# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/81 "2009-02-12T22:16:02Z")
I have an NDE nearly every night. No, I actually don’t die, although I think my pulse slows. But I have these wild ineffable experiences where I travel to strange places and meet funny people (sometimes fictional people!). Clearly this isn’t happening to my physical body because by all accounts it’s still lying asleep in my bed, so clearly my nocturnal excursions are genuine examples of my mind leaving my body and hanging out elsewhere. Like, with the smurfs. Some people claim that these are just dreams, created within my mind without it ever leaving my body or referencing an outside source, but this is obviously poppycock, because as everybody knows the human mind is incapable of imagining anything ever. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/82 "2009-02-12T23:14:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Magic fairy spirits inhabiting human bodies are not a “possibility.” > > \*\*\*Who said anything about magic fairy spirits? I’m talking about a person who is talking, feeling, laughing, etc. who drops dead and is nothing more than dead meat on a marble slab in the local mortuary. What is the difference between the two? One had life force, spark of life, animation that you seem to think is all brain chemistry and physiological in nature. What do you call that, chemical activation, or what? You should have a word, name or phrase that describes the state of aliveness. How do you phrase that state? > > * * * > > Scientific method is a method for acquiring information. It works by empirical observation and inference and it works by testing hypotheses. magical fairy souls provide neither explanatory power nor any metho for scientific testing, therefore scientific method has no application to them except to observe that there is no evidence for them, and they are not needed to explain any known phenomena. They are not even a coherently defined hypothesis. What IS a “soul” anyway? What is it made of? > > \ ***The SM is a great tool, but it is not omniscient. You ask what is a soul? I don’t know. That concept is what I call life force or essence, that which animates us, that makes us unique. I don’t like the term “soul” because it has religious connotations.** > > \*\*The message I’m getting from you is that if you can’t quantify something with the SM it doesn’t exist. > \* > \*\* > > It’s also completely empty of any significance. > > \*\*\*Absence of proof…is totally valid. Just because some one can’t hand you a piece of a UFO, or introduce you to an alien doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t exist. \* > \*\* > Copernicus and Galileo made _observations_. They had _evidence_. > And Galileo WAS the type to say “let’s see some proof.” Copernicus hda _evidence_. He wasn’t just speculating out of his ass, and Galileo didn’t just accpet anything on faith. _ **Copernicus had a theory that was later proven to be correct. Of course Galileo didn’t speculate out his ass, but he did observed a situation, developed a theory, and then carried out experiments to test his theory.** _ ---
**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 12, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/83 "2009-02-12T23:30:10Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > _ **Copernicus had a theory that was later proven to be correct. Of course Galileo didn’t speculate out his ass, but he did observed a situation, developed a theory, and then carried out experiments to test his theory.** _ You do not have a theory. You have a belief. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/84 "2009-02-12T23:31:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > -These are all words with distinct meanings- > > The question is how you had the NDE. You believe you had some form of experience that defies the biochemical explanations, involving drugs, lack of oxygen, whatever, and I’m asking what actually transpired if it wasn’t those things. An NDE is just the name for this experience and doesn’t explain how it happens. I don’t know what happened or how it happened. I think it was the real deal and it is ineffable (incapable of being expressed in words). However, I am open to other possibilities such as pure biochemical explanations, or biochemical mechanisms that are a part of the process that kicks the experience off like a launching pad, etc. No one knows for sure, not me, not you or anybody else. Your biochemical model is only a theory it can’t be proved or disapproved; just like mine. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/85 "2009-02-12T23:32:26Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Who said anything about magic fairy spirits? I’m talking about a person who is talking, feeling, laughing, etc. who drops dead and is nothing more than dead meat on a marble slab in the local mortuary. What is the difference between the two? One had life force, spark of life, animation that you seem to think is all brain chemistry and physiological in nature. What do you call that, chemical activation, or what? You should have a word, name or phrase that describes the state of aliveness. How do you phrase that state? Alive. How about a car that runs, drives, propels itself, etc. which drops dead and is nothing more than nonfunctional metal sitting in your driveway? It stops working too - does _it_ have a soul? By your argument, it must. So must an electric clock: it works fine, you hit it with a hammer or let its insides wear out, and it stops! Wow, clock souls! And shoes! They fall apart: shoe soles! > [@jakesteele](#): > > The SM is a great tool, but it is not omniscient. You ask what is a soul? I don’t know. That concept is what I call life force or essence, that which animates us, that makes us unique. I don’t like the term “soul” because it has religious connotations. > > The message I’m getting from you is that if you can’t quantify something with the SM it doesn’t exist. The scientific method is about observing reality, and observing how it works, screening out the wrong guesses. The SM is perfectly capabale of working with souls. You chase down ghost sightings, interview people who have claimed to have seen things and had experiences and whatnot. This has already happened with regard to souls. To the best of our knowledge, based on all the evidence, they’re wishful thinking that doesn’t mesh with what’s actually happening. And how unique _is_ this supposed life force? Do dogs have it? Flies? Trees? Bacteria? Viruses? Rocks? > [@jakesteele](#): > > Absence of proof…is totally valid. Just because some one can’t hand you a piece of a UFO, or introduce you to an alien doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t exist. So the obvious thing to do is _assume_ that they do, right? And aliens at least are _possible_, without ignoring what we know about the universe. Souls, essences, magic soul juice… not so much. ---
**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 12, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/86 "2009-02-12T23:36:25Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > I don’t know what happened or how it happened. I think it was the real deal and it is ineffable (incapable of being expressed in words). However, I am open to other possibilities such as pure biochemical explanations, or biochemical mechanisms that are a part of the process that kicks the experience off like a launching pad, etc. No one knows for sure, not me, not you or anybody else. Your biochemical model is only a theory it can’t be proved or disapproved; just like mine. The difference is that there’s plenty of evidence for the biochemical model; and nothing but baseless claims from the “it’s MAGIC !” side. And the biochemical model is clearly possible, while the “Magic !” explanation violates multiple physical laws. And you certainly don’t sound like you are “open to other possibilities”; you sound like you have the standard “don’t confuse me with the facts !” mindset of the true believer. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/87 "2009-02-12T23:37:24Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You do not have a theory. You have a belief. \*Of course I have a theory ( a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption) and I also believe it to be true; could be wrong, could be right or something inbetween. You also have a theory that you believe to be true. You don’t know for sure anymore than anyone else. \* ---
**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 12, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/88 "2009-02-12T23:51:17Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > \*Of course I have a theory ( a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption) and I also believe it to be true; could be wrong, could be right or something inbetween. > > You also have a theory that you believe to be true. You don’t know for sure anymore than anyone else. > \* You do not have a hypothesis: > [@](#): > > A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Your belief in an NDE based on a human soul is untestable. Therefore you do not have a hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/89 "2009-02-12T23:51:50Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > \*Of course I have a theory ( a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption) and I also believe it to be true; could be wrong, could be right or something inbetween. > > You also have a theory that you believe to be true. You don’t know for sure anymore than anyone else. > \* If by “know for sure” you mean “believe really hard”, then you’re right - nobody can “out-know” a True Believer. If “know for sure” you mean “have good _reason_ for your beliefs”, then you’re not just wrong, but completely backwards - the _evidence_ is all on one side, and it’s not the side with pixies. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/90 "2009-02-12T23:57:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Alive. > > How about a car that runs, drives, propels itself, etc. which drops dead and is nothing more than nonfunctional metal sitting in your driveway? It stops working too - does _it_ have a soul? > > _Now your comparing apples to oranges. It doesn’t logically follow that if my theory is correct that, therefore, it applies to inanimate (not endowed with life or spirit) such as cars, rocks, hammers, etc._ > > By your argument, it must. So must an electric clock: it works fine, you hit it with a hammer or let its insides wear out, and it stops! Wow, clock souls! > > And shoes! They fall apart: shoe soles! > > The scientific method is about observing reality, and observing how it works, screening out the wrong guesses. The SM is perfectly capabale of working with souls. You chase down ghost sightings, interview people who have claimed to have seen things and had experiences and whatnot. This has already happened with regard to souls. To the best of our knowledge, _based on all the evidence_, they’re wishful thinking that doesn’t mesh with what’s actually happening. > > It should read, based on all of the “available” evidence and nothing more. You are assuming you have all the evidence and facts; you may, you may not. You don’t know for sure. The possibility exists that the SM, with its current limitations and boundaries simply isn’t advanced enough to quantify or prove. Like radiation couldn’t be quantified before geiger counters. > > And how unique _is_ this supposed life force? Do dogs have it? Flies? Trees? Bacteria? Viruses? > > _dogs, flies, trees, bacteria, viruses…yep. They’re a whole lot different than inanimate objects like rocks. Rocks don’t have this biochemical mechanism that you are talking about. As to what this “life force” or any name you want to give is unique to animate things._ > > Rocks? > > So the obvious thing to do is _assume_ that they do, right? > > And aliens at least are _possible_, without ignoring what we know about the universe. Souls, essences, magic soul juice… not so much. _I agree with the Alien thing. The soul juice not so much. The fact that animate things have something that inanimate things do not; that is obvious. As to what that observation is, is theories that have yet to be proven one way or another._ ---
**Author:** ![BrandonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@BrandonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrandonR)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/91 "2009-02-12T23:57:57Z")
[Obligatory link to Bullshit! episode on NDEs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvxFXkv7L24)… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/92 "2009-02-12T23:59:05Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > _Of course I have a theory ( a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption)_ That’s not what “theory” means in science. A _scientific_ theory is an _explanation_ for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomena which is _confirmed by testable evidence_. It doesn’t mean “hypothesis,” and it doesn’t mean “unproven.” No amount of proof stops a theory from being a theory. > [@](#): > > You also have a theory that you believe to be true. You don’t know for sure anymore than anyone else. You have a completely unfounded _belief_ which does not even rise to the level of a decent scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. As to your last two sentences above – what theory do you believe others have espoused in this thread? I haven’t really seen any. I’ve seen plausible hypothetical explanations for your hallucinations, but those are hypotheses, not theories. As to the discussion of “what happens after death,” there is no reason to believe that _anything_ happens except a cessation of indivdual consciousness. That’s just a null hypothesis, not a theory. It’s the default assumption. You might as well argue about what happens to the spirit of a TV set if Led Zeppelin throws it out a window, and then get all indignant in your insistance that “nobody knows.” There is no more reason to believe that humans have souls or “life forces” than that telvisions do. ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/93 "2009-02-13T00:02:00Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > _I agree with the Alien thing. The soul juice not so much. The fact that animate things have something that inanimate things do not; that is obvious. As to what that observation is, is theories that have yet to be proven one way or another._ All the evidence - and there is an immense amount of it - is that life is simply a matter of chemistry. It’s about as proven as it can be. On the other hand, there is zero evidence for any sort of souls or life force; there is zero evidence such things are even possible. In other words, you are in the position of someone trying to claim that gravity is caused by invisible goblins pulling everything down. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/94 "2009-02-13T00:05:08Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > _I agree with the Alien thing. The soul juice not so much. The fact that animate things have something that inanimate things do not; that is obvious. As to what that observation is, is theories that have yet to be proven one way or another._ This is not “obvious” at all. Living things are “animated” by fairly well understood chemical processes. There is no mystery about it. Biologists are not sitting around scratching their heads wondering what “animates” things. These are not the Middle Ages. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/95 "2009-02-13T00:05:56Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > _I agree with the Alien thing. The soul juice not so much. The fact that animate things have something that inanimate things do not; that is obvious. As to what that observation is, is theories that have yet to be proven one way or another._ It’s obvious that cars have something that clocks don’t too - cars are self-propelling, can carry people, burn gasoline, etc. Does this prove that cars have souls? Yes, yes it does. No wait, it actually doesn’t. It proves that they are built differently and have different internal operations. Look, your argumentation here proves that _Furbys_ have souls. That’s not a good sign. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/96 "2009-02-13T00:21:06Z")
**Jake Steele** The fact that you just used theory and hypothesis as synonyms shows that you have a very mistaken idea of what the word theory means in science. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/97 "2009-02-13T00:24:32Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > You also have a theory that you believe to be true. You don’t know for sure anymore than anyone else. > \* I suspect this may be the problem that’s being had here. We don’t just have two categories, “Proven” and “No idea”, with everything that’s not proven just stuck in the no idea basket. It’s a continuum, with evidence helping an idea from one end to the other. Something being proven does not mean that it is equal in support to everything which is not proven; you can’t prove i’m not an elephant, and you can’t prove i’m not a human, but that doesn’t mean that we should assume i’m just as likely to be an elephant as a human. Likewise, with NDEs, that we can’t prove they do exist nor that they don’t exist doesn’t mean we can happily sit in the middle, the two ideas being as likely to be correct; we are able to look at evidence for either side and judge them on those merits. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/98 "2009-02-13T00:37:06Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Hang on, I think you’ve missed a bit here. You had an experience, the doctors say that you were dead by their standards and interpretations, yet you have rather a certain timeline for these events; alive, dead, NDE, dead, alive, to put it very bluntly. How do you know that the period in which you had your experience was whilst you were dead? You agree what the doctors said about dying. You are hypothesizing that if I did have one it would have a timeline and then tell you’re asking me to pinpoint it. Okay, It happened while I was dying and continued on after. Death was the tipping point. I had a cessation of all vital functions long enough for the doctors to declare me clinically dead. How about this: I was Schrödinger’s cat, alive/dead and somewhere inbetween simultaneously. You are bantering semantics. You’re saying that mine is believe but yours is fact. You would have to be omniscient to know yours is fact, case closed. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/99 "2009-02-13T00:42:56Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > You are bantering semantics. Arguing over the exact meaning of death in an NDE thread is most certainly not semantics. It is a fundamental point. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/100 "2009-02-13T00:50:08Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > You agree what the doctors said about dying. You are hypothesizing that if I did have one it would have a timeline and then tell you’re asking me to pinpoint it. Okay, It happened while I was dying and continued on after. Death was the tipping point. I had a cessation of all vital functions long enough for the doctors to declare me clinically dead. I’m not hypothesizing, that’d be a rather more operative thought. Besides, it’s actually your belief that there’s a certain timeline to events, not mine. As you say here, it is your belief that it occurred while you were dying and then continued after you were dead. My question is; how do you know it happened at those points? How do you know that the experience you had did continue after you died - what was it about the experience that allowed you to recognise your death had occurred while your NDE was also occurring? > [@](#): > > You are bantering semantics. You’re saying that mine is believe but yours is fact. You would have to be omniscient to know yours is fact, case closed. No, i’m not. I don’t believe i’ve actually used the word “fact” in any post i’ve made. I haven’t even said that I disagree with your belief! I haven’t set out what “mine” is nor disagreed with “yours”, so i’m not entirely certain how I can have said one is fact and the other belief. My point, simply, is that it isn’t just a matter of proof vs. no idea, but a line between the two along which evidence can take us. That’s it. I have taken no sides. I think you may have reacted to my post a bit hastily. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411.md?page=6)