Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[KWED]

the surprising thing is that they report stuff that occurred far far away, (like things happening at their mothers house)

But these accounts cannot be verified. They are mere anecdotes.
Whenever anyone has tried to reproduce theses things under controlled conditions, they fail.

The “what” question can be left out for future inquiry…. We can in principle establish that NDE occur, even if we don’t know what causes them

Yes, we know that people hallucinate, are mistaken, confused, make stuff up, etc.
Really not sure where that gets us though.
You are claiming that they are not hallucinations, mistakes, confusion, lies, etc. So far we have seen nothing that might support your claim.

 

[KWED]

Are you trying to say the experts in the field have a conclusion on what is going on? Most of those that study NDEs can not explain them.

Not so.
People who want to show that NDEs have a paranormal explanation cannot expansionist them. Those who propose natural explanations can, by definition, but you don't want to hear it because you have already concluded the paranormal, despite admitting that the explanation is unknown.

Here's just one more of the many that have been documented in the NDE literature.
For instance, in a case reported on by hospice physician John Lerma, an 82-year-old man had an NDE in which he floated out of his body in the hospital trauma room. From a position up above the goings-on there, he saw a quarter sitting on the right-hand corner of the eight-foot-high cardiac monitor, a quarter dating from the year 1985. After he was resuscitated, he asked Lerma to go and check whether the quarter was really there, so he could know whether his very affecting spiritual experience was real. Lerma took a ladder and climbed up to look, and there indeed was the 1985 quarter, just as the patient had seen it.

Presumably there is independent, corroborative evidence to support this claim?
What's that?
Oh, so just another anecdote from a religious proselytiser.

I can go on and on with more stories. How many people do I have to believe are either lying or mistaken about straightforward things like this to keep the materialist view? The materialist explain-away for all these cases just becomes well-nigh impossible to my common sense.

You miss the point. Many of the accounts are very possibly accurate - to what the person believed they experienced. So they are not lying or mistaken. They are simply accurately recounting an hallucination.
However, there will be some that are lies or mistakes. What proportion is a matter of speculation.

 

[KWED]

If the guy who has the NDE and the out of body experience describes accursedly the stuff in the room above, you can’t conclude “hallucination” nor “lies” ……..

Why not? Someone could have given him the information.

 

[George-ananda]

The Reynolds case is not evidence for out of body, paranormal events. She was under general anaesthetic for several hours, only part of which was under the standstill process. She did not "accurately describe" the surgical instrument, but even if she did, it is entirely possible that the was already aware of the tools that would be used during her procedure, as such things are regularly explained by hospital staff pre-operation.

The Merkawah Foundation case I have already dealt with.

The shoe case is just an uncorroborated claim by one person. It is only proof of people's willingness to accept anything that appears to support their own fantastical beliefs. We know people make stuff up for a wide variety of reasons, often irrational to others.

You are confirming my opinion that a devoted materialist must claim none of these veridical cases ever occurred as described or were just lucky guesses. They have no other option in the veridical cases so that is what they do. have read about a hundred compelling veridical stories in my decades of interest.

Dr. Jeffrey Long: “A number of experiencers describe out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These experiences frequently include visualization of their body from a vantage point outside their body. Much less commonly reported are visualizations of earthly events geographically far removed from their body. Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced an NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.

“He found a group of twenty-three patients who had a cardiac arrest and did not have an NDE. Both groups were asked to describe their resuscitation. The NDE group was uniformly accurate, including correctly recalling readings on medical machines outside their potential line of vision. Twenty of the twenty-three patients who did not have an NDE were highly inaccurate in describing their resuscitation. This is verifiable and potentially reproducible validation of the OBE component of the NDE.


To me that’s scientific evidence for consideration (not even attempting a proof claim).

Case 2.5: At a hospital a woman who had a cardiac arrest reported having an out-of-body experience during which she floated out of her body, and saw a 12-digit serial number on the top of a six-foot tall respirator. The respirator was later checked and found to have exactly that number on its top.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are confirming my opinion that a devoted materialist must claim none of these veridical cases ever occurred as described or were just lucky guesses. They have no other option in the veridical cases so that is what they do. have read about a hundred compelling veridical stories in my decades of interest.

Dr. Jeffrey Long: “A number of experiencers describe out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These experiences frequently include visualization of their body from a vantage point outside their body. Much less commonly reported are visualizations of earthly events geographically far removed from their body. Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced an NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.

“He found a group of twenty-three patients who had a cardiac arrest and did not have an NDE. Both groups were asked to describe their resuscitation. The NDE group was uniformly accurate, including correctly recalling readings on medical machines outside their potential line of vision. Twenty of the twenty-three patients who did not have an NDE were highly inaccurate in describing their resuscitation. This is verifiable and potentially reproducible validation of the OBE component of the NDE.


To me that’s scientific evidence for consideration (not even attempting a proof claim).

A bunch of anecdotes, aren't evidence. And certainly not "scientifict" evidence.

You don't seem to comprehend what scientific evidence is.

 

[KWED]

There are ways to test if Alien stories or Big Foot stories are real. And the same is true with NDE.

How? I was abducted by aliens. They took me on their ship and conducted experiments on me (no "probes" though, that's just stupid, their experiments leave no trace). They then told me some stuff that I couldn't have possibly known and then returned me to my house, all of it unobserved.
Now, how will you determine if my claim is real or not?

..if any of these claims passes the tests then we most assume are real.

Sp what are these tests you keep referring to?

For example if I have an NDE and an out of body experience and I describe accurately the room above me , this would count as persuasive evidence in favor of NDE……any disagreement?

Er, yeah!
I can accurately describe the room above me. Does that mean I've had an NDE?
Also, as I already said, there are other means by which a person can find out what is happening elsewhere other than by NDE.

 

[George-ananda]

A bunch of anecdotes, aren't evidence. And certainly not "scientifict" evidence.

You don't seem to comprehend what scientific evidence is.

A thorough consideration of a body of anecdotal cases is one thing I consider.

Again: My interest is not only "What can be proven by science?" and not being a follower of scientism I am also interested in the question "All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe?'. A fair sober consideration of a body of anecdotal evidence is involved in answering the second question.

 

[KWED]

You are confirming my opinion that a devoted materialist must claim none of these veridical cases ever occurred as described or were just lucky guesses. They have no other option in the veridical cases so that is what they do. have read about a hundred compelling veridical stories in my decades of interest.

Dr. Jeffrey Long: “A number of experiencers describe out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These experiences frequently include visualization of their body from a vantage point outside their body. Much less commonly reported are visualizations of earthly events geographically far removed from their body. Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced an NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.

“He found a group of twenty-three patients who had a cardiac arrest and did not have an NDE. Both groups were asked to describe their resuscitation. The NDE group was uniformly accurate, including correctly recalling readings on medical machines outside their potential line of vision. Twenty of the twenty-three patients who did not have an NDE were highly inaccurate in describing their resuscitation. This is verifiable and potentially reproducible validation of the OBE component of the NDE.


To me that’s scientific evidence for consideration (not even attempting a proof claim).

But I am not a "devoted materialist". I simply accept the most reasonable explanation on the basis of evidence and rational argument - whatever that explanation might be. I don't assume the answer before the evidence and arguments are made.
You, on the other hand, are heavily invested in a particular and specific worldview and therefore require that any explanation must confirm that existing worldview, regardless of the evidence or rational argument. This often seems to be the case where one holds a position that is singularly lacking in supporting evidence.

I do not doubt that people have experiences that seem to them to be both "out of body" and entirely real but there is nothing to show that these experiences took place anywhere other than the individual's mind.
However, we do know that some accounts are fabricated.

So, given all this, why do you insist that a genuine out-of-body, spiritual explanation is the only possible one?

 

[leroy]

OK - how?

I just told you, if the guy who claimed to have a had an out of body experience reports accurately stuff about the real world that he could have not known. (like the video that I was watching)

Why wouldn’t this count as evidence for a real out of body experience?

And if you were watching a YouTube video about the Big Mac in Alaska (around 8pm or so) but the person says they saw you watching
reruns of Gilligan's Island? There are people that would be like, "Wait... what?

Then the “out of body hypothesis” fails, and you should go for an alternative hypothesis (hallucination lies etc.)

That’s my point you can use the scientific method to test the claims.

It has nothing to do with contradiction, it has to do with a history of fraud, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, grifting, etc. AND there are reasonable reality-based explanations that do not rely on mysticism and such.

But you can test for frauds and misinterpretations.

If john claims to have had a NDE and he claims to have visited “Leroy” while he was watching a video about Big Mac, you can call “Leroy” and ask him about the videos that he watched.

If Leroy answers “Big Mac in Alaska” you can count it as solid evidence for NDE, if I answer Gilgamesh then you can assume that John was hallucinating, dreaming or lying.

I am not like Ken Ham - I would not refuse to change my mind no matter what. But given what we DO know about this 'phenomenon', it would take more than mere anecdotes, no matter how heartfelt and sincerely they are delivered.

Well in science nearly all we have are “mere anecdotes”………….. how do you know that the fossil of Tiktaalik was actually found? All you have is anecdotes from scientists who claim to have seen such fossil , you haven’t seen the fossil yourself, you simply trust other people

 

[KWED]

A thorough consideration of a body of anecdotal cases is one thing I consider.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

Again: My interest is not only "What can be proven by science?"

No, your interest is clearly "what seems to support my assumed conclusion?"

I am also interested in the question "All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe?'. A fair sober consideration of a body of anecdotal evidence is involved in answering the second question.

Except your consideration is not "fair" or "sober". It is question begging.
If it was genuinely objective and rational, you would consider all the evidence and argument against NDEs being supernatural in nature. But you don't. Because you have already assumed your conclusion and will only consider that which seems to support it.

 

[leroy]

In what way is an anecdote about what might have been an hallucination falsifiable, and how do you propose testing these claims after the event?

If the guy who reported the NDE describes accursedly stuff about the real world that he could have not know then the out of body experience is likely to be real.

If he wrongly reports the events then it was a hallucination or a dream or a lie.

 

[George-ananda]

But I am not a "devoted materialist". I simply accept the most reasonable explanation on the basis of evidence and rational argument - whatever that explanation might be. I don't assume the answer before the evidence and arguments are made.

We both agree then that that approach of honest consideration is the way to go.

You, on the other hand, are heavily invested in a particular and specific worldview and therefore require that any explanation must confirm that existing worldview, regardless of the evidence or rational argument. This often seems to be the case where one holds a position that is singularly lacking in supporting evidence.

Here you badly mischaracterize me. My worldview came AFTER my analysis of the information and argumentation. If the evidence showed veridical NDEs never really occur then that would be my belief.

Really I suspect you after much debating and argumentation is the one who is attached to a position despite the best evidence.

I do not doubt that people have experiences that seem to them to be both "out of body" and entirely real but there is nothing to show that these experiences took place anywhere other than the individual's mind.

Wait. Isn't that the purpose of this very thread, to show that people see details that could not reasonably have been just imagined strongly suggesting something beyond imagination/hallucination is genuinely occurring?

However, we do know that some accounts are fabricated.

Even if that happens I would expect that to explain only a tiny minority of the cases.

So, given all this, why do you insist that a genuine out-of-body, spiritual explanation is the only possible one?

I never said 'only possible'. I said 'most reasonable'. And my reasoning can be found in my posts in this thread.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's quite the non sequitur!
There are always better explanations for hallucinations under traumatic conditions than being in "another reality", whatever that means - so why do you believe that is the only conclusion?

IOW, "I am not interested in evidence or rational explanations, I want to believe in my own fantasy".
Brilliant!

What the issue here is, is the ignorance of those that claim to be scientific, but use it as a crux to reject God and Faith.

That is the type of science that motivated my comment.

God bless all the scientists that are not restricted to such an approach, always demanding evidence of the spiritual realities that are as clear as a noonday sun.

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

Also, there could be a number of ways that a patient might seem aware of the colour of shirt the person in the next room was wearing.

Ok and what a scientist should do is consider all the possible explanations and pick the one that seems more probable depending on the data.

 

[KWED]

Astral, mental and other higher realms in dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

IOW, "Realms I believe exist but have no evidence for".
So we are back to square one. Science is the best means by which to answer questions about the only realm we are able to observe and experience.

We know about them because we are not just physical beings but have interpenetrating astral and mental levels not directly detectable by the physical and these interpenetrating subtle bodies have sensory organs that directly detect their native planes of nature. We all have these components but they are more developed in certain (gifted) individuals.

That was just a word salad with psychobabble dressing. Utterly meaningless.

 

[George-ananda]

IOW, "Realms I believe exist but have no evidence for".

For me the evidence comes from many different types of paranormal phenomena (like veridical NDEs) and the teachings of many spiritual wisdom traditions involving many many masters/clairvoyants.

So we are back to square one. Science is the best means by which to answer questions about the only realm we are able to observe and experience.

Well to me it looks like science is the best means to study things within the domain of our physical senses and instruments but the paranormal and spiritual lead me to believe there is indeed more to reality than the physical. And that there are those that can tell us some things about that 'more' through psychic senses not yet understood by science. A veridical NDE experiencer is one such person I believe is using the psychic senses to tell us 'more' about reality.

That was just a word salad with psychobabble dressing. Utterly meaningless.

Your responses are getting shorter with less substance and more lashing out as this goes along. Keep this professional.

 

[KWED]

To change my mind I would need to think they are almost all lies and that would be hard to fathom in all these cases under my judgment of general human honesty.

Ah, so you believe them to be true because you want them to be true. TBH, I'd kinda gathered that already.

Also remember that deliberate fabrication is only one of several reasonable, evidence-based, natural explanations for these stories. Presumably you also accept that some are hallucinations, mistakes, confusion, etc.

So, given that you accept that there are multiple stories which have reasonable, natural expansions, why do you still insist that a spiritual explanation must be the best?

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, so you believe them to be true because you want them to be true. TBH, I'd kinda gathered that already.

Also remember that deliberate fabrication is only one of several reasonable, evidence-based, natural explanations for these stories. Presumably you also accept that some are hallucinations, mistakes, confusion, etc.

So, given that you accept that there are multiple stories which have reasonable, natural expansions, why do you still insist that a spiritual explanation must be the best?

I believe I said lying could at most account for only a small minority of these cases. In the majority of veridical NDE cases I believe psychic/astral sensing is occurring because no 'natural' explanation seem satisfactory for the main body of cases as in Dr. Sabom's study above.

 

[KWED]

Ok and what a scientist should do is consider all the possible explanations and pick the one that seems more probable depending on the data.

Indeed.
The only question under consideration should be "by what means could Patinet A know what colour shirt Patient B, in the room above, was wearing?"
We also need to know exactly how they described the shirt.
The possibilities would include:
1. Patient A had seen it themselves, either while A was passing B's room or while B was passing A's room before or after the event.
2. A heard someone talking about it.
3. A had been told about it.
4. It was standard hospital issue.
5. It was a lucky guess.
6. It wasn't an accurate description.
7. It was a fabrication.
8. A had died and their soul had left their body but the only worthwhile thing he could think to do in that state was to note the colour of someone's shirt.

Now, given everything we know about people, the mind, the body, and the lack of any evidence that the soul even exists in the first place - why do you believe that 8 must be the most reasonable explanation when all the remaining seven are actually more rational?

 

[KWED]

What if a rainbow eating unicorn came crawling out of my bum?

I, for one, would roundly applaud, moist-eyed.