Here we go again. This is not a study-it is a news report about a doctor that wants to do a large study.
How many times in how many threads do you have to be shown the difference between a study, a news article, a puff piece and an anonymous and anecdotal tall tale?
I have to agree with you here. This article is not about a study that has happened or anyone who after doing a study became a true believer, which I believe was the claim made.
This is too good to pass by. Given you’re screen name I’m sure you’ll appreciate my response.
No fooling? So you’re saying unless I come to some conclusion about NDEs being valid or invlaid I might as well stay in my room? Hmmmmm seems logical.
I asked you what your assessment was and you never answered. Are you argueing they do know and my statement is incorrect? I don’t think so.
The article about Ketamine is pretty interesting. I don’t find it surpriseing that the NDE or other spiritual experiences have physiological connections. It still leaves plenty of questions unanswered.
from that article;
Is the article significant information? I think so. Is it better quality information than an unverified, feel good story? Sure. Is it still inconclusive? Absolutely.
The article by Susuan Blackmore was also interesting. The quality of the information was quite good. I thought she offered some viable theories, but that’s all they were.
from the article.
Sounds like, “we don’t know” to me.
Did you happen to notice that the statement you refered to as “nonsense” does not in any way exclude useing all valid evidence gathered? Duh!!
I agree with you here. I would remind you that it is not you and those that agree with you that decide what “valid” evidence is, or exactly what that evidence means. When you and I read the same article I may see it differently than you. That doesn’t make one of us wrong and the other right. You may feel that your opinion is better because you use a higher quality of information to form it, but inconclusive is still inconclusive, and your opinion isn’t any better when it lacks any real evidence.
When I read it, it was about a pilot study, that caused the doctor to want to do a larger study.
Bold face is mine.
This was a recent study, if you are looking for mature studies.
Read the research books of:
Dr. Raymond Moody, Jr.
or
Elisabeth Keubler-Ross,
or
Dr. Melvin Morse,
or
Dr, Kenneth Ring.
to name a few.
I found them on the Internet if you wish to look there.
Dr. Michael Sabom wrote a book on the Pam Reynolds surgery, an event that leaves no doubt that consciousness lives on after the death of the body.
Another more recent link is
The material on near death experiences is huge, it points to the reality of the experience. I am confident as more main stream Americans read the material and realize there is truth to their spiritual beliefs, the more publicly discussed it will be.
It could be that the skeptics will become the only ones that don’t know.
Now if anyone would like to discuss NDEs or other spiritual experiences, I will check this thread. I will not answer critical posts that are not backed by research. I have had enough of the counter opinions to know what they will be before they are posted. I would very much like to discuss in a serious manner these experiences.
You have convinced me lekett. After reading this thread, I finally believe that the afterlife and NDEs DO exist.
I used to think that the spirit was an imaginary thing, simply an idea or a metaphor.
I used to think that since the spirit, by definition, exists after death, then it could have no bearing or impact on the physical world.
I used to think that the spirit was just a concept that was held on to by mentaly fragile people to help them endure the pain of their existance and overcome the fear of eventual oblivion.
I used to think, reading your threads over the last few years that you were grasping on to a thin veil of reality and that arguing NDEs, the spirit and the afterlife was done so only to add meaning to your life.
I used to think your highjacks were annoying and disruptive to sensible discussion.
However I was wrong - your arguments have merit, they are pursuading, convincing and sound.
lekatt, " Title: ‘Near death experiences’ probed" was the title of a BBC news article, not the title of any study. I wouldn’t even call what is reported on in that news article a proper study, even. “A pilot project at the city’s general hospital suggested that a small proportion of patients who had a cardiac arrest and survived, reported some kind of unusual experience while they were clinically brain dead.” Note the terms “pilot project”, “suggested”, and “small proportion”. Can you give us a direct link to an actual study done by an actual impartial scientist? As far as the Pam Reynolds fiasco is concerned, we already covered that in previous threads(please refer to post #124 for links) and I’m too tired to rehash something you will ignore anyway.
Since you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your tightly held beliefs, and you will not respond to counter opinions, is it safe to assume that you will only discuss this subject with those that agree with you?
Thanks for your post, I appreciate it very much.
antenichus, could you try and tell us what you think brought about your volte face? Is it more to do with some datum or data which you consider simply could never be explained by dreams, misremembered sequences of events or other purely neuropsychological process, or is it more to do with some feeling of significance or “meaning” it inspires in you which neurophsychological explanations do not?
You’re correct. It didn’t seem like an in depth study to me but these lines you quoted,
were pretty interesting, but still sketchy. It says “may imply”
I’ve had several spiritual experiences that were very significant to me and have done a good bit of studying in that area so I am a believer that our physical bodies are fleeting and we are spiritual beings. I try to be aware of the difference beween my beliefs {which change with experience and information} and knowledge. There are a lot of things that are still mysteries and have no hard evidence to prove or disprove them. NDEs seems to be one of them
from one one Czar’s links
I like this. The author is recognizing that OBEs and NDEs are outside the realm of science at this time. In eastern religions they often talk of the silver thread that connects the spirit to the body and how we can travel in spirit while still staying connected to our bodies by this silver thread. When I read the NDEs of people observing things from outside and then feelings pulled back into their bodies. It might also explain sensory memory while the spirit is outside. Of course there’s isn’t a lick of proof that I’ve ever seen. I tend to regard spiritual stories and mythology as our attempts to explain things that are beyond our current understanding. There are elements of truth mixed with the limitations of language and our limited understanding.
I’ll check these out thanks.
I enjoyed this link. Pretty compelling I’d say.
As I said, I’m a believer but I haven’t done a lot of reading about NDEs. I’ll do more.
Nothing you provided was any more conclusive than those last two links Lekatt provided. You insisting that your “evidence” is better or somehow more rational doesn’t make it so. Get a grip. It’s only your opinion
Thats all it is and as wonderful and superior as you seem to think it is, it really isn’t any better than anyone elses.
The opinions and alternative theories of other research is interesting but no more compelling than an R.N. who has been studying NDEs for thrity years.
There isn’t any conclusive evidence for or against NDEs. Thats it. People can choose what to believe and how they interpret the evidence. Lekatt said he would not respond to critical posts not backed by research. I take that to mean that your snide comments and not so subtle ridcule is unappreciated and unwelcome. I second that. You criticize Lekatt for only wanting to discuss with those who agree and yet anyone who doesn’t see your “evidence” the same way you do, you dismiss. The proverbial pot.
lekatt has been posting the same things for quite some time. When asked for one of the numerous studies he mentions, he replies with a BBC article or a collection of anecdotes from a single nurse.
I decided to go ahead and do his work for him. Here’s the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11426476&query_hl=1]pilot study mentioned in that BBC article. It says “Further large-scale studies are needed to understand the aetiology and true significance of NDE.” So let’s see if we can find those needed studies.
Here’s a study of the relationship of altered temporal lobe functioning (similar to what’s happening with the “god machine”) to NDEs. It doesn’t seem to directly address whether, for example, people experiencing NDEs learn things that they couldn’t otherwise know, though, so it still doesn’t support lekatt’s assertions of documented cases of NDEs with confirmed supernatural ties.
Here’s another study of physiological causes of NDEs. Still no help on the rememberances, though.
Here’s one that appears to be nearly on-point. “These include an ability to ‘see’ and recall specific detailed descriptions of the resuscitation, as verified by resuscitation staff,” says the abstract. But this is a review article, and strangely I can’t find any articles published before it that confirm that sentence.
As for the lack of “conclusive evidence for or against NDEs,” nobody here is asserting that NDEs do not exist. Nobody is asserting that there are no NDEs in which people remember things that they couldn’t have known otherwise. Someone is asserting that NDEs do exist, and that in “true” NDEs people remember things from the “other side,” as well as details of things in the room that they couldn’t know without “looking down” from an out-of-body experience, and, with the nurse’s anecdotes, things about dead relatives that they couldn’t otherwise know. We’re just asking for evidence that these assertions are true. Anecdotes don’t cut it. I have a friend who swears John Edward told him all about how his friend committed suicide, but everything I’ve ever seen from John Edward leads me to believe that it was my friend doing the telling, and John Edward just gave vague impressions that could be interpreted as being related to the suicide. How do I know that the same thing didn’t happen with the boy, assuming for the moment that the nurse isn’t mis-remembering or lying, and the boy actually exists. The anecdote claims “Even more startling were his vivid descriptions of relatives long deceased.” What were those descriptions? How much of the descriptions were his words, and how much was him replying to prompting by relatives who knew the person? It isn’t hard to imagine this conversation taking place:
Boy: There was an old man.
Gramma: Did he have a brown hat?
Boy: Yes!
Gramma: It was your Great Grampa Joe! He always wore a brown hat.
Boy: Yeah, I think he did say his name was Joe!
Family: Amazing, he met Great Grampa Joe!
Without documentation of what actually happened, these are not evidence for the type of NDEs that lekatt has asserted have been confirmed, so, lacking evidence, I can’t choose to believe in them. I do not rule out the possibility, but I need a reason to believe something; I can’t simply choose to believe that something is true, then find a way to convince myself of it. That makes no sense to me, nor, I suspect, to several of the posters that you think are calling the kettle black.
cosmosdan, is this the evidence from lekatt’s link so compelling-"According to the Gallup Organization and near-death research studies, more than 13 million adults in the United States have had near-death experiences. Add children’s encounters and the figure is much higher.
The 8-year-old boy had just undergone open-heart surgery and, for one brief instant, his heart stopped beating.
The boy later claimed he had a near-death experience. He told his family and caregivers about the beautiful journey he had taken toward a bright light.
Even more startling were his vivid descriptions of relatives long deceased. He recited the names of relatives he had met during his encounter who had died long before he was born. He recounted how they died and where they were buried.
“It’s hard to dispute such incredible claims from a child,” Diane Corcoran, Ph.D., RN, of Durham, N.C., said. “How can an 8-year-old provide such comprehensive information about deceased relatives, revealing details unknown even to his family?”
It starts off with a poll, and continues with yet another anonymous story. Unless we have access to the original interview, we have no idea if the boy gave the so-called wondrous information(I say “so-called” because what was actually said is not passed on to the reader) unprompted, or if the questioner gave leading questions and filled in gaps herself, which is something that happens far too often when the questioner isn’t impartial, as this nurse certainly isn’t.
The next paragraph assumes evidence that certainly hasn’t been proven yet. " How can a patient who has flat-lined hallucinate? How does a patient undergoing open-heart surgery recount verbatim the conversations and actions that took place in the operating room?" Since anything the patient says is reveal after she or he wakes up, there is no way to tell when the memory was recorded. It could have happened before the flatline, during the flatline, or immediatedly after the flatline. There is absolutle no way to tell when a memory is recorded, period. The second sentence? Show me the evidence, and I’ll consider it.
“According to the Gallup Organization and near-death research studies, more than 13 million adults in the United States have experienced NDEs. Add children’s encounters and all experiences worldwide, and the figure is much higher.” Another poll(useless when gathering evidence) and a non-varified and totally nonsensical claim of more than 13 million adults in the U.S. alone reporting that they came close to dying and had an NDE. Doesn’t that figure seem a little high to you? Does this suggest that the writer of this piece might already be a true believer and not an actual reporter?
“After their encounters, they no longer are afraid to die.” Now there’s a sweeping statement that just screams for varification. More than 13 million adults in the U.S. alone now no longer fear death? Right.
What follows after are more anonymous and unvarifiable stories from Corcoran who, it turns out, is a former six year president and current member of the International Association For Near-Death Studies. Now, the IANDS is not exactly an impartial group that studies NDEs with a scientific eye-they have a “Revelations Registry” on their website where, and I quote “if they were given revelations that might interest the general public (predictions of future events, revealing material about history, creation, God, etc.), they are welcome to post the revelations and thus share them with others.”
I could go on, but I won’t.
I was curious as to the content of NurseWeek articles, so I used their own search engine to look up “healing touch” and found 3287 results. I only had time to look at the first 50 articles and none of them questioned the use of this highly disputed mystical “healing” practice, which actually involves the nurse “sensing” your aura by holding his or her hands close to your body, then “healing” your aura through good thoughts.
I hope you forgive me if I don’t find anything printed in NurseWeek to be of practical value.
Lekatt
I’ve done a little more reading. I was very impressed by an interview with Dr. Raymond Moody Jr. What impressed me was his honesty. He talked about his studies and recounted details but when asked in one question to draw some conclusion he would not do so. I can respect and identify with that.
from the interview;
and
finally
He also refers to some other NDE promoters as NDE entertainers. Interesting.
I find him completely honest and logical. His comment on critical thinking is a gem.
There are areas where science has provided answers. There are areas where science is not able to provide answers.
IMHO the spiritual journey takes place within us and is deeply personal. We can share ideas, experiences, thoughts, but the question of truth must be decided by the individual and they choose to discover it in their own time and in their own way. It a process of surrender and deisre. Our desire to know the truth and the courage to surrender to it, because as we know, the truth isn’t always easy to deal with.
I try to respect people’s right to choose their own path, whether they are atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, wacko findamentalist, or whatever. I consider their journey and their choice something sacred. Of course we share this world and that means intereaction and sometimes confrontation, which is a good source of learning for all involved.
I also read your link in a previous thread about what science has to say about NDEs and pretty much concur. They offer interesting information but nothing really conclusive. I would agree with Dr. Moody that NDE’s don’t really prove anything about life after death or the nature of “our spirit” It is a very interesting area and I’ll be doing some more reading about it. Thanks for your input.
Thanks for your post, I really appreciate it.
Notice that in his last post he says that your link doesn’t exactly support your position.
Can you provide us with a link to an actual study that actually supports your position?
Czarcasm
If your point is that the evidence that** Lekatt** offers is not accpetable by scientific standards then I agree.
I realize nobody was denying the existance of NDEs. Poor wording. What I meant was the spiritual significance of NDEs.
There are certain areas where science offers little. Does God exist? Is there life after physical death? Do we have a soul? The list goes on.
If you choose to not believe because of a lack of verifiable hard evidence then fine. I understand that. Those questions remain open and unsolved and my reasons for believing are just as valid as your reasons for not believing. Thats all I’m saying.
You offered inconclusive evidence to counter Lekatt’s inconclusive evidence. Big deal. That’s what I meant by the proverbial pot.
It seems obvious to me that serious intelligent people have been and still are finding a lot of significance in the study of NDEs, such as the PHD Nurse in Lekatt’s article You might be interested in this interview with Dr. Raymond Moody. It’s not scientific proof but it’s just as interesting and thought provoking to me as any article about God Helmets and chemicals.
A story about an NDE is not hard evidence and cannot be examined scientifically but the sheer volume of those stories and the profound effect they have on a large percentage of those that experience them, is significant.
You and others are free to disregard all of this if thats your inclination. All I’m asking is that you don’t elevate your opinion beyond someone elses when you can’t seem to back yours up any better than they can.
A decent definition of spiritual experiences should not conflate the validity of the mode of experience with its interpretation i.e. the type of divinity with the existence of one.
So, let me posit one: spiritual experiences are those which allow an alternate mode of epistemology.
In the extreme case, the domains of the two epistemologies, i.e. the rational waking consciousness, and the spiritual mode, may not overlap. At the other extreme, they may be coincident, so that anything discovered in one mode, is somehow discoverable in another.
Wrong. I offered inconclusive but persuasive scientific evidence to counter lekatt’s anecdotal and more often than not anonymous stories, puff pieces written by true believers, links to websites full of true believers, news stories about supposedly mysterious events with no follow through, and a tiny handful of scientic links that actually go against his stated position. Now, if lekatt’s stated position was that he believed in NDEs dispite scientific evidence to the contrary, there would be no discussion here. What he is doing though is claiming the scientific high ground through the misunderstanding and deliberate misuse of the scientific process.
When one True Believer interviews another True Believer, I expect precisely this sort of gushing “interview”. How do you think the interview would have gone if an impartial reporter had done it?
When one True Believer interviews another True Believer, I expect precisely this sort of gushing “interview”. How do you think the interview would have gone if an impartial reporter had done the interview?