Near Death experiences to atheist

[George-ananda]

give us a link, or a quote, or something!

Here is a quote from Dr. Dean Radin one of the most respected scientists studying the paranormal:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. ”

 

[1137]

You think physical explanation is based off coincidence?

 

[George-ananda]

You think physical explanation is based off coincidence?

I think you misunderstood the quote.

Think of traditional psi card guessing. A few 'hits' above normal could be written off as coincidence. Enough hits above chance over enough trials could make the statistical chance of coincidence millions to one. Something else other than coincidence must be going on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you say above is basically true and common sense. (I will point out that in the NDE case there is not '1' story but a huge body as we all know).

A few posts up I was asked:

'I'd still like to know the criteria by which you distinguish 'intelligent consideration' from wide-eyed credulity.'

My answer was:

You consider as much information as you can from all sides of the issue and then use objective rational reasoning free of prejudice.

That's fine to say, but I don't think you actually put this into practice. You wee already caught once in this thread misrepresenting (deliberately or unintentionally, I'm not sure) poor evidence as reliable. I think you've already decided on your conclusion and try to shoehorn facts into it. This isn't the behaviour of someone who's free of prejudice.

Are you getting to the point of saying 'anecdotal evidence' can't be considered in forming our view of the universe. Or are you saying we can consider anecdotal evidence but that we need to exercise intelligent analysis when doing so. If it's the latter, we're in agreement.

I'm saying that it's evidence, but just barely, and should be treated with extreme caution. I think we're probably disagree quite a bit about how much weight to give it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you misunderstood the quote.

Think of traditional psi card guessing. A few 'hits' above normal could be written off as coincidence. Enough hits above chance over enough trials could make the statistical chance of coincidence millions to one. Something else other than coincidence must be going on.

Yes... but most of the time, it's more appropriate to infer that the "something else" is an experimental issue or some form of systematic bias rather than psychic ability.

Remember that study I mentioned with the dead salmon in the MRI machine? That dead fish showed statistically significant differences in its brain activity when shown different pictures and asked to think about how it felt about each of them... but do you think that this was due to a real effect of the emotions of the dead fish, or do you think it was just signal noise from the interaction between the MRI's magnetic field and the dead fish's neurons?

 

[johnhanks]

johnhanks' objection aside, I think that we can learn things from anecdotes, but they should be approached with caution and given weight according to their reliability (or lack thereof), because anecdotes have many problems:

- you often have no way to confirm that the important details of the anecdote actually happened.
- they have no controls for preventing the observer from influencing the results or using bias in interpreting them.
- you're dealing with a sample size of one... IOW, in statistical terms, it's so unreliable that you can't even measure its reliability.
- they're subject to extreme publication bias: people only tend to tell anecdotes when they think they're remarkable. An anecdote doesn't spread if it's about something mundane. This means that anecdotes can create a false impression of a thing, especially in terms of likelihood.
- interpretation of anecdotes often involves the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Far from setting "johnhanks' objection aside", you have summarised them admirably.

 

[ArtieE]

You seem to under a misunderstanding. The experiments I was talking about do not use physical scientific tools. They for example can use statistical analysis. In a typical card guessing experiment with many trials, if someone gets a 'hit'rate of millions to one against chance it becomes reasonable to believe chance is not the cause of the results.

I see. And if we go looking for the cause of the results should we assume that

1. It's something supernatural?
2. It's something natural?

When people got sick and lost their hair for no apparent reason should we assume

1. It was something supernatural like demons and get nowhere or
2. Assume it was natural and discover radioactivity?

Which approach was most useful? 1 or 2?

Every time I hear somebody recommend approach number 1 I shudder when I think of how much knowledge we would have missed.

 

[George-ananda]

I see. And if we go looking for the cause of the results should we assume that

1. It's something supernatural?
2. It's something natural?

We should ASSUME neither and intelligently consider both.

When people got sick and lost their hair for no apparent reason should we assume

1. It was something supernatural like demons and get nowhere or
2. Assume it was natural and discover radioactivity?

Which approach was most useful? 1 or 2?

I would say investigate as best we can all reasonable theories. The 'demon' theory sounds 'far out' to me personally.

Every time I hear somebody recommend approach number 1 I shudder when I think of how much knowledge we would have missed.

I agree with that statement. I'm pro-science also.

 

[George-ananda]

You wee already caught once in this thread misrepresenting (deliberately or unintentionally, I'm not sure) poor evidence as reliable.

Now that's ridiculously overstated. Someone did additional research and made a good point and I granted them that point. I still claimed the case as a whole was strong evidence for the nde being a super-physical experience........(I was 'caught'......so you're not sure if it was deliberate)...thanks

 

[George-ananda]

Yes... but most of the time, it's more appropriate to infer that the "something else" is an experimental issue or some form of systematic bias rather than psychic ability.

That's why I always say 'INTELLIGENTLY CONSIDER'. After enough intelligent consideration by enough people we can form beliefs as to what theory seems most reasonable in each case.

Parapsychologists are not simpletons and take great pains to consider what you say above. And then design experiments to minimize or eliminate those factors.

Remember that study I mentioned with the dead salmon in the MRI machine? That dead fish showed statistically significant differences in its brain activity when shown different pictures and asked to think about how it felt about each of them... but do you think that this was due to a real effect of the emotions of the dead fish, or do you think it was just signal noise from the interaction between the MRI's magnetic field and the dead fish's neurons?

In that case the 'signal noise from the interaction between the MRI's magnetic field and the dead fish's neurons' sounds like the more reasonable belief to me. I would add that that example does not invalidate every parapsychology experiement ever done but again shows the need for 'intelligent consideration'.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I am not an Atheist but I thought I'd respond any way.

My own personal opinion on near death experiences is that they are a mixture of neurological and supernatural or preternatural occurrences. I'm not sure if preternatural is the term I am looking for.

But anyway, I believe that it can be explained partly by neurological processes and also partly by God, angels, demons, or even a mixture of the above. I say this because there have been some near death experiences that I have read about which were orthodox in nature and could have come from God. There are still other near death experiences which are unorthodox in nature and possibly could have come from Satan or the other demons. But then again, its possible also that the brain just conjured up the unorthodox notions without any action from Satan or the demons. Its also quite possible that near death experiences are a solely neurological or natural experience rather than something involving supernatural or preternatural beings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that's ridiculously overstated. Someone did additional research and made a good point and I granted them that point. I still claimed the case as a whole was strong evidence for the nde being a super-physical experience........(I was 'caught'......so you're not sure if it was deliberate)...thanks

Wait... even though you do concede the points made to you - i.e. that nothing in the story suggests a non-physical cause for any aspect of what happened - you believe that it's "strong evidence for the NDE being a super-physical experience"?

I can't imagine the level of cognitive dissonance needed to believe both of these things simultaneously. I'm also inclined to believe you're sincere, since I don't think anyone would expect others to believe this unless they considered it believable themselves.

 

[George-ananda]

Wait... even though you do concede the points made to you - i.e. that nothing in the story suggests a non-physical cause for any aspect of what happened - you believe that it's "strong evidence for the NDE being a super-physical experience"?

WAIT...the phrase that best fits this is..... 'if I give an inch, you take a mile'. A point has turned into the plural 'points' already. Maybe your mind has actually transformed that discussion into a total victory for the home team.

You say 'nothing in the story suggests a non-physical cause for any aspect of what happened' and that I conceded that point. Sorry, but 'No'. Her ability under general anesthesia to accurately describe events and conversations from an out of the body perspective does suggest a non-physical cause to me (a point I never considered conceding).

I can't imagine the level of cognitive dissonance needed to believe both of these things simultaneously. I'm also inclined to believe you're sincere, since I don't think anyone would expect others to believe this unless they considered it believable themselves.

May I suggest a 180 with that pointing finger

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

WAIT...the phrase that best fits this is..... 'if I give an inch, you take a mile'. A point has turned into the plural 'points' already. Maybe your mind has actually transformed that discussion into a total victory for the home team.

You say 'nothing in the story suggests a non-physical cause for any aspect of what happened' and that I conceded that point. Sorry, but 'No'. Her ability under general anesthesia to accurately describe events and conversations from an out of the body perspective does suggest a non-physical cause to me (a point I never considered conceding).

It seemed to me at the time you did concede this. Your post about it sure seemed to me like you recognized that all of the details of the woman's story either didn't occur during brain inactivity or are unverifiable:

Hey, George - I looked at the page you linked to in post 34. I also looked at the Wikipedia article it linked to, which gives a timeline of the procedure and the NDE (which you can find here). Here are some key points I took from it:

- the patient was brought into the operating room awake and with her eyes open, so she had the opportunity to see the equipment and instruments before her NDE.

- the events she says she saw from outside her body that can be confirmed (e.g. the pitch of the drill or things that the nurse said) happened either before or after the time when her EEG showed no activity, not during the time of EEG inactivity.

This was already brought out a few pages back. Yes, during the time of 'brain death' she was (allegedly) meeting dead relatives on the other side. That of course can't be confirmed or denied by physical evidence. So I did state the story was not as I great as I originally thought (how big of me, eh). But I still overall think the story is very strong.

... but if you meant something else, then by all means tell us what you really meant.

 

[George-ananda]

... but if you meant something else, then by all means tell us what you really meant.

I meant what I said in the old post and today's post.

The quote I was taking exception to is:

even though you do concede the points made to you - i.e. that nothing in the story suggests a non-physical cause for any aspect of what happened

Where did I make anything close to a concession like the above quote suggests?

 

[Magic Man]

NO EVIDENCE you claim. I dispute that rather emphatically after months of debating.

You dispute it, yet you haven't been able to provide any in all the conversations we've had on this topic.

I agree. That's why I don't 'just believe anything that comes along because it claims to explain something we want'. I require evidence and argumentation.

Your requirements for that evidence are quite low is the problem. You accept things that have not been verified and aren't supported by anything. You've even said that you accept hundreds of supposed stories about NDEs as evidence just because they all exist, even though we can debunk at least most of them, and none of them can be supported.

This is my point. To most of us, that's just believing anything that comes along because it claims to explain something you want.

I agree with that statement too.

You say you do, but then you believe things that have no support.

 

[Magic Man]

You consider as much information as you can from all sides of the issue and then use objective rational reasoning free of prejudice.

And it's seriously you're contention that you do this? Between this and your assertion that you've heavily researched this, it's hard to believe, considering whenever you've attempted to provide evidence, it's easily debunked and you say you just picked it out just for that discussion.

Sometimes it's as simple as a story that has no support at all, and is no better than an urban legend. If you had done so much research and applied objective rational reasoning to the topic, I would expect you not to provide such things as supposed evidence.

Then the ones that at least seem to have some support can be shown to have discrepancies in the details, like that surgeon with the magazine article a while back. Meaning, again, with objective rational reasoning applied, I'd still expect you not to use these as evidence, since there's no reason to accept the exact details they give, when the details could clearly be such that it's easily explained by the brain doing weird (but not paranormal) things.

Your whole argumentation on the subject runs counter to the idea of "using objective rational reasoning free of prejudice".

 

[Magic Man]

The quote I was taking exception to is:



Where did I make anything close to a concession like the above quote suggests?

Not trying to answer for Penguin, but you sort of conceded that, just not in so many words. It was brought up that the "evidence" for the veracity of the story was based on incorrect details, and you conceded that that was true. The concession that those details don't tell the story they're supposed to is basically the same as saying "that nothing in the story suggests a non-physical cause for any aspect of what happened". You may still think her recollection of meeting dead people while unconscious suggests that, but all you have left after the supposed "strong points" of the story is a woman saying she met dead people while unconscious, which is not much of a piece of evidence at that point.

 

[Ingledsva]

"Based on his no-soul (anatta) doctrine, the Buddha described reincarnation, or the taking on of a new body in the next life, in a different way than the traditional Indian understanding. He compared it to lighting successive candles using the flame of the preceding candle. Although each flame is causally connected to the one that came before it, is it not the same flame. Thus, in Buddhism, reincarnation is usually referred to as "transmigration."
Reincarnation and Afterlife in Buddhism - ReligionFacts

So what is creating all the extra souls in this doctrine?

Why did the Stromatolites want to reincarnate over and over to reach Nirvana?

*

*

 

[George-ananda]

"Based on his no-soul (anatta) doctrine, the Buddha described reincarnation, or the taking on of a new body in the next life, in a different way than the traditional Indian understanding. He compared it to lighting successive candles using the flame of the preceding candle. Although each flame is causally connected to the one that came before it, is it not the same flame. Thus, in Buddhism, reincarnation is usually referred to as "transmigration."
Reincarnation and Afterlife in Buddhism - ReligionFacts

I've seen many ways to interpret Buddhism's take on the afterlife. The above one seems an odd way to look at it and doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

How does a flame of one candle light another? Is it just a one for one transfer? What is the relationship between the old person and the new person? Are the qualities of the old person transferred? Does it happen immediately or after a time in an afterlife state? How does the cycle end? And on and on...

ArtieE, I'm not trying to put you on the spot but maybe if you've done some thinking about this you can explain the candle analogy better. Or are there other great minds out there?

In Advaita Vedanta (school of Hinduism) they would agree with the anatta (usually translated as no permanent soul doctrine) as all things merge into the One. But until then many temporary souls exist for eons until craving, desire, attachment are extinguished.