Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

[Koldo]

What the hell does that mean? Go right ahead and account for the veridical perceptions of Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient, and the Parnia 2014 patient.

It means that the reports that we have come from people that survived through their experiences.
In other words, people with a functioning brain.

 

[Nous]

You have a very odd sense of how academics work.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

We can only assume that you don't know of anyone with a graduate degree in statistics who wouldn't laugh at what you've posted here.

 

[Nous]

It means that the reports that we have come from people that survived through their experiences.
In other words, people with a functioning brain.

Go right ahead and account for how Pam Reynolds was able to describe the saw used on her skull. And account for how Dr. Rudy's patient was able to see him and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway. And account for how the patient in Parnia 2014 was able to hear the automated voice of the AED machine and was able to describe a staff person he had never seen before who was present when he was unconscious.

 

[Koldo]

Go right ahead and account for how Pam Reynolds was able to describe the saw used on her skull. And account for how Dr. Rudy's patient was able to see him and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway. And account for how the patient in Parnia 2014 was able to hear the automated voice of the AED machine and was able to describe a staff person he had never seen before who was present when he was unconscious.

Why are you asking me to do this ?

 

[Nous]

Why are you asking me to do this ?

Geez, because there is no other way to account for these veridical perceptions except for the fact that these people had perceptions from a perspective outside of their bodies, and have had and retained in their memories complex, coherent experiences and logical thought processes when their brains were not functioning (in the cases of Dr.Rudy's and Dr. Parnia's patients, due to lack of oxygen).

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

We can only assume that you don't know of anyone with a graduate degree in statistics who wouldn't laugh at what you've posted here.

"We can only assume"

You can assume all types of things, but just assuming stuff does not make you right.

It is very clear to me that your ability to reason well is not very strong. You treat these pseudoscience studies as more of a holy scripture than science.

 

[Nous]

"We can only assume"

You can assume all types of things, but just assuming stuff does not make you right.

It is very clear to me that your ability to reason well is not very strong. You treat these pseudoscience studies as more of a holy scripture than science.

You haven't shown anything I've said is erroneous, and you haven't shown that any of the scientific evidence presented on this thread are erroneous. In contrast, your claims that the van Lommel paper erroneously inferred a cause-and-effect relationship are ignorant. That's why you haven't been able to quote where the authors make any such inference. Your claims are contradicted by the reviewers of the Lancet article.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You haven't shown anything I've said is erroneous, and you haven't shown that any of the scientific evidence presented on this thread are erroneous. In contrast, your claims that the van Lommel paper erroneously inferred a cause-and-effect relationship are ignorant. That's why you haven't been able to quote where the authors make any such inference. Your claims are contradicted by the reviewers of the Lancet article.

"You haven't shown anything I've said is erroneous, and you haven't shown that any of the scientific evidence presented on this thread are erroneous."

Well, of course you think that, for the reason I mentioned in my last post.

 

[Nous]

"You haven't shown anything I've said is erroneous, and you haven't shown that any of the scientific evidence presented on this thread are erroneous."

Well, of course you think that, for the reason I mentioned in my last post.

So, you still can't identify anything erroneous that I've said or anything erroneous in the scientific evidence presented here.

 

[Koldo]

Geez, because there is no other way to account for these veridical perceptions except for the fact that these people had perceptions from a perspective outside of their bodies, and have had and retained in their memories complex, coherent experiences and logical thought processes when their brains were not functioning (in the cases of Dr.Rudy's and Dr. Parnia's patients, due to lack of oxygen).

Even if we agree that it is possible for someone to have a "perception from a perspective outside of their bodies", that doesn't mean that such is possible regardless of a functioning brain. Actually, it might be case that such a brain is necessary. Putting that aside, the other issue is what exactly is being meant by a 'functioning brain'. A brain beyond recovery is what I could call a 'non-functioning brain'. Therefore, no reports would ever come from those individuals... at least not as living individuals. And last, but not least, even if I accept the perceptions that match what we know, I have no reason to also accept what we don't. This means I don't have to buy into "I saw dead people" reports.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So, you still can't identify anything erroneous that I've said or anything erroneous in the scientific evidence presented here.

"So, you still can't identify anything erroneous that I've said "

Ya I can, here is one right here: "scientific evidence presented".

Nous, it is clear to me you are not interested in an open honest discussion here. I don't know what else to tell you. My positions have not changed at all, and if you wish to review them then go back and read them. I am not going to sit here and repeat myself over and over again, when obviously all you are going to do is pretend like I didn't say them.

For some reason you seem to believe that if you repeat your statements enough they become truth, but it should be clear to you by now that I do not respect your ability to reason scientifically. If you didn't engage so much in ad nauseam and ad hominem tactics then perhaps I might be more willing to further the back and forth. However, at this point I think you are too enamored with this pseudoscience to look at these studies objectively.

 

[Nous]

Even if we agree that it is possible for someone to have a "perception from a perspective outside of their bodies", that doesn't mean that such is possible regardless of a functioning brain. Actually, it might be case that such a brain is necessary.

Then cite a fact by which we can conclude that a functioning brain is necessary for someone to have a veridical perception from a perspective outside of his/her body.

I'm not sure you have understood the facts of the 3 cases (the experiences and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective) I asked you to account for--have you? Obviously you haven't accounted for the facts of their experiences and veridical perceptions, despite my repeated requests.

And I think it might be because you haven't understood the facts of these cases, that you are conflating the issues of veridical perception from an out-of-body perspective and non-functioning brain. Let us take the opportunity to be clear on these issues:

The fact that NDErs have been shown to have and retain in their memories complex, coherent experiences and utilize logical thought processes when their brains have been deprived of oxygen sufficiently long to be unable to support neural activity (or where there may be only residual activity of the brain stem) is a fact that defies explanation of these experiences and logical thought processes as a physiological artifact. Just as I pointed out in the OP:

Even disregarding other aspects of NDEs, such logical thought processes and the having and retention in memory of complex, coherent experiences during the severely compromised neurological states in which NDEs commonly occur confound explanation of these experiences as a mere physiological artifact. In a 2006 article, Dr. van Lommel, after explaining that “[m]onitoring of the electrical activity of the cortex (EEG) has shown that the first ischemic changes in the EEG are detected an average of 6.5 seconds from the onset of circulatory arrest, and with prolongation of the cerebral ischemia always progression to isoelectricity occurs within 10 to 20 (mean 15) seconds,” elaborates this issue:

The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain. Parnia et al. (2001) and Parnia and Fenwick (2002) write that the data from several NDE studies suggest that the NDE arises during unconsciousness, and this is a surprising conclusion, because when the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures, which underpin subjective experience and memory, must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise or be retained in memory. Such patients would be expected to have no subjective experience, as was the case in the vast majority of patients who survive cardiac arrest, or at best a confusional state if some brain function is retained. The fact that in a cardiac arrest loss of cortical function precedes the rapid loss of brainstem activity lends further support to this view. An alternative explanation would be that the observed experiences arise during the loss of, or on regaining consciousness. The transition from consciousness to unconsciousness is rapid, and appearing immediate to the subject. Experiences that occur during the recovery of consciousness are confusional, which these were not. In fact, memory is a very sensitive indicator of brain injury and the length of amnesia before and after unconsciousness is an indicator of the severity of the injury. Therefore, one should not expect that events that occur just prior to or just after loss of consciousness should be clearly recalled.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Near-Death Experience_Consciousness and the Brain.pdf​

The fact that people have been shown to have veridical experiences from a perspective outside of their bodies, in which they can accurately report events that they could not see with their eyes, is also a fact that defies explanation of the conscious experience and perception as an artifact of brain activity. A person might indeed have an entirely functioning brain during a veridical perception from an out-of-body perspective (there are reports of such), but his/her perceptions and conscious experience would be spatially separated from that functioning brain.

The above facts are why the hypothesis that consciousness is somehow (inexplicably) a by-product of the electrical activity of neurons does not account for the facts of the veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective and the complex, coherent experiences and logical thought processes had by Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the Parnia 2014 patient.

Putting that aside, the other issue is what exactly is being meant by a 'functioning brain'.

See Dr. van Lommel's description above. Twenty seconds after the onset of circulatory arrest, a brain should not be having and forming memories of complex, coherent experiences and engaging in logical thought processes, if consciousness were merely the by-product of the electrical activity of the brain. Twenty seconds after the onset of circulatory arrest, a person should have no experiences, form no memories, and be unable to engage in logical thought processes, if consciousness were merely the by-product of the electrical activity of the brain.

 

[Nous]

"So, you still can't identify anything erroneous that I've said "

Ya I can, here is one right here: "scientific evidence presented".

Be sure to let us know if you ever correctly understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel et al. study, approved by the reviewers at Lancet (which apparently is more than can be said of anything you have ever written), to wit:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.​

[. . .]

Statistical analysis
We assessed causal factors for NDE with the Pearson [chi-squared] test for categorical and t test for ratio-scaled factors. Factors affecting depth of NDE were analysed with the Mann-Whitney test for categorical factors, and with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation for ratioscaled factors. Links between NDE and altered scores for questions from the life-change inventory were assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The sums of the individual scores were used to compare the responses to the life-change inventory in the second and third interview. Because few causes or relations exist for NDE, the null hypotheses are the absence of factors. Hence, all tests were two-tailed with significance shown by p values less than 0·05.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Be sure to let us know if you ever correctly understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel et al. study, approved by the reviewers at Lancet (which apparently is more than can be said of anything you have ever written), to wit:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.​

[. . .]

Statistical analysis
We assessed causal factors for NDE with the Pearson [chi-squared] test for categorical and t test for ratio-scaled factors. Factors affecting depth of NDE were analysed with the Mann-Whitney test for categorical factors, and with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation for ratioscaled factors. Links between NDE and altered scores for questions from the life-change inventory were assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The sums of the individual scores were used to compare the responses to the life-change inventory in the second and third interview. Because few causes or relations exist for NDE, the null hypotheses are the absence of factors. Hence, all tests were two-tailed with significance shown by p values less than 0·05.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Nous]

Thanks for proving my point.

Just let us know if you are able to understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel et al. study.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Just let us know if you are able to understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel et al. study.

Far better than you are able to.

 

[Nous]

Far better than you are able to.

Prove it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Prove it.

Prove what? That I can do a hypothesis test?

 

[Nous]

Prove what?

That you are able to correctly understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel study which were reviewed and approved by peers at Lancet. I.e., that you are able to understand that the authors of the paper did not do something as ridiculous and aberrant as secretly sticking an inference in the first sentence of their statistical methods section, and that you are able to understand that the Lancet reviewers would never approve a paper that did such a ridiculous and aberrant thing.

You give the impression that this was the first time you've ever read a peer-reviewed paper.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That you are able to correctly understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel study which were reviewed and approved by peers at Lancet. I.e., that you are able to understand that the authors of the paper did not do something as ridiculous and aberrant as secretly sticking an inference in the first sentence of their statistical methods section, and that you are able to understand that the Lancet reviewers would never approve a paper that did such a ridiculous and aberrant thing.

You give the impression that this was the first time you've ever read a peer-reviewed paper.

OMG, looping back again; I have address this exact issue. Nothing but more ad nauseam and ad hominem. This is why I don't respect your opinion.