Scientists debate near-death-experiences

#21
The real problem, as I see it, is that if you found yourself 'dead', looking down on people trying to revive your body, that scene would really focus your mind - you aren't like to survey the scene for irrelevant things only visible from your vantage point. Unfortunately, skeptics have somehow persuaded themselves that people might still be able to see and hear everything in the resuscitation room - so anything that happens close to their body (where their attention is focused) is considered suspect.

I don't see this as a conscious skeptical 'trick', but I think their intense reluctance to accept the evidence of NDE's makes them discount all the evidence that normally comes from the OBE portion of an NDE, using any means possible.

David
Agreed but I think that if the patients accurately describe what is occurring duringtheir cardiac arrest (and this occurs often enough within the study) then I think it's curtains for the materialists
 
#22
The only explanation for the OBE portion of an NDE, is a highly organised hallucination based on residual deep brain function. This doesn't wash for a number of reasons, the 'hallucination' defies the usual definition of the term, experiencers insist it is hyper-lucid, flying in the face of what we assume about brain function, it contains consistent themes, it is associated with returns to health incompatible with severe trauma.

Objective study of the phenomenon must at least concede that people who are 'brain and heart dead' are sometimes able to perceive themselves and their environment for a limited amount of time after total loss of consciousness. Fear of the consequences and implications behind that reality are the only thing that stops the phenomenon being taken seriously. By any normal standard, NDE triggered OBE is an established fact.
 
#23
The only explanation for the OBE portion of an NDE, is a highly organised hallucination based on residual deep brain function. This doesn't wash for a number of reasons, the 'hallucination' defies the usual definition of the term, experiencers insist it is hyper-lucid, flying in the face of what we assume about brain function, it contains consistent themes, it is associated with returns to health incompatible with severe trauma.

Objective study of the phenomenon must at least concede that people who are 'brain and heart dead' are sometimes able to perceive themselves and their environment for a limited amount of time after total loss of consciousness. Fear of the consequences and implications behind that reality are the only thing that stops the phenomenon being taken seriously. By any normal standard, NDE triggered OBE is an established fact.
Yes. I have spoken to a good number of people who have had OBE's and seen themselves. They are absolutely certain that they "really" saw themselves just as if they were hoisted up to the ceiling on a clothes rack.

I think the fact that they can't interact with the people in the room is also very significant. If it was just an hallucination they should be communicating
successfully with the doctors and nurses...... because they desire to do so. And aren't hallucinations of this type at least (self comforting) likely to follow some kind of wishful thinking ?
 
#24
Tim and Gabriel, I totally agree with what you say of OBEs, in general, not being hallucinations. However, I am not sure what to make of the rare cases where false perception occured concerning significant details (one woman, I remember, watche a c-section being performed on her, when, in reality, she hadn' t given birth yet)? I do not know how they fit in...
 
#25
Tim and Gabriel, I totally agree with what you say of OBEs, in general, not being hallucinations. However, I am not sure what to make of the rare cases where false perception occured concerning significant details (one woman, I remember, watche a c-section being performed on her, when, in reality, she hadn' t given birth yet)? I do not know how they fit in...
Hi, my take on this for what it's worth is that there are bound to be some memory errors and mixing up of events in a percentage of any sample what ever we are talking about. You have to go with the vast majority of cases which are not muddled up... or.... if you are a "sceptic", of course you can focus on the few anomalies as Keith (Aug) does.
 
Top