Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[KWED]

my question is how do you suggest we should test if someone had a “real “out of body experience, rather than it being an illusion or a dream?.............. my suggestion is “if he can report accursedly stuff from the real world (like the TV show that his room neighbor above was watching) if you have a better method please share it.

Torture them until they recant.
Simples!

 

[KWED]

my claim is that these claims can be tested scientifically.

OK. How?

 

[KWED]

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

Hmm, we shall see.

Here you badly mischaracterize me. My worldview came AFTER my analysis of the information and argumentation.

So your belief in astral, mental and other higher realms in dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments, clairvoyants, spiritual masters, etc came after you read about these NDEs?

If the evidence showed veridical NDEs never really occur then that would be my belief.

Point of order here.
You keep referring to these claims as "veridical". This means "truthful, coinciding with reality".
The point of this discussion is about whether they are true. But I guess question begging is an important tool in the spiritualist's box.

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

The only actual evidence we have refutes the idea that we have a "soul" that is independent of the body and can continue after death. Therefore any claims that rely essentially on there being such a should can be dismissed in favour of explanations that do not rely on such a claim claim.
There is no evidence that anyone's "soul" has actually departed the body and then returned, only anecdote.
Now, you have already admitted that you consider anecdote to be sufficient reason to reject evidence that contradicts your existing conclusion, but that only weakens your position.

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? .

Yes. And thus far you have not presented any evidence that supports your claim. Only anecdote.

Even if [hallucination/mistake/fabrication] happens I would expect that to explain only a tiny minority of the cases

Why? We know that all these things actually happen.
We have no a priori evidence for actualOoB experience (that is what we are trying to establish here). So why do you immediately dismiss the known and evidence based in favour of speculation and anecdote?

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

And I have explained why magic is not the most reasonable explanation for these people's claims. You are just rejecting the reasonable in favour of what you want to be true.

 

[KWED]

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

Would you like some dressing for that?

 

[KWED]

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 "belief", not "evidence".

the paranormal and spiritual lead me to believe there is indeed more to reality than the physical.

But the "paranormal and spiritual" only exist in your imagination.

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.

This is just more question begging. You believe the claims are true because you believe that there must be people who experience that kind of thing.

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

You are not providing anything of substance with which to work.
TBH, there is only so much meaningless psychobabble one can take.

 

[George-ananda]

So "brief", not "evidence".


But the "paranormal and spiritual" only exist in your imagination.

This is just more question begging. You believe the claims are true because you believe that there must be people who experience that kind of thing.

You are not providing anything of substance with which to work.
TBH, there is only so much meaningless psychobabble one can take.

Then no sense continuing this.

 

[KWED]

In the majority of veridical NDE cases I believe psychic/astral sensing is occurring

If you want to claim that "psychic/astral sensing" is responsible for something, first you have to show that "psychic/astral sensing" actually exists. You can't simply assert something into existence.

because no 'natural' explanation seem satisfactory for the main body of cases as in Dr. Sabom's study above.

Maybe not to the person who has already concluded that any explanation must be supernatural, but the rational, evidence-based approach is that an explanation based on known phenomena is more reasonable than one based on fantastical claims with no supporting evidence.

 

[KWED]

Then no sense continuing this.

TBH there was no sense in starting it.
As your entire position is based entirely on belief, wishful thinking and logical fallacies, you had nowhere to go from the outset (other than in ever-decreasing circles).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Would you like some dressing for that?

No I see it was saucy enough.

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

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?

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?

Sure, all I am saying is that at least there are hypothetical scenarios where 8 would be the most probable explanation.

For example if I describe accursedly and in detail the t-shirt and the clothing of the patient above, if I describe the tv show that he was watching, if I describe the furniture of the room etc… any disagreement?

7. It was a fabrication.

Just ask the guy in the room above if he was watching that TV show, wearing that t-shirt, and/or look at the furniture in the room.

5. It was a lucky guess.

That depends on the detail of the description. A black t-shirt could be a lucky guess, but a “black star wars t-shirt with an image Luke Skywalker training with Yoda, would be too specific and unlikely to be a product of a guess.

My point is that “lucky guess ” is testable and could be discarded as a viable alternative.

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.

But that is testable stuff, that can be accepted and discarded

 

[leroy]

No, you claimed I had made a mistake when I did not. You forgot that your hero's case rested on a 3-legged stool, one leg of which was directed mutations. Directed mutations were still considered a thing when Shapiro wrote the paper you had posted. Later research - to include some by the very people that wrote the papers he had cited in support of NGE in his 1992 paper that you relied on - showed that it was NOT a thing.

Remove 1 leg of a 3-legged stool and what happens?

See above.

I can and will accuse you of ignoring the implication and doing your sad darnedest to deny it to rescue your new hero's claims.

No, you claimed I had made a mistake when I did not. You forgot that your hero's case rested on a 3-legged stool, one leg of which was directed mutations. Directed mutations were still considered a thing when Shapiro wrote the paper you had posted. Later research - to include some by the very people that wrote the papers he had cited in support of NGE in his 1992 paper that you relied on - showed that it was NOT a thing.

Remove 1 leg of a 3-legged stool and what happens?

See above.

I can and will accuse you of ignoring the implication and doing your sad darnedest to deny it to rescue your new hero's claims.

Ok, but it is still a fact that I didn’t ignored your refutation, at most you can say that you personally don’t agree with my reply,.

The point is that you wrongly accused me for ignoring your claims, when I didn’t.

 

[leroy]

You do realize that being able to test something is not evidence for that something. Y

You do realize that being able to test something is not evidence for that something. You seem to be on the verge of concluding that testability equals validity.

.

You seem to be on the verge of concluding that testability equals validity.

Really, ? can you quote any comment where I said or implied something like that?


Since the OP I admitted that I have no idea if NDE (and out of body experiences) are real or not, I am just claiming that in principle these claims are testable and could be verified (or rejected) using the scientific method.

 

[Alex22]

So if non Christians where to have "Christian NDEs" Would you accept tras as evidence for christianity?

What does that show? it's no more different then a Christian having a NDE about Vishnu.

 

[sun rise]

Not a very convincing case.
Firstly, as the report itself admits, it is anecdotal.
Second, if accurate, the man merely described what happened within his possible field of vision and hearing, not something he could not have possibly known.
Finally, confirmation bias. The place this is claimed to have happened was a centre dedicated to trying to prove NDEs.

Many discoveries start with anecdotal reports. Smoking causing cancer was one - it was only much later than the mechanism has become clearer.

As far as the rest goes, yes, it's not proof. My only contention is that it's one example and that further investigation is warranted.

Naturally I, as a believer, put more credence in this than you as a non-believer do. This is totally not surprising to me.

 

[sun rise]

What does that show? it's no more different then a Christian having a NDE about Vishnu.

There's an assumption behind the question. And that is that "Vishnu" is different. We might see the same reality but interpret it differently .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really, ? can you quote any comment where I said or implied something like that?


Since the OP I admitted that I have no idea if NDE (and out of body experiences) are real or not, I am just claiming that in principle these claims are testable and could be verified (or rejected) using the scientific method.

Since most of it is anecdotal, there isn't much to test.

Yes.

 

[KWED]

Sure, all I am saying is that at least there are hypothetical scenarios where 8 would be the most probable explanation.

Possibly, but at present there is no evidence to suggest that 8 is more reasonable than any of the others.

For example if I describe accursedly and in detail the t-shirt and the clothing of the patient above, if I describe the tv show that he was watching, if I describe the furniture of the room etc… any disagreement?

I have already explained at length why there are reasons other than magic why someone might be able to provide details of events elsewhere. Until magic is shown to be an actual possibility, (because the existence of magic has been shown - which, at present, it has not), options that do not require magic but only known processes are necessarily more reasonable.

I think you really need to get your head round this concept because it is very important...
Until the existence of magic has been proven, you cannot claim that magic is responsible for anything.

Just ask the guy in the room above if he was watching that TV show, wearing that t-shirt, and/or look at the furniture in the room.

If it was a fabrication, then obviously the participants would know the details.

That depends on the detail of the description. A black t-shirt could be a lucky guess, but a “black star wars t-shirt with an image Luke Skywalker training with Yoda, would be too specific and unlikely to be a product of a guess.

So you accept that "lucky guess" is more probable than magic in some cases.

My point is that “lucky guess ” is testable and could be discarded as a viable alternative.

How?

But that is testable stuff, that can be accepted and discarded

How do you test for those things?
You keep claiming "it is testable" but keep refusing to explain how it could be tested.

 

[KWED]

Since the OP I admitted that I have no idea if NDE (and out of body experiences) are real or not, I am just claiming that in principle these claims are testable and could be verified (or rejected) using the scientific method.

And we are still waiting to hear now you would test such things.
NOTE: it must follow the principle of scientific testing. It cannot be merely accepting an anecdote as true. So if you want to use the "describing the shirt" option, you must also demonstrate that it is not possible for the patient to have known that information by any other means.

 

[KWED]

Many discoveries start with anecdotal reports. Smoking causing cancer was one - it was only much later than the mechanism has become clearer.

Not so. The connection was first raised over 100 years ago by a doctor reviewing lung cancer data. He based his claim on evidence, not anecdote.

As far as the rest goes, yes, it's not proof. My only contention is that it's one example and that further investigation is warranted.

I have no objection to investigation into anything. My problem is people making false claims and misrepresenting the results of investigations. The soul might be independent of the brain and might leave the body after death, but all the research thus far (and there has been plenty of it) suggests that it is not the case.

Naturally I, as a believer, put more credence in this than you as a non-believer do. This is totally not surprising to me.

And confirmation bias is obviously a big problem with issues like this. If your worldview requires that there be P, you will accept any claim that appears to support XP regardless of how reliable that claim actually is.

[GALLERY=media, 9625]Therefore by KWED posted Oct 14, 2021 at 8:05 AM[/GALLERY]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Which is a good way to end up with false beliefs.

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.

What are you on about with this "scientism" ( ) ?
You called it scientific evidence.

There's nothing scientific about anecdotes.