|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2004 : 10:57:54 [Permalink]
|
| Perhaps, Phantom, if you were to address the questions and criticisms raised in this thread and this thread, others might feel more inclined to think that they'd be spending their time on your request to examine and respond to the above links in a fruitful manner. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2004 : 23:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Well, I will say that my skill in the field of mathematics is not up to the specific analysis of this paper :http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/katsman/ph-m-model.html
I will say that there are a few obvious problems with it that even I can see....
quote:
Pearson's theory is based on the idea that when two kinds of primary particles are present, collisions and the exchange of energy between them cause the creation of a neuron-like structure.
So... collision of primary particles can create structures that resemble complex biological structures in form and/or function?
And that is in just the second paragraph....
You know.... I should have stopped reading... but it was so interesting I kept on going. To this!
quote:
Let us now assume that the speed of light depends on structure and properties of the medium (ether).
(can't find an emoticon that depicts stunned incredulity)
I should have stopped.... but there were more equasions (apparently that used the above assumption as a foundational basis) that showed this conclusion.... quote:
So, Planck's constant decreases with an increase in the speed of light.
So... if you can convince one constant to vary (the speed of light) then you can convince another constant (Planck's) to vary.
(still looking for the right emoticon)
Then it goes on to make some claim about gravity effecting things in both "worlds" based on alledged change in bodyweight when a person dies... which they admit they have no evidence to support even that small claim(the change in weight claim).
It's set up in a way that would require more specific knowledge of physics than I posess to analyze the mathematical conclusions.... but the paper even claims that their math is dependent upon certain assumptions. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2004 : 21:26:40 [Permalink]
|
Well, I was in the local Barnes & Nobel bookstore today and saw this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345448375/qid=1086150035/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-6520650-1072632?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Which bears (no pun intended) some resemblance to the link I was speaking about in the above post.
Fiction borrowing from pseudoscience for material? Or maybe the other way around? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 04:56:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
the paper even claims that their math is dependent upon certain assumptions.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities... Cosmology Statement |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
| Edited by - Phantom on 06/03/2004 04:57:22 |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 05:13:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Perhaps, Phantom, if you were to address the questions and criticisms raised in this thread and this thread, others might feel more inclined to think that they'd be spending their time on your request to examine and respond to the above links in a fruitful manner.
My original view on the case as involving veridical impressions of the surgery during flat EEG was incorrect.
Her verifiable perceptions did not take place when she was flatlined. The only subjective experience that did take place under these extreme conditions was her meetings with deceased ones, and other out-of-Operating Room reports.
We still have the accurate observations from an unconscious body which mainstream science is thus far unable to explain. Pam observed specific details of the surgery (previously unknown to her) while she was anesthetised and unable to receive external auditory signals because of the molded ear speakers which were placed in each ear at the beginning of the procedure (as a test for auditory and brain-stem reflexes). These speakers occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing.
Page 39 of "Light and Death" by Michael B. Sabom:
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
While Spetzler was opening Pam's head, a female cardiac surgeon located the femoral artery and vein in Pam's right groin. These vessels turned out to be too small to handle the large flow of blood needed to feed the cardiopulmonary bypass machine. Thus, the left femoral artery and vein were prepared for use. Pam later recalled this point in the surgery:
Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist [sic]. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that . . . I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn't like the respirator. . . I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not readily recognize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Murray was the female cardiovascular surgeon in the case. In her operative report, she had dictated the following in her section on "Findings at the time of surgery"
Page 185
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
the right femoral artery and vein were exposed, and the right common femoral artery was quite small...it was decided that, in order to achieve appropriate flows for bypass, bilateral groin cannulation would be necessary: This was discussed with Neurosurgery, as it would affect angio access postoperatively for arteriography.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From this evidence, we can conclude that the conversation actually occurred and that its content was accurately recalled. Also, the timing of this conversation with the reported occurrence of the out-of-body experience was found to be precise.
Pam stated that she did not hear or perceive anything prior to her out-of-body experience, and that this experience began with hearing the bone saw. At this point in the operation, she had been under anesthesia for about 90 minutes. If the conversation she claims to have heard had occurred prior to or after this point in the surgery then this recollection would not correspond to her out-of-body experience and would rule against the accuracy of Pam's story.
Dr. Spetzler dictated into his operative report that "simultaneous with the opening of the craniotomy, Dr. Murray performed bilateral femoral cut-downs for cannulation for cardiac bypass." "Craniotomy" means cutting open the skull with the bone saw. Dr. Murray would have conversed about the size of Pam's vessels at the time she was performing the cut-downs. Thus, the "opening [or beginning] of the craniotomy" using the bone saw was simultaneous with the conversation about Pam's small blood vessels-and, as it turns out, with her out-of-body experience. This correspondence of Pam's recollections from an out-of-body experience with the correct bit of intraoperative conversation during a six-hour operative procedure is certainly intriguing evidence in support of Pam's story.
She did report further stages of a classical NDE which occurred during the stage of flat EEG, even if these stages did not concern the surgical procedures. This is in itself inexplicable by any materialist neurological theory.
Dr. Sabom formulates this, page 49:
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But during "standstill," Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests-her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly; while in this state, she encountered the "deepest" near-death experience of all Atlanta Study participants. The average score for an NDE on Dr. Greyson's NDE Scale was 15, similar to the 13.3 average I found in The Atlanta Study. Pam's NDE stood out, however, with an amazing depth of 27!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It could be argued that it is difficult to assess if the parts of Pam's NDE unrelated to the surgical procedure, really took place during her flattened EEG. However, evidence indicates that many NDEs do take place during a flattened EEG, e.g. the studies by Pim van Lommel et al. So I see no specific reason to doubt the possibility of this happening in the case of Pam Reynolds.
If we accept the paranormal impressions of the surgery, we need a parapsychological hypothesis. It becomes simply more parsimonious to consider the rest of her NDE as continuous with the paranormal part.
During a flat EEG, all our cortical structures which create our world for us are not working. So if the NDE doesn't occur as your going down & if it doesn't occur while you are in the depth of the experience, (DURING the period when the brain was dead) - because it can't in our science - then perhaps it occurs as your recovering? But if you deprive the brain of oxygen & you recover from it, your thinking is all over the place. The NDE is highly lucid, so it can't be in the confusional state of awakening. So when did it occur? |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
| Edited by - Phantom on 06/03/2004 06:33:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 11:28:25 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
It could be argued that it is difficult to assess if the parts of Pam's NDE unrelated to the surgical procedure, really took place during her flattened EEG.
Well, we now know for a fact that the surgery-related parts of Pam's "NDE" did not (not!) happen while she was flatlined. And if you think that people are completely unable to hear with plastic things stuffed in their ears, I suggest you try it. With healthy hearing, it is very difficult to squelch all sound, and while speech can be very muffled, it can be surprisingly intelligible. Also, the idea that people cannot remember things under anesthesia seems to be false.quote:
However, evidence indicates that many NDEs do take place during a flattened EEG, e.g. the studies by Pim van Lommel et al.
Pam Reynolds is brought forward often as the best evidence of NDEs. Van Lommel's, if it shows that NDEs must take place during flatlining, is better. Forget about Pam, as all we've got is evidence that she could hear.quote:
So I see no specific reason to doubt the possibility of this happening in the case of Pam Reynolds.
And thus, we go from "Pam Reynolds had an OBE while clinically dead," to "it's possible that Pam Reynolds had an OBE while clinically dead." Nobody hear has questioned the possibility, just the evidence. And the parsimonious explanation is that everything Pam experienced happened all at the same time: while she was anesthetized, but with a functioning brain. She heard something, and dreamed the rest.quote:
If we accept the paranormal impressions of the surgery, we need a parapsychological hypothesis. It becomes simply more parsimonious to consider the rest of her NDE as continuous with the paranormal part.
No, not until we have a parapsychological hypothesis. We don't have one yet which explains both: A) how "mind" functions outside the brain, and B) how "mind" ceases to function due to non-paranormal physical damage to the brain. There is no parapsychological hypothesis which explains both, and which can be tested and is theoretically falsifiable. Until we do, it is a guess, and basing "parsimonious" explanations upon guesswork simply isn't good logic. Much better to say, "I don't know," which is what science allows, and even demands.quote:
During a flat EEG, all our cortical structures which create our world for us are not working. So if the NDE doesn't occur as your going down & if it doesn't occur while you are in the depth of the experience, (DURING the period when the brain was dead) - because it can't in our science - then perhaps it occurs as your recovering? But if you deprive the brain of oxygen & you recover from it, your thinking is all over the place. The NDE is highly lucid, so it can't be in the confusional state of awakening. So when did it occur?
Once again, Phantom, your insistence that these things cannot happen is what is limiting your reasoning to the guesswork that is the paranormal. Instead, you should read the mainstream literature regarding waking, which will undoubtedly show you that there is a wide range of responses. Just like not everyone has narrative dreams, not everyone will be confused after oxygen deprivation. Not only that, but there must be a transition between "confusion" and "coherence," and I don't see where there is evidence that people suddenly snap to a realization that they are "awake" after such an experience.
Your determination to ignore such things, and instead claim that everyone is identical and certain things cannot happen, will lead you away from the truth, wherever that lies.
Personally, I enjoy the idea that there will be an afterlife (to a point), but am not so idealistic as to think there's a lot of evidence for it. In other words, it's something I want, but am pretty sure I'm not going to get it. It's a romantic notion which is emotionally appealing, but scientifically vacant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 14:07:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, we now know for a fact that the surgery-related parts of Pam's "NDE" did not (not!) happen while she was flatlined. And if you think that people are completely unable to hear with plastic things stuffed in their ears, I suggest you try it. With healthy hearing, it is very difficult to squelch all sound, and while speech can be very muffled, it can be surprisingly intelligible.
I never claimed it was impossible for people to hear with 'plastic things stuffed in their ears'. In this specific case, the doctor states that the 'speakers' used eliminated the possibilty of Pam hearing. You reject this point on what grounds?
Furthermore, Pam claims to have 'seen' despite the fact that her eyes were lubricated to prevent drying and then taped shut.
Page 186
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabom: Did you see any specifics in the operating room during your experience?
Pam: The saw thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush…And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case.
When I heard Pam's description of the bone saw that Dr. Spetzler used to open her skull, I cringed. An "electric toothbrush" with "interchangeable blades"? No way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 187
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Company in Fort Worth,Texas, sent me a student's user manual with pictures of the bone saw used by Dr. Spetzler. I was shocked with the accuracy of Pam's description of the saw as an "electric toothbrush" with "interchangeable blades" and with a "socket wrench case" in which this equipment is kept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 15:28:54 [Permalink]
|
I can relate several anecdotal tales in my own personal experience that confirm people do indeed hear and remember things while under anesthesia. From both points of view. (I have heard the stories related by patients about conversations inside the OR, and can relate to you, in vivid detail, a surgical experience of my own while I was under anesthesia)
Also, why would an MD be considered an expert on acoustics? Put on any pair of headphones, or insert the best noise-reducing earplugs you can by..... you will still be able to hear unless your hearing is already damaged/reduced from normal.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 18:37:05 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
I never claimed it was impossible for people to hear with 'plastic things stuffed in their ears'.
Oh? You didn't say "These speakers occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing?" My bolded part certainly parses, to me, as "impossible."quote:
In this specific case, the doctor states that the 'speakers' used eliminated the possibilty of Pam hearing. You reject this point on what grounds?
On the grounds that it is unlikely to be true, since a surprising amount of sound travels through the bones of the head. Blocking the ear canals only does a certain amount, and if I remember correctly, the speakers in Pam's head only made periodic clicks in her ears.
You accept the doctor's claims on what grounds?
quote:
Furthermore, Pam claims to have 'seen' despite the fact that her eyes were lubricated to prevent drying and then taped shut.
Have you seen the wide variety of shapes that electric toothbrushes take? There is, of course, a certain amount of leeway that believers would offer in such a "matching" game, and no reason to think that Sabom did not. The "shock" and delight expressed by Sabom is transparently self-gratifying. If he (or you) thinks such a vague description is "exact," he's got a lot to learn about exactness. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2004 : 22:09:39 [Permalink]
|
| Life after life? Please. Give me just one good solid REASON to believe there's anything but THIS! ONLY ONE! That's all I ask. I'd love to just ONCE get hit in the face with the wet salmon of Revelation! Show it to me! I've got a brain, why on GODS created earth would GOD expect me NOT to use it??? Show me the money Jerry! |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 01:41:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Phantom wrote:quote:
I never claimed it was impossible for people to hear with 'plastic things stuffed in their ears'.
Oh? You didn't say "These speakers occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing?" My bolded part certainly parses, to me, as "impossible."
Of course I stated that the speakers eliminated the possibility of physical hearing, however, I am clearly referring to this specific case. I did not generalise and state that it can never be possible to hear when one has 'plastic things stuffed in their ears'.
These were specialised speakers, not just any random pieces of plastic shoved into Pam's ears.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Phantom wrote:quote:
In this specific case, the doctor states that the 'speakers' used eliminated the possibilty of Pam hearing. You reject this point on what grounds?
On the grounds that it is unlikely to be true, since a surprising amount of sound travels through the bones of the head. Blocking the ear canals only does a certain amount, and if I remember correctly, the speakers in Pam's head only made periodic clicks in her ears.
You claim that the notion that the speakers could render conversation inaudibile is unlikely. However, unless you know what particular speakers were used in this case, how can you dismiss Dr. Sabom's point that Pam was not able to accurately hear speech/sound because her ear canals were blocked?
How are you able to quantify the level of this 'amount of sound' that was able to travel through the bones of Pam's head, thus enabling her to have accurately heared intelligible conversation?
Why do I acept the doctors claims? His claim can be proved/disproved so easily; why would he risk his reputation by lying about this point? What would he have to gain? |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 10:07:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well, I will say that my skill in the field of mathematics is not up to the specific analysis of this paper :http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/katsman/ph-m-model.html
I will say that there are a few obvious problems with it that even I can see....
quote:
Pearson's theory is based on the idea that when two kinds of primary particles are present, collisions and the exchange of energy between them cause the creation of a neuron-like structure.
So... collision of primary particles can create structures that resemble complex biological structures in form and/or function?
And that is in just the second paragraph....
You know.... I should have stopped reading... but it was so interesting I kept on going. To this!
quote:
Let us now assume that the speed of light depends on structure and properties of the medium (ether).
(can't find an emoticon that depicts stunned incredulity)
I should have stopped.... but there were more equasions (apparently that used the above assumption as a foundational basis) that showed this conclusion.... quote:
So, Planck's constant decreases with an increase in the speed of light.
So... if you can convince one constant to vary (the speed of light) then you can convince another constant (Planck's) to vary.
(still looking for the right emoticon)
Then it goes on to make some claim about gravity effecting things in both "worlds" based on alledged change in bodyweight when a person dies... which they admit they have no evidence to support even that small claim(the change in weight claim).
It's set up in a way that would require more specific knowledge of physics than I posess to analyze the mathematical conclusions.... but the paper even claims that their math is dependent upon certain assumptions.
Vic addresses many of these issues in his book Physics and Psychics or maybe it was The Unconscious Quantum, I don't remember.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 11:48:26 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
Why do I acept the doctors claims? His claim can be proved/disproved so easily; why would he risk his reputation by lying about this point? What would he have to gain?
A Nobel Prize.
Seriously, he may not be lying. The claim is difficult to prove, as it requires Pam to cooperate fully. The doctor cannot determine if Pam cannot understand language unless Pam tells him so. It's quite possible that he asked the wrong questions of her, and got responses he liked, but which didn't test the device itself. Also, when it really mattered, she was anesthetized, and could not confirm proper operation of the ear pieces.
Furthermore, the idea that doctors on the fringe (or even outright quacks) are all completely honest with themselves and in their popular-press books is simply naive. It is quite easy for doctors to deceive themselves into seeing effects which don't exist, just as it's easy for non-doctors to do so. Doctors are not generally trained in critical thinking and/or experimental design much more than accountants are.
Where are the articles in peer-reviewed journals which report Dr. Sabom's work with NDEs? Peer review is no guarantor of sound methodology, but it's a step in the right direction, and letters (written by others in the field) in response to such articles get collected. Professional criticisms of Sabom's work would be interesting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 08:33:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The claim is difficult to prove, as it requires Pam to cooperate fully. The doctor cannot determine if Pam cannot understand language unless Pam tells him so. It's quite possible that he asked the wrong questions of her, and got responses he liked, but which didn't test the device itself. Also, when it really mattered, she was anesthetized, and could not confirm proper operation of the ear pieces.
Furthermore, the idea that doctors on the fringe (or even outright quacks) are all completely honest with themselves and in their popular-press books is simply naive. It is quite easy for doctors to deceive themselves into seeing effects which don't exist, just as it's easy for non-doctors to do so. Doctors are not generally trained in critical thinking and/or experimental design much more than accountants are.
Where are the articles in peer-reviewed journals which report Dr. Sabom's work with NDEs? Peer review is no guarantor of sound methodology, but it's a step in the right direction, and letters (written by others in the field) in response to such articles get collected. Professional criticisms of Sabom's work would be interesting.
Why would it not be possible for the doctor to determine whether Pam was able to understand language with speakers in her ear? It is possible to demonstrate objectively whether these specific speakers eliminate the possibility if hearing intelligible conversation.
With regards to your point that Pam would not have been able to confirm proper operation of the ear pieces; the auditory nerve center located in the brain stem was tested repeatedly using 100-decibel clicks emitted from the molded speakers inserted into her ears. It was essential that the speakers were operating properly because in response to these clicks, sharp spikes on the electrogram (i.e. evoked potentials) would assure the surgical team that the brain stem was intact. Pam was anesthetized but we have no evidence to indicate that the speakers were not operating properly.
I have already detailed how she accurately recalled the content of the conversation regarding her arteries which matched with Dr. Murray's operative report. What question/s should have been asked in this context?
Doctors can deceive themselves but I see no evidence of that in this case.
I'm far from naive. I reject the current peer review process for the reasons outlined in the link I posted above Cosmology Statement. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic about scientific progress in this field.
Indeed, professional criticisms of Sabom's work would be interesting. I will search for papers offering a critique but I also encourage others interested in this topic to do the same. |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 10:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Phantom:
Indeed, professional criticisms of Sabom's work would be interesting. I will search for papers offering a critique but I also encourage others interested in this topic to do the same.
OK, I found this:
Sabom and the Wondrous Story of Pam Reynolds
G.M. Woerlee [anesthesiologist]
http://mortalminds.tripod.com/html/w-reynolds.HTM
quote:
Woerlee:
Some authors make much of the fact that she could hear everything, in spite of the fact she had earplugs feeding clicking sounds into her ears. Of course she could hear what happened about her - proof of this is seen all about us. There are simply enormous numbers of people all around the world, wandering around, listening to loud music played through earplugs, while at the same time able to hear and understand all that happens in their surroundings. And people under anesthesia can hear things, otherwise this perfectly standard VEP monitoring technique would be useless as a measure of the depth of anesthesia. So being able to hear, despite the insertion of earphones making clicking sounds is nothing wondrous.
More generally, I am a fan of Susan Blackmore's work in NDE and OBE research. Here are a couple of links to her observations on the subject:
Near-Death Experiences: In or out of the body?
Susan Blackmore
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si91nde.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts09.html
quote:
Blackmore:
What is it like to die? Although most of us fear death to a greater or lesser extent, there are now more and more people who have "come back" from states close to death and have told stories of usually very pleasant and even joyful experiences at deathÕs door.
For many experiencers, their adventures seem unquestionably to provide evidence for life after death, and the profound effects the experience can have on them is just added confirmation. By contrast, for many scientists these experiences are just hallucinations produced by the dying brain and of no more interest than an especially vivid dream.
So which is right? Are near-death experiences (NDEs) the prelude to our life after death or the very last experience we have before oblivion? I shall argue that neither is quite right: NDEs provide no evidence for life after death, and we can best understand them by looking at neurochemistry, physiology, and psychology; but they are much more interesting than any dream. They seem completely real and can transform peopleÕs lives. Any satisfactory theory has to understand that tooÑand that leads us to questions about minds, selves, and the nature of consciousness.
And from the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseodoscience:
Near-Death Experiences
From The Skeptic Encylcopedia of Pseudoscience
Ed. M. Shermer, Santa Barbara, CA., ABC-Clio, 152-157
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/ShermerNDE.htm
As a skeptic, I am of the opinion that as long as there are natural explanations that may explain a what might appear at first to be a paranormal event, it would be foolish to side with a paranormal explanation. Occums Razor. Like Dave, I would not be unhappy if no reasonable explanation exists to refute the evidence that supports life after death. So far, that has not happened.
I understand the lure of most paranormal claims. They play to our most basic wants and fears. They offer us comfort. But that does not make them so. One burden of critical thinking is that our skepticism compels us to face some harsh reality's. Or so it seems. I am being dead honest when I say that I would love for that other camp to deliver the goods and shut us down...
Edited for clarity. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
