religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[charlie sc]

No, the first paper AGAIN was given to you because of jessicas contribution. Which her conclusions are still hers.

And as for "christian dualist viewers of the soul" i dont know what ypur talking about. The philosophy paper does support the NDE. Did you read the veridical NDE parts where they had extra sensory perceptions and knowledge?



It is in my favor. It talks about the ESP NDEs and even gave an example.



Mayby the snarky response is because of your scedoskeptisims.



If you don’t believe my explanation(that I dumbed down) of the paper YOU read then read it yourself or get someone else to read it. I was willing to go step by step with you so you could understand it but I definitely wouldn’t do that now. Besides, I don’t think you’d consider listening to anything I’d have to say anyway and you’re so resistant to anything but your view. I think I’ve gone to some length trying to accommodate you, but with your attitude it’s become impossible.

Basically, look in the mirror.

I don't think conversation between you and I is productive at this point so I've asked anyone who is more philosophically inclined give a second opinion on the paper you link under the philosophy category - Second opinion on a philosophy paper.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
Were you under the mistaken impression that he had any valid degrees? Didn't you do any research on him before you linked to him? For shame.

"Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris."

As I said, he has no degrees in any related field.

All your doing is ad hominums.

You have not referenced any actual double-blind studies that he has done. Therefore, I cannot critique his work. The only option I have is to point out that he has no qualifications and has done no actual research.

Berlinski admitted himself that he is agnostic.

He's an agnostic! Really? He believes in the supernatural. Do either you or he know the definition of agnostic. See especially the part in red.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

He's as much agnostic as I am Fundamentalist Christian.

 

[ecco]

"Methods and Results

The AWARE study has two objectives, (1) to examine the incidence of awareness and the variety of mental experiences during cardiac arrest (CA) resuscitation, and (2) to develop a methodology to test the accuracy of reports of visual and auditory perceptionduring CA. The study began in 2008 and, over the first four years, examined 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, the US and Austria.

Cardiac arrest survivors were interviewed in three stages, (1) to determine if there were memories or perceptions during the CA, (2) to determine if the memories or perceptions constituted an NDE (with or without auditory/visual awareness), and (3) to verify the accuracy of any auditory/visual perceptions of the physical environment that were experienced during the NDE.

To assess the accuracy of claims of visual awareness (VA), 50 to 100 shelves were installed in each hospitalnear the ceiling of areas where CA resuscitation was likely to occur. Each shelf had an image that was visible only from above the shelf. The study's hypothesis was that the images on the shelves could potentially test the validity of claims of accurate VA, provided enough cases of NDEs occurred where the patient had visual awareness from a vantage point high enough to see the image.

Of the 2,060 patients in the study, only 140 survived and were well enough to have a Stage 1 interview. Of these 140, 39 were not able to complete the Stage 2 interview, mostly due to fatigue. Of the remaining 101 patients interviewed in Stage 2, only 9 were deemed to have had an NDE (9%) and of these 9 NDErs, only two reported memories of auditory/visual awareness of the physical environment. Of these two, one was not able to follow up with an in-depth Stage 3 interview due to ill health. The other patient had verified perceptions of CA events:

• During the NDE, the patient felt quite euphoric.
• The patient heard an automated voice saying "Shock the patient, shock the patient."
• The patient rose near the ceiling and looked down on his physical body, the nurse and another man, bald and "quite a chunky fella", who wore blue scrubs and a blue hat. The patient could tell the man was bald because of where the hat was.
• The next day, the patient recognized the bald man who attended him during the resuscitation.
• The medical record confirmed the use of an AED (Automated External Defibrillator) that would give the automated instructions the patient heard and the role that the identified man played during the resuscitation.

Unfortunately, both cases of CA NDEs with auditory/visual awareness occurred in non-acute areas of the hospital, without shelves, so further analysis of the accuracy of VA was not possible"

AWARE study initial results are published!

In my own words: more research, to a brouder scope of types of sick people need to be tested on.

I haven't bothered to read any of your quote mined wall of words. If you have something to say - you say it. Then you can try to back it up.

Show you understand what you pasted by giving a synopsis.

Second, when a NDEr comes out of there body, lets be real, the last thing on there mind is a magazine on a shelf.

Riiight! Funny how they can describe so much about so many things except those that are not in plain view to everyone. Hmmm.

You really need to get an understanding of what a double-blind test is.

 

[ecco]

It seams that some people have a pseudoskepticism type attitudes. They wont believe unless they themselves experience it.

Nonsense. I believe in many things that I have not / cannot personally experience. I base much of my knowledge on the findings of other people.

But I'm choosey about what people and what kind of people I put my trust into.

Many years ago I learned the difference between scientists and people pushing pseudo-science.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Apparently its not peer reviewed papers either.

When you present some peer-reviewed double-blind studies, I'll be glad to take a look. So far you haven't been able to do that.

 

[ecco]

And yes, atheists have had NDEs and some changed there view and some did not.

Can you prove that assertion?

 

[ecco]

I don't think conversation between you and I is productive at this point so I've asked anyone who is more philosophically inclined give a second opinion on the paper you link under the philosophy category - Second opinion on a philosophy paper.

The problem with the paper you cite is that it is in a format that does not permit selective copying and pasting. That makes citing any parts of it more difficult than it would be worth.

Is there a better version?

 

[charlie sc]

The problem with the paper you cite is that it is in a format that does not permit selective copying and pasting. That makes citing any parts of it more difficult than it would be worth.

Is there a better version?

I found a copy/paste version https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1051955/m2/1/high_res_d/vol1-no1-57.pdf.

He actually believes this paper he wanted me to read proves the soul or something. If anything, it shows some problems in the dualist concept of the soul.

 

[Jollybear]

ecco:
Were you under the mistaken impression that he had any valid degrees? Didn't you do any research on him before you linked to him? For shame.




As I said, he has no degrees in any related field.



You have not referenced any actual double-blind studies that he has done. Therefore, I cannot critique his work. The only option I have is to point out that he has no qualifications and has done no actual research.




He's an agnostic! Really? He believes in the supernatural. Do either you or he know the definition of agnostic. See especially the part in red.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

He's as much agnostic as I am Fundamentalist Christian.

He himself has said he is agnostic. That comes from him. I tend to believe what people classify themselves as, unlike you.

And again

"Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University."

He claims to be agnostic, he has a postdoc in biology and he says theres problems with evolution.

And hes right about the pretentions of science. My point about you that you pretend naturalism is a proven explanation for everything.

 

[Jollybear]

Can you prove that assertion?

I gave a link earlyer showing atheists who had NDEs, theres more as well. Theres ones on youtube. One lady on youtube was a scientist and atheist, had a NDE and is no longer an atheist.

 

[Jollybear]

I haven't bothered to read any of your quote mined wall of words. If you have something to say - you say it. Then you can try to back it up.

I did say it and my quote refutes what you quote mined yourself. So, quit the double standard. If you think you can quote stuff, well so can i and you arent going to tell me i cant. Well, you can, but i certainly wont obey you. You may as well talk to the wind.

Show you understand what you pasted by giving a synopsis.

I did, underneath it, if youd have just read it unhastily, you would have noticed.

Riiight! Funny how they can describe so much about so many things except those that are not in plain view to everyone. Hmmm.

You really need to get an understanding of what a double-blind test is.

BS. The things some NDEers have seen, they and others have verified.

 

[Jollybear]

Nonsense. I believe in many things that I have not / cannot personally experience. I base much of my knowledge on the findings of other people.

You dont seam to question assumptions though. Thus, your dogma.

But I'm choosey about what people and what kind of people I put my trust into.

How do you determine whos trustworthy?

Many years ago I learned the difference between scientists and people pushing pseudo-science.

Apparently you dont know the difference between skeptism and scedoskeptisims. Your a scedoskeptic

When you present some peer-reviewed double-blind studies, I'll be glad to take a look. So far you haven't been able to do that.

Again, BS.

 

[Jollybear]

I found a copy/paste version https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1051955/m2/1/high_res_d/vol1-no1-57.pdf.

He actually believes this paper he wanted me to read proves the soul or something. If anything, it shows some problems in the dualist concept of the soul.

I found a copy/paste version https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1051955/m2/1/high_res_d/vol1-no1-57.pdf.

He actually believes this paper he wanted me to read proves the soul or something. If anything, it shows some problems in the dualist concept of the soul.

Glad you found that. Now i can paste the section i was refering too.

"Hallucinatory-type explanations simply do not fit the growing
body of data or else appear hopelessly ad hoc. For example, they do
not account for the patient's knowledge of events in the operating
room. In addition, characteristics which define hallucinations are
missing in NDEs. Moreover, at least one cardiologist claims to have
correlated NDEs with flat EEGs, a claim which, if born out, would
appear to rule out the possibility of hallucinations."

 

[charlie sc]

Glad you found that. Now i can paste the section i was refering too.

"Hallucinatory-type explanations simply do not fit the growing
body of data or else appear hopelessly ad hoc. For example, they do
not account for the patient's knowledge of events in the operating
room. In addition, characteristics which define hallucinations are
missing in NDEs. Moreover, at least one cardiologist claims to have
correlated NDEs with flat EEGs, a claim which, if born out, would
appear to rule out the possibility of hallucinations."

I might regret continuing this conversation, but I feel as if you're genuinely trying to learn and you're not a troll.

Before I even comment on that quotation, can you briefly describe what conclusion you came to by reading that, rather than I guess what conclusion you have drawn?

 

[ecco]

I found a copy/paste version https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1051955/m2/1/high_res_d/vol1-no1-57.pdf.

He actually believes this paper he wanted me to read proves the soul or something. If anything, it shows some problems in the dualist concept of the soul.

​

All quotes are from the above link...

Here the author admits to making up a word...

Thus while I have not seen the phrase in print, a commitment to "energy-materialism" now appears very much in order.
​

And he then goes on to use it to support his NDE ideas...

What are the implications of energy-materialism for NDEs? To begin, the idea of emanations of energy from a "nearly dead" body should not surprise us on theoretical grounds.
​

This is typical of woosters. They take a little snippet of science "matter is (but a form of) energy, and the latter is the fundamental reality." and weave their own narratives on top of it.

The most important thing to remember is that Mark B. Woodhouse is a philosopher. He is not a scientist. He has done no experiments on NDE. He doesn't even reference any studies about NDE.

NDE now; Fairies then

The Cottingley fairy hoax of 1917 is a case study in how smart people lose control of the truth

One hundred years ago, two girls went down to the stream at the bottom of a garden in Cottingley, England, and took some photographs of fairies. The fairies were paper cut-outs, which Elsie Wright, age 16, had copied from a children’s book. She and 10-year-old Frances Griffiths took turns posing with the sprites.

The girls developed the photographs in Elsie’s father’s darkroom, and presented them to their families as stunning evidence that fairies were real. Elsie’s father didn’t believe them—but her mother did. Two years later, she showed the photographs at a meeting of the Theosophical Society, a group dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and “forming the nucleus of a universal brotherhood of humanity.”

It is hard to imagine the photos seeming convincing to anyone older than 12.

Yet the Theosophical Society saw things differently; the members immediately and ecstatically accepted the photographs as real. Edward Gardner, a writer and leading member of the Society, took them as proof that the “next cycle of evolution was underway” and mounted a campaign to convince the public of their authenticity. He gave lectures on the photographs, made copies of them, and passed them reverently around at meetings.

Initial press coverage was skeptical...But during and after World War I, spiritualism and mysticism gained increased influence over a grieving British public. The fairy photographs seemed to resonate with many people who were eager to believe in the existence of a better world, and in the possibility that we might be able to communicate with it.

Willingness to believe in the fairies was not a matter of intelligence or education. None other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a trained physician and the creator of Sherlock Holmes, was dead-set on the whole notion. Doyle, a noted spiritualist, saw the photographs as evidence that communication could exists between material and spiritual worlds.

​

 

[charlie sc]

​

All quotes are from the above link...

Here the author admits to making up a word...

Thus while I have not seen the phrase in print, a commitment to "energy-materialism" now appears very much in order.
​

And he then goes on to use it to support his NDE ideas...

What are the implications of energy-materialism for NDEs? To begin, the idea of emanations of energy from a "nearly dead" body should not surprise us on theoretical grounds.
​

This is typical of woosters. They take a little snippet of science "matter is (but a form of) energy, and the latter is the fundamental reality." and weave their own narratives on top of it.

The most important thing to remember is that Mark B. Woodhouse is a philosopher. He is not a scientist. He has done no experiments on NDE. He doesn't even reference any studies about NDE.

NDE now; Fairies then

The Cottingley fairy hoax of 1917 is a case study in how smart people lose control of the truth

One hundred years ago, two girls went down to the stream at the bottom of a garden in Cottingley, England, and took some photographs of fairies. The fairies were paper cut-outs, which Elsie Wright, age 16, had copied from a children’s book. She and 10-year-old Frances Griffiths took turns posing with the sprites.

The girls developed the photographs in Elsie’s father’s darkroom, and presented them to their families as stunning evidence that fairies were real. Elsie’s father didn’t believe them—but her mother did. Two years later, she showed the photographs at a meeting of the Theosophical Society, a group dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and “forming the nucleus of a universal brotherhood of humanity.”

It is hard to imagine the photos seeming convincing to anyone older than 12.

Yet the Theosophical Society saw things differently; the members immediately and ecstatically accepted the photographs as real. Edward Gardner, a writer and leading member of the Society, took them as proof that the “next cycle of evolution was underway” and mounted a campaign to convince the public of their authenticity. He gave lectures on the photographs, made copies of them, and passed them reverently around at meetings.

Initial press coverage was skeptical...But during and after World War I, spiritualism and mysticism gained increased influence over a grieving British public. The fairy photographs seemed to resonate with many people who were eager to believe in the existence of a better world, and in the possibility that we might be able to communicate with it.

Willingness to believe in the fairies was not a matter of intelligence or education. None other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a trained physician and the creator of Sherlock Holmes, was dead-set on the whole notion. Doyle, a noted spiritualist, saw the photographs as evidence that communication could exists between material and spiritual worlds.

​

That philosophy paper is nearly 40 years old and uses outdated information. It's quite humorous about the EEG correlation and I can't even find that reference. I recently helped my girlfriend write a report on EEG. It's fairly complicated and continuously changing. Anyway, yeah, the author goes to great lengths to try accommodate some objectivists view, so he goes through 3 different versions. Though no conclusion is ever reached, of course. I don't think this paper is particularly useful because it doesn't change science in the slightest. Karl Popper and his philosophy is far more instrumental and has been vital in the scientific method.

I read that story. It's very funny. This is why scepticism is always needed.

 

[atanu]

Interesting interpretation.

Not an interpretation, really. I simply agreed with your OP based on self experience.

 

[Jollybear]

I might regret continuing this conversation, but I feel as if you're genuinely trying to learn and you're not a troll.

Im defenately not a troll. I am a bit frustrated thats all. These kind of discussions take alot of patience. Eco tests my patience the MOST on this thread.

Before I even comment on that quotation, can you briefly describe what conclusion you came to by reading that, rather than I guess what conclusion you have drawn?

My conclusion from that quote is that conciousness is independent of brain, is not produced by the brain, it merely activates the brain. Conciousness is independent due to the fact the NDEer has knowledge of things while his body/brain is suspended.

The paper says hallucinations dont account for the veridical knowledge.

Your thoughts?

 

[charlie sc]

My conclusion from that quote is that conciousness is independent of brain, is not produced by the brain, it merely activates the brain. Conciousness is independent due to the fact the NDEer has knowledge of things while his body/brain is suspended.

The paper says hallucinations dont account for the veridical knowledge.

Your thoughts?

I think that's a pretty good conclusion to what he wrote.
So, I'll try critique it and say what my conclusion is. I'll cut it into two sections and then a further two sections. First I'll summarise than I'll critique it

"Hallucinatory-type explanations simply do not fit the growing
body of data or else appear hopelessly ad hoc. For example, they do
not account for the patient's knowledge of events in the operating
room. In addition, characteristics which define hallucinations are
missing in NDEs."

Summary

He seems to mean that scientists haven't studied this particular phenomena, because he talks about data. He gives an example where either we haven't studied the patients knowledge of events in the operating room or people that experience NDE don't have them. I'm going to say that it's the prior(they aren't studied), because, he mentions later on in the paper, that people have had outer body experience in NDE as displayed by this quote, "Patients who reportedly leave their bodies in operating rooms often describe with great precision the goings-on in the room during their near-death experience." So, he's saying people do have them but they're not studied. Lastly, in this section, he implies that they don't seem to fit the hallucination definition. Basically, what is a hallucination so it may not be that but rather something else.

Critique

1: there have actually been studies since this has been written that take into consideration hallucination and knowledge of operating rooms.
2: This paper is nearly 40 years(38-39) old, so they may have not been studied prior to this paper it was probably difficult to get a hold of them, because of no internet.
3: The definition critique, in the last section, seems odd to me because he doesn't seem go into detail or supply references.
4: no references are mentioned here - science or otherwise.

So now let's look at the next section.

"Moreover, at least one cardiologist claims to have
correlated NDEs with flat EEGs, a claim which, if born out, would
appear to rule out the possibility of hallucinations."

Summary

I have actually practised with EEG and know something about them. They measure electrical signals from the brain by placing electrodes along the scalp. They measure surface activity and brain waves and have been divided into various sub groups- alpha, beta, etc. Now, flat EEG would probably mean a dead brain.

Critique

1: He has one reference that I can't even find, so it's difficult to examine.
2: Assuming the brain is actually fully dead, another possible explanation is that it's similar to a dream and catches up when they wake. For instance, sometimes dreaming for 1 minute can make someone have a dream that seems incredibly long. This is anecdotal though.
3: Let's assume that the patient managed to attain memories while their brain is fully dead, then that would mean there's something soul-like or energy-like, etc, that accumulated these memories( this particular critique is pima facie pro some kind of soul or energy.)
4: So, we have to assume the brain is dead based on this EEG correlation study and we have to assume that memories were attained during this dead state.

Conclusion he comes to:

Something other than the brain is creating memories or could be.

 

[Jollybear]

I think that's a pretty good conclusion to what he wrote.
So, I'll try critique it and say what my conclusion is. I'll cut it into two sections and then a further two sections. First I'll summarise than I'll critique it

"Hallucinatory-type explanations simply do not fit the growing
body of data or else appear hopelessly ad hoc. For example, they do
not account for the patient's knowledge of events in the operating
room. In addition, characteristics which define hallucinations are
missing in NDEs."

Summary

He seems to mean that scientists haven't studied this particular phenomena, because he talks about data. He gives an example where either we haven't studied the patients knowledge of events in the operating room or people that experience NDE don't have them. I'm going to say that it's the prior(they aren't studied), because, he mentions later on in the paper, that people have had outer body experience in NDE as displayed by this quote, "Patients who reportedly leave their bodies in operating rooms often describe with great precision the goings-on in the room during their near-death experience." So, he's saying people do have them but they're not studied. Lastly, in this section, he implies that they don't seem to fit the hallucination definition. Basically, what is a hallucination so it may not be that but rather something else.

Critique

1: there have actually been studies since this has been written that take into consideration hallucination and knowledge of operating rooms.
2: This paper is nearly 40 years(38-39) old, so they may have not been studied prior to this paper it was probably difficult to get a hold of them, because of no internet.
3: The definition critique, in the last section, seems odd to me because he doesn't seem go into detail or supply references.
4: no references are mentioned here - science or otherwise.

So now let's look at the next section.

"Moreover, at least one cardiologist claims to have
correlated NDEs with flat EEGs, a claim which, if born out, would
appear to rule out the possibility of hallucinations."

Summary

I have actually practised with EEG and know something about them. They measure electrical signals from the brain by placing electrodes along the scalp. They measure surface activity and brain waves and have been divided into various sub groups- alpha, beta, etc. Now, flat EEG would probably mean a dead brain.

Critique

1: He has one reference that I can't even find, so it's difficult to examine.
2: Assuming the brain is actually fully dead, another possible explanation is that it's similar to a dream and catches up when they wake. For instance, sometimes dreaming for 1 minute can make someone have a dream that seems incredibly long. This is anecdotal though.
3: Let's assume that the patient managed to attain memories while their brain is fully dead, then that would mean there's something soul-like or energy-like, etc, that accumulated these memories( this particular critique is pima facie pro some kind of soul or energy.)
4: So, we have to assume the brain is dead based on this EEG correlation study and we have to assume that memories were attained during this dead state.

Conclusion he comes to:

Something other than the brain is creating memories or could be.

I agree that we cannot directly study the concious person while hes out of his body flying around seeing things. Unless we can make some nifty technology scanners to detect the energy.

But, in anycase, the veridical knowledge parts can be studied and have been studied to an extent.

Of course, are both parties involved in the veridical experience a conspiracy or honest? I think its honest due to the fact theres so many of them reported.

In one of the other peer reviewed papers, one example is cited and interviewed.

The Near-Death Experience: Myth or Reality? A Methodological Approach

 

[charlie sc]

I agree that we cannot directly study the concious person while hes out of his body flying around seeing things. Unless we can make some nifty technology scanners to detect the energy.

But, in anycase, the veridical knowledge parts can be studied and have been studied to an extent.

Of course, are both parties involved in the veridical experience a conspiracy or honest? I think its honest due to the fact theres so many of them reported.

In one of the other peer reviewed papers, one example is cited and interviewed.

The Near-Death Experience: Myth or Reality? A Methodological Approach

I just checked it out and it appears to be a qualitative study from 1981. Instead of me reading that whole thing, how about we make this reciprocal and I choose a study that we can discuss?

I'd be willing to go into further detail with Near-Death Experiences and the Mind-Body Problem paper, because I've read it, or something of my choice, but I don't think it would be fair for me to read a 3rd paper off the bat. I may try relate it to the mind-body problem study - like EEG - if I can find it. Also, I try to pick the most recent stuff.

I think that would be fair.