Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How do you explain NDEs?

How do you explain NDEs?
You have a better chance of using your head as a chock for an M1 Abrams, then getting huggy to comprehend even the simplest of ideas. Huggy is a complete and total clown, I have not come across many that are as blissfully unaware as this weapons grade bozo.
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
Quote: A peer reviewed paper does not mean much if it's full of circular fallacies. And this is a psychology paper. It's not evidence of an afterlife.


The trick there, D42, is in the semantics.  I have no doubt that their "peers"  were just fine with their silly shit.  One lunatic asserting that another lunatic is correct does not carry much weight.  

I checked out an actual Neurology Journal and there, the Acronym NDE, stands for Nondestructive Evaluation.  Near Death Experience is probably a water cooler joke among neurologists!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
(12-17-2023, 09:21 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-17-2023, 06:44 PM)Inkubus Wrote: It's not a hypothesis nor is It speculation it's a fact we arrived at by eliminating the only other proposed mechanism ie, an external force. Lets call that force what it is; the supernatural. No such force exists and we are absolutely certain of this.  

Or perhaps unknown natural forces.  Your argument here is an argument from ignorance.  

The problem is as much in not knowing how consciousness emerges from anything in the brain as it does in excluding alternative explanations.  

You seem like many who subscribe to the theory that if you get enough neurons together, it just magically happens.  Magic is not an explanation.   Do you have anything more to offer?

(12-17-2023, 06:44 PM)Inkubus Wrote: None of this is in any way related to the point I made, the mind is what the brain does. Now if you disagree I would like to hear your reasoning. And as far as I can see this upper/lower, strong/weak emergence is the domain of philosophy not science and as I've stated on numerous occasions I hold contemporary philosophy in particularly low regard.

Look, either you want to discuss emergence or you don't.  If you're going to claim emergence you don't get to beg off on what you actually mean by emergence.  This bullshit about philosophy means shit.  Either you're arguing emergence and you deal with what that means or you don't.  I don't give two shits about your views on philosophy.  Emergence has a meaning and if you're not going to face up to that, then you're just inserting it into the conversation as a sciency sounding buzzword, much as woo-peddlers insert the word quantum.  That you suddenly don't actually want to talk about what emergence of consciousness from the brain actually would be is hardly surprising, you strike me as someone obviously out of their depth.  Answer the point or don't.  Afterward, maybe we can discuss more about your concerns.  Or don't, I do not care.

When there is a difference between philosophy, religion, and any other completely thought-oriented belief, science is always closer to accuracy. It comes from the process. You dream stuff up, and it usually goinbg to be wrong. You test ideas and create experiments to verify (or disprove), they are more likely to be accurate.
Two paths diverged in the woods, and I managed to take both...
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Chas
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
(12-18-2023, 06:54 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(12-18-2023, 06:31 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Nope, you make the claim.  The burdon of evidence falls on you.  

This is a psychology paper.  It's not evidence.  It's peer reviewed only by three psycholostist all believing in the same thing.  It's an extremely low quality paper.    You're just angry that I looked up details on these three psychologists to find out that they're believers in reincarnation and psychic mediums and other complete nonsense.  

Here's the guy Kelly has relied on for research and the thesis of her paper.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_W._H._Myers

 

Myers had no control group. It was totally unscientific.  


When Ian Stevenson died the New York Times found that "
And they ignored him for good reason.


It's pretty bad when even philosophers find issues with research papers.

You went on about how EEG would be proof that the brain was non functional, now you're desperately trying to avoid acknowledging it.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

Quote:These speakers emitted audible clicks which were used to check the function of the brain stem to ensure that she had a flat electroencephalography (EEG)—indicating a non-responsive brain—before the operation proceeded.

Still going to continue playing games?

When an an anestheisiologists (not a psychologist) methodically, and clinically examines the medical report piece by piece and actually investigates each details including the drugs she was given, things don't add up.  Here's a breakdown of the clicking sounds during the operation.  This was a paper written by Gerald M. Woerlee M.B.B.S and published in the Journal of Near Death Studies.


Quote:"Reynolds brain had  between 1-0.1246 = 0.8754 second to  1-0.0113 = 0.9887 seconds to perceive othe sounds.  These calulations  mean that the clicking sounds occupied only 12.46% of her hearing capacity.  This duration left her more than sufficient time to perceive sound.   Indeed, the perameters of these clicking sounds explain why no where in Sabons 1988 account does Reynolds report hearing these clicking sounds."  

It goes on to talk about more details of sound.  Humans generally speak at a level of 50-70 decibles. 

Quote: "Regardless of the sound excluding properties of earphones, no earphone or earplug blocks the conduction of sound through the bones of the skull.  All this information means that Reynolds would hear bone conduction of sound above a level of 40 to 50 decibles.  And music is generally listened to at 70-85 decibles." 

Then there is the problems of older operation devices from 1988. 

Quote: "  All discussions emphasizd the importance and implicit belief in the accuracy of the BAEP signals used to indicate Reynold's levels of unconsciousness or depth of anesthesia.  

Sabon's 1988 account of the Reynolds experience that the surgical team used BAEP's to determine her level of consciousness throughout the duration of the operation.  However is the BAEP an accurate measure of the depth of anesthesia and the absense of consciousness?  

American Society of Anestheisiologists issued a practice advisory during 2006 in which they advised against sole reliance on a single electronic measure of awareness such as BAEP."

It goes on to say that these devices have several problems and further explains why Reynolds had the experience she had and it has nothing to do with an afterlife.  The devil's in the details.   She was not dead. 

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675...adc461684/
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
Nobody as far as I know has ever reported seeing a gorilla playing a banjo, I wonder why? Perhaps it's because we are not conditioned for that.
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
Chimps play the banjo.


[Image: 311176908_441673238096269_37048027214012...e=65861FBA]


Gorillas seem to prefer the cello.

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Chas, Silly Deity
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
Quote:For almost all people at all times in history, cardiac arrest was basically the end of the line. That began to change in 1960, when the combination of mouth-to-mouth ventilation, chest compressions and external defibrillation known as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR, was formalised. Shortly thereafter, a massive campaign was launched to educate clinicians and the public on CPR’s basic techniques, and soon people were being revived in previously unthinkable, if still modest, numbers.

As more and more people were resuscitated, scientists learned that, even in its acute final stages, death is not a point, but a process. After cardiac arrest, blood and oxygen stop circulating through the body, cells begin to break down, and normal electrical activity in the brain gets disrupted. But the organs don’t fail irreversibly right away, and the brain doesn’t necessarily cease functioning altogether. There is often still the possibility of a return to life. In some cases, cell death can be stopped or significantly slowed, the heart can be restarted, and brain function can be restored. In other words, the process of death can be reversed.

It is no longer unheard of for people to be revived even six hours after being declared clinically dead. In 2011, Japanese doctors reported the case of a young woman who was found in a forest one morning after an overdose stopped her heart the previous night; using advanced technology to circulate blood and oxygen through her body, the doctors were able to revive her more than six hours later, and she was able to walk out of the hospital after three weeks of care. In 2019, a British woman named Audrey Schoeman who was caught in a snowstorm spent six hours in cardiac arrest before doctors brought her back to life with no evident brain damage.

The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
(04-04-2024, 02:54 PM)Dānu Wrote:
Quote:For almost all people at all times in history, cardiac arrest was basically the end of the line. That began to change in 1960, when the combination of mouth-to-mouth ventilation, chest compressions and external defibrillation known as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR, was formalised. Shortly thereafter, a massive campaign was launched to educate clinicians and the public on CPR’s basic techniques, and soon people were being revived in previously unthinkable, if still modest, numbers...

...As more and more people were resuscitated, scientists learned that, even in its acute final stages, death is not a point, but a process.

The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’

'Patient One' appears 17 times in that novella, (4560 words). And not once is she identified.
How many times do I have to point out that if a report is not accompanied with citations from all those concerned including dates, times, names, and places then it's not a report it's a story.

'Near-death' 55 times. Yes fifty five times!

Quote:After being driven to a hospital where she couldn’t be treated, Patient One was taken to the emergency department at the University of Michigan.

A hospital that couldn’t treat a heart condition? Are you sure it was a hospital and not a hostelry?

Quote:She wondered if humans’ near-death experiences might spring from a similar phenomenon, and if it was occurring even in people who couldn’t be revived.
That is a key tenet of the parapsychologists’ arguments: if there is consciousness without brain activity, then consciousness must dwell somewhere beyond the brain. Some of the parapsychologists speculate that it is a “non-local” force that pervades the universe, like electromagnetism. This force is received by the brain, but is not generated by it, the way a television receives a broadcast.

And there we have it, this abomination of an article is about nothing more than our old and not so trusted friend. Mind-brain duality.

Quote:Of course, Patient One did not recover, so no one can prove that the extraordinary happenings in her dying brain had experiential counterparts.

And if the vicar hadn't died from having his head bashed in he could have identified  Colonel Mustard with the candlestick.

Quote:For several years, Jimo Borjigin, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, had been troubled by the question of what happens to us when we die. She had read about the near-death experiences of certain cardiac-arrest survivors who had undergone extraordinary psychic journeys before being resuscitated. Sometimes, these people reported travelling outside of their bodies towards overwhelming sources of light where they were greeted by dead relatives.

I wonder if Ms Borjigin found a correlation between nde's among cardiac arrest survivors to those recovering from hip replacement surgery, or a liver transplant or being knocked over by a bus?

And who penned this shite?
 
Quote:Alex Blasdel is a writer and editor based in California Link

He writes lengthy screeds for the Guardian and very little else afaics.

And Jimo Borjigin? She is a respected qualified researcher who occasionally ventures into the land of Woo

Quote:Woo, also called woo-woo, is a pejorative term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

'Sciencey-sounding buzzwords'. Now where have I herd that before? Big Grin
The following 5 users Like Inkubus's post:
  • Minimalist, brewerb, pattylt, mordant, Silly Deity
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
A near death experience is not a death.

That's like saying a woman is nearly pregnant.

And just as meaningless.       Dodgy
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 5 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Minimalist, Cavebear, TheGentlemanBastard, Inkubus, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

How do you explain NDEs?
your post is a perfect example. This thread had laid here, unmoving for 15 days. One might think it was dead but no!
you bumped it back to life, back from the brink so to speak.
[Image: princess-mostly-dead.gif]
test signature
The following 4 users Like skyking's post:
  • Inkubus, brewerb, Thumpalumpacus, Minimalist
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)