You want valid scientific studies from one side, but are willing to accept feel-good stories from the other? I’ll tell you what, if no one else has posted the easily obtainable(and often cited even here) studies by the time I get back from work, I’ll do it myself. I am curious though-will you look at this evidence objectively, or will you dismiss it as “so called” because it doesn’t back up your belief system?
I didn’t claim those links to be conclusive or scientific. I used the term so called because not everything that is termed scientific actually is. If you have anything you consider a valid scientific study you’d like to share please do so.
When did I say I was willing to accept feel good stories as conclusive evidence?
I never did. I wasn’t agreeing completely with** Lekatt**. Simply noticing that you hadn’t offered anything other than brief ridcule. I’m all for science helping us to discern the truth. I will read whatever links you provide.
Here’s a link to a previous thread on the subject of NDEs..
Here’s a previous thread that evolved into an NDE discussion that is Chock Full O’ Links.
An even earlier thread that has a few useful links.
A link to a study on induced NDEs.
A link that talks about spiritual and non-spiritual NDEs.
An article by Susan Blackmore on the subject.
A critical examination of NDE research.
Apparently, people of other religions spiritually travel to OTHER heavens.
Another article on the subject.
When you get done with these, I can post a few dozen more if you need them.
Sincere thanks, very interesting reading. I didn’t have time to read everything but enough. I’m curious. What is your sincere assessment of this evidence?
I looked at the site. I’m a little confused. I think work helping people deal with physical death is a great thing. It helps us not to live in fear of the inevitable edmise of our physical bodies. I’m not sure what that particular site has to do with the validity of NDEs other than mentioning he’s had several.
When I posted this link we were talking about how near death experiencers are totally changed by the experience. We were also talking about “Life Reviews”. In his book Dannion describes his experience including his life review and I suggested you might want to read it.
Dannion is a leader in recruiting NDEers for hospice work and many other programs to help others. His life illustrates the changed perception that experiencers receive from their near death experiences. My life illustrates that point also as do 90% of all experiencers. I use the 90% figure even though I know of no experiencers whose life was not changed completely.
The statement I made was that skeptical researchers, and skeptical scientists do not use real NDEs in their studies. They only use a few elements of real NDEs that can be explained away by them. If you read the links provided by Czarcasm you will not find any of them addressing the totally changed personality of the NDEer which illustrates my point. There is an expansion of perspective that is caused by the experience, and no one has been able to reproduce that effect in a lab.
What I am saying is real NDEs have not been studied properly.
There are other elements of the real NDE that I will bring into this thread if it seems apprpriate.
Skeptical scientists are the only kind who can study anything properly. “Changed personalities” don’t require any sort of mystical explanation, people change without anything like that. What you are saying is that those skeptics you dislike have proven you wrong, but you won’t admit it. When only the true believers can see something, that means that what they are looking at is imaginary.
FYI, I started an interesting book just this morning on this subject, called Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment. He reviews several different approaches to the search for truth, including mystical experience through exogenous chemicals, the so-called “God Machine”, meditation, etc. So far, I think it is very nicely done.
I read the reader’s comments of this book, and ascertained the title is misleading. Some believed this would be a spiritual book, but were disappointed. I probably won’t read this book. I try to keep up to date on what science is doing concerning consciousness, and find that is enough for me.
Spirituality and Science are so far apart at this point in history. With most scientists believing spirituality doesn’t exist. I think the next ten years will be critical for spirituality to show the truth of existence. I think it will be successful.
I have an experience where a solid atheist has a near death experience and remains an atheist. This is unusual for NDEs. Thought you might like this one.
http://www.aleroy.com/board240.htm
It kinda illustrates the problems when science and spirituality meet head-on.
Why don’t you finish reading through the links I’ve provided so far, and tell me how they compare scientifically to the links provided by the pro-NDE side?
Another refusal to look at evidence that you might not agree with, and yet still another link to your own website that provides(will wonders never cease?) another anonymous and non-varifiable tale. Perhaps, though, I merely misunderstood what you are saying. When you say “I have an experience where…”, are you saying that this happened to you, you heard it somewhere and can’t recall who told it to you, or did someone send this to your website anonymously?
OKay. I’m not sure how you could conclude that they’re not studying “real” NDEs.
It seems to me that we really can’t know one way or the other. The ones that are chemically induced could be called “not reall” I guess, since the people weren’t actually near death. The mysterious nature of NDE’s makes it all a little surreal.
Like any spiritual quest it means what it means to the person.
I don’t find the suggestions of science to detract from it in any way. The Epiphany Hat or chemicals that simulate the NDEs is nothing new. Chemicals have been used for used for years. Look at what the American Indians went through for their vision quest. Compared to that the Epiphany Helmet is for pussies. 
Do you have any other links,perhaps about the studies you mentioned and doctors who have become believers?
You mention the exspansion of perspective, Thats what I find most intriguing about spiritual experiences. I had my own OBE or vision or whatever. The details of it were not as important as the way my mind was opened to the truth of certain things and how that realization helped me to be completely at peace and content within an emotional crisis. To me the details are interesting but the real question is “what did you learn?” and “How has this learning changed your view about life?”
I read several more. Interesting. IMO science and the spiritual quest should work hand in hand to help us understand our universe. The links offered interesting information and several alternative theories about NDEs. Nothing conclusive.
In fact here are a couple of quotes
and
Are they more objective? Some are,while some are about the same. So what?
It remains an area where there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Some are more eager to see spiritual meaning than others. Some tend to seek out a more earthly or physical explainantion. Human preference and prejudice. Perfectly normal. In the end the conclusion is, we don’t really know but we’re trying to find out.
Not much in life is conclusive, but you must be willing to weigh the evidence both for and against if you wish to progress in your persuit of knowledge. Again, I ask you to judge the quality of the evidence provided by those who persue the scientific method, versus those who provide not much more than anecdotal(and mostly anonymous) tales and websites full of people that are inclined to smile and believe anything you tell them, hoping that, in turn, you will believe them. Though the number of sites available may be equal on both sides, the actual evidence(facts, figures and repeatable tests) is in favor of science and reason. It’s like comparing a five gallon bucket of diamonds to a five gallon bucket of marshmallows-you have to look beyond the size of the bucket to know what you’ve got.
Interesting how you talk of repeatable tests and science but say that not much in life is conclusive. I thought that was the point of science, relativly speaking.
I think the point is that according to science, there is no conclusion concerning this subject. The links you provided don’t even say that science is fairly sure about NDEs. They offer some information and suggestions and then admit they don’t really know. Okay, I give up. I accept the scientific fact that they don’t know.
Happy now?
I understand if you find nothing compelling about anything Lekatt has offered. It would probably only be meaningful to someone who had a NDE or what they considered a profound spiritual experience. Finding it meaningful is not the same as finding it conclusive. I have spiritual beliefs but an importent part of mine is being aware of how much remains a mystery yet to be discovered. What I don’t appreciate are those on the SDMB who think their opinion about those areas that are beyond our currrent understanding and scientific knowledge, is somehow superior to someone whose opinion is different than theirs. I find it pompous and ludicrous. Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge requires going forward with faith in your own theory until additional information is available.
OK, I will try again to explain. NDEs are made up of several elements. These elements include:
Floating out of their body and observing their own dead body, as well as others in the room.
While out of body they travel to other areas of the hospital or even miles away to observe their loved ones grieving, at this point they try to console them. when they return to life they can describe all the things they saw accurately including what was happening in the places they visited outside of the room that contained their body.
Seeing the light
Feeling the love of God
Receiving an expanded knowledge of life
Understanding the Unity of all things and their part in it.
Having a dialogue with spiritual beings about whether they will continue to live or not.
Life Review of how they have helped or harmed others
Meeting deceased relatives and pets, in some cases not knowing they were deceased.
Being shown future events.
Being shown other knowledge or sites or buildings.
Having their personal questions answered by “light beings”.
and other less frequent elements, like being told by a deceased relative where a lost object can be found.
When they return to life they retain an expanded perspective of all things, and have no fear of death or life anymore.
These are the common elements of a near death experience. But skeptical scientists will discuss only a few of them. Usually the light, and love, sometimes they will mention the deceased relatives. they will talk about how these can be reproduced or are hallucinations as if they are discussing real near death experiences which they are not.
That’s what I mean.
People who have only read the media and science literature will never know the depths of a near death experience unless they research them. They are many good NDE sites on the web and more coming on. At least the general public is learning about them through these sites.
I don’t know how else to explain it, but if you want to know about near death experiences you will need to read them from the real NDE sites. Otherwise you won’t. Skeptical scientific study is badly faulted by the sin of omission. They do not study the whole NDE, because it will disprove some of their favorite theories.
Thanks. I already knew the basics. You mentioned people who have studied it becoming convinced. What I was looking for was some reports by doctors who have done some studies on this over years and what they think. I’ll google it when I have some time.
Here is one such study, I have more.
cosmosdan, if you go through life unwilling to make up your mind until conclusive evidence is presented, you might as well sit in your room and do nothing. When you claim that the only thing you got out of all the links provided is the “the scientific fact is they don’t know”, you have shown me that you refuse to consider the weight of the evidence. “Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge requires going forward with faith in your own theory until additional information is available.” you say. Nonsense. The true pursuit of knowledge requires forming theories based on all valid evidence gathered. You do not need conclusive evidence to form a valid theory-you merely need the mental discipline and willingness to separate fact from fancy. You keep the facts and evidence that are valid, even if they fly in the face of your preset beliefs, and examine anecdotal evidence with great care, for memory is mallable and is easily influenced by many things.