What, specifically and medically, was the cause of your near-death?
He woke up in the middle of the night, and a “Mysterious Voice” told him to choose between life and death.
I feel like we’re finally getting close to the bottom of this. Surely a few more anonymous anecdotes is all we need to achieve understanding and mutual respect.
All-one!
Or medicine, for example-another science field where it’s imperative not to rely on ancedotes. In that case, it truly is a matter of life or death.
Hell, look at it this way: without scientific studies, there would be, for the most part, no such thing as near death experiences. They’d just be plain old death experiences.
Chew on that thought, for a while. (And I don’t mean “chew on that” as an insult, just as a figure of speech).
“This one time, at New Age camp…”
I didn’t say anything in my post about values. I also disagree that skeptics say the experience itself is invalid. In the many posts of yours I’ve seen the responses stress that a personal experience may be valid but does not constitute scientific proof. You are the one who continuously talks about proof and then fail to provide it. Then you act like other posters are being mean spirited or spiritually blind for telling you what you’ve provided isn’t proof at all. I find NDEs to be a pretty interesting subject but your posting style and the redundant reoccurring argument about what’s proof and what isn’t has me skimming and skipping most of your posts.
In another thread I commented on this and your responded by saying {among other things} that you come here to educate others. It’s unfortunate if you don’t realize that you can also be educated here. People have made many attempts to try and point out the difference between a collection of anecdotal stories and unscientific studies and actual science, all to no avail.
IMO There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying “Based on my own studies and personal experience I believe X to be true” If we value the truth then we’re willing to use science as one lens through which we evaluate and interpret our personal experiences and our belief system. It’s not the only valid lens and we recognize that science doesn’t have all the answers. It’s a different approach to seeking the truth than spirituality and there doesn’t have to be any competition or contradiction between the two. It is wisdom to recognize the difference between the two. I enjoy discussing belief systems but I don’t try to defend my spiritual conclusions from a scientific standpoint. It’s unnecessary and a futile waste of energy. If someone notes that I lack scientific proof of my beliefs I agree because they’re correct. Don’t have it , don’t need it, and feel no need to defend or apologize for that. So when you say,
it doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course science calls personal experiences “not reliable” but only within the scientific realm. They are unreliable as scientific evidence. That’s a fact. Science doesn’t even address whether those experiences are valid for making a judgment call or shaping our belief system. As someone already pointed out. Science is not saying NDEs are not valid spiritual experiences so it simply can’t be *wrong * about something it doesn’t address. Your confusion about that seems to be the crux of your problems here on the boards.
Good luck with that.
Now that’s funny right there, I don’t care who ya r.
So, he almost died from eating too much cheese at dinner?
Last night I had a dream that involved me, Viggo Mortensen, and this lovely little vacation cottage. Is that a NDE? If so, then Lord, take me now!
Did you hear a mysterious voice saying, “Ohgod! Ohgod! Ohgod! Ohgod!”?
I don’t think you are correct on many of your points. Scientists do believe science can address NDEs. They further believe that NDEs are not spiritual events, saying they are hallucinations, mistaken memory and such things. By not allowing personal experiences, no matter how many and how similar, science effectively blocks the data. Now science can’t measure all parts of the experience, but they can and do measure some parts of them. One, is the accurate descriptions experiencers give of events while they were clinically dead. Another is the changed life experiencers lead afterward. Several scientists began to study the experiences for this reason alone. It is true that in the long run science is not needed. I quote from scientific studies that the scientists themselves do at Universities. I am honest and straightforward in my posts. I can’t be anything but who I am.
Glance down throught the posts made by others and see the scorn they place, on me, and on the experiences. If you don’t like the message, bash the messanger. Most people are very interested in these events. They have been made into movies, documentaries, televisions specials and televisions shows. Science is not needed to verify these events, but scientists are doing just that as I pointed out, because they want to know, that is what science is all about.
W.
T.
F?!
Do you mind if I quote this the next time you claim that science has proven that NDEs occur and that consciousness is non-local?
In fairness, though, I can offer you a more charitible reading that would actually do a lot more to furhter your case than what you’ve been saying. Maybe scientists think that science can address some aspects of NDEs but not others. Maybe that would explain why you can quote from scientists who you say believe in NDEs but you can’t point to any actual scientific studies that support you–the scientists are speculating about the spiritual aspects of NDEs but aren’t trying to explain the spirirual aspects scientifically. Instead, they use science to examine the bio-physical, medical, and psychological mechanisms behind the events.
If you were to agree with what I said and stop posting both that science is stupid and wrong and “blocks data” and that science has proven that life-after-death and the spirit realm are real, I think you’d get a lot more traction here. (Some traction, at least.)
Yes, it was an NDE- a Naked Dunnadain Experience.
I like your post, it is honest. Perhaps I should say the difference between main stream science and those scientists that are engaged in near death research. Maybe that would clarify it a bit. You may post what you want. I have the same problems as anyone else in expressing my thoughts into words. Many of those engaged in near death research do now believe man is spiritual as a result of their studies.
I have tried a great many posting styles, but have found none that meet with the approval of my critics. I have noticed that they are always the same people for the most part, whatever that may mean.
Given your admission that you cannot link to a single peer-reviewed research study in which scientists measure “the accurate descriptions experiencers give of events while they were clinically dead,” after I spent a week trying to get you to do this one small thing, I find it offensively dishonest for you to turn around and post this. Nobody here has forgotten that you could not, or would not, keep your word when asked to do this. Every time you make this claim in the future, I will point out that it is dishonest for you to continue making it. You need to retract it and apologize for making it so brazenly in the face of your failure to keep your word.
There are consequences in a debate for failing to keep your word. This is one of them.
Daniel
I’m not talking about posting style, I’m talking about honesty and clarity. Science (i.e., “mainstream” science) has not proven anything about the spiritual nature of anything, as you’ve admitted (and criticized scientists heavily for). But even as you’ve admitted this, you haven’t given up the claim, made repeatedly, that science has proven that consciousness is non-local, that it continues after death, that NDEs and OBEs are real experiences of these things, etc. These claims cannot both be true!
Now it may be that some scientists believe that that consciousness is non-local, etc., even though science hasn’t proven it. That’s what I’ve suggested. It is also possible that a minority of scientists or supposed scientists claim to have done research that they think does show proof or strong evidence of those things, but that most scientists disagree and hold those studies in ill repute. I don’t think this is the case, and I don’t think you’ve linked to anything that shows that, but I could be wrong. In neither of those cases, however, could you honestly say that “science” has proven those things.
Science, in fact, very rarely “proves” anything–to say that something is “proved” by science is a shorthand for saying that the majority of mainstream scientists believe that something is true as a result of consistent and thoroughly reviewed research–something that takes a very long time to achieve and certainly isn’t the case for anything related to NDEs!
You have already admitted that most scientists think NDEs are not spiritual and that they have physical explanations–halucinations, etc. That you will not also admit that you were mistaken in claiming that science has proven the oposite of this may be an honest misunderstanding, but sure looks a lot like being stubborn and dishonest, when people keep trying to explain it to you, and you respond by avoiding their questions.
Admitting that you were wrong in your earlier claims about science may not convince anyone to side with you, but I think it would do a lot to restore whatever credibility you might have started with, and would certainly be the honest thing to do.
You need to separate the details and address them individually. I **did not ** say science could not address NDEs at all. Personal experiences can lead to scientific inquiry but you need to acknowledge the difference between anecdotal stories and scientific evidence. A conclusion reached by studying a series of stories may be interesting and possibly true but it isn’t science. A simple recognition that the stories you link to do not constitute proof in any scientific way would have saved you and the rest of us a lot of bandwidth and redundant argument.
Science does not block data. It simply sets definitions for what data is relevant under scientific guidelines. It occurs to me that while you stress the importance of personal experience. you seem to have a hard time understanding why people reject other people’s personal experiences as conclusive. I find that contradictory.
I’ve been dealt my share of ridicule and sarcasm in religious discussion threads. It goes with the territory. I don’t feel persecuted. I’m here to have a *two way * discussion more than testify. If someone has a valid and interesting point of view I’ll pursue the discussion. If they just want to crap on my beliefs then I have no reason to talk to them. I’ve learned a bunch from people who strongly disagree with me.
Quote from studies and link to stories all you want. Just be more accurate when you use terms like scientific evidence and proof. That’s been the main issue in too many posts. When you call something scientific that simply isn’t, or use the term ‘proof’ inappropriately you should expect dopers to call you on it. You’ve been here long enough to know that.
Also, lekatt, one small request-when you use the quote feature on replying, could you trim out most of it, and only keep what you’re addressing?
Same with posting “personal experiences.” Post a small portion-link to the rest.
Thank you.