NDE

[Maeght]

If people across the world, of varying ages, cultures, education levels and so on relate some experience....I have every reason to believe it and take it at face value.

They are having a similar experience maybe, but it doesn't mean the interpretation of those experiences is reality.  You didn't answer whether you take things at face value in other parts of your life or is this a special situation for you.

[Sriram]

They are having a similar experience maybe, but it doesn't mean the interpretation of those experiences is reality.  You didn't answer whether you take things at face value in other parts of your life or is this a special situation for you.

Even in other parts of life I would accept peoples experiences as real with similar numbers and profiles.

[Maeght]

Even in other parts of life I would accept peoples experiences as real with similar numbers and profiles.

I would accept that they had experiences but not necessarily their interpretation of what they were without evidence to support those interpretations.

[torridon]

Even in other parts of life I would accept peoples experiences as real with similar numbers and profiles.

At some level, human brains are the same the world over, and so will produce similar experiences in similar situations. A psychoactive mind-altering drug will elicit similar results whether you are a shaman from the Amazon rainforest, or a bank clerk from Huddersfield. It's not surprising that the brain hypoxia associated with dying will produce similar effects in people the world over.

[Sriram]

NDE's.... given their numbers, doctor corroboration and the patient profiles, can be taken at face value. No reason not to. 

Makes perfect sense and also matches with research in areas such as reincarnation that I have mentioned in another thread. Increasingly people are taking them seriously as proof of an afterlife. Looks good!

 

[torridon]

NDE's.... given their numbers, doctor corroboration and the patient profiles, can be taken at face value. No reason not to. 

Makes perfect sense and also matches with research in areas such as reincarnation that I have mentioned in another thread. Increasingly people are taking them seriously as proof of an afterlife. Looks good!

So on that basis, there is no reason to not take seriously the claims of an addict tripping on LSD that he can fly.

Duh!

Mr Ockham would be most disappointed in your reasoning skills.

[Sriram]

So on that basis, there is no reason to not take seriously the claims of an addict tripping on LSD that he can fly.

Duh!

Mr Ockham would be most disappointed in your reasoning skills.

Occum was a friar who was trying to promote the idea of God as the simplest explanation.....

[Sriram]

I would accept that they had experiences but not necessarily their interpretation of what they were without evidence to support those interpretations.

Almost everyone who has the experience interprets it as an after-life and as a 'being of light' and as 'out of body' and so on. The interpretations are the same among them all.

What would you interpret it as and why would that be more correct?

[ProfessorDavey]

Occum was a friar who was trying to promote the idea of God as the simplest explanation.....

So what.

His concept argues against god as it adds an unnecessary step when other simpler explanations exist. That Occam originally coined it in order to argue for god is both irrelevant, but also interesting in revelling a bias in favour of an explanation that presumably he already believed in, but had no evidence for.

[ProfessorDavey]

Almost everyone who has the experience interprets it as an after-life and as a 'being of light' and as 'out of body' and so on. The interpretations are the same among them all.

Just because people interpret these phenomena in a particular manner doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. And I think there is an element of circular argument here - I suspect people who have these phenomena when profoundly ill may interpret it as 'after-life', but of course the same phenomena occur in other circumstances where there may be temporary oxygen depletion/CO2 build up in the brain that isn't associated with death or illness. And the same phenomena can be induced experimentally. How do these people describe it - I suspect less likely for an airforce pilot to describe it as 'after-life' even though the phenomena, induced by extreme g-force, is the same.

And, of course, many of us will encounter out of body experiences when we dream - do we ascribe this to some kind of supernatural cause. Nope, we understand this to be due to brain activity that occurs as we sleep.

What would you interpret it as and why would that be more correct?

Err - physiological phenomena that occur under circumstances where there is mild to sever oxygen depletion and CO2 building up in the brain blood supply. And of course in every case where we are able to talk to the person about it, this isn't a feature of death because the person does not die. Indeed when induced by high g or experimentally the person isn't even 'near death'.

[Alan Burns]

My wife and I were at her mother's bedside in her dying moments.  The last things she said were "put that light out" and "mother!".

In retrospect we can see how this fits in with other people's near death experiences.  Seeing a bright light and being greeted by a close relative or friend.

[Maeght]

Almost everyone who has the experience interprets it as an after-life and as a 'being of light' and as 'out of body' and so on. The interpretations are the same among them all.

What would you interpret it as and why would that be more correct?

Just because people interpret it in a particular way that doesn't mean that interpretation is correct. How I would or wouldn't interpret it is irrelevant to the reality.

[Maeght]

My wife and I were at her mother's bedside in her dying moments.  The last things she said were "put that light out" and "mother!".

In retrospect we can see how this fits in with other people's near death experiences.  Seeing a bright light and being greeted by a close relative or friend.

As she was dying she was having an experience, yes. No one is disputing that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what you are on about there I'm afraid.

I mean ''Electronsdidit'' or ''the braindidit'' doesn't get us very far in discussion of this experience so I am puzzled that such offerings seem to give satisfaction. What is it these flip answers are satisfying?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because people interpret these phenomena in a particular manner doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. And I think there is an element of circular argument here - I suspect people who have these phenomena when profoundly ill may interpret it as 'after-life', but of course the same phenomena occur in other circumstances where there may be temporary oxygen depletion/CO2 build up in the brain that isn't associated with death or illness. And the same phenomena can be induced experimentally. How do these people describe it - I suspect less likely for an airforce pilot to describe it as 'after-life' even though the phenomena, induced by extreme g-force, is the same.

And, of course, many of us will encounter out of body experiences when we dream - do we ascribe this to some kind of supernatural cause. Nope, we understand this to be due to brain activity that occurs as we sleep.
Err - physiological phenomena that occur under circumstances where there is mild to sever oxygen depletion and CO2 building up in the brain blood supply. And of course in every case where we are able to talk to the person about it, this isn't a feature of death because the person does not die. Indeed when induced by high g or experimentally the person isn't even 'near death'.

I think an experience like this may be a case for ''follow up''.How for instance is the person changed, is any change for the betterment or the deteriment.

I would imagine though the ''electronsdidit'' brigade wouldn't be interested...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I mean ''Electronsdidit'' or ''the braindidit'' doesn't get us very far in discussion of this experience so I am puzzled that such offerings seem to give satisfaction. What is it these flip answers are satisfying?

It “satisfies” the conclusion that there’s no good reason to reach beyond the physiological to explain these events.

[Sriram]

Just because people interpret these phenomena in a particular manner doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. And I think there is an element of circular argument here - I suspect people who have these phenomena when profoundly ill may interpret it as 'after-life', but of course the same phenomena occur in other circumstances where there may be temporary oxygen depletion/CO2 build up in the brain that isn't associated with death or illness. And the same phenomena can be induced experimentally. How do these people describe it - I suspect less likely for an airforce pilot to describe it as 'after-life' even though the phenomena, induced by extreme g-force, is the same.

And, of course, many of us will encounter out of body experiences when we dream - do we ascribe this to some kind of supernatural cause. Nope, we understand this to be due to brain activity that occurs as we sleep.
Err - physiological phenomena that occur under circumstances where there is mild to sever oxygen depletion and CO2 building up in the brain blood supply. And of course in every case where we are able to talk to the person about it, this isn't a feature of death because the person does not die. Indeed when induced by high g or experimentally the person isn't even 'near death'.

Out of body experiences can be had by anyone...not necessarily during NDE's. Everyone has a soul and everyone can temporarily leave the body.  It can happen anytime to anyone.

[ProfessorDavey]

My wife and I were at her mother's bedside in her dying moments.  The last things she said were "put that light out" and "mother!".

In retrospect we can see how this fits in with other people's near death experiences.  Seeing a bright light and being greeted by a close relative or friend.

Seeing a bright light is also a common phenomenon for people with oxygen depletion or CO2 elevation in circumstances that have nothing to do with death - e.g. high g-force.

I've dreamt about my dead parents on many occasions - then I woke up - I wasn't near death.

People experience similar things when they may have high fever too.

So these phenomena are really very common and in most cases aren't related to dying at all.

[Maeght]

I mean ''Electronsdidit'' or ''the braindidit'' doesn't get us very far in discussion of this experience so I am puzzled that such offerings seem to give satisfaction. What is it these flip answers are satisfying?

Flip answers?

If we are looking for an explanation of the cause of such experiences then brain activity can be totally satisfying (though not sure that is the correct word). If you are looking for some greater meaning then I'll leave such speculation to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Out of body experiences can be had by anyone...not necessarily during NDE's. Everyone has a soul and everyone can temporarily leave the body.  It can happen anytime to anyone.

“Everyone has a soul” eh? Good luck with demonstrating that unqualified assertion.

While we wait for that though, perhaps you could sort out the difference between a NEAR death experience and actual death. You’re very confused about this: if you want to stick with NEAR death experience then you have all your work ahead of you to explain why the process of approaching death has something to tell us about being actually dead; on the other hand, if you want to rest your assertions on actual deaths then you need to find some examples of people who were actually dead and then returned to tell us about it.

Which one do you plump for: near death or actual death?   

[Outrider]

NDE's.... given their numbers, doctor corroboration and the patient profiles, can be taken at face value. No reason not to.

No. They are widespread and consistent enough that we have to presume that there is something consistent happening, but we not only don't have to accept that the subjective interpretation of that should be accepted, but we have good reason to think that an already unreliable subjective experience should not be taken at face value when operating in extreme circumstances. 

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Out of body experiences can be had by anyone...not necessarily during NDE's.

Indeed - as the neurophysiology that is considered to generate these phenomena can be induced through a range of activities, some of which represent normal physiology others associated with neurological stress including the process of dying. The most common is, of course, dreaming. And we can measure this via brain scans and induce it artificially.

Everyone has a soul and everyone can temporarily leave the body.  It can happen anytime to anyone.

Oh no - and I thought we were getting somewhere and then you revert back to woo. We don't actually 'leave our body' when we have an out of body experience. Our neurophysiology creates a phenomenon which is perceived as leaving our bodies. And you'll need to provide evidence for the existence of a soul, beyond a way we describe aspects of our complex neurophysiology.

[Sriram]

The soul is not 'woo'. it is not something strange and supernatural.

It is you and me. It is the Subject, the Self at the core of the personality. 

[torridon]

The soul is not 'woo'. it is not something strange and supernatural.

It is you and me. It is the Subject, the Self at the core of the personality.

The soul is indeed woo, or at least in the sense of something immaterial and eternal inhabiting our bodies.  It is an idea that owes everything to our ubiquitous distaste for death, and nothing at all to empirical evidence or research.

[ProfessorDavey]

The soul is not 'woo'. it is not something strange and supernatural.

So if what you describe as 'the soul' is not supernatural then presumably it is material. I'd agree. And if it is material we need to understand from what material processes it emanates. And also if it is material then it cannot exist outside of or beyond those material processes. So what material processes are good contenders, for which evidence exists. Well, how about highly complex neurophysiology within the brain. And certainly there is no evidence that human consciousness or 'the soul' exists outside of the context of neurophysiology.

It is you and me. It is the Subject, the Self at the core of the personality.

Yup - what we describe as a person is fundamentally defined by that individual's neurophysiology - hence why we consider that a person has died when that neurophysiology is permanently lost, even if other physiological processes remain functional.

That does nothing to diminish 'the Subject' or 'the Self' - indeed I think trying to claim it is non-material, magic or supernatural diminishes us as a person.