I came across this web page that may provide a metric for those that are interested in understanding their own NDE. Sort of a guide to objective reasoning, though far from the last word on that subject.
Please don’t take offense at the title of the article, as it is related to criticism of Scientology, which is not relevant to this discussion. But the rest of the article seems applicable.
I don’t think I have anything to add to the NDE debate, mostly because there does not seem to be one. There is no disagreement on the experience. There is disagreement on teh explanation. The proponents of one explanation, however, offer nothing but the experience itself as evidence. There seems little else to say.
I do, though, find myself compelled to answer another drive by:
I think a deductive proof that was both sound and formulated in a logical system which mapped appropriately to the question would be quite compelling. I have not seen one. I think it is also important to note that the word “possible” in Lib’s sentence is read: “has actual existence in some world” under the standard formulations of modal logic. A very long thread exists, which is fascinating reading to anyone who enjoys formnal logic, that discusses why many people (myself among them) do not find a sound proof in S5[sup]1[/sup] to be a sound proof of God’s existence.
[sup]1[/sup][sub]Actually, a pretty trivial consequence of Brouer’s Theorem[/sub]
Consistant with what, our perceptions of how this world works ? By what logic can you prove that causality works the same in all possible realities ? If the world of NDE’s exists, it must be quite different than the world of the SDMB; after all it’s inhabited by bodiless spirits. Having had a lifetime to get used to living in the material world, it must be quite a shock to suddenly be thrust into a non-material plane. Perhaps the NDer’s are disoriented by their sudden arrival in a strange new world; and this shock is reflected in their descriptions of the experience.
—Consistant with what, our perceptions of how this world works?—
No no: self-consistent.
—Having had a lifetime to get used to living in the material world, it must be quite a shock to suddenly be thrust into a non-material plane. Perhaps the NDer’s are disoriented by their sudden arrival in a strange new world; and this shock is reflected in their descriptions of the experience.—
That is actually the suggestion I was advancing before, but as I pointed out, it is indistinguishable with the possibility that the experience is wholly percieved inside the brain.
Likewise, let’s say that we even go as far as to grant there is at least an “after-image” of consciousness after death: but this consciousness, removed from a body and stimuli that it understands, produces the experiences itself in it’s attempt to cope with new situation. But again: there is no reason to think that it is percieving another realm outside itself, or even that it lasts: like an after-image, it may simply fade away. As I noted, once we accept that we are dealing with a wholly unknown phenomenon, such as a consciousness devoid of body, all bets are off: just about anything could be the case.
–No no: self-consistent.
But aren’t our perceptions of what is self consistent inextricably linked with our experiences in the material world ? Would we still recognize the underlying logic of the universe if Planck’s constant shifted by a factor of a thousand? I don’t think we’re that smart, so I can’t reject the NDE on the basis of its apparent inconsistency. YMMV
— Would we still recognize the underlying logic of the universe if Planck’s constant shifted by a factor of a thousand? I don’t think we’re that smart, so I can’t reject the NDE on the basis of its apparent inconsistency.—
My point is that what we’re here working against is the idea that the experience is simply an artifact of the mind: the realm of imagination and rationalization in the face of a disorienting and deeply affecting experience. If we can’t establish some sort of consistency, regardless of how hard it might be, according to you, then it’s hard to rule out the possibility that it is simply the consciousnesses involved that are creating the experiences for themselves
The two things that can be measured are the NDEer’s profound life changes and the events recalled which could not have been observed. Any theory of NDEs must take these into account.
Not all observed events take place within a few feet of the body. Some NDEers have observed events hundreds of feet from the body, even miles. These experiences are available in the literature.
Then, of course, no proof exists that consciousness is biological.
I had hoped scientists would at least stop calling NDEs local events without proof of any kind. Please, please, don’t tell a NDEer that his experience is not a real spiritual experience. You have really no right (proof) to do so.
Cite?
—Then, of course, no proof exists that consciousness is biological.—
Come on. There are tons and tons of evidence that consciousness is affected by biology: from the effects of drug use to brain damage studies, to various diseases that alter one’s mindframe in predictable ways, to madness, etc. Certainly, we cannot rule out the possibility of some other mechanism involved with consciousness than the apparent biological ones, but’s nonsense to claim that the biological mechanisms aren’t heavily implicated already.
----The two things that can be measured are the NDEer’s profound life changes—
I think this has already been dealt with. Coming so close to death alone is enough to make some people’s perspective on life change radically, and there are many very plausible biological explanations as to why NDE’s in particular would involve extreme emotional states that would be very lasting and affecting.
—and the events recalled which could not have been observed. Any theory of NDEs must take these into account.—
Granted: but the problem is that, in taking them into account, we are left with MORE possible hypothesises other than the “there is life after death” hypothesis, not less. As I noted before: once you leave the realm of known regularities, all bets are off as far as possible explanations as to what’s going on.
—Not all observed events take place within a few feet of the body. Some NDEers have observed events hundreds of feet from the body, even miles. These experiences are available in the literature.—
But that makes things a lot more suspicious, not less! The more possibilities you add for the sorts of things that NDE’s can experience, the more the possibility of coincidence becomes reasonable (it probably already is to much more of an extreme than you might like to admit, because the pool of NDE’s that have extrordinary visions is essentially self-selecting). If people have miles in which to search for events that matched their experiences, it would be almost trivially easy to find some in any case.
You seem to be back in “debate” mode. As for “profound life changes”, it proves nothing other than a change in attitude. We already know that mental attitudes can be changed any number of ways: meditation, drugs, brain damage, etc. There is abundant evidence of this. It doesn’t prove God’s existence.
If a significant number of NDEers had visions that correspond to real events, beyond what could be explained as coincidence, AND these events could not possibly have been known to the NDEers by any means other than leaving their bodies, AND the events were confirmed by someone else who had not previously communicated the information to the NDEer, that would be something worth looking at. So far, you haven’t shown that to be the case at all. Tell us the SPECIFIC examples of which NDEers had their experiences confirmed by an outside source.
Actually, there’s tons of evidence that consciousness is biological, and NONE that it is not biological. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible for consciousness to have another source, but in the absence of any objective evidence, there’s no reason to assume so. We know from countless examples that physical changes to the brain have a corresponding effect on a person’s perceptions as well as their personality. It’s all well and good to come up with a theory that consciousness is magically floating in space, and the brain is like a tv antenna that’s picking it up; I don’t see how that could be DISproved - but without any evidence, it’s just wild speculation.
“If a significant number of NDEers had visions that correspond to real events, beyond what could be explained as coincidence, AND these events could not possibly have been known to the NDEers by any means other than leaving their bodies, AND the events were confirmed by someone else who had not previously communicated the information to the NDEer, that would be something worth looking at. So far, you haven’t shown that to be the case at all. Tell us the SPECIFIC examples of which NDEers had their experiences confirmed by an outside source.”
Your “if’s” is this paragraph are a reality, and have been for years. Raymond Moody, in his first book on NDEs, found and recorded many cases of this.
The material I gave when first entering this discussion has one of the most extensively documented cases available. The Pam Reynolds surgery.
What the skeptics need to do is read the material. Read the NDEs.
Before voicing their opinions.
Let me repeat that again. There is no evidence that consciousness is biological. No memory cells, no cells that think for us, nothing. There is no hard evidence of any kind. Read some of Roger Penrose’s material. He is one of the foremost physicist in the world. He clearly states we don’t have a definition of consciousness because we don’t know what it is.
Show your tons of biological proof, just a few pounds will suffice. If you can do that I am sure you would be rewarded for it.
NDE are not biological.
Love
Leroy
—Your “if’s” is this paragraph are a reality, and have been for years. Raymond Moody, in his first book on NDEs, found and recorded many cases of this.—
But many of these cases have been later debunked. In many cases they are the result of wishful thinking. And from everything I’ve read, this aspect of NDE is considered inconclusive: the self-selecting nature of the “amazing coincidences” alone causes real problems for asserting that they are the result of an extrasensory perception.
Even if they were extra sensory perception, that doesn’t prove that there is a soul that starts flying around for some reason when someone’s heart stops beating or brain goes into a low-level of activity. Perhaps the senses retain a readiness potential that maps experiences even onto comatose brains. Perhaps death triggers a very strange sort of perception that we are currently unaware of, but is biologically based (like ESP). All of these things just as plausible as the “life after death” hypothesis, once we open the door to untestable speculation about the data.
—There is no evidence that consciousness is biological. No memory cells, no cells that think for us, nothing. There is no hard evidence of any kind.—
What are you talking about? I don’t think you have been seriously listening to what people have been saying. You certainly haven’t addressed any of the alternative possibilities I have suggested for NDEs. And you definately have ignored the discussion, already present, as to the close connection between perception/experience and biology.
We have a workable idea what parts of the brain account for what parts of experience, and can even reproduce experiences predictably in a clinical setting by stimulating these parts of the brain (for the record, things like memory don’t live in individual cells: it’s all about particular networks of nerve cells that the brain builds in response to stimuli).
—Read some of Roger Penrose’s material. He is one of the foremost physicist in the world. He clearly states we don’t have a definition of consciousness because we don’t know what it is.—
No offense to Penrose: but what does physics inherently have to do with understanding the brain and consciousness (I actually think his major field is mathematics, and his fame mathematical physics, but that’s nitpicking)?
Daniel Dennet has made a pretty powerful case against Penrose’s ideas about thought and AI: at the very least one needs to acknowledge the very real controversy here. Penrose
Yes, we don’t have a great idea what consciousness is, or even if it make sense to describe it as a singular thing: but that doesn’t mean we have no idea what affects it, and how it affects other things. It doesn’t mean that we can’t link it to biological features along many dimensions. We can.
—NDE are not biological.—
How could you possibly know this, if you yourself cannot explain the mechanisms at work behind NDE’s? How can you rule something (and a something we have only an incomplete knowledge of anyway) out of a set, the possible contents of which you admit are entirely unknown to you?
I know what consciousness is, because I am consciousness.
I can’t explain it all to you. But you can read it in the studies of Near Death Experiences. I can’t bring to this board all the research done or being done. The best I can do is point out the direction and those interested will follow it. If you are satisfied with your knowledge don’t.
Metaphysics is unknown among scientists, they believe it to be false. Nothing is taught about it. So I am left with the task to trying to teach it on a message board.
I am sure this post will bring many more insults and belittlement.
So be it. Those who want to know will learn.
Hmmm…, I’m beginning to think that my inadvertent reference to Scientology wasn’t so off the mark.
lekatt, you seem to be clinging to your belief system quite strongly. But anyone who truly wanted to understand a NDE would be equally suspect and equally curious about any other explanation. It seems impractical for you to so readily adopt to your initial reaction that it was an event that is based outside of biology and proscribe any other possible explanation. You had an experience that you are desperately trying to understand, but it seems that you have focused your attention on only one possible explanation. Why is this so? How does this ultimately help you understand the event better?
As I have alluded to in a previous post, you seem to have jumped past an important step in looking for an answer to this admittedly wondrous and incomprehensible event in your life. No one wishes to deny you the experience you had. Enjoy the feeling of pleasure it gave you. But I think you should have been more amenable to all the potential causes that could result in what you describe as a NDE. Are/were you predisposed to believing that any event similar the one you had, had to be related to a Divine cause? For you, does this event only confirm your long held beliefs on the subject? And, perhaps more importantly, does the prospect that this is just a biological manifestation threaten you or your belief system in some way?
Most, if not all, people on this board are open to learning truths that may be contrary to their current belief systems. They may not like the answer, but if it can be clearly defined by logic and unbiased data it will likely stand as the best explanation, and perhaps endorsed and adopted. But there is a fair chance that it will be expanded upon again and new ‘truths’ will have to be endorsed and accepted. Our understanding of our place in the Cosmos is a decent historical example. There were a lot of people who swore that the Earth was the center of the Universe at one time (likely some still do). Luckily a few of them kept asking questions anyway. If we all just believed what our own experience and common sense told us, we would never have needed to move beyond Gods of Thunder and Wind. By sticking to your guns and (at least to me) showing that you never considered any alternatives, you seem as quaint as those that felt the Earth was flat. I’m sure you wouldn’t describe yourself as someone who would have been a fervent supporter of the “Flat Earth Philosophy” even when there was no other accepted explanation. I would guess that you would been of mind that, sure it might be true, but I am open to other possibilities as well. Change “Flat Earth” to “NDE” and you can see where I am going with this.
It is likely that you will scoff at my post and think that it is I who truly doesn’t get what is going on. But I would challenge you, and anyone else, to be open to the idea that NDEs might explain what is going on, but there is just as likely some other possibilities out there.
If NDEs are the basis of your life philosophy and are not to be challenged, I think it would be good for the group to know that. I’m sure that someone will continue to ask questions. We might just discover whether or not NDEs are “the center of the Universe”.
So let me get this straight: all our responses are for naught, because you are right, and the only thing you can do is teach us why? Which you can’t even do or argue for here: you have to point us elsewhere. What was/is the point of this thread? Where’s the Great Debate, if you aren’t interested in anyone’s opinion?
I am very uncomfortable here on this board. All the questions are couched as accusations with snide after remarks. NDEers are very sensative to the emotions of others.
I can not help you understand in an atmosphere of hostility.
I am sure of my experience because I experienced it. As sure as what I had for breakfast this morning. It is a returning home experience. There is no doubt of any kind.
I will not try to convince you of anything, I can tell by the feelings that would be impossible.
You could not teach someone quadratics without first teaching them basic math. So you need to help me some if you really want to understand.
Ask only one thing at a time, as specific as possible, that will help.
On my web site there is a Skeptics topic and I would be more open to discuss issues there. The negative feelings are just too great on this board.
I can’t really open up here.
Leroy
It seems his original intent was for everyone to immediately accept the supernatural hypothesis of NDE’s and then debate on whether these prove God’s existence, which judging from his website, he has already made up his mind on that issue as well. I’m not even concerned about convincing lekatt of anything, I’m more interested in the hundreds of other people who read these threads who may not be decided on the issue, and are open to rational investigation of these claims.
I remember a comedian discussing NDE’s once. He said, “Sure it was beautiful and wonderful, but you were dead for a minute. What if after two minutes it starts to suck?”
I would say, what if after a few minutes the NDE ends, even if the patient is not revived? Based on the current body of evidence this cannot be ruled out. Every description of an NDE was by a person who was revived after a short time (obviously).
Surely if so many of these doctors were “amazed” by an event, some of them would have written up a paper for JAMA. Where are these papers? Were they prevented from publication by the conspiracy to supress knowledge of life-after-death?
—I am sure of my experience because I experienced it.—
For the last time, no one doubts that you experienced it. But you seem totally unwilling to consider any discussion on the matter of what “it” was, or how one could know.
First of all, there’s no such thing as a deductive proof in theology. Secondly, just because an argument is deductive doesn’t mean it’s valid, let alone sound.
You mentioned Plantinga before. If his arguments are the sort you throw around, you’re not going to impress others.
I read your material on that, as well as Pam’s site. I see no verification that her “observations” during the NDE were in any way verified by any outside source.
Last night, I dreamed I could fly; I flew over my house and saw the roof. Does that prove that I was actually there?
So you are totally unaware of the extensive body of research into brain function that exists? Split brain operations? Brain mapping? You don’t know that damage to certain areas of the brain can change a person’s personality, memory, and/or cognitive functioning? Are you unaware that electrical stimulation of different areas of the brain have elicited emotional responses and memories in multiple controlled experimental situations? At least tell me you have heard of hallucinogenic drugs, which alter one’s perceptions by changing brain functioning. For you to say there is “no evidence that consciousness is biological” is laughable. We don’t have to understand everything about consciousness to know that it is closely tied to the biology of the brain. We aren’t exactly sure what gravity is either, but it’s a safe bet that if the Earth were gone tomorrow, we’d be floating.
He said.