Overlap of NDE features with drug induced states

#61
That would be evidence to this person though. Levels of evidence are levels of conviction. If you have a low amount of evidence, then you would have a low amount of conviction towards a certain idea. If you have a high amount of evidence for a certain claim, then you would be highly convinced of that idea. So the fact that materialistic skeptics are not convinced to any degree in the afterlife/paranormal would mean that these skeptics do not see any evidence at all for such things. But here's the thing though. Evidence should not be personally determined by the individual. There should be an objective standard by which we determine what is evidence. Isn't that objective standard the scientific method?

If this is so, then why is it that we still have this problem where there is still this debate between skeptics and believers where skeptics claim they have the evidence to support their position and that the believers have no evidence while the believers would argue that they have the evidence and that the materialistic skeptics do not? I am being asked to do my own research and to come to my own personal conclusion as to what I personally see as evidence. But I don't think such a decision can ever be made because I would realize that any such decision I would make would be irrational since I am using my own personal judgment rather than an objective standard to actually determine what evidence actually exists out there.

I think what was stated to me earlier was that subjective experience makes it impossible for there to be objective evidence out there that supports materialism or dualism. Correct me if I am wrong and have misinterpreted. So that being the case, then I don't think there is any evidence out there at all since we need a method to objectively create evidence rather than a situation where we just simply come to our own personal conclusions based on what we personally think is evidence.
You're just not understanding what I'm saying at this point. No, I do not agree that there has to be some objective standard as what constitutes as "evidence", nor is there some objective standard in science today in general, which is what you seem to think is the case. This entire argument has been incredibly redundant. I think you are sorely, sorely mistaken in saying that there has to be some objective standard of what can be evidence. Additionally, it's become more and more clear that you're asking for some sort of crystal clear evidence to lead you down an obvious path. I have said so many times that if you expect that, you won't find anything. You also seem to have trouble coming to grips with the fact that people don't always argue just based on the evidence; they might argue against something because it's an idea they don't like, they're uncomfortable with, or they just can't accept. That happens to everyone to some degree. The key is to try to minimize that as much as possible, but you keep trying to box everyone into your perfect box of objectivity that doesn't exist. For the tenth time, if you don't think it's worth doing your own research, don't do it. Why are you here? You're asking the same questions over and over again.

Lastly, your last paragraph is inaccurate. I certainly did not say that subjective experience makes it impossible for there to be objective evidence out there that supports materialism or dualism. I said that subjective experience makes it difficult to study these topics in the ways that we are used to with regular science, not at all that there isn't any objective evidence because of that; I said directly that there is a truth, regardless of how discoverable that truth might be to us. What do you mean "to create objective evidence"? We don't create evidence, we discover it. You have, yet again, asserted that there is no evidence without actually referencing any REAL, ACTUAL studies which you could critique and tell us why you think it isn't worthy of being considered evidence. You have continued to argue in hypotheticals and ideas without directly engaging what is being said.
 

Transcended Multiverse

Bizarre, Transcended, and Omnipotent
Member
#62
I said directly that there is a truth, regardless of how discoverable that truth might be to us..
If this is all you were saying, then that is quite simple and I understand. I just thought that it was not as simple as this. I thought there was far more to it than that (hence the reason why I put up these types of arguments). But I do have another question. How do you decide what the truth is in the first place that exists out there? As long as there is an ongoing debate, then shouldn't that truth already be undecided since it would be no different than debating an anecdote? I know we are not debating anecdotes here, but wouldn't the situation still be the same?

I am here because, again, the afterlife means so much to me. But I do not know anything about science, philosophy, how anything works, or how evidence works. So I know absolutely nothing at all. So for someone like me to put up a debate/argument with someone as intelligent as you, then of course there are going to be many problems. There are going to be misinterpretations, redundancy, etc.

Usually I am good at intelligent debates. In particular, debating and arguing against the moral standards of the Christian God being all loving, all just, and righteous. All my arguments make perfect sense to everyone who reads them and they think they were good arguments. This is because I know what is right and wrong. I know what love, justice, and righteousness is. But I know nothing when it comes to this subject. So that is why my arguments are so redundant, nonsensical, etc.
 
Last edited:
#63
Oh, I'm sure that you are going to enjoy the world after science itself ends up bringing local realism down. That, along determinism and the arbitrary division that puts us the domain of classical physics, are the things keeping so many clinging to ideas of reality as "intuitive". If you want an unambiguous and objective world, veer away from any POL-eroding Bell tests.
 
#64
That would be evidence to this person though. Levels of evidence are levels of conviction. If you have a low amount of evidence, then you would have a low amount of conviction towards a certain idea. If you have a high amount of evidence for a certain claim, then you would be highly convinced of that idea. So the fact that materialistic skeptics are not convinced to any degree in the afterlife/paranormal would mean that these skeptics do not see any evidence at all for such things. But here's the thing though. Evidence should not be personally determined by the individual. There should be an objective standard by which we determine what is evidence. Isn't that objective standard the scientific method?
MT, you could send me on a tangent about methodology. Let's leave it, as I will ramble on. My PoV is that it takes many sets of objective standards for science to address reality. (units of measure)

I appreciate your reasoning. Conviction - as a term - speaks to an intensity of emotion. A term used is "warranted belief" and the philosophy of science arguments are about "theories of justification".

The method I am applying is to acknowledge that the information associated with any thing, event or process can be measured and modeled by science. In this view; a person's report of a notable subjective experience is a data point, a single data point. For a pattern to emerge a lot of data points need to line-up.
 
#65
We, as living organisms, understand that the environment emits signals that we capture, process and realize as subjective experience. As an electronic system, it is pretty easy to see the primary channels for the 5 senses and the afferent (inbound) information. Likewise, the neural channels are mapped from parts of the brain to all bodily destinations for efferent (outbound) informational instructions. Efferent signals control behavior and coordination of the organism's activity.

However, higher level information processing eludes electronics, as to revealing its ways and means. If handling bio-info about physical signalling is mapped well, yet the handling of abstractions is not - I propose that we can separate these levels for analysis. The mind can focus on physicality or on imagination/creativity.

I suggest that there is an overlap of features between all degrees of experience when focused on the imaginal. Any shift from physical afferent and efferent channels - to those of inner space - begins experiences that are of a different level. NDE vs Drug induced are just "showy" examples.
 

Transcended Multiverse

Bizarre, Transcended, and Omnipotent
Member
#66
I would like to ask another question here. There are people who have ndes and have these miraculous recoveries. Annabel was just one example. We also have Eben Alexander and Anita Moorjani. Now if the skeptics are right in saying that these recoveries are coincidences, then we should not see such miraculous recoveries very often at all. So my question to you here is do we see such miraculous recoveries much of the time for nde experiencers? If this is so, then that would challenge the skeptical claim that they are just coincidences.
 
#67
I would like to ask another question here. There are people who have ndes and have these miraculous recoveries. Annabel was just one example. We also have Eben Alexander and Anita Moorjani. Now if the skeptics are right in saying that these recoveries are coincidences, then we should not see such miraculous recoveries very often at all. So my question to you here is do we see such miraculous recoveries much of the time for nde experiencers? If this is so, then that would challenge the skeptical claim that they are just coincidences.
Miraculous recoveries are just one aspect of the after effects of NDEs. Oftentimes, individuals who experience NDEs come back with talents and skills that they did not have previously:

 
#68
I would like to ask another question here. There are people who have ndes and have these miraculous recoveries. Annabel was just one example. We also have Eben Alexander and Anita Moorjani. Now if the skeptics are right in saying that these recoveries are coincidences, then we should not see such miraculous recoveries very often at all. So my question to you here is do we see such miraculous recoveries much of the time for nde experiencers? If this is so, then that would challenge the skeptical claim that they are just coincidences.
Apparently not, if you look at AWARE, many died before they could be enrolled or interviewed. They had a very low rate of recorded NDE's, because the researchers were too slow to interview. Indeed in cardiac arrest cases, we find a correlation between depth of NDE experience, and severity (length etc) of cardiac arrest. And we also find an inverse correlation between severity of cardiac arrest, and length of survival. The more severe the cardiac arrest, the faster they die after resuscitation (if they are even resuscitated). That said, you could still take the correlation between severity of cardiac arrest, and depth of NDE as important - I do - even if the deeper experiencers seem to die faster.

But in any case, I dispute the idea that the label 'coincidence', is any sort of explanation.

A 2 dimensional entity, traversing the surface of a sphere would I suggest, find it difficult to understand certain regularities as it wandered round and round the sphere. It certainly could not understand things in terms that a 4 dimensional entity would... (i.e. The notion of a 3 dimensional sphere).

Would the 2 dimensional entity label the reoccurrences as something equivalent to a coincidence? Possibly...
 

Transcended Multiverse

Bizarre, Transcended, and Omnipotent
Member
#69
Apparently not, if you look at AWARE, many died before they could be enrolled or interviewed. They had a very low rate of recorded NDE's, because the researchers were too slow to interview. Indeed in cardiac arrest cases, we find a correlation between depth of NDE experience, and severity (length etc) of cardiac arrest. And we also find an inverse correlation between severity of cardiac arrest, and length of survival. The more severe the cardiac arrest, the faster they die after resuscitation (if they are even resuscitated). That said, you could still take the correlation between severity of cardiac arrest, and depth of NDE as important - I do - even if the deeper experiencers seem to die faster.

But in any case, I dispute the idea that the label 'coincidence', is any sort of explanation.

A 2 dimensional entity, traversing the surface of a sphere would I suggest, find it difficult to understand certain regularities as it wandered round and round the sphere. It certainly could not understand things in terms that a 4 dimensional entity would... (i.e. The notion of a 3 dimensional sphere).

Would the 2 dimensional entity label the reoccurrences as something equivalent to a coincidence? Possibly...
What about the nde literature? Do much of the nde reports consist of these miraculous recoveries or not?
 
#70
1.) There is a remarkable overlap of nde (near death experience) features and those features presented during seizures and drug induced states. People who have seizures and take drugs report that they have experienced an entire reiteration of their life in which they experience all their memories. This is a feature that overlaps with the life review in ndes.

There is also ego loss during seizures and drug induced states as well as ndes. There are many more features of drug induced states and seizures that have a remarkable overlap with ndes. If ndes were truly a mind separate from body phenomenon, then one should not expect such a remarkable overlap of features.
First of all, some people have had NDEs and have had these drug induced experiences. Here is how they compare them:

"I would like to mention something else that isn't talked about much and that's hallucinogens. Hoping to recreate the experience, I've tried several drugs, including LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy. These experiences were all wonderful, interesting, intriguing, fascinating, but there is a big difference. Yes, you get to explore other levels of consciousness but there is often a feeling of loss of control and fear that does not occur during an NDE. With the drugs, there is a surreal feeling, but with the NDE it feels more real than this life. With drugs, it's more an experience is happening to you. With the NDE, you're the experience, the experience is of yourself, your consciousness. A good thing about hallucinogens though is that they give people (who haven't had an NDE) a glimpse into altered states of consciousness and an awareness that there is more to us than we've been led to believe."

and

"I haven't done acid but I have done shrooms, and it doesnt compare to the thought expansion you have when you are completely, and legitimately, out of your body experiencing the other side. Acid and shrooms expand your mind in a somewhat delusional sense. There is no delusion in an NDE."

The thing these experiences have in common is that they're ineffable and downright impossible to describe with normal vocabulary, so of course they will seem very similar in the sense that they're different from our normal everyday experiences. But when you read them more carefully and compare them, there's a lot of differences. For instance, drug people call a life review when they remember a lot of their memories (but very far from all of them). That is quite different from an instantaneous, panoramic life review with full access to absolutely every single memory ever, including those at birth, all your dreams, every mosquito you've ever seen, and from the perspective of everyone else and even an omniscient perspective.

So the thing to keep in mind is that there are orders of magnitude of difference between these kinds of experiences, but because of the limitations of language they sound quite alike at first.

But when it comes to this whole debate on the afterlife, I am not sure which side is wrong or if we actually don't know which side is right or wrong. What if those skeptics have some knowledge of death being final that we are simply unaware of and that if we were to inquire more and more into such knowledge, that we would finally be aware of death being final? Or what if the skeptics are wrong and that if they were to inquire more and more into our knowledge, that they would realize how they are wrong?
Well, yeah. As Bruce Greyson points out,

"Without exception, every report of a large study of NDEs published in a mainstream medical journal has concluded that these phenomena cannot be explained as hallucinations. Such unanimity among scientific researchers is unusual and should tell us something. Why is it that scientists who have done the most near-death research believe the mind is not exclusively housed in the brain, whereas those who regard NDEs as hallucinations by and large have not conducted any studies of the phenomena at all?"

Steven Novella for instance says things that have been explicitly refuted already, and yet he acts as if he's saying something new. In other words, he's a rhetorician without actual substance, and this is what sways people in the crowd since the other two aren't well-read enough to refute him on the spot. Throw in Chris Carter and Bruce Greyson/Sam Parnia in the proponent camp instead and it wouldn't even be fair - it wouldn't be a battle, it would be a slaughter.

3.) If this is truly a spiritual universe and we are all here for a spiritual purpose, then why is it that some people are born in situations of extreme suffering only to die within the first few months or days upon their very birth? Some spiritual purpose that was! Also, why is it then that many good people suffer while many evil people have nice happy lives and nothing bad seems to happen to them in order to make them grow, develop, and change?
The purpose of suffering is to learn to thrive despite it. Let's take the worst case scenario: Someone is being captured and tortured endlessly. Now, at first this sounds horrible. But imagine that the person learns to be happy, blissful, loving and forgiving, and forgives their torturers, loves them unconditionally, is thankful for everything, etc. This was unthinkable for Aristotle, btw, but he was an intellectual light-weight anyway so who cares about him.

Now, imagine this person in heaven. How crazy happy wouldn't he be? This is how ultra-advanced those beings of light that some encounter during their NDEs are like. They would be thriving in the worst possible scenario as well, and it's where we want to arrive at. We don't have to be in a hurry there, though - we have all eternity to get there.

As for people who die young and early, how is that a bad thing, exactly? Take a look at this video:

From a limited earthly perspective where death is regarded as "omgz so bad!!1" it's a tragedy, but not from a meta-perspective and/or taking into account what death actually is.

Also, do keep in mind: Everyone chose the life they're living before they even came here. Look at this, for instance:

 

Transcended Multiverse

Bizarre, Transcended, and Omnipotent
Member
#71
First of all, some people have had NDEs and have had these drug induced experiences. Here is how they compare them:

"I would like to mention something else that isn't talked about much and that's hallucinogens. Hoping to recreate the experience, I've tried several drugs, including LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy. These experiences were all wonderful, interesting, intriguing, fascinating, but there is a big difference. Yes, you get to explore other levels of consciousness but there is often a feeling of loss of control and fear that does not occur during an NDE. With the drugs, there is a surreal feeling, but with the NDE it feels more real than this life. With drugs, it's more an experience is happening to you. With the NDE, you're the experience, the experience is of yourself, your consciousness. A good thing about hallucinogens though is that they give people (who haven't had an NDE) a glimpse into altered states of consciousness and an awareness that there is more to us than we've been led to believe."

and

"I haven't done acid but I have done shrooms, and it doesnt compare to the thought expansion you have when you are completely, and legitimately, out of your body experiencing the other side. Acid and shrooms expand your mind in a somewhat delusional sense. There is no delusion in an NDE."

The thing these experiences have in common is that they're ineffable and downright impossible to describe with normal vocabulary, so of course they will seem very similar in the sense that they're different from our normal everyday experiences. But when you read them more carefully and compare them, there's a lot of differences. For instance, drug people call a life review when they remember a lot of their memories (but very far from all of them). That is quite different from an instantaneous, panoramic life review with full access to absolutely every single memory ever, including those at birth, all your dreams, every mosquito you've ever seen, and from the perspective of everyone else and even an omniscient perspective.

So the thing to keep in mind is that there are orders of magnitude of difference between these kinds of experiences, but because of the limitations of language they sound quite alike at first.



Well, yeah. As Bruce Greyson points out,

"Without exception, every report of a large study of NDEs published in a mainstream medical journal has concluded that these phenomena cannot be explained as hallucinations. Such unanimity among scientific researchers is unusual and should tell us something. Why is it that scientists who have done the most near-death research believe the mind is not exclusively housed in the brain, whereas those who regard NDEs as hallucinations by and large have not conducted any studies of the phenomena at all?"

Steven Novella for instance says things that have been explicitly refuted already, and yet he acts as if he's saying something new. In other words, he's a rhetorician without actual substance, and this is what sways people in the crowd since the other two aren't well-read enough to refute him on the spot. Throw in Chris Carter and Bruce Greyson/Sam Parnia in the proponent camp instead and it wouldn't even be fair - it wouldn't be a battle, it would be a slaughter.



The purpose of suffering is to learn to thrive despite it. Let's take the worst case scenario: Someone is being captured and tortured endlessly. Now, at first this sounds horrible. But imagine that the person learns to be happy, blissful, loving and forgiving, and forgives their torturers, loves them unconditionally, is thankful for everything, etc. This was unthinkable for Aristotle, btw, but he was an intellectual light-weight anyway so who cares about him.

Now, imagine this person in heaven. How crazy happy wouldn't he be? This is how ultra-advanced those beings of light that some encounter during their NDEs are like. They would be thriving in the worst possible scenario as well, and it's where we want to arrive at. We don't have to be in a hurry there, though - we have all eternity to get there.

As for people who die young and early, how is that a bad thing, exactly? Take a look at this video:

From a limited earthly perspective where death is regarded as "omgz so bad!!1" it's a tragedy, but not from a meta-perspective and/or taking into account what death actually is.

Also, do keep in mind: Everyone chose the life they're living before they even came here. Look at this, for instance:

I really have to disagree with point #3. I struggle with ongoing ocd depression and I know I would of never chosen such a life. It goes against my very nature as a human being. We as human beings, by nature, wish to be happy, joyful, enjoy our lives, and be motivated/inspired. Most human beings by nature only find their lives to be worth living this way. I am no different here. The only way my life can be worth living to me is not having any depression, misery, or truama in my life that takes away my happiness and joy.

My happiness and enjoyment is the very source of making every single thing in my life worth living for. My happiness and enjoyment is like the master key that unlocks all the joy and meaning from every single thing in my life. Without that master key, then all the joy and meaning will be locked away and I won't be able to have it. To say that I can thrive in such a depressive and miserable environment is absurd to me since it is no different than expecting a plant to thrive in an environment in which there is no sunlight, no water, and the plant is poisoned.

My happiness and enjoyment is like the water and sunlight I need to grow and thrive in my life. It is, in essence, divine spiritual life force to me. As long as I don't have my happiness/enjoyment and am poisoned by depression, then I am nothing more than a withered plant. Telling me that my life can still be worth living, joyful, and meaningful would then be no different than saying that a withered plant can still grow and thrive while being poisoned and no longer having anymore sunlight or water. This is the type of situation that not only am I in, but also many other people out there who struggle with depression as well. So I hardly see how we would of chosen such lives and how such lives can be anything good yielding any sort of growth and thriving.
 
#72
I really have to disagree with point #3. I struggle with ongoing ocd depression and I know I would of never chosen such a life. It goes against my very nature as a human being. We as human beings, by nature, wish to be happy, joyful, enjoy our lives, and be motivated/inspired. Most human beings by nature only find their lives to be worth living this way. I am no different here. The only way my life can be worth living to me is not having any depression, misery, or truama in my life that takes away my happiness and joy.
Yes but you chose this life while you were still in paradise - when you were infinitely happy, loved, intelligent, aware, rich, healthy, gorgeous, had millions of beloved friends and family around you, could do everything you ever wanted, etc. Your higher self still found this life interesting - either as a great challenge, or because you thought it would be fun from a meta-perspective to endure such hardships.

Let me ask you something - when you play a videogame, do you prefer to play them on easy, normal, or hard? What about nightmare mode? Do you enjoy challenges, or do you prefer to just watch TV and eat cheetos all day long?

And you didn't really listen to my argument. Yes, this life of yours is hard. Depression can be worse than physical torture, I don't even deny that, it's incredibly horrible, and you're a superstar for even coming here in the first place. But imagine if you were to learn to enjoy your life, despite your hardships. You'd elevate yourself from a mere master to a Grandmaster. Do you want to return home to paradise defeated by this world, or as a champion? The choice is yours.
 

Transcended Multiverse

Bizarre, Transcended, and Omnipotent
Member
#73
Yes but you chose this life while you were still in paradise - when you were infinitely happy, loved, intelligent, aware, rich, healthy, gorgeous, had millions of beloved friends and family around you, could do everything you ever wanted, etc. Your higher self still found this life interesting - either as a great challenge, or because you thought it would be fun from a meta-perspective to endure such hardships.

Let me ask you something - when you play a videogame, do you prefer to play them on easy, normal, or hard? What about nightmare mode? Do you enjoy challenges, or do you prefer to just watch TV and eat cheetos all day long?

And you didn't really listen to my argument. Yes, this life of yours is hard. Depression can be worse than physical torture, I don't even deny that, it's incredibly horrible, and you're a superstar for even coming here in the first place. But imagine if you were to learn to enjoy your life, despite your hardships. You'd elevate yourself from a mere master to a Grandmaster. Do you want to return home to paradise defeated by this world, or as a champion? The choice is yours.
I only like fun, happy, and enjoyable challenges. Challenges where I have to be miserable and fight on are challenges that destroy my life. They have no value to me whatsoever. When I don't have my happiness and enjoyment, then it is like I am a lifeless statue set in motion doing my hobbies and living my life. That is no way to live and that is no way to do my hobbies. So that is why I would give up on such a life since living such a life is nothing more than a waste of my time. I know that if I had a higher spiritual self who resided in the higher spiritual realms, then I would of chosen a blissful life that has blissful challenges.

You must also understand how we are hardwired as human beings. We just aren't wired to perceive our lives as worth living in such a state where we are miserable and don't have our happiness and enjoyment. Some people are wired that way, but not too many. You must also understand here that there is no way for me to be happy and to enjoy my life while in a state of misery, anhedonia, and depression. To say that I can just makes no sense to me. As I said before, it is like I am a lifeless statue set in motion. There is no happiness, enjoyment, value, or worth in such a way of living for me.
 
Last edited:
Top