Near Death experiences to atheist

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The quote I was taking exception to is:



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

When I pointed out what actually happened in that case - i.e. that nothing in the account of the incident suggested anything other than the physical - you brushed it off saying that this had already been brought up in the thread and that you had realized that the story wasn't as strong as you thought it was.

... but if you have a different take on our exchange, I'd be happy to drop the issue and assume that I misinterpreted your intended meaning.

 

[George-ananda]

MagicMan (and other skeptic friends),

MagicMan; I read you last three posts directed to me.

Let me try to summarize my position in case there are open-minded lurkers out there.

Your position seems to be that if somehow you can cobble together a possible explanation for an NDE case (or any alleged paranormal event) that includes no supernatural elements then the whole case is ‘no evidence at all’ and that it’s been ‘debunked’. Using the tools at your disposal, I could probably do this with every possible anecdotal and experimental evidence that seems to be suggestive of the paranormal.

Because you can cobble an explanation together does not at all make it the correct explanation nor even the most reasonable explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

... but if you have a different take on our exchange, I'd be happy to drop the issue and assume that I misinterpreted your intended meaning.

Then assume you misinterpreted my intended meaning.

I gave an inch you took a mile.....that's a misinterpretation

Let's agree to drop that and move on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then assume you misinterpreted my intended meaning.

I gave an inch you took a mile.....that's a misinterpretation

Let's agree to drop that and move on.

Sure... so, moving on, maybe you can tell us how an account where all details are either entirely compatible with a materialist view or are entirely unverifiable is "strong evidence" for the paranormal or supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure... so, moving on, maybe you can tell us how an account where all details are either entirely compatible with a materialist view or are entirely unverifiable is "strong evidence" for the paranormal or supernatural.

Her ability to see/hear/describe the operation from an above the body perspective, the tools being used, the conversations that occurred, etc. while unconscious and then describing meeting deceased relatives during a time of no brain activity when coupled with the fact that these type of occurrences are not uncommon in NDEs is strong evidence.

I am of course well aware that you can cobble together an explanation for every NDE (or paranormal event) that contains no supernatural elements. My point is that does not make it the correct or even the most reasonable explanation.

If you believe your explanations are the most reasonable explanations then we will just have to disagree and end there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Her ability to see/hear/describe the operation from an above the body perspective,

Did she describe anything that she couldn't have seen without being above her body?

the tools being used,

What tools did she describe that she didn't see before being anesthetized?

the conversations that occurred, etc. while unconscious

Why would this be remarkable?

My clock radio is set so that the radio plays for about half an hour before the alarm goes off. On many occasions, details from news stories on the radio will work their way into my dreams. If I can hear things while unconscious, why can't she?

and then describing meeting deceased relatives during a time of no brain activity

Why would you assume that a brain on the edge of death is good at judging time? A span of time passed from when brain activity was restored until she regained consciousness; plenty of time in which she could have dreamed the meeting.

when coupled with the fact that these type of occurrences are not uncommon in NDEs is strong evidence.

They're not uncommon because human brains are physiologically similar and they respond to the stresses of dying in similar ways.

I am of course well aware that you can cobble together an explanation for every NDE (or paranormal event) that contains no supernatural elements. My point is that does not make it the correct or even the most reasonable explanation.

Please tell us your explanation in detail so we can see just how reasonable it is. Once that's done, we can compare.

If you believe your explanations are the most reasonable explanations then we will just have to disagree and end there.

That's up to you. If you continue to give poor arguments for your position, I doubt we'll make any progress.

 

[George-ananda]

Did she describe anything that she couldn't have seen without being above her body?


What tools did she describe that she didn't see before being anesthetized?


Why would this be remarkable?

My clock radio is set so that the radio plays for about half an hour before the alarm goes off. On many occasions, details from news stories on the radio will work their way into my dreams. If I can hear things while unconscious, why can't she?


Why would you assume that a brain on the edge of death is good at judging time? A span of time passed from when brain activity was restored until she regained consciousness; plenty of time in which she could have dreamed the meeting.


They're not uncommon because human brains are physiologically similar and they respond to the stresses of dying in similar ways.


Please tell us your explanation in detail so we can see just how reasonable it is. Once that's done, we can compare.


That's up to you. If you continue to give poor arguments for your position, I doubt we'll make any progress.

You missed my point. I was making a general point with no energy/desire to re-re-rehash that same story that will obviously take us where we've already been.

See my post 402 that talks in general terms about the nature of our disagreements.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You missed my point. I was making a general point with no energy/desire to re-re-rehash that same story that will obviously take us where we've already been.

Where we go is up to you. If you decide to continue to be evasive about your claims, then I agree we'll go around in circles. However, if you'll agree to subject your claims to a fair examination, then maybe we'll make some progress.

See my post 402 that talks in general terms about the nature of our disagreements.

Here's my position:

- the devil's in the details, and generalities are built out of many specific cases. We examine the general principles by looking at the nitty-gritty details of specific examples.

- you don't get to make pronouncements about what's "most reasonable" until we subject your explanation to scrutiny. You've been holding that pretty close to your chest so far.

 

[Willamena]

Generalities can be built on reduction, as well as inference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generalities can be built on reduction, as well as inference.

If generalities aren't reflected in specific cases, then they're not generalities.

 

[George-ananda]

Generalities can be built on reduction, as well as inference.

Willamena, as you gave me a frubal (thanks) I think this can't infer too much bad about me (and possibly good or possibly neutral).

I'm at least not too proud to ask if I may please have a 'dumbed-down' version of what your above quote means.

 

[George-ananda]

Where we go is up to you.

One place I think it is fruitless to go is more nit-picking of the details of any one case. For example, who here is to ever know if the three or four principles in that case didn’t covertly or subconsciously conspire to spike the details of the case to make them more compelling? As I said in that post #402, with all the logical tools at my disposal I could cobble together an explanation with no supernatural elements for any one case.

The power of my argument lays in the untold millions of events suggestive of the paranormal that have occurred in the history of the world with no one case ever being accepted as the DEFINITIVE proving case.

If you decide to continue to be evasive about your claims, then I agree we'll go around in circles.

Your claim that I have been evasive about my claims is unfounded. I have consistently and repeatedly made a claim based off the eastern (Hindu) understanding of the universe.

However, if you'll agree to subject your claims to a fair examination, then maybe we'll make some progress.

Great, I invite you to first learn about and then examine my claims.

Here's my position:

- the devil's in the details, and generalities are built out of many specific cases. We examine the general principles by looking at the nitty-gritty details of specific examples.

- you don't get to make pronouncements about what's "most reasonable" until we subject your explanation to scrutiny. You've been holding that pretty close to your chest so far.

Please subject my explanation to scrutiny. It has not been held close to my chest though. It’s been open for centuries before me.

 

[Magic Man]

MagicMan (and other skeptic friends),

MagicMan; I read you last three posts directed to me.

Let me try to summarize my position in case there are open-minded lurkers out there.

Your position seems to be that if somehow you can cobble together a possible explanation for an NDE case (or any alleged paranormal event) that includes no supernatural elements then the whole case is ‘no evidence at all’ and that it’s been ‘debunked’. Using the tools at your disposal, I could probably do this with every possible anecdotal and experimental evidence that seems to be suggestive of the paranormal.

Because you can cobble an explanation together does not at all make it the correct explanation nor even the most reasonable explanation.

First, using inaccurate, misleading terms like "cobble together" doesn't strengthen your argument. It only makes it look more desperate.

Second, you've made the claim before that we shouldn't take skeptical explanations seriously because according to you, we can come up with one for every possible situation. It doesn't work any more now than it did the first time you made it. Here are the facts:

You're presenting situations that are supposed to be examples of at least probable paranormal experiences.

You believe these accounts to be good evidence of paranormal explanations for NDEs.

Every time you bring up one of these accounts, someone goes through the details and points out that the story is not what's it's cracked up to be, as with the example that's been talked about over the last page or so. It always turns out that, if you stop assuming the person's recounting of events is 100% accurate and look at the details, you find that the details don't support a paranormal explanation. They don't necessarily completely eliminate the possibility of it being a paranormal experience; but they don't serve as evidence for paranormal explanations.

Instead of conceding that the examples you use don't work as evidence, you try to continue defending your belief in these phenomena by claiming that we're performing some kind of mental gymnastics to come up with ways to disprove the examples, and then claim we could find some way to do the same for all examples, so the counterarguments are invalid.

What's really happening is you're providing examples that you put your trust in because you have already decided you believe in this phenomenon. So, you aren't skeptical of them and don't take the time to look at the details to see if it all matches up. We're not performing any gymnastics to come up with normal explanations for the situations. We're simply looking at the situation through an objective point of view that hasn't already concluded the phenomenon exists, and making sure all the details are given accurately. The problem is it happens so often that you start to think we must be doing something beyond just looking at the situation objectively.

Lastly, pointing out the holes in these stories doesn't necessarily mean they can't possibly be examples of paranormal experiences. That's not the point of showing the discrepancies. However, it does mean that they no longer serve as evidence for paranormal experiences. Take the example that's been talked about on this thread. It's still possible that she actually talked to dead people while unconscious, but we have no evidence of it other than the word of the woman who had the experience. So, while we can't say with 100% certainty that her experience wasn't what she said it was, we can conclude that the most reasonable explanation, in light of the lack of any evidence to the contrary, is that this was nothing more than unusual brain activity (or even usual brain activity, since this seems to be a somewhat common occurrence during an event like this). If someone at some point can provide more evidence than just someone's word that this is what happened to them, great. Until then there's no more reason to believe these stories than to believe someone who says "I just walked outside and saw Hitler playing chess with a tiny pink hippopotamus".

 

[Magic Man]

One place I think it is fruitless to go is more nit-picking of the details of any one case.

I disagree. I agree that discussing the details of the case we've been discussing is fruitless, since we've already seen the details don't add up to what you want them to. But discussing the details of a different case could be fruitful.

For example, who here is to ever know if the three or four principles in that case didn’t covertly or subconsciously conspire to spike the details of the case to make them more compelling? As I said in that post #402, with all the logical tools at my disposal I could cobble together an explanation with no supernatural elements for any one case.

The problem with this defense is that no one is going that far. We're doing nothing more than pointing out that the details aren't actually what we were led to believe. Acting like we're doing to some extreme doesn't help your case.

The power of my argument lays in the untold millions of events suggestive of the paranormal that have occurred in the history of the world with no one case ever being accepted as the DEFINITIVE proving case.

Which is why your argument isn't very powerful, unless you're predisposed to assume your conclusion. There is no definitive proving case because none of the cases hold up to examination. Having a lot of cases doesn't help your argument unless at least some of them hold up when examined closely. When they fail under such examination every time the examination is applied, it doesn't matter how many of them there are. 1 million stories of NDEs don't serve as strong evidence at all, unless at least some of them have more than just the person's word to support them.

Your claim that I have been evasive about my claims is unfounded. I have consistently and repeatedly made a claim based off the eastern (Hindu) understanding of the universe.

The claim that you've been evasive is founded on the fact that you evade discussion of your claims once they are shown to have problems. You gave an example that you thought served as strong evidence for NDEs. It was pointed out that the details didn't support the paranormal explanation. You conceded that that was true, but still asserted that the case was strong evidence for the paranormal. When you were questioned as to why you asserted that, you then wanted to drop that particular case and stick to generalities like the idea that there are so many such stories. That's evasive. What would not be evasive would be to explain why you think it still serves as evidence or even strong evidence.

Great, I invite you to first learn about and then examine my claims.

We've already done both.

Please subject my explanation to scrutiny. It has not been held close to my chest though. It’s been open for centuries before me.

Yes, your explanation is that there is some mystical way these people are having paranormal experiences that goes beyond the brain just performing tricks on people. Your evidence thus far is that there are a lot of examples of people claiming this happened to them. The scrutiny is that every time a specific example is brought up, it's shown that there is no evidence for the experience being anything other than unusual brain activity.

 

[Willamena]

If generalities aren't reflected in specific cases, then they're not generalities.

Rather, a particular case. It takes only one case to have a particular.

Willamena, as you gave me a frubal (thanks) I think this can't infer too much bad about me (and possibly good or possibly neutral).

I'm at least not too proud to ask if I may please have a 'dumbed-down' version of what your above quote means.

Nothing bad. And nothing important. It's just a case of "someone was wrong on the Internet."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One place I think it is fruitless to go is more nit-picking of the details of any one case. For example, who here is to ever know if the three or four principles in that case didn’t covertly or subconsciously conspire to spike the details of the case to make them more compelling? As I said in that post #402, with all the logical tools at my disposal I could cobble together an explanation with no supernatural elements for any one case.

The power of my argument lays in the untold millions of events suggestive of the paranormal that have occurred in the history of the world with no one case ever being accepted as the DEFINITIVE proving case.

It's not a matter of a "definitive proving case"; it's a matter of the problem that, so far, you haven't produced any case that's even reasonably compelling.

Frankly, it sounds to me that what you're really arguing is that if we stand far enough back, we won't see the holes.

Your claim that I have been evasive about my claims is unfounded. I have consistently and repeatedly made a claim based off the eastern (Hindu) understanding of the universe.

Hinduism is diverse; "eastern understanding" as a whole even moreso. If you want me to know what you believe, you'll have to tell me.

Great, I invite you to first learn about and then examine my claims.

Any time. What explanation are you claiming, exactly? Be specific. What do you believe and why?

 

[George-ananda]

Dear Magic Man and Penguin.....I read all your above posts and here's my rebuttal to you both.

First, using inaccurate, misleading terms like "cobble together" doesn't strengthen your argument. It only makes it look more desperate.

I still like and stick by that choice of words. It must have struck a nerve but I need to make points without getting ugly.

Second, you've made the claim before that we shouldn't take skeptical explanations seriously because according to you, we can come up with one for every possible situation. It doesn't work any more now than it did the first time you made it. Here are the facts:

You're presenting situations that are supposed to be examples of at least probable paranormal experiences.

You believe these accounts to be good evidence of paranormal explanations for NDEs.

Every time you bring up one of these accounts, someone goes through the details and points out that the story is not what's it's cracked up to be, as with the example that's been talked about over the last page or so. It always turns out that, if you stop assuming the person's recounting of events is 100% accurate and look at the details, you find that the details don't support a paranormal explanation. They don't necessarily completely eliminate the possibility of it being a paranormal experience; but they don't serve as evidence for paranormal explanations.

Instead of conceding that the examples you use don't work as evidence, you try to continue defending your belief in these phenomena by claiming that we're performing some kind of mental gymnastics to come up with ways to disprove the examples, and then claim we could find some way to do the same for all examples, so the counterarguments are invalid.

What's really happening is you're providing examples that you put your trust in because you have already decided you believe in this phenomenon. So, you aren't skeptical of them and don't take the time to look at the details to see if it all matches up. We're not performing any gymnastics to come up with normal explanations for the situations. We're simply looking at the situation through an objective point of view that hasn't already concluded the phenomenon exists, and making sure all the details are given accurately. The problem is it happens so often that you start to think we must be doing something beyond just looking at the situation objectively.

Lastly, pointing out the holes in these stories doesn't necessarily mean they can't possibly be examples of paranormal experiences. That's not the point of showing the discrepancies. However, it does mean that they no longer serve as evidence for paranormal experiences. Take the example that's been talked about on this thread. It's still possible that she actually talked to dead people while unconscious, but we have no evidence of it other than the word of the woman who had the experience. So, while we can't say with 100% certainty that her experience wasn't what she said it was, we can conclude that the most reasonable explanation, in light of the lack of any evidence to the contrary, is that this was nothing more than unusual brain activity (or even usual brain activity, since this seems to be a somewhat common occurrence during an event like this). If someone at some point can provide more evidence than just someone's word that this is what happened to them, great. Until then there's no more reason to believe these stories than to believe someone who says "I just walked outside and saw Hitler playing chess with a tiny pink hippopotamus".

You are showing signs of what I call ‘9-10th_Penguin Syndrome’. If I give an inch you take a mile.

I now and always have thought this story in its totality (in conjunction with the full body of NDE research) is very strongly suggestive of paranormal phenomenon. I agreed that the part that occurred while the blood was drained from the brain can not be objectively proven or disproven (meeting deceased relatives). That’s all I ever ‘conceded’ with the story. From that ‘inch’ you took a mile in treating the case like it’s ‘no evidence at all’ and that it’s been ‘debunked’ and that you guys have ‘debunked’ every paranormal story I’ve given. Aspects like her viewing the operation from an out of body perspective during general anesthesia and describing details and conversations during that time have been forgotten since she could have figured all this out herself and integrated it all into a coherent hallucination that she feels certain was real. Well, if it’s not impossible, it’s certainly not the most reasonable theory in my mind.

 

[Magic Man]

I still like and stick by that choice of words. It must have struck a nerve but I need to make points without getting ugly.

It struck a nerve because it's an intentional mischaracterization of my actions in an attempt to mislead people into buying what you're selling. If you have to use inaccurate terms in order to unfairly minimize your opponents' argument, it's usually a sign of problems with your own argument.

You are showing signs of what I call ‘9-10th_Penguin Syndrome’. If I give an inch you take a mile.

I now and always have thought this story in its totality (in conjunction with the full body of NDE research) is very strongly suggestive of paranormal phenomenon. I agreed that the part that occurred while the blood was drained from the brain can not be objectively proven or disproven (meeting deceased relatives). That’s all I ever ‘conceded’ with the story. From that ‘inch’ you took a mile in treating the case like it’s ‘no evidence at all’ and that it’s been ‘debunked’ and that you guys have ‘debunked’ every paranormal story I’ve given. Aspects like her viewing the operation from an out of body perspective during general anesthesia and describing details and conversations during that time have been forgotten since she could have figured all this out herself and integrated it all into a coherent hallucination that she feels certain was real. Well, if it’s not impossible, it’s certainly not the most reasonable theory in my mind.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. You say you think the story is strongly suggestive of a paranormal phenomenon, but you have refused to say why. So, apparently "nit-picking" of this particular story is still necessary.

Now that I look at the story, I remember this one, and I think we discussed it before. This has the same problem a lot of them have, which is that there is no indication that her experiences happened while she was near death. It's pretty much a given that her experience started while just under general anesthesia, and the parts about the saw the doctor used and what the nurses said did happen before she was put in a near-death state. That means it wouldn't be surprising for her to recollect things from that period.

Basically the evidential quality of the story rests on her ability to describe the particular saw the doctor used and something the nurses said while she was under. The rest of it is just her description of her experience that is unverifiable. So, if those two particular aspects can be shown to have easy normal explanations, her story loses all weight as evidence for the paranormal. The easy normal explanations for her claims have already been pointed out here and discussed. You have conceded those points, but continue to hold up the story as strong evidence. The question is why you still think that, and your answer is what we're still waiting for.

We haven't taken a mile. The fact is the story offers nothing more than a woman's subjective account of her NDE with nothing to back it up but her word. And what I said was that this is what happens every time one of these stories is brought up. Discrepancies with the related story are pointed out, and it's shown that there is an easy non-paranormal explanation for the experience. It is always more reasonable to start with a non-paranormal explanation and only give strong consideration to a paranormal one when there is real evidence for it.

 

[George-ananda]

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. You say you think the story is strongly suggestive of a paranormal phenomenon, but you have refused to say why.

I don’t get this comment. I made it clear that seeing things from an out of the body perspective, knowing details and conversations while under general anesthesia (later confirmed) from this perspective, etc., etc., is the strongly suggestive of the paranormal part.

Now that I look at the story, I remember this one, and I think we discussed it before. This has the same problem a lot of them have, which is that there is no indication that her experiences happened while she was near death. It's pretty much a given that her experience started while just under general anesthesia, and the parts about the saw the doctor used and what the nurses said did happen before she was put in a near-death state. That means it wouldn't be surprising for her to recollect things from that period.

Wouldn’t be surprising?? She had a clear coherent memory of events and conversations (later confirmed) from an out of the body perspective in a way she feels certain was real. If I was a materialist that would not be what I would expect to happen.

Basically the evidential quality of the story rests on her ability to describe the particular saw the doctor used and something the nurses said while she was under. The rest of it is just her description of her experience that is unverifiable. So, if those two particular aspects can be shown to have easy normal explanations, her story loses all weight as evidence for the paranormal. The easy normal explanations for her claims have already been pointed out here and discussed.

Easy and normal explanations??? She subconsciously constructed a hallucination during the time of trauma that coherently incorporated specific details and conversations her mind built and created from the facts available to her in such a way that she feels certain it was a real event. Easy and normal??

We haven't taken a mile. The fact is the story offers nothing more than a woman's subjective account of her NDE with nothing to back it up but her word.

Notice how you dropped the fact that she recalled details and conversations (later confirmed). So it is more than just subjective.

And what I said was that this is what happens every time one of these stories is brought up. Discrepancies with the related story are pointed out, and it's shown that there is an easy non-paranormal explanation for the experience. It is always more reasonable to start with a non-paranormal explanation and only give strong consideration to a paranormal one when there is real evidence for it.

I don’t call the non-paranormal explanation easy but shall I nicely say ‘constructed’. And doing that on a whole body of stories (and other paranormal seeming events) quickly becomes unreasonable and admitting there seems to be things ‘unknown’ becomes the more reasonable position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I now and always have thought this story in its totality (in conjunction with the full body of NDE research) is very strongly suggestive of paranormal phenomenon. I agreed that the part that occurred while the blood was drained from the brain can not be objectively proven or disproven (meeting deceased relatives). That’s all I ever ‘conceded’ with the story. From that ‘inch’ you took a mile in treating the case like it’s ‘no evidence at all’ and that it’s been ‘debunked’ and that you guys have ‘debunked’ every paranormal story I’ve given.

It's "debunked" in the sense that you originally presented the story as a case where what happened required some sort of explanation besides known naturalistic mechanisms. As soon as you concede that the parts of the story that are incompatible with a naturalistic explanation can't be confirmed, the paranormal explanation (BTW: exactly what is your paranormal explanation? You still haven't said) is no longer required.

At that point, the best we can say is that this so-far-vague paranormal explanation is consistent with the story... but we could dream up any number of rationalizations that are consistent with the story but are completely false.

Aspects like her viewing the operation from an out of body perspective during general anesthesia and describing details and conversations during that time have been forgotten since she could have figured all this out herself and integrated it all into a coherent hallucination that she feels certain was real. Well, if it’s not impossible, it’s certainly not the most reasonable theory in my mind.

I'll ask you again: tell us what your "theory" is. Once we examine it, then we can judge which one's more reasonable.