I should leave this to tomndebb, since he already had written about it, but:
It wasn’t a link you gave. Several of us had to dig it out of the heap of links you constructed, and even then it was three or four links away
It didn’t “establish” NDE’s as a fact. It was a study trying to find out if there was a significant relationship between specific groups and NDE’s. It failed even in that respect. If you had read it, you would already know this, of course
To study this relationship, they interviewed people who underwent cardiac arrest and subsequent revival if they had had an NDE. However, this doesn’t actually prove they had an NDE. It proves they thought they had one (**tomndebb **has already explained the difference between one and the other)
One of the points it establishes is that actually less than 19% of the people interviewed reported an NDE. One of the points they actually make is that this number is too low to be explained via the traditional physiological explanation for NDE’s. I already said that I would think that it also is a pretty heavy blow against the “transition into a higher plane” explanation
In other words, we have made progress: you finally saw what kind of scientific studies several people are asking for, when they ask you for documentation of your statements. However, this one doesn’t qualify because the object it was studying isn’t the one you hold dear (or only indirectly).
You’d need to find a study that tries to prove that people experience things under an NDE that couldn’t be explained otherwise.
Lucky for you, then, that Qadgop posted the direct, free link for you. I eagerly await your direct quotations from this article, which you say supports you.
Here is one of several quotes in the article that do NOT support you:
(emphasis added)
I included the second half of the above quote because it softens the blow of the first and because I didn’t want to be accused of selective quotation. Nonetheless, the study as written only suggests that further research into the phenomenon ought to be done; it does nothing to suggest a nonphysical explanation for NDEs. At best, it appears to rule out several possible correlative factors.
When you’re looking for quotes in the research that support your claim, please DO NOT quote anecdotes that the researchers themselves quote. I’m interested in research that supports your claim, not in third-hand stories that support it.
That is what lekatt wants to assert (so that he can believe that they died and came back). In fact, in those operations when a significant amount of blood has been drained, it has occurred under specific conditions of cooling the brain to a level in which it stops functioning without beginning to decay (much like some revived drowning victims in frozen lakes have suffered little or no anoxia because thier bodies were nearly frozen during the period of oxygen deprivation). This is closer to what we think of as “suspended animation” than to death.
As I see it, the best evidence for NDE is that, allegedly, sometimes people who have this or similar procedures (that is, procedures in which there’s zero chance that they’re “looking about the room” physically) are able to know things that they could ONLY know by “looking around the room.” If they know these things, then it follows that they looked around the room. If they did not look around the room physically, then it follows that they looked around the room nonphysically.
lekatt, is that a fair assessment of your argument? Do you agree that if you are unable to produce strong evidence that these alleged events have occurred, your claims about the nonphysical nature of consciousness are significantly weakened? Do you agree that if you are able to produce strong evidence that these alleged events have occurred, your claims about the nonphysical nature of consciousness are significantly strengthened?
Tom, Czarcasm, and others participating in this thread as skeptics: do you agree with the previous paragraph?
I honestly don’t think the thread has much potential to move forward; but I always empathized with Charlie Brown, kicking that football that Lucy held out, and I emulate him in threads. If there’s any chance the thread can be productive, I think we need to find some sort of common ground from which to start. I think the paragraph above might provide such common ground.
Once we agree on the initial common ground, we can start defining our terms. I said “strong evidence” for a reason: it’s quite possible that I and lekatt disagree on what constitutes strong evidence. We may then consider substituting a different term, such as “evidence that adheres to mainstream scientific standards for evidence,” at which point we’ll examine mainstream scientific standards, the specific evidence offered, and move forward.
I’d suggest we limit ourselves to the Lancet study, except that I’m not sure how lekatt can suggest that it supports his view.
No anecdotes, anonymous or otherwise, no book reviews or critics, and no links to links to links to possible studies? Just standard mainstream scientific evidence?
… well, I was all for your suggestion, but… how can we limit ourselves to the Lancet study?
The focus of the study was, after all, to see how many of the revived coronary patients had recollection of an NDE, not to verify that alleged NDE’s characteristics.
Wouldn’t we have to use a different study for your proposed discussion?
(For what it’s worth, your suggestion pretty much sums up a fruitful discussion one could have with someone who strongly believes in NDE’s. I’m just not sure if **lekatt **is the person with whom one could have said discussion)
I think I have the dubious honour of participating in one of the longest ever debates in GD, with Lekatt. I’ve since kicked the habit. However, my tip is that you should all just find a question that goes to the core of Lekatt’s alleged experience and just refuse to debate, discuss etc anything else till he answers satisfactorily, which he can’t do. It won’t make him change his mind, but it will put a hurdle in his path that he will not be able to pass around without an appropriate answer. Particularly since he can now be limited to this thread.
The obvious question which suggests itself per your above discussions is: what was the nature of the “near death” you suffered in your alleged NDE?
Of course, you have been hitting this one reasonably hard, but one of Lekatt’s core techniques is to fail to answer, and filibuster until the thread has been filled up with other responses and issues and the question is buried. If you then raise the question again he’ll say he doesn’t know what you are talking about and you’ll have to explain it all again, and he’ll then fail to answer, and filibuster until the thread has been filled up with other responses and issues and the question is buried. Rinse, lather, repeat. He’s doing this technique right now.
If every one of you without exception just hammers the one question with no opportunity for it to get buried, this thread will end or Lekatt will answer. Win/win.
Thanks for your question. More research has been done, and one seldoms hears the arguement you pointed out anymore. I will outline why.
The near death experience is caused by trauma to the body severe enough to bring the body near to death, to death, or in a few cases the belief death is coming has triggered the experience.
When the brain is stimulated by chemical or electrical means the following experience has only a few of the events in an actual near death experience.
These artificially stimulated experiences usually include seeing a light, feeling good, and then a sense of disorientation. They may see sounds, hear color, experience frightening visions, or pleasant visions. The experience usually ends at this point. I have posted some of these experiences on my site, they are usually similar to typical drug experiences.
A Near Death Experience, No. 205.
When an actual near death experience takes place due to trauma, it usually starts in the same manner as an artificially induced one, but then continues with an out of body experience and many other elements.
Elements of the near-death experience by Raymond Moody in his research and book.
I found this list in Raymond Moody
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then I found another list in the “International Association of Near Death Studies” web site.
You can see that the real near death experience is far more complicated than the artificial one, and that is the reason skeptics today usually don’t try to use this argument.
There are thousands of these experiences in print, they are all unique to the experiencer, some contain even more elements than the above and some contain less. The only part of these experiences that can be verified is their description of what they see around the body while they dead, or near death, or at least unconscious. Hundreds of these experiences have been verified as accurate in this phase of the experience. Another thing noted by researchers is near death experiencers are changed by their experience for the better. They become more loving and kind individuals.
Yes, of course it would, by anyone’s normal reasoning. Then given the fact the patient, Pam Reynolds, had no brain activity, no heart and lung activity, according to the American Medical Association that constitutes a dead body.
Yes, You are right. People who are dead, near death, or unconscious, do still know what is happening in the room, and this is the subject of near death research. So far this research has shown this does indeed happen. That there must be a separation of consciousness and body with the body dying and the consciousness continuing to live on. I can show links to experiences or studies, what would you like to see.
Interesting. When someone steps in to describe your “debating” techniques, you not only quote them but acknowledge you will be using that post to hone your technique.
Two questions:
What was the “Near Death” part of your alleged NDE, lekatt?
Why are you deliberately dodging this question? Are you afraid your answer will reflect poorly on yourself?