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

[Jollybear]

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.

Sure. Thatle work. Ill start reading the mind body problem paper if thats the one you wanna discuss.

 

[charlie sc]

Sure. Thatle work. Ill start reading the mind body problem paper if thats the one you wanna discuss.

Was that a yes to continuing examining the 2nd paper you gave, "mind body problem," or one that I'll find?

 

[Jollybear]

Was that a yes to continuing examining the 2nd paper you gave, "mind body problem," or one that I'll find?

Im confused. The second paper i gave was not the mind body problem paper, it was the myth or reality paper.

Im willing to continue with the myth or reality paper. The one i linked to the interview example of a veridical NDE.

But, ill let you decide. If you really wanna discuss the mind body problem paper, i can do that.

Curious though, that paper also says department of philosophy. Arent you iffy about it being philosophical?

 

[charlie sc]

Im confused. The second paper i gave was not the mind body problem paper, it was the myth or reality paper.

Im willing to continue with the myth or reality paper. The one i linked to the interview example of a veridical NDE.

But, ill let you decide. If you really wanna discuss the mind body problem paper, i can do that.

Curious though, that paper also says department of philosophy. Arent you iffy about it being philosophical?

I counted this as the first An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications. The second Near-Death Experiences and the Mind-Body Problem and the third The Near-Death Experience: Myth or Reality? A Methodological Approach

I asked before I read the third paper, I'd either like to choose a study of my own or continue with the Mind-Body Problem.

The reason I didn't want to discuss philosophy too much or get into another philosophy paper is because philosophy papers don't get into examining evidence, methodologies, structured writing, make their own experiments/studies, etc. philosophy is incredibly useful but it's not instrumental anymore in the development of science. It might be again, one day, but not now. In order to understand reality, we need to use science if we are to make claims.
Philosophy on the other hand does not do this. As you saw by that paper, it goes through numerous explanations, suggestions, logical problems, ontological problems, epistemological and so on, but it does not deal with evidence, which is what I want to get into.

 

[Jollybear]

I counted this as the first An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications. The second Near-Death Experiences and the Mind-Body Problem and the third The Near-Death Experience: Myth or Reality? A Methodological Approach

I asked before I read the third paper, I'd either like to choose a study of my own or continue with the Mind-Body Problem.

The reason I didn't want to discuss philosophy too much or get into another philosophy paper is because philosophy papers don't get into examining evidence, methodologies, structured writing, make their own experiments/studies, etc. philosophy is incredibly useful but it's not instrumental anymore in the development of science. It might be again, one day, but not now. In order to understand reality, we need to use science if we are to make claims.
Philosophy on the other hand does not do this. As you saw by that paper, it goes through numerous explanations, suggestions, logical problems, ontological problems, epistemological and so on, but it does not deal with evidence, which is what I want to get into.

The mind body problem paper is from the department of philosophy it says.

Do you want to discuss the myth or reality paper? That one dont say its philosophy.

 

[charlie sc]

Do you want to discuss the myth or reality paper? That one dont say its philosophy.

Yes, and because I read it, I don't mind going into it more even if it's not something that's that interesting for me. However, this wouldn't be a reciprocal discussion if I read another paper you linked. Therefore, I refuse to read the third paper at least until I have a turn to choose a paper I would like to examine. Basically, it'll just be me examining stuff you choose all the time if I read and examine that third paper.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, and because I read it, I don't mind going into it more even if it's not something that's that interesting for me. However, this wouldn't be a reciprocal discussion if I read another paper you linked. Therefore, I refuse to read the third paper at least until I have a turn to choose a paper I would like to examine. Basically, it'll just be me examining stuff you choose all the time if I read and examine that third paper.

Ok, well, yea, you can choose a paper then. Link it to me, ill read it and we can discuss it.

 

[charlie sc]

Ok, well, yea, you can choose a paper then. Link it to me, ill read it and we can discuss it.

Sorry for the wait but I've been a bit too busy to read through whole articles and still haven't, been lazy, but most arduously, I've been having difficulties finding outer body experience(OBE) with near-death experience(NDE). You see, it's not controversial that people have near-death experiences, nor is it controversial that people have outer body experiences. Nonetheless, I can find very few to no studies that empirically study these two together. There are many types of induced OBE studies that's not related to NDE.
Most of the scientific studies on NDE are more concerned with how a dying brain can manifest experiences that are related to OBE or hallucinations. Trying to prove a soul/afterlife/god, etc just going on testimony does not mean much unless it can be proven, especially if it's a claim that's against verifiability. So, for instance, we usually disregard alien abduction testimony because there's no actual proof of alien stuff/aliens that we can examine. There are ton of induced OBE studies that have nothing to do with NDE, but that would not be relevant, unless you want to talk about that. However, you or another person might just say that these studies don't show anything(if proven inconclusive) because one can just say the person was high(it's not all drug induced btw). A high brain Therefore, in order to know NDE testimony is real, we'd need to examine something the patient won't possibly know, but see it in an OBE. This would show, irrefutably, that something similar to a soul/supernatural/unknown is going that has no possible medical explanation

The only empirical study I could find was the one that ecco posted. That study, apparently, was a hugely ambitious and took years, which came back inconclusive. As you can imagine, these studies must be hard to get off the ground because of the ethical implications. You have people dying in hospitals and it may be seen as extremely unethical to place some sort of experiment in the rooms of the patients while they're being saved or dying.

So I thought maybe we could examine a literature review of all the accumulated research that has to do with OBE and NDE. Here is a literature review that's fairly recent - Do out-of-body and near-death experiences point towards the reality of nonlocal consciousness? A critical evaluation I skimmed it but It seems very easy to read. They also mentioned the study ecco posted since this literature review was written after said study.

Tell me when you'd like to start or you have an objection Once you're ready I'll start reading it also.

 

[Audie]

I counted this as the first An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications. The second Near-Death Experiences and the Mind-Body Problem and the third The Near-Death Experience: Myth or Reality? A Methodological Approach

I asked before I read the third paper, I'd either like to choose a study of my own or continue with the Mind-Body Problem.

The reason I didn't want to discuss philosophy too much or get into another philosophy paper is because philosophy papers don't get into examining evidence, methodologies, structured writing, make their own experiments/studies, etc. philosophy is incredibly useful but it's not instrumental anymore in the development of science. It might be again, one day, but not now. In order to understand reality, we need to use science if we are to make claims.
Philosophy on the other hand does not do this. As you saw by that paper, it goes through numerous explanations, suggestions, logical problems, ontological problems, epistemological and so on, but it does not deal with evidence, which is what I want to get into.

I first heard of remote viewing while driving across
Kansas at night. Coast to Coast, Art Bell was
interviewing a remote viewer. Hmm, what is that.
I wondered.

I began kind of piecing it together, and it sounded
intriguing. Until Art asked him if he could remote
view Bin Laden, and let the army know where he
is.

To that he said "Of course, but they have not
yet asked me to. I am sure they have some
reason."

Cracked me up.

 

[Audie]

Sorry for the wait but I've been a bit too busy to read through whole articles and still haven't, been lazy, but most arduously, I've been having difficulties finding outer body experience(OBE) with near-death experience(NDE). You see, it's not controversial that people have near-death experiences, nor is it controversial that people have outer body experiences. Nonetheless, I can find very few to no studies that empirically study these two together. There are many types of induced OBE studies that's not related to NDE.
Most of the scientific studies on NDE are more concerned with how a dying brain can manifest experiences that are related to OBE or hallucinations. Trying to prove a soul/afterlife/god, etc just going on testimony does not mean much unless it can be proven, especially if it's a claim that's against verifiability. So, for instance, we usually disregard alien abduction testimony because there's no actual proof of alien stuff/aliens that we can examine. There are ton of induced OBE studies that have nothing to do with NDE, but that would not be relevant, unless you want to talk about that. However, you or another person might just say that these studies don't show anything(if proven inconclusive) because one can just say the person was high(it's not all drug induced btw). A high brain Therefore, in order to know NDE testimony is real, we'd need to examine something the patient won't possibly know, but see it in an OBE. This would show, irrefutably, that something similar to a soul/supernatural/unknown is going that has no possible medical explanation

The only empirical study I could find was the one that ecco posted. That study, apparently, was a hugely ambitious and took years, which came back inconclusive. As you can imagine, these studies must be hard to get off the ground because of the ethical implications. You have people dying in hospitals and it may be seen as extremely unethical to place some sort of experiment in the rooms of the patients while they're being saved or dying.

So I thought maybe we could examine a literature review of all the accumulated research that has to do with OBE and NDE. Here is a literature review that's fairly recent - Do out-of-body and near-death experiences point towards the reality of nonlocal consciousness? A critical evaluation I skimmed it but It seems very easy to read. They also mentioned the study ecco posted since this literature review was written after said study.

Tell me when you'd like to start or you have an objection Once you're ready I'll start reading it also.

As good a research article as the subject needs,
right here-

new yorker cartoon in body experience - Google Search

 

[SkepticThinker]

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 would say that the patient's presence in the operating room would account for the "patient's knowledge of events in the operating room." There's no need to jump to supernatural observations when the the obvious explanation is staring you in the face.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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?

Okay, if you say that it is the case that consciousness is independent of the brain, could you explain how and why my grandmother's consciousness and personality changed after her brain was damaged by a stroke? If consciousness is independent of the brain, shouldn't her consciousness have remained the same after the stroke as it was before the stroke?

 

[Audie]

I would say that the patient's presence in the operating room would account for the "patient's knowledge of events in the operating room." There's no need to jump to supernatural observations when the the obvious explanation is staring you in the face.

The is a need, but not the sort you are referring to.

Mark Twain — 'If it is a miracle any sort of evidence will answer. But if it is a fact, proof is necessary.'

 

[charlie sc]

I first heard of remote viewing while driving across
Kansas at night. Coast to Coast, Art Bell was
interviewing a remote viewer. Hmm, what is that.
I wondered.

I began kind of piecing it together, and it sounded
intriguing. Until Art asked him if he could remote
view Bin Laden, and let the army know where he
is.

To that he said "Of course, but they have not
yet asked me to. I am sure they have some
reason."

Cracked me up.

Very funny but also sad how people can be duped so easily.

 

[Audie]

Very funny but also sad how people can be duped so easily.

Guarantees a living for a lot of preachers.

 

[Jollybear]

Sorry for the wait but I've been a bit too busy to read through whole articles and still haven't, been lazy, but most arduously, I've been having difficulties finding outer body experience(OBE) with near-death experience(NDE). You see, it's not controversial that people have near-death experiences, nor is it controversial that people have outer body experiences. Nonetheless, I can find very few to no studies that empirically study these two together. There are many types of induced OBE studies that's not related to NDE.
Most of the scientific studies on NDE are more concerned with how a dying brain can manifest experiences that are related to OBE or hallucinations. Trying to prove a soul/afterlife/god, etc just going on testimony does not mean much unless it can be proven, especially if it's a claim that's against verifiability. So, for instance, we usually disregard alien abduction testimony because there's no actual proof of alien stuff/aliens that we can examine. There are ton of induced OBE studies that have nothing to do with NDE, but that would not be relevant, unless you want to talk about that. However, you or another person might just say that these studies don't show anything(if proven inconclusive) because one can just say the person was high(it's not all drug induced btw). A high brain Therefore, in order to know NDE testimony is real, we'd need to examine something the patient won't possibly know, but see it in an OBE. This would show, irrefutably, that something similar to a soul/supernatural/unknown is going that has no possible medical explanation

The only empirical study I could find was the one that ecco posted. That study, apparently, was a hugely ambitious and took years, which came back inconclusive. As you can imagine, these studies must be hard to get off the ground because of the ethical implications. You have people dying in hospitals and it may be seen as extremely unethical to place some sort of experiment in the rooms of the patients while they're being saved or dying.

So I thought maybe we could examine a literature review of all the accumulated research that has to do with OBE and NDE. Here is a literature review that's fairly recent - Do out-of-body and near-death experiences point towards the reality of nonlocal consciousness? A critical evaluation I skimmed it but It seems very easy to read. They also mentioned the study ecco posted since this literature review was written after said study.

Tell me when you'd like to start or you have an objection Once you're ready I'll start reading it also.

Alright, i read the whole article. Did you want me to tell you my thoughts now or wait till you read it first?

 

[charlie sc]

Alright, i read the whole article. Did you want me to tell you my thoughts now or wait till you read it first?

Yeah, tell me what you think.

 

[Jollybear]

.

Ok. Im gonna put in quotes sections of the paper then respond under.

But the fundamental problem with this way of conceptualising the research problem is that it
is seen as a case of enough data instead of how to interpret and understand the data. The
assumption is that more cases of NDEs can confirm the claims made by NDErs. However,
the content of experiences cannot be the evidence for the hypothesis because more cases
merely provide more examples in need of interpretation (see Irwin 2002:21). Whether ten or
a thousand accounts of NDErs perceiving things during the experience does not matter if
what they claim to have perceived cannot be verified and independently corroborated. In the
words of Robert Kastenbaum: “Ten thousand reports are no better than ten reports if they are
offered simply as further examples of the fact that some people believed they had died and
come back to life” (1996:260).

First, theres only two interpretations. Either conciousness IS or IS NOT produced by the brain. People are either having veridical perceptions in there NDE or there having false memories or there lying.

Also, sometimes the veridical experiencer has independent verification by others who wer involved in the room of there NDE. Sometimes the experiencer is the only one verifying.

As far as others independently coroborating this, this also is done to an extent by researcher interviews. Jeffrey long which i gave you his webpage and the paper also mentions, he does this kind of thing. Jeffrey longs webpage is probably provides the best extensive data available.

The third example, which Kenneth Ring and Madelaine Lawrence present as “supported by
independent corroboration of witnesses” (1993:225), is that reported by a social worker,
Kimberly Clark, who visited a patient, Maria, who was admitted to the Harborview Hospital
in Seattle after a heart attack. Maria told her that during an OBE she was outside the
hospital and saw a tennis shoe on the ledge on the outside of the building (see Long 2010:79;
Beauregard 2012:171). Clark’s version that the shoe could not be seen from inside or outside
the hospital did not pass the test of examiners simulating the case (see Augustine 2008:18ff;
Wiseman 2011:67-70). Perhaps it is significant that even NDE sympathisers dismiss this
story as hearsay rather than fact (see Marsh 2010:63).

Im gonna just pick one example of a veridical experiencer in order to keep my post short. Lets do this in bits.

I heard the story of this on youtube, right from the horses mouth here > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=2ahUKEwjrvePvw6PhAhUEMd8KHTiNBUwQwqsBMAF6BAgFEAU&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov

After watching this its hard to imagine any of this veridical perception being "false memories".

Basically she comes out of her body. Leaves the operating room at that! She sees a tennis shoe on a ledge. She describes it as blue. Has a lace going under the shoe. Has a scuff at the toe.

When she returns to her body, she tells the worker at the hospital to go check. She does and finds the shoe, plus all the detail descriptions pertaining to it accurately.

 

[charlie sc]

First, theres only two interpretations. Either conciousness IS or IS NOT produced by the brain. People are either having veridical perceptions in there NDE or there having false memories or there lying.

So, in this quote, he's not talking about choices. He's critiquing how eye witness testimony alone is not good data. He says here it's important that 1: cases need to be as similar as possible 2: verified 3: independently corroborated.
This is vital in any science and, I'd hope, any field that utilises critical thinking. For example, there was a recent YouTube video of priest or preacher resurrecting another person from the dead in South Africa. I can find it on YouTube if you want. If we weren't sceptical about the act, we'd accept it because it has eye testimony even video. However, people were sceptical and wanted verification he was actually dead. The news looked into it and the guy who was playing dead did not go to any hospital or have any death certificate, etc. Also, there was some evidence to show some of the observers were paid. It was just a big mess and the church involved tried to distance themselves from it lol. This is a good example of how just eye witness testimony needs verification and someone who is independent to corroborate it.

Also, sometimes the veridical experiencer has independent verification by others who wer involved in the room of there NDE. Sometimes the experiencer is the only one verifying.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that two people are experiencing the same thing or something else?

As far as others independently coroborating this, this also is done to an extent by researcher interviews. Jeffrey long which i gave you his webpage and the paper also mentions, he does this kind of thing. Jeffrey longs webpage is probably provides the best extensive data available.

Alright.

Im gonna just pick one example of a veridical experiencer in order to keep my post short. Lets do this in bits.

I heard the story of this on youtube, right from the horses mouth here > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=2ahUKEwjrvePvw6PhAhUEMd8KHTiNBUwQwqsBMAF6BAgFEAU&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov

After watching this its hard to imagine any of this veridical perception being "false memories".

Basically she comes out of her body. Leaves the operating room at that! She sees a tennis shoe on a ledge. She describes it as blue. Has a lace going under the shoe. Has a scuff at the toe.

When she returns to her body, she tells the worker at the hospital to go check. She does and finds the shoe, plus all the detail descriptions pertaining to it accurately.

Your link is not working for me.

 

[Jollybear]

So, in this quote, he's not talking about choices. He's critiquing how eye witness testimony alone is not good data. He says here it's important that 1: cases need to be as similar as possible 2: verified 3: independently corroborated.
This is vital in any science and, I'd hope, any field that utilises critical thinking. For example, there was a recent YouTube video of priest or preacher resurrecting another person from the dead in South Africa. I can find it on YouTube if you want. If we weren't sceptical about the act, we'd accept it because it has eye testimony even video. However, people were sceptical and wanted verification he was actually dead. The news looked into it and the guy who was playing dead did not go to any hospital or have any death certificate, etc. Also, there was some evidence to show some of the observers were paid. It was just a big mess and the church involved tried to distance themselves from it lol. This is a good example of how just eye witness testimony needs verification and someone who is independent to corroborate it.

I understand. Whats his name, sam pernia said that its hard to research NDEs due to the very nature of it and its circumstances. You cant put it in a test tube. But you can do the best you can. Im paraphrasing.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that two people are experiencing the same thing or something else?

Example is the NDEr who saw the shoe. She did not go verify if the shoe was on the ledge, she asked a worker to go verify it. So, two people wer a part of this veridical perception circumstance.

Alright

The cool thing about jeffrey longs website is the NDErs own words are typed answering the interview questions. Verbatum. His questions are also well designed. Mayby we can look at one example of that later on.

Your link is not working for me.

Those darn links. Let me try something else to get it on here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nde...noECA0QAg&cshid=1553738814851&biw=360&bih=560

Its the second video in this link.