# NDE, I had one, has anyone else? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411 "2009-02-11T19:15:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![clayton\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@clayton\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clayton_e)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/221 "2009-02-18T16:57:35Z")
I once fainted and cracked my head off a tile floor. The people that saw it happen said it was like I just was shut off. No attempt to catch myself, no slight misstep before falling, just down. I remember having the most vivid dreams of my life. This was four years ago and it still has an impact on me. I don’t remember much of them at all (I do remember a vague impression of traveling at an extreme speed flying over land, though the “land” was not at all recognizable as such… Just shapes or whatever… but that was only fora split second). I awoke a couple minutes later looking up at a crowd of people gathered around me. I had no idea where I was but I remembered the dreams were amazing and I WANTED BACK IN THEM. A few seconds later it all came back and I realized why I was laying on the floor. I was helped into a chair where I broke out into pools of sweat dripping off my face. A cool wet towel on my face and twenty minutes later I was able to walk out on my own. I still have a small bump on my head where I hit… It was that hard of a fall. Do I think that I was given some sort of spiritual trip to somewhere for knocking myself out? I mean, I _should_, right? Probably the most extreme hallucination or dream or whatever you want to call it of my life… And it happened right after cracking my head off a tile floor. No. I fainted, so my body wasn’t feeling quite right anyway at the time, then my head smacked into the ground without me even trying to stop it from doing so. Stuff got jumbled and I had some weird dreams for a couple minutes. Thank Og I woke up knowing my own name and went home. An interesting experience, but all it was was head trauma and my body already not being happy because of fainting. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/222 "2009-02-18T17:21:13Z")
I think it was Dawkin’s that said, keep an open mind. But don’t keep it so open that your brain falls out. razncain ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/223 "2009-02-18T20:37:17Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 3\*An open mind is only as good as the filter that doesn’t dogmatically keep potentially from falling out. I!m bot sure what that means, but I will consider any evidence you present. Please note, however, anecdotes are not data, even if they come from scientists. Your data must be repeatble. If that is dogma, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/224 "2009-02-18T21:03:41Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > There is no reason not to believe him. Many people have had these NDE’s. It’s also related to OBO’s (out of body experience), which often can be tested. What they experience is very real. What actually is happening is an entirely different matter, however. > > Susan Blackmore is a premiere researcher into all of this, and I’m sure googling will turn up a great deal of her work into this. You have no idea of my father’s need to be the center of attention. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/225 "2009-02-18T22:48:44Z")
> [@Sacrilegium](#): > > This is exasperating. > > Look - the way new ideas get accepted in science is by providing evidence. The evidence is challenged if it stands in opposition to the accepted truths of science. The challenges (call them “attacks” or “ridicule” if you must) are _part of the process_. The ideas have to prove their merit. It’s a battlefield of ideas, and outsiders want to play the “waaah, science is biased against my pet theory” card when in actuality science is a brutal battleground for _every_ idea. Heck, just look at the viciousness over _homo floresiensis_, and that is in no way metaphysical or supernatural. > > Yes, science has occasionally been turned on its head. But there are a few points which people fail to consider. > > 1. The instances of this are a _strength_ of science (and of skepticism), not a weakness. They show that the process works. You come up with some insane idea, all you have to do is prove it and science will follow. They will fight you at first, but once you offer some meat on the bones they’ll jump all over it. Most of the scientists I’ve ever met or heard lecture absolutely love new discoveries. They just hate wasting their time on false starts or people bringing in dead horses for more beatings. > > 2. As science has progressed and matured and accepted new data, it’s all flowed in one direction - _toward_ the materialistic paradigm. The big picture of the progression of science shows that the more we know, the less we need to point to the ghost in the machine. > > 3. Yes, great discoveries have sometimes taken a while to be accepted. But that doesn’t mean that every crazy idea people have is just a discovery waiting to be categorized by science. Sometimes crazy ideas _are just crazy ideas_. It doesn’t matter how many people believe them, and it doesn’t matter how smart the people are who believe them. If the evidence doesn’t bear it out, you can’t just cross your arms and stamp your feet and call the opposition closed-minded. (Well, I suppose you can, but you’re just inviting more of that ridicule you don’t seem to appreciate.) > > 4. In either case, the proper time to believe something is _when there’s evidence to believe it_. Jake, you repeatedly bring up that in the past times scientists wouldn’t have believed current science. Of course they wouldn’t, and they would be right in disbelieving it until presented with evidence. This is, again, how science works. The truth is what the truth is, and that’s as true as it truly gets. Yet if you don’t have some method of sussing out what’s reasonable to believe and what’s not, you’re never going to stand a chance of getting at what that truth is. > > Der Trihs may speak in more absolute terms than I would, but we’re basically in agreement. I can say I “know” that these experiences are just a trick of the brain. But I’m saying I _know_, with a lowercase “k.” I don’t believe I can “Know” anything with an uppercase “k.” How do I _Know_ I’m not a head in a jar somewhere, being poked and prodded and filled with hallucinations? How do I _Know_ I’m not God, and this whole world is my simulation just to amuse myself? How do I _Know_ that the world wasn’t created five seconds ago and all these memories are implanted in me? How do I _Know_ my wife isn’t really a reptilian male from planet Kromulent, sent here just to torment me by fattening me up with baked goods? I don’t really _Know_ any of that is untrue. But I do _know_ it’s untrue, as much as I know my bed is in my bedroom and my cat’s name is Punky and I had an appendectomy a few years ago. I know these things because I have evidence for them that is reasonable from the perspective of a human being living everyday life. I know them to be facts. However, even what I “know” as facts, I’m willing to change my mind on given superior evidence. I’m a human and I accept my fallibility as a human. However, that doesn’t mean that every single idea thrown my way gets a pass as being reasonable. > > 1. While I’m not personally aware of any in-depth NDE studies that show exactly where in the brain it’s happening, the mechanism, etc.. I do think we can draw a conclusion from other brain-related research. The dualistic notion that the mind/self is different from the brain has been pretty well relegated to the rubbish bin. Just looking at a history of traumatic brain injuries should bear this out to a reasonable person. Change the brain, you change the personality. Simple. (For a more in-depth look at this, I recommend the debates between Steven Novella and Michael Egnor.) > > 2. Appeals to authority are logical fallacies no matter how many times they’re repeated. It’s worse when they’re out-of-context misrepresentations of position. Such appeals suggest either ignorance or disingenuousness on the part of the presenter. > > 3. If Atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color. > > 4. The reason we have science in the first place is that humans are not that good at figuring out the world on their own. Our perception is limited and easily misguided. Our memories are malleable and often change after events. Our intuition is barely a candle in the dark and our intellect has to compete with myriad influences within our own heads. If we’re really interested in reality rather than our own human perception, science is the best tool we have so far. The metaphysical stuff has not been borne out by science in all the years people have tried, so right now it’s reasonable to think it’s all just in people’s heads. But if you provide evidence, science will eventually come around. That’s what it always does. [quote=“Sacrilegium, post:213, topic:485411”] This is exasperating. 1.You assume that all things are quantifiable and can be measured on the yardstick called the SM but not all things are. I will give psychotherapy as an example. Please don’t tell me it is garbage or that only fools believe in it or it is a figment of someone’s imagination or mood making or a Placeobo effect. If so, say that to the people who have benefited and then prove it. 1)I agree with that except for the “insane” part. That’s just your personal bias. There are many physicists who think string theory scientifically useless speculative, theories. Doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong on either side. But here’s the kicker: if humans come up with TOE, got all the nuts and bolts screwed down tight, and we can step and see from an overview this big, vast machine, this question will remain: What caused it to be? 2)I don’t agree with that. The more answers you come up with, the more questions you come up with. Quantum mechanics is a great example. 3)“Yes, as you say, great discoveries have sometimes taken a while to be accepted and/or rejected. “While” is the operative word in that sentence. Again, “crazy idea” is you personally biased choice of words. Many physicts thing string is a preposterous theory, some don’t. Only time will truly tell. When you say things like “crazy ideas” you are setting yourself as the sole arbiter (a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative) 4)For the most part I agree with the above statement. But sometimes there are no tools developed yet to measure it. Also, again, I will point there are things that can’t be measured on your slide rule, psychotherapy being one of them. 5)Whoa, wait a minute. Nobody’s proven that the dualistic concept is false and relegated to the rubbish bin. Just because you can change the brain/change the personality doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a dualism. That’s your conclusion. You seem to focus on this “bioelectrical” model where we’ve got everything figured out about humans. By extrapolating your bioelectrical/chemical model claiming NDE is just secretions of certain chemicals and nothing more, that it’s some kind of hallucination, is like saying love, hate, greed are also biochemical secretions and our perceptions of the feelings is illusion or hallucination. 6)Deferring to the SM is, in and of itself, an Appeal to Authority. You consider it to be the most authoritative source there is. I don’t know what you mean about Out-of-context misrepresentations. If you’re referring to Einstein, I beg to differ. He’s made many statements attesting to his belief in the mysterious aspect of the universe. “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” To say something like that is out-of-context is QUOTE [QUOTE=Sacrilegium;10833532 7) If Atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color. “If Atheism isn’t a religion, then Catholic priests don’t molest boys.” One of the deepest needs of sentience is the need for cognitive closure - the human desire to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions. It gives some sort of meaning to the King of Questions. What is reality, what is existence? Who am I, what am I and why am I? Atheism fits like a glove…to some. It gives people like yourself an answer, a framework, a template with which to perceive reality that the believer thinks is correct. It has absolute certitude that is the only way and all others are wrong. 8)When you say, “It hasn’t been borne out in all these years so now it’s reasonable to think it’s all in people’s heads.” What has that got to do with the color of the moon? You are making two assumptions: One, if were real it would have been proven by now. Two, that everything and everything can be measured on your yardstick. Again, I remind you of psychotherapy. You are assuming that anybody who perceives a mind/body duality is false: prove it. Einstein, Planck and many would respectfully disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/226 "2009-02-18T23:29:35Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 1.You assume that all things are quantifiable and can be measured on the yardstick called the SM but not all things are. I will give psychotherapy as an example. I have had psychotherapy, and it did nothing to alleviate my depression. Millions of others has had the same experience. According to your logic, you must accept these experiences as proof that psychotherapy doesn’t work, or else admit your mind is closed. > [@](#): > > 6)Deferring to the SM is, in and of itself, an Appeal to Authority. You consider it to be the most authoritative source there is. You don’ know what [Appeal to Authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is, do you. Science is not a body of knowledge by which everything is measured. It is a means of judging valid from invalid arguments. Science has no authority to appeal to; it is a process. > [@](#): > > 8)Again, I remind you of psychotherapy. You are assuming that anybody who perceives a mind/body duality is false: prove it. Einstein, Planck and many would respectfully disagree. Again with the challenge to prove a negative. That is not how logic works. You are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden is on you to support your claim with unambiguous evidence. I don’t have to prove anything wrong. You have to prove it right. ---
**Author:** ![Sacrilegium](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@Sacrilegium](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sacrilegium)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/227 "2009-02-19T00:30:26Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 1.You assume that all things are quantifiable and can be measured on the yardstick called the SM but not all things are. Funny, I don’t recall assuming that or stating any such thing. > [@](#): > > 1)I agree with that except for the “insane” part. That’s just your personal bias. I think you misunderstood my use. Let me clarify: If you come up with something that _sounds_ insane but turns out to be true, science will eventually follow. I’m not calling your ideas (or any specific ideas) insane. > [@](#): > > if humans come up with TOE, got all the nuts and bolts screwed down tight, and we can step and see from an overview this big, vast machine, this question will remain: What caused it to be? No, not the argument from First Cause. Saints preserve us! > [@](#): > > 2)I don’t agree with that. The more answers you come up with, the more questions you come up with. Quantum mechanics is a great example. I think you didn’t finish that last sentence. It should read _“Quantum mechanics is a great example of a part of science so new and misunderstood that people with no education in it at all feel they can use it to support any wild idea they pull out of their butts.”_ (Hello, Depak Chopra!) > [@](#): > > 3)“Yes, as you say, great discoveries have sometimes taken a while to be accepted and/or rejected. “While” is the operative word in that sentence. Again, “crazy idea” is you personally biased choice of words. Many physicts thing string is a preposterous theory, some don’t. Only time will truly tell. Are you missing the point accidentally or intentionally? I’m not saying **your** pet theory is crazy. I’m saying that sometimes a crazy idea is just a crazy idea. They’re not all valid. They can’t be. If I told you that my nipples are the source of all the world’s peanut butter, wouldn’t you take that as a crazy idea? Wouldn’t you feel justified in thinking it a crazy idea if I could offer no evidence for it? How many years and how many tries would you grant me before moving toward the opinion that perhaps I was misguided? Or is that an acceptable theory that just hasn’t been borne out by science yet and eventually might turn out to be true in your eyes? > [@](#): > > When you say things like “crazy ideas” you are setting yourself as the sole arbiter (a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative) I don’t even know what to say about whatever leap may have led you to that statement. I’m not the sole arbiter of anything. Even my cat disagrees with me sometimes… > [@](#): > > 4)For the most part I agree with the above statement. But sometimes there are no tools developed yet to measure it. Also, again, I will point there are things that can’t be measured on your slide rule, psychotherapy being one of them. Psychotherapy != metaphysics. I really don’t see where you’re going with this. > [@](#): > > 5)Whoa, wait a minute. Nobody’s proven that the dualistic concept is false and relegated to the rubbish bin. Just because you can change the brain/change the personality doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a dualism. Again, refer to the debates between Novella and Egnor for more. Dualism is as dead as Creationism, although some still insist on taking up the wrong side of the fight. Such as it ever was, such as it ever will be. > [@](#): > > That’s your conclusion. You seem to focus on this “bioelectrical” model where we’ve got everything figured out about humans. Strawman. > [@](#): > > By extrapolating your bioelectrical/chemical model claiming NDE is just secretions of certain chemicals and nothing more, that it’s some kind of hallucination, is like saying love, hate, greed are also biochemical secretions and our perceptions of the feelings is illusion or hallucination. Um…isn’t it? Love, hate and greed exist in the brain/body of the person experiencing them. I’m not sure what you think emotions are if not the reactions of physical processes. > [@](#): > > 6)Deferring to the SM is, in and of itself, an Appeal to Authority. You consider it to be the most authoritative source there is. As said by someone else, you don’t seem to get what an Appeal to Authority is. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean about > Out-of-context misrepresentations. If you’re referring to Einstein, I beg to differ. I’m sure you would. And if you truly think Einstein would entertain the kind of notions you espouse, I’m not sure what to tell you other than I find your perception to be flawed. That you rely on that flawed perception over that of science is exactly where your problem lies, and I’m not sure that’s fixable. > [@](#): > > One of the deepest needs of sentience is the need for cognitive closure - the human desire to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions. It gives some sort of meaning to the King of Questions. What is reality, what is existence? Who am I, what am I and why am I? Atheism fits like a glove…to some. It gives people like yourself an answer, a framework, a template with which to perceive reality that the believer thinks is correct. It has absolute certitude that is the only way and all others are wrong. See, this is a problem. Atheism doesn’t offer ANY of that. Atheism is a simple lack of belief in god(s). Atheism neither requires nor includes evolution, the Big Bang, materialism, _nothing_. I’ve known Atheists who believe in all manner of things. Some supernatural. Even afterlife(s), for Pete’s sake. You’re equivocating loose tenants secular humanistic materialism with Atheism. That is incorrect. Atheism doesn’t answer who or why anyone _is_. You’re confusing Atheism with a set of other things that you see in some Atheists. > [@](#): > > 8)When you say, “It hasn’t been borne out in all these years so now it’s reasonable to think it’s all in people’s heads.” What has that got to do with the color of the moon? You are making two assumptions: One, if were real it would have been proven by now. Two, that everything and everything can be measured on your yardstick. Have you purchased a book of logical fallacies and mistaken it for a book on the proper way to argue? I’m not assuming either of those things. I’m saying that if something runs contradictory to what we _know_ and has no evidence for itself and repeated attempts to find evidence for it have turned up nothing then the reasonable position to take in the meantime is that this “something” is not what it appears to be. > [@](#): > > Again, I remind you of psychotherapy. You are assuming that anybody who perceives a mind/body duality is false: prove it. Einstein, Planck and many would respectfully disagree. I’m so glad to see Einstein finally get mentioned in this thread. Really. I was thinking we’d go the whole discussion without once hearing his name. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/228 "2009-02-19T00:45:23Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > > [@Sacrilegium](#): > > > > 1. If Atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color. > > “If Atheism isn’t a religion, then Catholic priests don’t molest boys.” So, atheism is a religion only for some tiny but undetermined number of atheists, (based on this utterly odd attempt to swap analogies), and your earlier claim that atheism is a religion is nonsense, just as I noted. I also note that you continue to wander around hurling accusations of narrow mindedness at posters who do not grovel at your speculation while refusing to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence for whatever it is you might be claiming, (since you also refuse to actually set forth a genuine position). This thread is really close to being shut down. I don’t mind posters arguing uselessly, but when I keep having to drop in on a thread to be sure that the rules are not being violated by posters armed only with lame insults and in the threads I find nothing but the scattered straw of dozens of false arguments along with hostile opinions unsupported by facts, I dislike that waste of my time. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/229 "2009-02-20T20:53:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I have had psychotherapy, and it did nothing to alleviate my depression. Millions of others has had the same experience. According to your logic, you must accept these experiences as proof that psychotherapy doesn’t work, or else admit your mind is closed. > > \*\*\*\*\*I, Fear Itself, went to psychotherapy to alleviate my depression. > > it did not alleviate my depression > > Ergo, psychotherapy doesn’t work. > > By using the phrase “millions of others” in the negative as validation of your claim, you, yourself, are using argumentum ad numerum. It’s also a non-sequitur - > > I’m going to turn it back around on you using your own fallacious logic by stating that “millions of other” have been helped by psychotherapy. > > So according to your logic, you must accept these “positive experiences” as proof that psychotherapy does work, or else admit your mind is closed. > > You don’ know what [Appeal to Authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is, do you. Science is not a body of knowledge by which everything is measured. It is a means of judging valid from invalid arguments. Science has no authority to appeal to; it is a process. > > Appeal to authority - It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the source asserting it. > > Authority - power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior (the scientific method does all of that and more) > \*\*\*\*\*\*Science has no authority to appeal to because it is an authority by default to which people like yourself defer to. All throughout this thread people are repeatedly deferring to science by saying “science has proven, or science has disproved…” Science is the only true tool…science is most certainly being used as an authority, if not outright worshipped as a deity > > Again with the challenge to prove a negative. That is not how logic works. You are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden is on you to support your claim with unambiguous evidence. I don’t have to prove anything wrong. You have to prove it right. \*\*\*\*\*Prove a negative. You mean like this? a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true…sound familiar? Stating that there is no God because there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim. If you walk up to someone and say, “there is no God” it is incumbent upon you to prove it, not for them to prove there is. You made the extraordinary claim, not them. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/230 "2009-02-20T21:00:08Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Stating that there is no God because there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim. If you walk up to someone and say, “there is no God” it is incumbent upon you to prove it, not for them to prove there is. You made the extraordinary claim, not them. How is it “extraordinary” to claim that something without any evidence doesn’t exist? And if I tell you there are no unicorns, am I obliged to prove that too? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/231 "2009-02-20T21:19:31Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Stating that there is no God because there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim. If you walk up to someone and say, “there is no God” it is incumbent upon you to prove it, not for them to prove there is. You made the extraordinary claim, not them. It’s not an “extraordinary claim”, it’s the logical default. If you claim something exists, it’s your job to provide evidence for it. It’s not the job of the skeptic to try to disprove a claim that’s been carefully designed to be un-disprovable. And there’s no rational **reason** to believe that there’s a God. There’s no evidence for it, and God violates various physical laws which is strong evidence **against** it. According to all the evidence, God is a fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/232 "2009-02-21T00:17:07Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > . . . > > 4)For the most part I agree with the above statement. But sometimes there are no tools developed yet to measure it. Also, again, I will point there are things that can’t be **measured on your slide rule** , psychotherapy being one of them. > > . . . bolding mine Nitpick alert. Slide rules do not measure things. They calculate things. They are not rulers, they are calculators. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Tammi\_Terrell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Tammi\_Terrell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tammi_Terrell)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/233 "2009-02-21T12:03:31Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I’ve heard that some emergency room doctors have put pieces of paper on top of high cabinets with a letter, number, or symbol drawn on them to ask someone who claimed to have an above-the-body NDE what was on the paper. I wonder if that’s an urban legend, or if not, how common it is. [Parnia’s and Fenwick’s study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11801343?dopt=AbstractPlus) on near-death experiences and hospital patients’ claims of taking up remote viewing positions during the process of resuscitation included that very experiment: > [@](#): > > There are retrospective anecdotal accounts of patients who during a [near-death experience] have described ‘seeing’, as if from a position on the ceiling, resuscitation processes which took place while they were ‘unconscious’, and which they could not have seen from their position on the bed. Some of these claims have later been verified by the medical and nursing staff present [M. Sabom. _Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation_, Harper & Row, New York (1983).]. In order to test prospectively the possible veridical nature of out of body experiences, boards were suspended from the ceiling of the wards prior to the commencement of the study. These had various figures on the surface facing the ceiling which were not visible from the floor. If out of body experiences are indeed veridical, anybody who claimed to have left their body and be near the ceiling during resuscitation attempts would be expected to identify those targets. If, however, such perceptions are psychological, then one would obviously not expect the targets to be identified. (Sadly, while a few of the cardiac-arrest survivors interviewed reported having some “memory recall during their periods of unconsciousness,” none recalled undergoing out-of-body experiences.) I had read in the years since publication of this study that Parnia and Fenwick were intending to use this technique in a follow-up study, but I haven’t kept up with their research to see whether they ever did. – Tammi Terrell ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/234 "2009-02-21T15:57:08Z")
> [@Tammi\_Terrell](#): > > [Parnia’s and Fenwick’s study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11801343?dopt=AbstractPlus) on near-death experiences and hospital patients’ claims of taking up remote viewing positions during the process of resuscitation included that very experiment: > > (Sadly, while a few of the cardiac-arrest survivors interviewed reported having some “memory recall during their periods of unconsciousness,” none recalled undergoing out-of-body experiences.) > > I had read in the years since publication of this study that Parnia and Fenwick were intending to use this technique in a follow-up study, but I haven’t kept up with their research to see whether they ever did. > > – Tammi Terrell If you are really interested in these studies, here are three videos of people telling about their experiences with their doctors in attendance and commenting on them. > **[Videos NDEs Archives - Lekatt Thoughtful Living](https://aleroy.com/blog/archives/category/videos)** > > The wisdom Near Death Experiences impart changes lives. A comprehensive study of Near Death Experiences. ---
**Author:** ![Tammi\_Terrell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Tammi\_Terrell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tammi_Terrell)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/235 "2009-02-21T16:35:16Z")
Actually, I was commenting on **SenorBeef** ’s recollection of studies involving symbols or messages displayed so that a “levitating” observer, at a moment near death, would be able to report these symbols or messages to investigators once resuscitated. (It’s this particular experiment that interests me for reasons having to do with beliefs about death.) As a pedestrian, I was once hit by a car that ran a red light. At some point in the accident I blacked out, probably for a matter of less than a minute. No trauma other than bruises, bumps, and scrapes. At some point soon after regaining consciousness, though, I recalled having had an out-of-body experience – which I placed to the period of unconsciousness, though I’ve no proof this is when this experience took place – where I felt myself hovering about 30 to 40 feet above one corner of the intersection at which the accident took place. I felt as if I were viewing everything below, including me lying on the pavement, vehicles stopped in the intersection, and people surrounding me. It felt very real. In no way, however, do I believe I was actually outside of my body, surveying events below me. For a number of (well-founded) reasons, I very much believe in a neurobiological/neuroanatomical basis for this “extracorporeal” experience. – Tammi Terrell ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/236 "2009-02-21T17:29:05Z")
> [@Tammi\_Terrell](#): > > Actually, I was commenting on **SenorBeef** ’s recollection of studies involving symbols or messages displayed so that a “levitating” observer, at a moment near death, would be able to report these symbols or messages to investigators once resuscitated. (It’s this particular experiment that interests me for reasons having to do with beliefs about death.) > > As a pedestrian, I was once hit by a car that ran a red light. At some point in the accident I blacked out, probably for a matter of less than a minute. No trauma other than bruises, bumps, and scrapes. > > At some point soon after regaining consciousness, though, I recalled having had an out-of-body experience – which I placed to the period of unconsciousness, though I’ve no proof this is when this experience took place – where I felt myself hovering about 30 to 40 feet above one corner of the intersection at which the accident took place. I felt as if I were viewing everything below, including me lying on the pavement, vehicles stopped in the intersection, and people surrounding me. It felt very real. > > In no way, however, do I believe I was actually outside of my body, surveying events below me. For a number of (well-founded) reasons, I very much believe in a neurobiological/neuroanatomical basis for this “extracorporeal” experience. > > – Tammi Terrell Literally millions of people have had out-of-body experiences and saw things from above that they could not have seen in the body. This has been verified hundreds of time by surgeons and doctors and researchers. You may not believe you were out-of-body, but my experience with my own out-of-body and many others I believe you were in fact out-of-body. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/237 "2009-02-21T17:48:43Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Literally millions of people have had out-of-body experiences and saw things from above that they could not have seen in the body. This has been verified hundreds of time by surgeons and doctors and researchers. You may not believe you were out-of-body, but my experience with my own out-of-body and many others I believe you were in fact out-of-body. You had a dream, others have had dreams, and a precious few have had _actual_ NDES that seem to to differ from each other depending on the situation and their current religious beliefs-and you take all this to mean that this is proof of your ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/238 "2009-02-21T18:05:21Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Literally millions of people have had out-of-body experiences and saw things from above that they could not have seen in the body. This has been verified hundreds of time by surgeons and doctors and researchers. You may not believe you were out-of-body, but my experience with my own out-of-body and many others I believe you were in fact out-of-body. Can you name a single spiritual claim you do not believe? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/239 "2009-02-21T18:43:26Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Literally millions of people have had out-of-body experiences and saw things from above that they could not have seen in the body. This has been verified hundreds of time by surgeons and doctors and researchers. You may not believe you were out-of-body, but my experience with my own out-of-body and many others I believe you were in fact out-of-body. As another has pointed out, this aspect is actually testable. Susan Blackmore’s research also was able to test this aspect since some people tend to have more OBE’s than others. This involved putting a number or something on top of the shelf to verify if they actually they had some part of them physically leaving their body. I won’t bore you with the results. razncain ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/240 "2009-02-21T19:02:58Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Stating that there is no God because there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim. If you walk up to someone and say, “there is no God” it is incumbent upon you to prove it, not for them to prove there is. You made the extraordinary claim, not them. I don’t believe in leprechauns, and can’t prove this negative either due to the time, resources, and money involved in such a search. All I can say is how unlikely such a thing is. If such a thing existed though, how easy would it be to simply capture such a specimen? Give your god descriptive terms, and limit the search of the domain, and then maybe we can talk. Or are you just wanting to play it safe with metaphysics? The logic behind one can’t prove negatives of existence claims such as these and why the burden of proof is on the affirmative of those making such claims should be easy to grasp. Negatives can be proved when a couple of criteria is met, both when the search of the domain is limited, and a descriptive term is used for what is being searched. Try these: He doesn’t have a hundred dollars in his wallet. Cindy is not wearing a black dress. There is no mouse in the shoebox. All of these would require a simple observation, and are fairly simple to prove in the negative if this was the case with these. But with existence claims on a larger scale it becomes more problematic to prove a negative. Here are two popular ones that William Gray uses in his book when talking about what is involved in proving negative claims. With Big Foot, one could gather a large search party in the area of where such sightings have occurred. If this didn’t find Big Foot, it still wouldn’t prove he didn’t exist. One could then cut the trees in the entire forested area, and if this still didn’t turn up Big Foot, it too, wouldn’t prove that he never existed. He could have simple went into another forested area, or someone may have finally captured it, and not told anyone. He also could have went into another forested area a long time ago, and died off. His remains are now decomposed, and his bones possibly scattered or buried. Many scenario’s. With the Loch Ness monster, one could drain the entire waters of where he is suppose to exist. If they didn’t find it, it still wouldn’t mean it didn’t exist. He too could have died, his body been decomposed, and his bones scattered and buried deep into the mud. Or when the body of water was drained, security measures weren’t tight enough, and one could claim that others may have possibly left with the skeleton remains. Imagine in each of these cases the time, money, and resources that would be required to prove that such a creature didn’t exist. It would be difficult to do. However, how easy would it be to prove it in the affirmative if such a being existed? Simply capturing such a specimen dead or alive would suffice. What do we have in its place for evidence of such creatures? We have testimonials of people claiming to have seen such a creature. We have some photos, a few known to be doctored, and others difficult to make out. With proving God doesn’t exist, it becomes even more problematic than this. For one thing, does one want to give it any empirical meaning? More then likely, they don’t. They prefer to keep God in the metaphysical realm. \*The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. \* –Delos McKown [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411.md?page=13)