|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 12, 2016 18:26:44 GMT -5
Whether you "like" me or don't "like" me is not the relevant to the discussion. You're right, and I apologize for saying I like you. But neither are any of your comments so far relevant to the discussion. We are discussing the mystery of apparent consciousness while clinically dead, and the similarity of stories among people who have experienced clinical death. This is what we mean when we speak of an NDE. If you have any input on this topic, please feel free to join us.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 12, 2016 19:12:45 GMT -5
Then you ARE proposing an outright lie, presumably for the purpose of bolstering the actuality of the NDE. I'm sure it happens. I am NOT proposing an outright lie. I am offering a couple of ways that the patient might have known/learned who took out their false teeth. In this situation the brain is shutting down/dying. It is a new experience for the brain and it assembles any information in an attempt to make sense of the data. This happens all the time in real life. The brain is presented with ambiguous data and it tries to assign meaning - finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Pareidolia or apophenia are good terms. Think of the Man in the Moon. Or cheese Mary: I get it now! Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 12, 2016 20:09:27 GMT -5
Whether you "like" me or don't "like" me is not the relevant to the discussion. You're right, and I apologize for saying I like you. But neither are any of your comments so far relevant to the discussion. We are discussing the mystery of apparent consciousness while clinically dead, and the similarity of stories among people who have experienced clinical death. This is what we mean when we speak of an NDE. If you have any input on this topic, please feel free to join us. My comments has been as relevant to the subject of the thread as your own comments have been. Your thread ask the question, "Do NDE's help us understand God?"
I believe the problem that you may be having with my comments isn't that they aren't relevant but rather that they don't coincide with what you want to hear. As a result you have tried to discredit anything I say by the use of an ad hominem attack on me & what I know.
PS: Your quote: "If you have any input on this topic, please feel free to join us." Please don't use condescension with me.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 12, 2016 23:36:43 GMT -5
I think they help some of the individuals who've had them. If this question is about whether NDE's prove the existence of God, it doesn't. Most of us will never have an NDE to tell about, and by definition, an NDE will always be at the outer limits of experience. God will be approached by faith.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2016 2:11:48 GMT -5
If you're up for your own research, head over to http: //www.windbridge.org/ wher eyou can find peer reviewed research papers. I'm pretty skeptical when I review books on the topic, but that's not the point. I don't mean to sound blunt, b ut you simply are way over your head in this conversation, DM, and no amount of shouting will make you appear less naive about the research going on. Living as long as I have does have it's advantages. One advantage is you often see old ideas that had been explored & left as dead for lack of evidence will still raise their heads again because it seems that some people want to believe them.
DD, the site that you give , www.windbridge.org/, is one.
The Windbridge Institute.
One of The Windbridge Institute main programs is Parapsychology QUOTE
Basic Parapsychology
"This program explores traditional parapsychological topics (i.e., telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis or mind-matter interactions) as well as experimenter effects, alternative healing, intention, our connection to each other,etc.
Duke University once even got pulled into establishing a Parapsychology Laboratory at one time & had it's day but after much research turned up nothing to prove any of the ideas about Parapsychology to be true, they sorta sneaked off the radar.
I knew that all those "medical researchers" you kept speaking of sounded strange & unreasonable.(in other words, -fishy) (Sorry for the language, but then, you used rather "blunt" terms about me)
Well, who was it that said "a sucker is born every minute?"
At least I haven't drown yet.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 14, 2016 4:32:25 GMT -5
Dubious Disciple (xdc) wrote "....you simply are way over your head in this conversation". What criteria are you using to determine that someone is 'way over their head' when discussing the topic of NDE's? "Dubious Disciple, -I read your researchers and I do NOT see any of them being as "quick to point out that the subjects they are studying have truly died...at least a clinical death," as you claim." -dmmichgood What further evidence do you need that she knows nothing about the topic? Yet she continues to make bold assertions, including the most comical one of all...that the old label of "near death experience" somehow means the subjects under study today did not die even a clinical death. I like DM, but repeating her misguided opinion louder and louder doesn't impress anyone. Now that we know where your information is coming from, www.windbridge.org/, lets taken a further look at them. The Windbridge Institute
Research topics such as telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, mind-matter interactions, complementary healing methods, afterlife communication, and mediums
Parapsychology: The scientific study of mind-matter interactions (also called psychokinesis), telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition, collectively known as psi (ψ, not PSI or P.S.I.), and applying them to solve real-world problems.
Afterlife Science: The technical term for this research topic is “survival of consciousness after physical death.” Our research focuses primarily on mediums (people who experience regular communication with the deceased); specifically, we are interested the accuracy of the information they report, how the mediumship process works (both psychologically and physically), and the application of mediumship to healthcare and other areas. Other areas of research within this area include the field investigation of reported haunted locations and instrumental transcommunication (ITC) which is the application of different technologies to help facilitate possible communication and interaction with the dead.
Just the same old mediums dressed up in new clothes whom have been around since biblical accounts. (remember Saul? The Witch of Endor, also known as the Medium of Endor, was a medium who apparently summoned the prophet Samuel's spirit, at the demand of King Saul of the Kingdom of Israel in the First Book of Samuel, chapter 28:3–25)
There is nothing new nor scientific about this present research. I posted about Duke University's Parapsychology Lab.
When the man who set up the program at Duke, a Dr Rhine died, Duke cut the program and a group set up something called the Rhine Research Center I see that the co-founder of this new The Windbridge Institute came from the Rhine Center.
Really nothing new at all. Appears that when people want to believe something, esp. "life after death," they just keep on trying no matter how many time they fail. Apparently are now attempting to frame it in neo-scientific terms to make it seem more palatable.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanThinker on Jan 14, 2016 5:41:16 GMT -5
Parapsychology: The scientific study of mind-matter interactions (also called psychokinesis), telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition, collectively known as psi (ψ, not PSI or P.S.I.), and applying them to solve real-world problems. Afterlife Science: The technical term for this research topic is “survival of consciousness after physical death.” Our research focuses primarily on mediums (people who experience regular communication with the deceased); specifically, we are interested the accuracy of the information they report, how the mediumship process works (both psychologically and physically), and the application of mediumship to healthcare and other areas. Other areas of research within this area include the field investigation of reported haunted locations and instrumental transcommunication (ITC) which is the application of different technologies to help [/b][/i] facilitate possible communication and interaction with the dead.[/"]There is [/font]nothing new nor scientific about [ new at all. Appears that when people want to believe something, esp. "life after death," they just kee p on trying no matter how many time they fail. Apparently are now attempting to frame it in neo-scientific terms to make it seem more palatable .[/font] [/b][/font] [/quote] American Thinker site exposes a lot of the scientific corruption going on in the name of scientific research Might be wise for each of us to use common sense and do a little of real searching of our own Too many conflicts of interest create unreliable test results, imho
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 14, 2016 17:15:24 GMT -5
It appears we have reached the stage of "argument by ridicule." Quite common in any forum where we talk about fantastic topics like "God". Time to move on from this topic? Where we are at:
Many subjects and their doctors fully believe that they experienced consciousness while clinically dead. That is, while the brain was inactive. These experiences were strikingly similar, and everybody knows the claims: out-of-body experience, seeing what is happening in the operating room, a bright light, meeting loved ones, being welcomed by a being or beings, feeling of peace and love, maybe a tunnel experience, maybe a life review. Experiences appear completely lucid, not like a hallucination.
Skeptics (which still includes me, by the way) offer alternatives, such as "maybe the brain is still functioning below a level of measurability" or "maybe someone inadvertently told the patients what was happening during the operation and the patient is confused about how they learned the details." These may be reasonable explanations, I really don't know. However, the brain-based explanations for hallucination, like low oxygen, are all quite lacking according to my research, and nobody here really contradicted that.
So we're left with a mystery, but in my opinion, a mystery which we should not be so quick to take sides on. I'm going to leave this topic and move on to consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 14, 2016 21:58:06 GMT -5
Many subjects and their doctors fully believe that they experienced consciousness while clinically dead. That is, while the brain was inactive. These are based on self reporting and in all cases of which I am aware the EEG is the standard EEG measuring surface alpha and beta waves. Suggesting that the afterlife is the same for all people? Or suggesting that the cause of the phenomena is the same for everyone - brain functioning? Since when are hallucinations not lucid? Many people experiencing them actually can not tell the hallucinations from real life. There is not a level of brain activity that is below the level of measurability but rather that the testing equipment are not positioned to read the activity - often deep within the brain.I am wondering how you think they are lacking? The experiences that people have claimed can be duplicated by, for example, depriving the brain of oxygen or inducing a coma by using drugs. People who report near-death experiences have elevated levels of carbon dioxide in their blood and may be suffering oxygen deprivations, according to a new study published in the medical journal Critical Care.
The study, by Slovenian researchers, examined 52 heart attack patients in three large hospitals. Of those, 11 reported having near-death experiences (NDEs), such as movement toward a bright light, feelings of peace and joy, and profoundly spiritual moments during their heart attacks. Studies suggest that between 10 percent and 25 percent of heart attack survivors report NDEs.
Read more here.I wonder what sort of data you are looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 14, 2016 23:03:51 GMT -5
I am wondering how you think they are lacking? The experiences that people have claimed can be duplicated by, for example, depriving the brain of oxygen or inducing a coma by using drugs. We disagree. Lack of oxygen leads to delirium and confusion, not lucid experiences. Anoxia does not make brain cells more active, it makes them die. NDEs are, by contrast, just the opposite. The reports are well-structured thought processes with reasoning and memory formation. Moreover, the experience is not the same at all. People whose oxygen levels drop generally do not report seeing a light, or a tunnel, or the usual NDE experiences during their delirium. Unless they die first. If it isn't necessary to go all the way to flat-lined death to experience an NDE, then we need to look critically at the oxygen-deprived patients all over the nation. Why aren't all these people having NDEs? For that matter, why don't all cardiac arrest victims have NDE's if the trigger is oxygen deprivation? ALL cardiac arrest victims suffer anoxia.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 14, 2016 23:52:59 GMT -5
We disagree. Lack of oxygen leads to delirium and confusion, not lucid experiences. Did you read the reference? It is the lack of oxygen coupled with increased CO 2 that causes the feelings. Your data might be out of date. From the article I posted: The study, by Slovenian researchers, examined 52 heart attack patients in three large hospitals. Of those, 11 reported having near-death experiences (NDEs), such as movement toward a bright light, feelings of peace and joy, and profoundly spiritual moments during their heart attacks. Lack of oxygen is not the only factor. People react differently to various situations. Cardiac arrest is an umbrella term for several types of cardiac insults. There are different survival rates and different treatments for different types of cardiac arrests. Could be an explanation of why the NDE results vary. There are also a number of disease processes that can cause the arrest.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 4:15:19 GMT -5
It appears we have reached the stage of "argument by ridicule." Quite common in any forum where we talk about fantastic topics like "God". Time to move on from this topic? Where we are at: Many subjects and their doctors fully believe that they experienced consciousness while clinically dead. That is, while the brain was inactive. These experiences were strikingly similar, and everybody knows the claims: out-of-body experience, seeing what is happening in the operating room, a bright light, meeting loved ones, being welcomed by a being or beings, feeling of peace and love, maybe a tunnel experience, maybe a life review. Experiences appear completely lucid, not like a hallucination. Skeptics (which still includes me, by the way) offer alternatives, such as "maybe the brain is still functioning below a level of measurability" or "maybe someone inadvertently told the patients what was happening during the operation and the patient is confused about how they learned the details." These may be reasonable explanations, I really don't know. However, the brain-based explanations for hallucination, like low oxygen, are all quite lacking according to my research, and nobody here really contradicted that. So we're left with a mystery, but in my opinion, a mystery which we should not be so quick to take sides on. I'm going to leave this topic and move on to consciousness. Dubious Disciple, who has used "argument by ridicule" except yourself?
You have continually "ridiculed" me, that I was "over my head" and knew "nothing about the topic" and that I "continued to make bold assertions, including the most comical one of all...that the old label of 'near death experience.' "
Also you said, "repeating her misguided opinion louder and louder doesn't impress anyone."
Now that your own research site has been exposed as far from being any legitimate scientific medical research, -you want to just quit & "move on from this topic?"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 4:26:42 GMT -5
[/b][/i] facilitate possible communication and interaction with the dead.[/"]There is [/font]nothing new nor scientific about [ new at all. Appears that when people want to believe something, esp. "life after death," they just kee p on trying no matter how many time they fail. Apparently are now attempting to frame it in neo-scientific terms to make it seem more palatable .[/font] [/b][/font] [/quote] American Thinker site exposes a lot of the scientific corruption going on in the name of scientific research Might be wise for each of us to use common sense and do a little of real searching of our own Too many conflicts of interest create unreliable test results, imho[/quote] You are right, AmericanThinker,- good advise. It would be wise for do some searching of our own. There is a lot of information on the net about NDE's
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 15, 2016 9:43:18 GMT -5
I read the reference, rational, I just wasn't impressed. Any statistician can read the claim that "oxygen deprivation is linked to NDE's" and know why: People that die suffer oxygen deprivation, and people that die experience NDE's. The article is incomplete and not as current as my sources. However, I do see where we missed each other on this one: I assumed these "heart attack survivers" who had NDE's suffered cardiac arrest and you assumed they didn't. I wonder if they considered which ones experienced clinical death?
Again I recommend Parnia's latest book, which references recent studies such as this one.
DM, I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with a reply.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 15, 2016 11:26:03 GMT -5
I read the reference, rational, I just wasn't impressed. Any statistician can read the claim that "oxygen deprivation is linked to NDE's" and know why: People that die suffer oxygen deprivation, and people that die experience NDE's. The article is incomplete and not as current as my sources. However, I do see where we missed each other on this one: I assumed these "heart attack survivers" who had NDE's suffered cardiac arrest and you assumed they didn't. I wonder if they considered which ones experienced clinical death? I am surprised that you focused on the lack of oxygen and did not mention the rise in the carbon dioxide level when the opening paragraph stated: People who report near-death experiences have elevated levels of carbon dioxide in their blood and may be suffering oxygen deprivations, according to a new study published in the medical journal Critical Care. You focused on the oxygen when the following was part of the research: Finally, results of the survey, published in the online journal Critical Care, were correlated with blood samples that hospitals had kept on file for each patient. A statistical analysis revealed that patients whose blood had contained higher-than-average levels of carbon dioxide at the time of their admission to hospital were more likely to have later reported an NDE, an association that was statistically significant.
I was using the AWARE study that was published in late 2014. Has Parnia released additional research since then? I believe I even provided a quote from a Parnia interview where he stated that it was his belief that these events were contained within the brain.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 16:11:53 GMT -5
I read the reference, rational, I just wasn't impressed. Any statistician can read the claim that "oxygen deprivation is linked to NDE's" and know why: People that die suffer oxygen deprivation, and people that die experience NDE's. The article is incomplete and not as current as my sources. However, I do see where we missed each other on this one: I assumed these "heart attack survivers" who had NDE's suffered cardiac arrest and you assumed they didn't. I wonder if they considered which ones experienced clinical death? Again I recommend Parnia's latest book, which references recent studies such as this one. DM, I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with a reply. When someone who has ridiculed someone they often will add yet another ad hominem attack on the person that they have demeaned. It's too late to try & take the high road now.
What is really in order is an apology, but I sure that is too much for you to handle.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 16:16:51 GMT -5
I was using the AWARE study that was published in late 2014. Has Parnia released additional research since then? I believe I even provided a quote from a Parnia interview where he stated that it was his belief that these events were contained within the brain. Parnia is doing an AWARE II study but it wont be finished until 2017.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 15, 2016 16:28:57 GMT -5
I read the reference, rational, I just wasn't impressed. Any statistician can read the claim that "oxygen deprivation is linked to NDE's" and know why: People that die suffer oxygen deprivation, and people that die experience NDE's. The article is incomplete and not as current as my sources. However, I do see where we missed each other on this one: I assumed these "heart attack survivers" who had NDE's suffered cardiac arrest and you assumed they didn't. I wonder if they considered which ones experienced clinical death? Again I recommend Parnia's latest book, which references recent studies such as this one. DM, I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with a reply. When someone who has ridiculed someone they often will add yet another ad hominem attack on the person that they have demeaned. It's too late to try & take the high road now.
What is really in order is an apology, but I sure that is too much for you to handle. Perhaps what DD said to you was rude and condescending. That is not really something you have control over. But perhaps it's not too late for you to take the high road? (It is something you have complete control over.) (Might be an interesting life exercise.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 18:47:05 GMT -5
When someone who has ridiculed someone they often will add yet another ad hominem attack on the person that they have demeaned. It's too late to try & take the high road now.
What is really in order is an apology, but I sure that is too much for you to handle. Perhaps what DD said to you was rude and condescending. That is not really something you have control over. But perhaps it's not too late for you to take the high road? (It is something you have complete control over.) (Might be an interesting life exercise.) Thanks Sharon. True,- you are right. It is something I have control over.
However, my integrity is important to me and to have accusations against my honesty aren't taken lightly. Should I just let such them go without comment allows the notion to remain that perhaps they are true.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanThinker on Jan 15, 2016 20:28:57 GMT -5
[/b][/i] facilitate possible communication and interaction with the dead.[/"]There is [/font]nothing new nor scientific about [ new at all. Appears that when people want to believe something, esp. "life after death," they just kee p on trying no matter how many time they fail. Apparently are now attempting to frame it in neo-scientific terms to make it seem more palatable .[/font] [/b][/font] [/quote] American Thinker site exposes a lot of the scientific corruption going on in the name of scientific research Might be wise for each of us to use common sense and do a little of real searching of our own Too many conflicts of interest create unreliable test results, imho[/quote] You are right, AmericanThinker,- good advise. It would be wise for do some searching of our own. There is a lot of information on the net about NDE's
[/quote] Agreed Reason things out before jumping to conclusions! We use a saying "Evidently this is true" which means that even though there is evidence there is still reasonable doubt. I have witnessed a case of about 15 articles of evidence supporting an event and only one article objecting the evidence Thankfully the one objection was enough to overturn the 15 theoretical evidences that was offered by the prosecutors , justice prevailed. ?
|
|
|
Post by Evidence on Jan 15, 2016 20:38:02 GMT -5
Evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be! ?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 15, 2016 21:31:46 GMT -5
oh, grow up, DM. Nobody is impugning your honesty. We were talking about the experiences of those who have suffered clinical death, and all you wanted to talk about was defining death is some manner that let you insist that the patients weren't dead. So I called you on it, you started shouting about how nobody ever comes back from the dead, I got bored. Enough, ok? You're fighting a battle with invisible enemies, and nobody cares about your sidetracks.
If you want to talk about the topic at hand, you're more than welcome to. But please stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 22:40:11 GMT -5
oh, grow up, DM. Nobody is impugning your honesty. We were talking about the experiences of those who have suffered clinical death, and all you wanted to talk about was defining death is some manner that let you insist that the patients weren't dead. So I called you on it, you started shouting about how nobody ever comes back from the dead, I got bored. Enough, ok? You're fighting a battle with invisible enemies, and nobody cares about your sidetracks. If you want to talk about the topic at hand, you're more than welcome to. But please stay on topic. What did I expect? Of course! another attack!
Your problem isn't with me, per se, but rather with my expose' of some of the unreliable sources you cited.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 16, 2016 1:04:01 GMT -5
Evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be! ???? Independently reproducible verifiable evidence? Certainly there are times when most people get it wrong but fortunately there is a correction mechanism for redefining theories to match supporting data.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 16, 2016 1:39:28 GMT -5
oh, grow up, DM. Nobody is impugning your honesty. We were talking about the experiences of those who have suffered clinical death, and all you wanted to talk about was defining death is some manner that let you insist that the patients weren't dead. So I called you on it, you started shouting about how nobody ever comes back from the dead, I got bored. Enough, ok? You're fighting a battle with invisible enemies, and nobody cares about your sidetracks. When something known as "Near Death Experiences" is under discussion it would seem that defining the terms in a way that make sense to everyone is not a sidetrack but lying the foundation for meaningful discussion. If getting the details in order is something that bores you perhaps there is a way to withdraw until the definitions are in place. Clinical death has generally been the cessation of heartbeat and respiration but more often the consideration of brain death has also entered in to the equation to evaluate clinical death. Following clinical death there are organs that continue to live and this is why they are available for donation. Biological death is when the fundamental entities that make up the organs that make up the systems, usually cells, cease to function. Neurons stop transmitting, parietal cells, podocytes and mesangial cells in the kidneys stop functioning, the stomach begins to digest itself, etc. The topic at hand is "Near Death Experiences" and whether or not they help in the understanding of god. Determining exactly what is meant by death vs. near death vs. clinical death seems to me should be at the root of the discussion. If the patients are at some point alive after being pronounced 'dead' by someone on the attending staff then it is clear that the patient was not biologically dead at all and was only ruled clinically dead based on varying conditions/requirements. If you want to determine whether the brain can receive input when it is 'dead' you first have to define what you mean by 'dead'. Clinical death is rather broadly defined and is a moving target. But glossing over that point and simply saying "The person was clinically dead." does not clearly explain what was happening in the body from a bio-electric point of view. The only reason I can see why the definition of death is not important is if one wanted to reach the conclusion that, since the person was considered clinically dead and that the brain had ceased to function, to create the memories some are claiming, consciousness must be external to the physical brain. As Parnia stated, it was his belief that these events were contained within the brain.
|
|
|
Post by Evidence on Jan 16, 2016 3:52:11 GMT -5
Evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be! ? Independently reproducible verifiable evidence? Certainly there are times when most people get it wrong but fortunately there is a correction mechanism for redefining theories to match supporting data. If something didn't happen then it doesn't matter how much independent reproducible verifiable evidence there is , it just didnt happen. Like you insist people will ignor data that doesn't support their misguided theories. Global warming comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 16, 2016 10:50:37 GMT -5
Rational, I welcome your comments because they are logical. Your approach is "maybe the brain isn't as inactive as we think it is" or "maybe the patient is confused". This conversation has helped me form opinions because you're here.
DM's approach, on the other hand, is to holler "dead people are DEAD" or "NDE stands for near-death-experience, so we know people aren't really dying, it's just near death."
Everybody here can see the difference. Her persistent shouting contributes nothing. For myself, I couldn't care less what the definition of death is, I care only that the brain appears to not be functioning.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 16, 2016 11:04:39 GMT -5
Your problem isn't with me, per se, but rather with my expose' of some of the unreliable sources you cited. [/b][/quote] YOu're right, I do have a problem with that. It mimics your usual approach on this board: "Only idiots believe in God, so if you believe in God, anything you say can be dismissed as coming from an idiot." I can point you to dozens of scholarly papers on the topic of NDE's (better termed ADE's) but will you read them? Of course not, they are all written by quacks, so it doesn't matter what peer-reviewed research they contribute.
|
|