Do NDE's Really Demonstrate Survival?

Surely the brain must be reasonably robust against very weak external signals - otherwise we could never think at all!
David, there's actually no need for the brain to be robust against ultraweak fields because they are far too weak to intervene remotely from their location (by remotely, I mean even within a few centimeters, no matter what others here may claim). If you bump heads with someone, the strength of the magnetic field is approximately the same as that from the engine of a lone car being driven on a road somewhere approximately one and a half miles away. When you process that for a moment, you begin to see the fringe science dimensions of the idea that this could have a structured physiological influence.

The thing I don't think you are realising is that if you sum signals from 10^6 neurons (say), those neurons will not be carrying identical information, but making their own individual contribution - so when you sum them you don't end up with anything that could be decoded.
More seriously, if one takes this notion even at face value, the themes present in firing groups would not even be "readable" because only those loci and directional planes tangential with the outer edge of the skull would radiate their influence a few milimeters into space.

As I said above, if you really take your concept of brain to brain electromagnetic communication seriously, are you putting in research grants to explore it, or thinking about experimental setups to demonstrate your theory?
I can't imagine this idea getting research grants or funding even, except perhaps from an eccentric investor of the kind that back places like "HeartMath." You can ask yourself a much simpler question: is there any non-fringe empirical science existing anywhere on this planet showing a meaningful intervention effect by one brain on a remote brain by means of conventional field effects? When you ask the right questions... ;)
I feel as though there is a special class of scientific 'theories' that are invented solely to debunk ψ research in general. These are theories that are never used in any other context, or even written up for peer review!
That is definitely true.
 
And... how come is cosying up to materialism considered not subject to the same type of criticisim?
Heh. Well dualism (& idealism?) depend on some form of anomalous information transfer of unknown mechanism. Max seems to have thrashed out more of a mechanism than, say, the catholic church ;) (or any model that postulates a "god" or "higher consciousness")

Moreover, "materialism" isn't escaping criticism here it just that I don't see the "materialists" queuing up to bash Max's model (in this and other threads).
 
Heh. Well dualism (& idealism?) depend on some form of anomalous information transfer of unknown mechanism. Max seems to have thrashed out more of a mechanism than, say, the catholic church ;) (or any model that postulates a "god" or "higher consciousness")
Are there proponents of dualism in here? (Substance dualism you mean?)

The "anomolous information transfer" exists only if you assume physicalism as true :)
Both idealists and panpsychists don't have that problem. (maybe they have other)

Materialism finds itself in the most uncomfortable position because it is unable to deal with consciousness even in principle. And this is the main reasons why materialist thinkers are migrating to other ideas such as panpsychism where at least the principle is safe.

Moreover, "materialism" isn't escaping criticism here it just that I don't see the "materialists" queuing up to bash Max's model (in this and other threads).
What's wrong with criticizing an idea that is not supported by current evidence? Isn't what skepticisim is about?

The idea proposed by Max poses many practical problems and it seems natural that criticism abounds. The strenght of an hypothesis is also tested by how well it can stand its criticism.
 
Are there proponents of dualism in here? (Substance dualism you mean?)

The "anomolous information transfer" exists only if you assume physicalism as true :)
Both idealists and panpsychists don't have that problem. (maybe they have other)

Materialism finds itself in the most uncomfortable position because it is unable to deal with consciousness even in principle. And this is the main reasons why materialist thinkers are migrating to other ideas such as panpsychism where at least the principle is safe.



What's wrong with criticizing an idea that is not supported by current evidence? Isn't what skepticisim is about?

The idea proposed by Max poses many practical problems and it seems natural that criticism abounds. The strenght of an hypothesis is also tested by how well it can stand its criticism.
What evidence do you have that doesn't support these ideas about the classic veridical NDE OBE?

I'm not talking about stuff where we don't really have evidence either way yet, I'm just talking about the stuff that directly contradicts my suggestions.
 
What evidence do you have that doesn't support these ideas about the classic veridical NDE OBE?

I'm not talking about stuff where we don't really have evidence either way yet, I'm just talking about the stuff that directly contradicts my suggestions.
All of the points raised by @Kay and @David Bailey are sufficient to cast remarkable doubts on the hypothesis.
Additionally I have no idea what kind of predictions we could make with these theories given the very generic definition proposed.

I am referring to your other post, where you have stated:
As some of you will know, I believe that the classic NDE (cardiac arrest in hospital) is the result of one or more third parties, laying down a pattern on the experients brain whilst it has become more exposed to external fields, due to a loss in power of it’s endogenous EM field.

What I’ve tried to show in the very simplistic examples below are two experients existing patterns, one sad, the other angry, which are overlayed by an external third parties pattern. In each case the differences between these patterns is processed by the experient as if the field information was their own, resulting in an NDE that attempts to understand and incorporate the differences.
It looks like anything that happens in an NDE can be explained by magical EM field interaction.

It would be at least necessary to have tangible proof that these alleged interaction do work in the way they're described and induce experiences in the targets.

cheers
 
All of the points raised by @Kay and @David Bailey are sufficient to cast remarkable doubts on the hypothesis.
Additionally I have no idea what kind of predictions we could make with these theories given the very generic definition proposed.

I am referring to your other post, where you have stated:

It looks like anything that happens in an NDE can be explained by magical EM field interaction.

It would be at least necessary to have tangible proof that these alleged interaction do work in the way they're described and induce experiences in the targets.

cheers
As I said above, I was just looking for the evidence which you feel directly contradicts my suggestions... I don't see anything so far?
 
All of the points raised by @Kay and @David Bailey are sufficient to cast remarkable doubts on the hypothesis.
Additionally I have no idea what kind of predictions we could make with these theories given the very generic definition proposed.

I am referring to your other post, where you have stated:

It looks like anything that happens in an NDE can be explained by magical EM field interaction.

It would be at least necessary to have tangible proof that these alleged interaction do work in the way they're described and induce experiences in the targets.

cheers
Delicious.
 
I suggest a pair of glasses...
p.s. = are you asking me to disprove something that is not even established?
I thought you might have something that directly contradicted my suggestions about the classic verification NDE OBE... ...by the way that you said they were "not supported by current evidence"
 
We're not talking about any model...
Were's the empirical evidence that ultra-weak EMF can induce full blown first person experiences in human brains?

I'd be more than happy with a shred of evidence.
Well it would be in brains that had experienced a power drop in their endogenous EM field... and in this case we've certainly got evidence from studies that weak patterned external EM fields can entrain the firing of neural tissue.

Of course, you could just ignore that weak external patterned EM fields can cause neural tissue to synchronise its firing. But I find that difficult to do, because such firing synchrony in EEG bands/frequencies etc., have over the years proven themselves to be a very useful guide to what is going on in the brain, in predictable and repeatable ways.

Also, as far as I was aware, Borgijins EEG rat study was the first to look in detail at what happens (EM field wise) in dying brains... and she found that the rats brain spontaneously resynchronised 17s into cardiac arrest... resembling previous EEG studies of wakeful humans undertaking visual tasks...

...I would like to see further detailed dying EEG studies to explore this area. I'd like to see Borgijin repeat her study - this time with magnetic shielding.

I have only some small doubt, that if these sorts of studies are continued, we will be able to show that at a very close distance, the EEG measurements of energy compromised brains can become entrained by, and take on a resemblance of external third parties EEG - particularly with regards to visual processing.

I don't know anywhere else that we could look, to investigate the classic veridical NDE OBE. I already accept there are unexplained veridical recollections from such experiences, although non-hidden/non-secret target studies should continue. There is just no point hiding them up near the ceiling if my suggestion is correct, as they are never going to get a hit, because the veridical data is coming from third parties, who have to be able to see the target.
 
Well it would be in brains that had experienced a power drop in their endogenous EM field... and in this case we've certainly got evidence from studies that weak patterned external EM fields can entrain the firing of neural tissue.

Of course, you could just ignore that weak external patterned EM fields can cause neural tissue to synchronise its firing. But I find that difficult to do, because such firing synchrony in EEG bands/frequencies etc., have over the years proven themselves to be a very useful guide to what is going on in the brain, in predictable and repeatable ways.
None of this however justifies the conclusion that the mechanism is able to induce actual organized experiences in someone's (dying) brain, not to mention the even more baseless generalization that all OBEs during an NDE would be explained this way.

I don't know anywhere else that we could look, to investigate the classic veridical NDE OBE. I already accept there are unexplained veridical recollections from such experiences, although non-hidden/non-secret target studies should continue. There is just no point hiding them up near the ceiling if my suggestion is correct, as they are never going to get a hit, because the veridical data is coming from third parties, who have to be able to see the target.
Many of the OBEs reported by NDErs have vantage points that none of the people in the surroundings could observe, such as the ceiling which is possibly the most reported point of view. (and the main reason why targets in studies are positioned high up)

Other times the reported point of view moves around through the walls and common obstacles as if the perceived reality had no true consistence, or the POV is moved at will to remote locations...

The idea that NDERs might be tapping in some sort of field might be true but EM fields won't cut it. If they play a role it's marginal and we won't be able to generalize.

cheers
 
None of this however justifies the conclusion that the mechanism is able to induce actual organized experiences in someone's (dying) brain, not to mention the even more baseless generalization that all OBEs during an NDE would be explained this way.


Many of the OBEs reported by NDErs have vantage points that none of the people in the surroundings could observe, such as the ceiling which is possibly the most reported point of view. (and the main reason why targets in studies are positioned high up)

Other times the reported point of view moves around through the walls and common obstacles as if the perceived reality had no true consistence, or the POV is moved at will to remote locations...

The idea that NDERs might be tapping in some sort of field might be true but EM fields won't cut it. If they play a role it's marginal and we won't be able to generalize.

cheers
This is the point of doing more research, to try and discover just how sensitive the energy compromised brain is to weak EM fields at a close distance. We don't know at present...

What we do know is that evidence shows that neural tissue is affected by weak external em fields; that the brain uses its own EM fields to entrain its network in a feedback loop; and that Borjigin possibly seems to have stumbled across an EM effect on these dying rats brains.

All good reasons (amongst others) to look at whether EM fields from third parties might be a factor in the classic veridical NDE OBE
 
Last edited:
Top