This is the paper you’re alluding to. It seems tomndebb is right (though I couldn’t click through to the commentary . The findings are inconclusive, the authors seem to believe there must be some other cause than the physiological to the NDE’s reported, mostly because not enough people report them. Strange spin, though. I’d have thought it would bring NDE’s into question, not support them.
However, lekatt, for someone whose life mission seems to be focused on spreading the word about NDE, you are strangely reluctant to clear up issues about your own. To wit:
There is one element missing, which you yourself seem to believe is essential to an NDE: your body stopping. The question has been repeated, over and over, and on this very thread someone who did have a near death experience questioned your experience:
Again: why do you believe your body stopped during your alleged NDE?
Wait-a-minute. I know you are very busy, but why couldn’t you at least point me to an answer of yours that tells me what kind of “Near Death” you experienced?
On second thought, I’m actually offended by your post.
I not only read but dug up the actual research you were referring to. And now you casually dismiss my post? Why?
You say you will “wait for questions you have not already answered”. Well, to make my case, I linked to several cites which were in this thread. So, what are you telling me? That you are allowed to dismiss questions which you supposedly “already answered”? While I and all other posters actually work to make our points, by quoting other people’s answers and linking to them?
You, sir, are extremely rude, if you simply don’t engage in conversation with other posters and dismiss our input. How do you reconcile your posture with your “loving” attitude?
A loving attitude does not mean being a door mat. The links to the research are good. The research is good. It was checked out in peer-review, and approved for publication. I know its real because I have experienced it first-hand and personal. It is ok if you don’t like the research, just pass it by. If you wish to discuss it I will be happy to do so,
Answers to other questions can be found in post nos. 175, 179,and 221.
That is untrue, as I and Czarcasm demonstrated before. The only peer-reviewed link I found was to a summary of research that undercuts one of your key claims (i.e., that NDEs suggest that consciousness has a nonphysical cause); I found no direct links to peer-reviewed research that supported any of your claims.
Admittedly I only looked at a few of your hundreds of links; the signal-to-noise was too great. If you will provide me with exactly one link to exactly one study in a peer-reviewed science journal that you believe supports your claim, I will consider it. Please do not link to your cite, though: I’m asking for a direct link to the journal.
lekatt, could you give us, just once, a direct link to a peer-reviewed double-blind study that supports your position?
No anonymous anecdotes.
No book or article reviews.
No references to studies in other places.
No puff/promo pieces.
One direct link to a peer-reviewed double-blind scientific study.
In fact, I think the question Czarcasm and I just asked is so at the core of the issue that I propose an agreement. Folks, can we restrain ourselves from responding to lekatt except to repeat this request, until he fulfills it? If he really has the bulk of research he claims that he has, it should take him less than thirty seconds to fulfill it.
We are, indeed, worlds apart. I would like to see a responsible investigation using the scientific method and you wish to accept any research that appears that it might coincide with your beliefs while rejecting (often rudely) any research that does not conform to your beliefs.
Note, again, that I have not rejected as impossible any of the interviews; I have only noted that they do not rise to the level of actual science.
That is not how Great Debates works. As long as you continue to post things that are easily refuted, I will continue to point out the errors so that you do not lead astray any visitor who may not realize the errors in your claims.
I will continue to refrain from commenting on your beliefs as long as you express them as beliefs and do not prretend that they have been validated by actual science.
You are not going to get one. What you will get will be a reference (or a few references) to an operation in which at some point the patient’s brain was supercooled and, possibly, drained and various memories (real or imagined) that were recorded days or months later are interpreted to have been obtained during an OBE. lekatt will refuse to acknowledge that memories can be planted and will insist that the anecdotes “prove” something or other. (Meanwhile, all the interested doctors continue to rely on interviews while failing to take steps to actually test their hypotheses.)
(I won’t even bother to link to the last quote, since it was about the research. Read my posts, lekatt, I’m not asking you any questions about the research).
Again: What kind of “Near Death” was involved in your Near Death Experience.
And, again: why do you keep insulting me by ignoring my actual posts? Why don’t you engage in a civilized discussion? Why do you even bother to answer?
Are you deliberately insulting me by ignoring my posts and my questions ?
Lekatt I’ve read and reread your account of your NDE. It has NOT answered my questions. Merely pointing to the account and saying you have answered my questions helps no one.
Did you have a heart attack the night of your NDE?
Lekatt, maybe you remember that I remain open-minded to levels of perception and understanding of reality that are beyond the “mundane.” That includes NDE. But I also understand the difference between anecdotal experience documentation and scientific documentation and research.
I believe that eventually matters of science and matters of the spiritual realm will meet. The more we learn about the universe – both the overwhelmingly large and the unbelievably small – the less traditional laws of physics or day to day logic seems to apply. That doesn’t mean that scientific methods should be abandoned. Nor should logic. What is required is an open mind.
Scientists must keep open minds and follow proper scientific methods. You also must not call something “scientific” when it is not. Don’t call something “proof” when you mean “evidence.” Don’t call something a “study” or “research” when it is just describing events as they were reported to have occured. That is not the same thing.
Please remember that I am not a scientist and not closeminded to the experiences you have described. But they need to be put into perspective.
Yes, I appreciate your good will. The studies I call scientific are called so by the people who do them, and are published in proper journals. I see no reason for them not to be called scientific studies. I see studies on other subjects done in the same manner called scientific by the posters on this board. The problem lies with the subject not the methods. People die in hospitals and when they come back to life they are able to tell about the events that happened while they were dead. Great care has gone into these studies and Universities of good standing accept and approve them.
This link is to a researcher debunking what a skeptic had to say about his research. The research can be looked up in the Lancet where it was published.
My post 220.
This is good solid research in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with it. Since I have posted here I have been villified, called names, had my posts misquoted on purpose, and generally been harrassed by the skeptical posters that rule this site. They have run off dozens of posters who hold opposing views to theirs. I am still here for now.
I do really appreciate your open-minded approach, and the truth you bring to the threads. There is a culture of near death experiencers that outnumber the skeptics, who are honest, caring individuals that deserve their experiences to be heard and discussed in a honest debate.