring (the topic of this thread).

 

[night912]

I will agree that the proper thing is for science to accept that we have something they can not explain going on in these Veridical NDE cases.

However, I, being pro-science but not a follower of scientism, considers other wisdom traditions such as Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others. So my belief is the astral/mental body separates from the physical body at times of death inducing trauma and those bodies can travel independent of the physical body and then have access to information beyond the reach of the physical senses (called Veridical NDEs).

But why believe all of that to be true, if none of those have been dedrmonstrated, understood and verified as true.

I think there are multiple ways to tell the same story highlighting different aspects and supplying more and less detail. The point is the gist of the two stories matches up. Someone confused quarter and nickel apparently but that doesn't change the gist of the story. They both are suggesting an outside the body sensory perspective. Someone would have to be wholesale lying/deceptive to alter the gist of either telling of the story. I doubt that happened.

But lying or being mistaken about the gist of events in every one of say a hundred cases approaches unbelievable.

No, the testimony of Dr. Lerma doesn't. And no, telling a story that has different details from the original means that the story is inaccurate and should not be taken as evidence. That means that the source is not reliable. In this case, the source is the NDE literature that supposedly documented true stories.

The whole point of doing investigations on NDE stories is to verify the accuracy of those stories. It defeats the whole purpose of it if you're just going to accept a fake story as being true even after it's been verified as being fake. You're not pro-science, because what you just did not science. Pseudoscience would be more accurate.

You're confused about what it means to verify the story. Examining the story to see if what is being described is plausible for it being a NDE, is just a part of the process in verifying the stories. You skipped the most important part of the process, which is, whether the story is true and accurate or not. A story can describe an event that resembles what is considered as NDE, but if it cannot be verify that the event did occur and accurately describes it, then that particular story cannot be use as evidence.

You never gave a response to the points I raised. What's your take on it?

 

[George-ananda]

But why believe all of that to be true, if none of those have been dedrmonstrated, understood and verified as true.

OK, then science can more technically say that there are anecdotes claiming the ability to retrieve veridical information not accessible by known means in the Near Death Experience (NDE) literature.

So, if you are a follower of what has imperfectly been called 'scientism' then that is about as far as you go with it.

scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Or Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

No, the testimony of Dr. Lerma doesn't. And no, telling a story that has different details from the original means that the story is inaccurate and should not be taken as evidence. That means that the source is not reliable. In this case, the source is the NDE literature that supposedly documented true stories.

The whole point of doing investigations on NDE stories is to verify the accuracy of those stories. It defeats the whole purpose of it if you're just going to accept a fake story as being true even after it's been verified as being fake. You're not pro-science, because what you just did not science. Pseudoscience would be more accurate.

You're confused about what it means to verify the story. Examining the story to see if what is being described is plausible for it being a NDE, is just a part of the process in verifying the stories. You skipped the most important part of the process, which is, whether the story is true and accurate or not. A story can describe an event that resembles what is considered as NDE, but if it cannot be verify that the event did occur and accurately describes it, then that particular story cannot be use as evidence.

You never gave a response to the points I raised. What's your take on it?

In my decades of reading veridical NDE stories, these stories seem of a convincing quality. Minor errors that don't affect the gist of a story (like the nickel vs. quarter) apparently happen when humans are involved but probably only in a minority of cases does a minor detail like that even get mistaken.

Our difference is that I don't judge things from the worldview of 'scientism'. I judge from my overall common sense that after decades of reading paranormal claims has come to believe that there are dramatic things beyond the reach of current science.

In addition, I also consider the claims of wisdom traditions beyond science (such as Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other) that rely on insights through the psychic senses into the nature of reality.

Now, you can continue fine with just an interest in science but I believe that (for me) that view impoverishes us from other sources of knowledge. The evidence (such as Veridical NDEs) that scientism seems to prefer to deny as even existing and many other areas of the paranormal have left me personally convinced of a greater reality accessible by the psychic senses but not considered in science.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human whose intellect is human and natural I observe.

The first human applied theory law in natural life as science is observation only. One and Only holy law by human observation to look or see only.

Is not manipulation. Experiment or change.

As natural is exact.

So we own human history that observed recorded stories told by humans says was a horrific human behaviour. Lived and tortured. And we ask why.

Basic human advice theists designers human inventors changed mass gas spirit life support mind body human changed our biology by mutation. Changed our brain chemistry by fallout.

Heavy metals that had been sealed in stone and stated stone natural supported life mind natural health.

Stone bared earth allowed humans to live.

A human family balanced life and behaviours were mutual. For humans as humans highest form family and natural.

Elder humans were wise cared for young everyone else was needed supported family and community life. We worked together for an equal mutual outcome.

To be forced to read humans history owning by groups enforced ego human history of abusive group idealism practices. That says they are going to know everything.

So humans having an NDE experience Multi times quote as I died suddenly I became aware of all things.

Yet when I came back I forget.

Why else is satanic science studying the NDE. As humans wanting to know everything.

Egotism..... if near death owns advice of everything hence I must copy and own the status myself.

Thinker is only one self does not own it. It is a single human experience. Ego however wants to know.

Human consciousness feedback advice human says our brother in science is trying to kill us all off.

Then you see him acting out his medical and occult scientific advice to cause it. Experiments in our atmosphere trying to know it all.

Yet his theme invention is machine reactions only known designed by its human inventor.

His theories design is human motivated only by human reasons. Is not a creator reason. He just imposes it is.

Yet he says he will find the creator and access it for machine conditions. The machine never existed.

Is a natural human aware caused history same human advice about scientific human behaviour why family named science Satanism and we lost human rights.

I asked myself today what am I arguing for as human family was lost to human science and egotism a long time ago.

 

[tas8831]

You are expected to refute the claims made in the research papers that where quoted earlier.

We know how that goes - ref. my refutations of aspects of your Shapiro paper went ignored and caused you to just double down on your refuted claims.
We get it, you don't like being wrong, and you are wrong a lot.
But 'research' papers based on hearsay/anecdotes... not really research, is it?

 

[tas8831]

For example if I have an NDE and an out of body experience and I describe accurately the room above me , this would count as persuasive evidence in favor of NDE……any disagreement?

Yes. I disagree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is successful only in the domain of that which is directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments.

What other realm is there?
And if you think there is another realm, how on earth could you possibly know about it, if it isn't detectable in any way, shape or form?

What is the functional difference between a thing that doesn't manifest in any way and a thing that does not exist?


As the infamous saying goes: "The undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike...."

Let's go with the dictionary then.

scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

What do you mean by "excessive"? Or "belief" for that matter?
Or what do you understand by it?

I'm not sure how one would interpret that.

Certainly considering how you have just started your post out by saying that we are in agreement concerning the merits and efficacy of science

Or Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

You agreed to this (that science is our best method of coming up with accurate answers to questions). So, are you a "follower of scientism" as well then?

Now we are getting to our disagreement. The wisdom traditions I respect in addition to science (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others) are developed from the direct observations and direct experiences of many spiritual plane masters followed by bringing this information to others.

So where is the disagreement? You used different words, but you said the same thing I did.

direct observations and direct experiences of many spiritual plane masters: these are bare religious claims by the people you call "masters"

followed by bringing this information to others: this is simply making this claims to others and them then believing those claims religiously.

You could perfectly take your quote here and replace "vedic hindu" with islamic tradition or christian tradition or viking tradition or roman tradition or greek tradition or...... and repeat it word for word and it would have the exact same merit: the expression of religious belief.

My assumption here is that in addition to physical senses we have so-called 'psychic' senses that can also tell us about reality.

And that is a religious assumption. Just like I said.

Your attempt to write these direct observations off as 'religious assumptions' and 'beliefs' is where our main difference lies in this discussion.

You can disagree with it all you like. It doesn't make it any less true. These are religious beliefs that you are expressing and assuming a priori. You have no evidence for these things that you can share with others who then in turn can independently verify them.

Instead, all you have are people you call "masters" who make claims and people believe them.
There's no objective independent verifiability or falsifiability at all there. So there is no evidence. Yet it's still believed. On faith. Religion.

I hold these teachings to be valuable information and among the world's wisdom traditions along with science.

Sure. @Conscious thoughts thinks the same about his Sufi teachings.
Budhist will think the same about their budhism. Christians will think the same about their christianity.

It's your religion.......

Why can't you just acknowledge that? It's painfully obviously the case.

So, when I hear about NDEs and Veridical NDEs I consider them in the light of not only science but also in the light of other wisdom traditions I respect.

ie, in light of your religious beliefs.

To me the many different types of phenomena colloquially called spiritual/paranormal have shown to me the intellectual impoverishment that comes from only concerning myself with physical science (scientism).

Really?
To me, it shows the depth of human psychological weakness which makes us all very prone to superstition.
Like our inclination to infuse agency in actually random natural events. Or our propensity to engage in cognition errors, like the false positive.

And finally, and the stuff you wrote here has been a good example of that, simply good ol' confirmation bias.
That's when you "interpret" claims in context of a priori beliefs.

So to a theist (who believes that "you" survive even after the death of your body; who thus believes in souls / spirits / ghosts), the story of NDE's will be very easily seen as acceptable to believe on very little evidence, if any evidence at all. For the simple reason that it fits a priori assumptions.

Theists tend to see such stories as validation of their a priori religious beliefs. And they'll even consider the NDE claims as being evidence of those a priori beliefs.

But off course, they are not. They are just the piling on of even more claims.
None of these are in evidence in any way.

Actually the real important stuff about life is still beyond current science.

What is "important" in life, is a subjective matter. It is a matter of opinion.
What is important to you might not be important to me and vice versa.

So I don't even know what you mean by that..... Science isn't a methodology to unravel mere opinions of people.

So it's not so much that it is "still" beyond science.. or even "beyond" at all. It is, in fact, simply out of scope.

That is exactly why sober descriptions of mundane things and events that can later be verified is so striking and important to our judgment as to what is occurring (the topic of this thread).

What are you talking about?
When has there even been a proper study of such things under controlled conditions?

Do you think I am impressed by 3rd or 4th hand accounts of what supposedly occurred?

This is exactly the point. There is nothing to verify. All there is, are anecdotal claims from biased people which can't be verified in any way.

Sorry, but my standards of evidence are a wee bit higher then that for me to accept something as likely true.

 

[George-ananda]

What other realm is there?

Astral, mental and other higher realms in dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

And if you think there is another realm, how on earth could you possibly know about it, if it isn't detectable in any way, shape or form?

We know about them because we are not just physical beings but have interpenetrating astral and mental levels not directly detectable by the physical and these interpenetrating subtle bodies have sensory organs that directly detect their native planes of nature. We all have these components but they are more developed in certain (gifted) individuals.

So in answer to your question I am challenging the question's assumption that we can not directly detect anything beyond the physical senses and instruments. I am saying we have psychic senses that are more developed in certain individuals (spiritual/clairvoyant teachers) that we can consider (not blindly accept) in our overall understanding of the universe.

What is the functional difference between a thing that doesn't manifest in any way and a thing that does not exist?

There is a functional difference when a veridical NDE experiencer reports events they could not reasonably have known through normal physical channels of information.

What do you mean by "excessive"? Or "belief" for that matter?
Or what do you understand by it?

I'm not sure how one would interpret that.

Certainly considering how you have just started your post out by saying that we are in agreement concerning the merits and efficacy of science



You agreed to this (that science is our best method of coming up with accurate answers to questions). So, are you a "follower of scientism" as well then?



So where is the disagreement? You used different words, but you said the same thing I did.

direct observations and direct experiences of many spiritual plane masters: these are bare religious claims by the people you call "masters"

followed by bringing this information to others: this is simply making this claims to others and them then believing those claims religiously.

By 'scientism' I am pretty much equating it with the attitude you are expressing here. If it doesn't come through the methods of physical science it can pretty much be written off as garbage information.

You could perfectly take your quote here and replace "vedic hindu" with islamic tradition or christian tradition or viking tradition or roman tradition or greek tradition or...... and repeat it word for word and it would have the exact same merit: the expression of religious belief.

There is considerable overlap in many wisdom traditions but I personally have come to believe through thought and observation of the world that Advaita Vedic and Theosophical schools have plumbed the deepest into the nature of reality.

To me, it shows the depth of human psychological weakness which makes us all very prone to superstition.
Like our inclination to infuse agency in actually random natural events. Or our propensity to engage in cognition errors, like the false positive.

And finally, and the stuff you wrote here has been a good example of that, simply good ol' confirmation bias.
That's when you "interpret" claims in context of a priori beliefs.

So to a theist (who believes that "you" survive even after the death of your body; who thus believes in souls / spirits / ghosts), the story of NDE's will be very easily seen as acceptable to believe on very little evidence, if any evidence at all. For the simple reason that it fits a priori assumptions.

Theists tend to see such stories as validation of their a priori religious beliefs. And they'll even consider the NDE claims as being evidence of those a priori beliefs.

But off course, they are not. They are just the piling on of even more claims.
None of these are in evidence in any way.

I see pretty much the mirror image opposite of what you are saying. I accept the reality of veridical NDEs only after a large enough body of collected anecdotes are looked at and then judged for the likeliness of all this being explainable through known science.

On this subject I feel the unfair dislike of these claims comes primarily from those with an atheistic/materialist bias who are driven to obfuscate case after case into infinity sparked by an attachment to an ideology. My honest appraisal is that they are the ones not willing to be honest with the body of cases.

So it's not so much that it is "still" beyond science.. or even "beyond" at all. It is, in fact, simply out of scope.



What are you talking about?
When has there even been a proper study of such things under controlled conditions?

Veridical NDEs do not happen under controlled conditions as they are spontaneous and unpredictable. Without going off on tangent there are other types of phenomena showing non-physical reception of information that have been proven to exist to my satisfaction in laboratory controlled conditions. (to avoid a tangent I am more than aware already of the materialist objections to all positive scientific testing suggesting psychic abilities)

 

[leroy]

We know how that goes - ref. my refutations of aspects of your Shapiro paper went ignored and caused you to just double down on your refuted claims.
We get it, you don't like being wrong, and you are wrong a lot.
But 'research' papers based on hearsay/anecdotes... not really research, is it?

Your refutations on Shapiro’s paper where not ignored, I told you exactly where your mistake is.

Namely your mistake was that instead of refuting Shapiro’s claims and conclusions you refuted a source in the bibliography.

And given that Shapiro´s conclusions don’t depend on that other sources, your refutation becomes irrelevant.

You may or may not agree with this reply, but you can’t accuse me for ignoring your claims when I didn’t.

 

[leroy]

Yes. I disagree.

Ok how do you suggest that NDE should be tested?

Or is it another case of “NDE refute my world view, therefore I dismiss them by default”

...
what alternative explanation would you guggest if somethign like this happens?

For example if I have an NDE and an out of body experience and I describe accurately the room above me , this would count as persuasive evidence in favor of NDE……any disagreement?

 

[night912]

OK, then science can more technically say that there are anecdotes claiming the ability to retrieve veridical information not accessible by known means in the Near Death Experience (NDE) literature.

So, if you are a follower of what has imperfectly been called 'scientism' then that is about as far as you go with it.

scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Or Wikipedia:

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.


In my decades of reading veridical NDE stories, these stories seem of a convincing quality. Minor errors that don't affect the gist of a story (like the nickel vs. quarter) apparently happen when humans are involved but probably only in a minority of cases does a minor detail like that even get mistaken.

Our difference is that I don't judge things from the worldview of 'scientism'. I judge from my overall common sense that after decades of reading paranormal claims has come to believe that there are dramatic things beyond the reach of current science.

In addition, I also consider the claims of wisdom traditions beyond science (such as Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other) that rely on insights through the psychic senses into the nature of reality.

Now, you can continue fine with just an interest in science but I believe that (for me) that view impoverishes us from other sources of knowledge. The evidence (such as Veridical NDEs) that scientism seems to prefer to deny as even existing and many other areas of the paranormal have left me personally convinced of a greater reality accessible by the psychic senses but not considered in science.

Nope, you're wrong. The difference between us is not scientism. The major difference between us is, when looking at the stories, I start by verifying the story before examining it for possible explanations. But for you, the first step is skipped over, and you start off right away with examining the story for an explanation. That bias made you to even accept false information as evidence.

That difference is the reason why you think that there's sufficient evidence for NDE and I don't. You using "scientism" as your reason for being the difference between us is only an excuse to make it appear as if you have a justified belief in NDE. Believing or not believing in a spirit realm is irrelevant. If a piece of information IS evidence for NDE, that evidence would not be effected by someone's belief.

If I was to present you with 10 stories claiming of being NDE and/or out of body experience and I told you that at least one of them is fake because I made it up, how do you tell the difference between the fake one and the rest? Keep in mind that all of the stories are similar, containing a description of feelings of being outside the body, confirmation of identifying objects, and having other people being present as eyewitnesses. The only difference is the people involved, place, time, cause of "death" and the objects that was seen. What is your method of identifying the f the fake story?

In my decades of reading veridical NDE stories, these stories seem of a convincing quality. Minor errors that don't affect the gist of a story (like the nickel vs. quarter) apparently happen when humans are involved but probably only in a minority of cases does a minor detail like that even get mistaken.

So you wouldn't have a problem in this scenario?

Your cousin Jenny just got raped by her cousin Forrest. After he left, she called her aunt, telling her that she just got raped in her bedroom by her cousin. After getting off the phone with Jenny, her aunt called the police and told them that, while watching a movie together in her living room, her cousin George (which is you), raped her.

So you're okay with this? Her aunt's story only have minor differences but that doesn't change the gist of the real story, that Jenny was raped by her cousin. And you wouldn't have any objections when the police comes to arrest you, right? After all, the police was using his "commonsense" just like yours.

 

[George-ananda]

Nope, you're wrong. The difference between us is not scientism. The major difference between us is, when looking at the stories, I start by verifying the story before examining it for possible explanations. But for you, the first step is skipped over, and you start off right away with examining the story for an explanation. That bias made you to even accept false information as evidence.

That difference is the reason why you think that there's sufficient evidence for NDE and I don't. You using "scientism" as your reason for being the difference between us is only an excuse to make it appear as if you have a justified belief in NDE. Believing or not believing in a spirit realm is irrelevant. If a piece of information IS evidence for NDE, that evidence would not be effected by someone's belief.

If I was to present you with 10 stories claiming of being NDE and/or out of body experience and I told you that at least one of them is fake because I made it up, how do you tell the difference between the fake one and the rest? Keep in mind that all of the stories are similar, containing a description of feelings of being outside the body, confirmation of identifying objects, and having other people being present as eyewitnesses. The only difference is the people involved, place, time, cause of "death" and the objects that was seen. What is your method of identifying the f the fake story?

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.

So you wouldn't have a problem in this scenario?

Your cousin Jenny just got raped by her cousin Forrest. After he left, she called her aunt, telling her that she just got raped in her bedroom by her cousin. After getting off the phone with Jenny, her aunt called the police and told them that, while watching a movie together in her living room, her cousin George (which is you), raped her.

So you're okay with this? Her aunt's story only have minor differences but that doesn't change the gist of the real story, that Jenny was raped by her cousin. And you wouldn't have any objections when the police comes to arrest you, right? After all, the police was using his "commonsense" just like yours.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Astral, mental and other higher realms in dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments. We know about them because we are not just physical beings but have interpenetrating astral and mental levels not directly detectable by the physical and these interpenetrating subtle bodies have sensory organs that directly detect their native planes of nature. We all have these components but they are more developed in certain (gifted) individuals.

So in answer to your question I am challenging the question's assumption that we can not directly detect anything beyond the physical senses and instruments. I am saying we have psychic senses that are more developed in certain individuals (spiritual/clairvoyant teachers) that we can consider (not blindly accept) in our overall understanding of the universe.

My question has no assumption. It just follows up on what YOU yourself have said. That these things are undetectable. You are just repeating what I said: you are assuming these things religiously.

There is no verifiability there at all. Only a priori religious assumption.

You speak about "gifted individuals". How have you determined this? After all, it's undetectable... So really, you see them as "gifted" simply because you believe them to be, or because they claim to be so and you just believe those claims.

You don't know. You can't verify. You just believe. Religiously.

There is a functional difference when a veridical NDE experiencer reports events they could not reasonably have known through normal physical channels of information.

1. That's not an answer to the question that I ACTUALLY asked.

2. Again, these are just anecdotal claims. There is no proper documentation of this at all from studies done under controlled conditions. This is just like "psychics" and alike who go unto the James Randi show. People will make such claims about them as well. And whenever they are actually put to the test in controlled conditions, their tricks suddenly don't work anymore.

By 'scientism' I am pretty much equating it with the attitude you are expressing here. If it doesn't come through the methods of physical science it can pretty much be written off as garbage information.

That's not at all what I have expressed here.

Instead, what I'm writing off as "garbage information", are those outlandish things that are just CLAIMED and believed for no justifiable reason and which are merely biased conclusions based on a priori religious assumption and belief.

There is considerable overlap in many wisdom traditions

The "overlap" exists in believing outlandish things on faith without evidence.

but I personally have come to believe through thought and observation of the world that Advaita Vedic and Theosophical schools have plumbed the deepest into the nature of reality.

And followers of other religions believe the same about their religion.
And all of them have one thing in common: faith. ie: no evidence.

I see pretty much the mirror image opposite of what you are saying. I accept the reality of veridical NDEs only after a large enough body of collected anecdotes are looked at and then judged for the likeliness of all this being explainable through known science.

First of all, anecdotes aren't evidence.
They are claims in need of evidence.

Secondly, there is no known science that results in the conclusions you draw here, because your conclusion is based on a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - not on scientific knowledge.

On this subject I feel the unfair dislike of these claims

What is "unfair" about pointing out that the claims are just bare claims with no evidence, no verifiability and/or no falsifiability whatsoever?

comes primarily from those with an atheistic/materialist bias who are driven to obfuscate case after case into infinity sparked by an attachment to an ideology.

You got that exactly backwards.
Atheism isn't an ideology. Theism is the ideology.
Atheism doesn't "inform" beliefs. Theism does. It's in fact, ALL it does.

My honest appraisal is that they are the ones not willing to be honest with the body of cases.

What's not honest about pointing out that anecdotes aren't evidence, but instead collections of claims that are in need of evidence?

Veridical NDEs do not happen under controlled conditions as they are spontaneous and unpredictable.

The reason why is not the point. The actual point is that there's nothing there that is trustworthy and verifiable.

Without going off on tangent there are other types of phenomena showing non-physical reception of information that have been proven to exist to my satisfaction in laboratory controlled conditions.

Ow? Now I'm going to ask you to point those out.

(to avoid a tangent I am more than aware already of the materialist objections to all positive scientific testing suggesting psychic abilities)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or is it another case of “NDE refute my world view, therefore I dismiss them by default”

No. It's rather a case of "NDE confirms my world view, therefor I'll accept the anecdotes and pretend they are evidence".

what alternative explanation would you guggest if somethign like this happens?

I don't see the point of such "what if..." questions.

What if a rainbow eating unicorn came crawling out of my bum?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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.

Dear leroy,

There is quite a lot of research being done on this topic and through technology and the progress of neuroscience, it's getting less philosophical and more empirical.

You may be interested in looking into research by the IONS...


Humbly
Hermit

 

[tas8831]

Ok how do you suggest that NDE should be tested?

I don't. I accept that they are likely produced via hypoxia and other neurological phenomena, not magic.

Or is it another case of “NDE refute my world view, therefore I dismiss them by default”

No, I am not a creationist so that is not how I operate.

...
what alternative explanation would you guggest if somethign like this happens?

Same as above.

 

[tas8831]

Your refutations on Shapiro’s paper where not ignored, I told you exactly where your mistake is.

No, you claimed I had made a mistake when I did not. You forgot that your hero's case rested on a 3-legged stool, one leg of which was directed mutations. Directed mutations were still considered a thing when Shapiro wrote the paper you had posted. Later research - to include some by the very people that wrote the papers he had cited in support of NGE in his 1992 paper that you relied on - showed that it was NOT a thing.

Remove 1 leg of a 3-legged stool and what happens?

And given that Shapiro´s conclusions don’t depend on that other sources, your refutation becomes irrelevant.

See above.

You may or may not agree with this reply, but you can’t accuse me for ignoring your claims when I didn’t.

I can and will accuse you of ignoring the implication and doing your sad darnedest to deny it to rescue your new hero's claims.

 

[tas8831]

Oliver Sacks on Eben Alexander's claim of going to Heaven while in an NDE:

“The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander’s case, then, is that his (near-death experience) occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function,” Sacks writes. “It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

 

[George-ananda]

My question has no assumption. It just follows up on what YOU yourself have said. That these things are undetectable. You are just repeating what I said: you are assuming these things religiously.

You keep clipping my statements about being undetectable as to miss my point. Following undetectable I am claiming 'undetectable by physical senses and instruments but that I believe we also are endowed with psychic senses for which these things are detectable.

There is no verifiability there at all. Only a priori religious assumption.

A general consistency over many gifted masters/clairvoyants is the closest we have to verifiability. Now for a scientism advocate this can be dismissed but I not being a follower of scientism consider all things in my personal beliefs as to what is most reasonable.

From the real world evidence for things such as Veridical NDEs and many other phenomena along with the theoretical framework for such things presented by various wisdom traditions (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others) this belief becomes my most reasonable position from consideration of the evidence and argumentation (not blind faith).

1. That's not an answer to the question that I ACTUALLY asked.

2. Again, these are just anecdotal claims. There is no proper documentation of this at all from studies done under controlled conditions. This is just like "psychics" and alike who go unto the James Randi show. People will make such claims about them as well. And whenever they are actually put to the test in controlled conditions, their tricks suddenly don't work anymore.




That's not at all what I have expressed here.

Instead, what I'm writing off as "garbage information", are those outlandish things that are just CLAIMED and believed for no justifiable reason and which are merely biased conclusions based on a priori religious assumption and belief.



The "overlap" exists in believing outlandish things on faith without evidence.



And followers of other religions believe the same about their religion.
And all of them have one thing in common: faith. ie: no evidence.



First of all, anecdotes aren't evidence.
They are claims in need of evidence.

Secondly, there is no known science that results in the conclusions you draw here, because your conclusion is based on a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - not on scientific knowledge.




What is "unfair" about pointing out that the claims are just bare claims with no evidence, no verifiability and/or no falsifiability whatsoever?



You got that exactly backwards.
Atheism isn't an ideology. Theism is the ideology.
Atheism doesn't "inform" beliefs. Theism does. It's in fact, ALL it does.



What's not honest about pointing out that anecdotes aren't evidence, but instead collections of claims that are in need of evidence?



The reason why is not the point. The actual point is that there's nothing there that is trustworthy and verifiable.



Ow? Now I'm going to ask you to point those out.

Well we can go on the tangent of discussing the quantity, quality and consistency of experimental, investigative and anecdotal paranormal/psychic evidence but I believe that tangent has been done before and in the end we each need to ne honest and objective with ourselves and the facts.

My opinion is that the paranormal occurs beyond reasonable doubt and we need to be considering frameworks under which the paranormal is just part and parcel.

These are the kind of things that have influenced me:

Dr. Jeffrey Long: “A number of experiencers describe out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These experiences frequently include visualization of their body from a vantage point outside their body. Much less commonly reported are visualizations of earthly events geographically far removed from their body. Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced an NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.

“He found a group of twenty-three patients who had a cardiac arrest and did not have an NDE. Both groups were asked to describe their resuscitation. The NDE group was uniformly accurate, including correctly recalling readings on medical machines outside their potential line of vision. Twenty of the twenty-three patients who did not have an NDE were highly inaccurate in describing their resuscitation. This is verifiable and potentially reproducible validation of the OBE component of the NDE.


To me that’s scientific evidence for consideration (not even attempting a proof claim).