As a post script to my last post,Of course the consciousness is separted at death. Live is no longer there, so the body shuts down. Near death is a far cry from death itself. I once had my heart stop durning a test but I wasn’t dead and had no near death experience at the time.
You did but didn’t realize it. Your astral spirit must have been asleep at the time.
There is nothing odd about studying NDE’s. They are ‘real’ in the sense they are an experience and understanding their nature and the mechanisms involve would teach us a lot more about the brain.
Tomm when you figure out that the doctor didn’t need to verify the accuracy of the patient, because it was the doctor she was talking about and then when my rights of free speech on this board are restored to post the arguments and opinions I deem best to debate like everyone else on this board, then I will continue to debate.
Sigh. I guess the identity of the “30 universities” studying NDEs will continue to be shrouded in mystery.
The other evening I took a break at work from looking at biopsies under the microscope, and briefly shut my eyes (to rest them). I could not relax, though, because microscopic images appearing before my eyes were suspicious for malignancy in cases where I had not previously suspected it. Or at least they were suspicious until I realized that my eyes had definitely been closed and I was not sitting near the microscope. Were they dreams? Hallucinations?
I prefer to think of this as a “near-work experience” (NWE). I intend to apply for a grant to study this phenomenon. It will be a valuable endeavor and so the NIH or private foundations should be eager to fund it.
If you are waiting for him to provide a list then yes. But there is no reason to expect there to be an accessible list of world university research projects by convenient label.
But this is probably close to what he means:
From wikipedia
A perfectly legitimate area of study. I don’t know why you’re acting all surprised and skeptical.
From the description and what’s mentioned here this sounds like a single study at one university collecting data from a number of hospitals, not thirty universities all studying NDEs. Of course some might infer there is legitimacy to NDEs if even one university is looking into them (a parallel is so-called Morgellons disease, where people are convinced that a mysterious parasite that no one can detect is infecting them and leaving strange fibers/droppings. The NIH got pressured into doing a study, and just the fact that the NIH has announced the study is cited by some as evidence that Morgellons is a valid entity and not a manifestation of other problems, primarily psychiatric).
Our definitions of “a perfectly legitimate area of study” may differ. If the aim is to study brain function during near-terminal events it may be legitimate. If it’s a goal for the devout to prove the existence of life after death I question the legitimacy/objectivity of researchers and suspect there are better applications for our research dollars.
Your link makes it perfectly clear it is a legitimate area of study and you have no grounds whatsoever to question the integrity of those involved and by extension the University of southampton and the relevant Research Council.
The province of science as a method is everything. As, your scepticism notwithstanding, are potential new diseases which we don’t yet know enough about to make judgments one way or another. And that’s the beauty of science. It creates its own legitimacy and does not limit its potential sphere to what you or I consider legitimate.
Hey-- don’t forget your cross!
I can’t speak for Jackmannii, but I can tell you that the context in which lekatt made the “thirty universities” remark certainly engendered in me both surprise and skepticism. The remark:
Your point that NDE’s are “a legitimate area of study”, of course, stands-- Science can study whatever it wants. Nothing wrong with that.
…But that’s not what lekatt seemed to be saying. Specifically, he asserts that A) many researchers are studying the phenomena before B) moving on to assert the reality of his views. The implication being that the truth of A somehow implies the truth of B.
Not to draw the attention of those scary vaccination people, but this is equivalent to saying, “Many epidemiological studies have been performed in regard to a link between thiomersal and autism. Clearly, vaccinations cause autism.”
It does not. Legitimacy is a subjective judgment.
I did not question the integrity of those entities or the persons involved. I was commenting generally on this sort of research.
NDEs are a disease? Who knew?
“Science” can go wherever its practitioners desire. This does not mean that there are infinite resources to be plunged into whatever subject someone fancies. There are people busy studying UFOs, homeopathy, religious/paranormal experiences and woo of all descriptions. An aura of legitimacy is not automatically conferred because they say they are conducting Science.
As to not making judgments and having “an open mind”, it is also important that the mind is not so far open that one’s brains fall out.
Perhaps this may help, someone could contact the professor and see what he meant. Doctors in universities and hospitals have been researching this field for almost thirty years. The results are showing consciousness survives the death of the brain and body.
Are you referring to the “parapsychologist” Hans Eysenck who co-authored that seminal scientific work, Know Your Own Psi-Q? It seems that Eysenck’s own research standards may not have been unbiased.
Providing out of context quotes from long-dead promoters of psychic abilities is not nearly as impressive as citing rigorously conducted research studies.
A link to the abstract of any study unambiguously showing that “consciousness survives the death of the brain and body” via repeatable experiments would be appreciated. Please don’t link to your page.
Regarding this:
Apart from engaging in false dichotomy and well poisoning, this statement is absurd. Once again, I’ll emphasize that a “legitimate” person as regards a particular research discipline studying something does not confer legitimacy on the thing or (your interpretation of) their findings. Hans Eysenck is one of many bright people who, despite having some great ideas/insights, had some really crummy ones as well. Look at Newton, for example. (No, I’m not equating Eysenck with Newton)
Apart from “It’s a conspiracy” and “People really do have crazy brain-powers”, there are other reasonable conclusions. For example, one might conclude that mountains of haphazardly collected anecdotal evidence in the absence of any controlled repeatable experiments does not constitute scientific research so much as crackpottery.
Honestly, Eysenck made that assertion in 1957. He had 40 years between the time Sense and Nonsense in Psychology was published and the date of his death to back it up. Did he come up with anything? I mean, if any “unbiased researcher” could see the truth in 1957, how far has study in this field progressed today?
This is a true statement, (subject to a number of qualifiers indicating that the research, to date, has been limited to collecting anecdotes of memories of events without making any effort to provide controls and comparing those recollections against the recollections of people who have described similar experiences after taking certain drugs and speculating about various scans of brain activity under unrelated conditions).
No scientific evidence has ever been provided to support this claim and you have never provided a single example of any such study.
Hmm, thirty years times 30 universities…add in a few more multipliers and it’ll be like all those monkeys with typewriters - someone’s bound to come up with a dazzling proof of out-of-body consciousness.
The best example I’ve seen to date supporting the NDE hypothesis is Dudley Moore in the original Bedazzled, where he wishes he was a fly on the wall, and presto! he’s a fly, buzzing around his beloved and her new boyfriend. If patients are transformed into flying insects at the time of near-death, that would account for them being able to look down on the operating theater and make those observations that inspired the experiment of putting pictures on shelves above eye level to see if participants can later recall what’s in them. However, even if they can’t recall any pictures, that doesn’t disprove the NDE hypothesis, since they might have had difficulty processing visual information through their compound eyes.
We just need better studies.
I do not doubt that lekatt had a sense of being out of his body,but it was not after his death but before death so it happened in his mind or I do not think he would remember it if he died and ressurected. He seems to be helped by the experience (which was his alone) and has the right to believe what he wishes.
It doesn’t matter to me how many universities are studying NDEs, a lot will depend on how the entire scientific community ends up with all the studies over the years, and what we learn of the human brain. People say they hear or see ghosts,and since ghosts are said to be spirit and have no physical bodies, so should make no sound and why they would and keep hanging around houses and cemeteries? I do not think there are ghosts either. If they are in heaven or hell what are they doing here?
The mind has a lot of research to be done yet yet before one can make a certain statement about it’s workings.
“Religious Experiences are not Hallucinations”
I agree. They are outright frauds, mixed with a touch of self-delusion, but not much. Mostly outright fraud. Joan of Arc was a fraud, Christopher Columbus was a fraud. All the great “visionaries of gods” were frauds.
I don’t believe that for an instant. And I’m a materialist!
There is not a chance that all religious experiences are faked. You are proposing the hugest conspiracy theory ever in the entire universe, by several orders of magnitude. I would sooner believe that all religious people were right than that they were all faking it - and that’s including the contradictory and nonsensical ones.
Yes, there have been a scattering of deliberate frauds, but it is simply NOT the case that everyone (well, okay, 80-90% of everyone) is faking it.
They’re just mistaken as to the causes, and from that impart the experiences unmerited meaning.
you ole softy 