https://www.academia.edu/10060970/O...list_notions_of_the_Near-death_experience_NDE_
Has anyone seen any responses yet to this from the NDE researchers?
Has anyone seen any responses yet to this from the NDE researchers?
Dualist... Nails in the Coffin?
- Thread starter Psiclops
- Start date
In their comparison of the NDE to syncope, they make reference to an article by Lempert, that's dated 1994. I imagine some NDE researchers must be aware of it. Hopefully we'll see a response at some point.
Member Jim Smith had quoted from another article on his blog arguing instead for the differences between syncope and NDEs:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.ca/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html
Member Jim Smith had quoted from another article on his blog arguing instead for the differences between syncope and NDEs:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.ca/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html
Can't say I've seen anything from NDE researchers in response, but my opinion is that this article is just more of the same old, same old. Nothing really new there.
They just cannot get past "it's all about the brain!!!!". I just think trying to find answers to what is really going on by chopping up the brain into smaller and smaller bits is just plain old barking up the wrong tree.
He speaks an awful lot about subcortical, deep brain activity on the hippocampus and amygdala (apparently, all we really need are these two brain structures, neuroscience just cannot get enough of the amygdala and hippocampus) as if activity in these areas are explanation enough for the hyperreality experienced during the NDE. They don't even have a good working theory for memory formation, yet want to point to a non-functional cortex and some vague activity deep within the brain as the explanation for rich cognitive experience and memory formation.
Occams chainsaw? Sorry, no. More like Occams wet noodle. But what do I know, I'm not a neuroscientist and apparently they are the only ones allowed to comment on the nature of consciousness. Unless you're Sue Blackmore or Patricia Churchland.
They just cannot get past "it's all about the brain!!!!". I just think trying to find answers to what is really going on by chopping up the brain into smaller and smaller bits is just plain old barking up the wrong tree.
He speaks an awful lot about subcortical, deep brain activity on the hippocampus and amygdala (apparently, all we really need are these two brain structures, neuroscience just cannot get enough of the amygdala and hippocampus) as if activity in these areas are explanation enough for the hyperreality experienced during the NDE. They don't even have a good working theory for memory formation, yet want to point to a non-functional cortex and some vague activity deep within the brain as the explanation for rich cognitive experience and memory formation.
Occams chainsaw? Sorry, no. More like Occams wet noodle. But what do I know, I'm not a neuroscientist and apparently they are the only ones allowed to comment on the nature of consciousness. Unless you're Sue Blackmore or Patricia Churchland.
Back to the 1994 Lempert article about syncope and NDEs that's one of the cruxes of this article, I see Bruce Greyson did respond to it in the "altered blood gas levels" section of his chapter on explanatory models of the NDE in T:he Handbook of Near-Death Experiences:
Greyson, Bruce. (2009) "Explanatory Models for Near-Death Experiences". In The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences (p. 217). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
One of the earliest physiological theories proposed for NDEs is that lowered levels of oxygen - hypoxia or anoxia - have produced hallucinations (Blackmore 1993; Lempert 1994; Rodin 1980). However, NDEs occur without anoxia or hypoxia, as in non-life-threatening illnesses, falls, or other near-accidents. Furthermore, the experiential phenomena associated with hypoxia are only superficially similar to NDEs. James Whinnery (1997), who compared NDEs to what he called "dreamlets" occurring in brief periods of unconsciousness induced in fighter pilots by rapid acceleration, argued that some features common to NDEs are also found in these hypoxic episodes, including tunnel vision, bright lights, brief fragmented visual images, a sense of floating, pleasurable sensations, and, rarely, a sense of leaving the body. The primary features of acceleration-induced hypoxia, however, are rhythmic jerking of the limbs, compromised memory for events just prior to the onset of unconsciousness, tingling in extremities and around the mouth, confusion and disorientation upon awakening, and paralysis (Whinnery 1997), symptoms that do not occur in NDEs. Moreover, contrary to NDEs, the visual images Whinnery reported frequently included living people, but never dead people, and no life review or accurate out-of-body perceptions have been reported in acceleration-induced loss of consciousness.
Greyson, Bruce. (2009) "Explanatory Models for Near-Death Experiences". In The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences (p. 217). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
S
Just ignore the shaming tactics of the materialist evangelicals. True skeptics like myself accept the possibility of NDEs pointing to mind not being brain, though I will have to do my own examination of the evidence before I can say anything definitive. I do think there's reason to accept the proposition as a livable truth that one is taking a "reality gamble" on, to use the phrasing of Robert Anton Wilson.
Of course why the brain seems to equal the mind due to their tight coupling, if it's not the case that mind = brain, is in fact another question that makes me wary of NDEs being some definite pointer to the truth. Even mind-not-brains could be deceived after all.
Of course why the brain seems to equal the mind due to their tight coupling, if it's not the case that mind = brain, is in fact another question that makes me wary of NDEs being some definite pointer to the truth. Even mind-not-brains could be deceived after all.
The dualism is not necessarily a non-scientific interpretation. They believe that dualism is a non-scientific interpretation because they believe that dualism is not true, but the fact is that NDEs and other lines of evidence are in favor a scientific interpretation of dualism, as I will explain below.
That's not true. There are Karlis Osis experiments with psychic Tanous, Daryl Bem experiments...
True, but there is not a single experiment that proves that NDEs are entirely caused by neural activity.
Who is against Occam's razor then? Besides NDEs are only one type of evidence on the existence of consciousness shedding of the organic body, because there are also apparitions, mediumship...
This is not to explain something, but to establish that it is possible to have similar experiences to NDEs being in good health, although NDEs are glimpses of the afterlife. With this possibility the argument that "NDEs can not be glimpses of the afterlife because there are these syncope" is invalidated.
The article fails to see that non-afterlife explanations have to force the situation to the limit and not follow Occam's razor to be successful: hyper-lucid experiences that probably a nervous system in crisis can not generate, evidence of an afterlife; veridical experiences that probably can not be obtained by the known senses, evidence of an afterlife, cases Peak in Darien, evidence of an afterlife; there are certain cases of apparitions, mediumship and children who remember their past lives, also increases the probabilities that NDEs are glimpses of an afterlife.
That's not true. There are Karlis Osis experiments with psychic Tanous, Daryl Bem experiments...
True, but there is not a single experiment that proves that NDEs are entirely caused by neural activity.
Who is against Occam's razor then? Besides NDEs are only one type of evidence on the existence of consciousness shedding of the organic body, because there are also apparitions, mediumship...
This is not to explain something, but to establish that it is possible to have similar experiences to NDEs being in good health, although NDEs are glimpses of the afterlife. With this possibility the argument that "NDEs can not be glimpses of the afterlife because there are these syncope" is invalidated.
The article fails to see that non-afterlife explanations have to force the situation to the limit and not follow Occam's razor to be successful: hyper-lucid experiences that probably a nervous system in crisis can not generate, evidence of an afterlife; veridical experiences that probably can not be obtained by the known senses, evidence of an afterlife, cases Peak in Darien, evidence of an afterlife; there are certain cases of apparitions, mediumship and children who remember their past lives, also increases the probabilities that NDEs are glimpses of an afterlife.
Last edited:
I've written an email to them. I said:
Hello Dr Jason Braithwaite and Hayley Dewe
Just having a quick glance at your paper.
You say:
These 2 statements directly contradict each other. By definition there can be no explanatory gap “if the mind is what the brain does” (a vacuous assertion in itself, but let’s not go there)
You also say:
If it’s not clear then perhaps it might be a good idea for you to study the philosophy and history of science and the mind-body problem? Science as currently conceived deals exclusively with the quantifiable. But consciousness is characterised by the qualitative.
An essay I’ve written on my blog explains this:
Science, the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia
Ian Wardell
Hello Dr Jason Braithwaite and Hayley Dewe
Just having a quick glance at your paper.
You say:
These 2 statements directly contradict each other. By definition there can be no explanatory gap “if the mind is what the brain does” (a vacuous assertion in itself, but let’s not go there)
You also say:
If it’s not clear then perhaps it might be a good idea for you to study the philosophy and history of science and the mind-body problem? Science as currently conceived deals exclusively with the quantifiable. But consciousness is characterised by the qualitative.
An essay I’ve written on my blog explains this:
Science, the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia
Ian Wardell
I don't understand this. If the mind is what the brain does, we merely need to find out what the brain does then we have a complete explanation for the mind. There is no gap.
The explanatory gap refers to the notion that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical. But they are denying this in their first statement, hence for them there can be no explanatory gap.
The explanatory gap refers to the notion that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical. But they are denying this in their first statement, hence for them there can be no explanatory gap.
I always thought that occam's razor(or occam's chainsaw...sigh) is a odd "argument". You read that as a argument against dualism and everything that isnt matter-based all the time. Neuroscientists also often talk about that as a primary argument for cosciousness being based on the brain. Who is actually making the decision which theory is making less assumptions? The people that are using occams prinziple. I could use the principle too and get a different conclusion. And well, brain-based consciousness is making various assumptions aswell. I wouldnt dare to say that they are making less of them then some sort of dualistic theory.
And in the end, its a principle, not a method that provides certainity (although we want to achieve it through the usage of the principle). I normally dont do that, but even wikipedia states that:
Occams razor isnt necessarily about theories that are better or worse. Its all about finding out whats true and whats not. And to do that it is assumed that less complex theories are easier to test. It is NOT saying that the less complex method is necessarily correct.
And in the end, its a principle, not a method that provides certainity (although we want to achieve it through the usage of the principle). I normally dont do that, but even wikipedia states that:
Occams razor isnt necessarily about theories that are better or worse. Its all about finding out whats true and whats not. And to do that it is assumed that less complex theories are easier to test. It is NOT saying that the less complex method is necessarily correct.
Last edited:
I've read the paper and it is as someone else said, same old, same old. I've tackled Braithwaite before about this .....you have to remember he is desperate, his whole career will be up in the air if the paradigm changes, my goodness how they don't want that to happen. The afterlife for a senior lecturer in psychology in any English university is anathema.
You can tell he's desperate, he's almost begging the reader to accept his word ......;-) Amusing Jason thanks
You can tell he's desperate, he's almost begging the reader to accept his word ......;-) Amusing Jason thanks
These two comments from the paper are astoundingly silly
"However,the first point outlined above is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that flat EEGs provide evidence for total and complete brain inactivity, and that these instances have happened at the precise time of vivid NDEs:these are the assumptions being contended here."
"One is the notion that EEG measures reflect all neural activity and that when flat, the brain can be said to be completely inactive. The other is the somewhat milder idea that flat EEG profiles index a brain state that is insufficient to support consciousness, and even more so the vivid conscious experience reported by NDEers."
His young and attractive assistant must have been responsible for these, surely. Unsubstantiated "assumption" that flat EEG's = no brain activity.
http://www.skeptiko.com/eeg-expert-on-near-death-experience
"However,the first point outlined above is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that flat EEGs provide evidence for total and complete brain inactivity, and that these instances have happened at the precise time of vivid NDEs:these are the assumptions being contended here."
"One is the notion that EEG measures reflect all neural activity and that when flat, the brain can be said to be completely inactive. The other is the somewhat milder idea that flat EEG profiles index a brain state that is insufficient to support consciousness, and even more so the vivid conscious experience reported by NDEers."
His young and attractive assistant must have been responsible for these, surely. Unsubstantiated "assumption" that flat EEG's = no brain activity.
http://www.skeptiko.com/eeg-expert-on-near-death-experience