The Van Lommel Lancet NDE paper

Ultimately, all of the mind /= brain lines of questioning will be in a massively healthier shape when it can move out of relying on negatives. Something that makes me uncomfortable about the dualist mindset is that it is very much a "in the gaps" line of arguing in its current state.

Easier said than done, I know.

I very much agree. All this would be much better if there were positive tests. I keep trying to think of ways for this to happen.

Linda
 
Actually, it would not be fully appropriate, because as I said before in the other forum, all four authors of the Lancet paper were equally important. It would thus be better to call it the Merkawah paper, as the study was done under the auspices of Merkawah Foundation aka IANDS The Netherlands. In terms of the law it is Merkawah who is the legal owner of the study. But I realize that since Van Lommel is the first name appearing in the list of authors, it is indeed better to call it the Van Lommel et al (2001) paper.

Alright. I changed the bibtex key to Merkawah2001 and prepended it so it should be spit out as "Merkawah et all." It's non-obvious how to get some of the citation engines to cooperate, but it was either that or take their names off the entry entirely.
 
Oh sure - it would indeed be much better if we could stop relying on negatives. But as someone already indicated, the whole of NDE research is still in its infancy, despite being on the map since 1975 (Moody...)

And as long as the "Hard Problem" (of consciousness - Chalmers!) has not been solved, I am afraid NDE-research will remain in its infancy...

I should have added this to the OP. Remember where this started in the other forum, with Berkelon commenting on this passage from the John Searle podcast:

But put all that aside because the real kicker is near-death experience science. Here are these doctors, in hospital, carefully controlled experiments over and over again, and the brain you’re talking about, Dr. Searle, is gone. It’s non-functioning; it isn’t there; and yet some kind of conscious experience that’s able to see and recall what’s going on continues.

That evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point. What do you do with that? How does that fit into your model?

The Lancet paper was presented by Alex as an example of one such carefully controlled study but on closer inspection the carefully controlled part of the study doesn't actually address that question and as Smithy has posted even one of the authors agree with that.

That's not to say that there won't be such studies in the future - but the question we were looking at is whether they have already been done?
 
Alright. I changed the bibtex key to Merkawah2001 and prepended it so it should be spit out as "Merkawah et all." It's non-obvious how to get some of the citation engines to cooperate, but it was either that or take their names off the entry entirely.

Okay - thank you!
 
Oh sure - it would indeed be much better if we could stop relying on negatives.
I very much agree. All this would be much better if there were positive tests. I keep trying to think of ways for this to happen.

I suspect the vindication for NDEs will come in the form of regular parapsychology, if it comes at all. Hard hitting telepathy experiments seem to blip it on the map occasionally, and with the field becoming slowly accepted that will address one of the reasons Osis stopped rolling OBE experiments (a lot of work was needed, and nobody appreciated it outside of the SPR.) This probably results in a snowball where it is "okay" to talk about OBEs and in turn, study to see what kind of neurology patterns are important to them. Which is useful, because that too gives an idea what to look for in AWARE-type environments.
 
My take:I think a bigger issue for this paper is how some people have interpreted it: ie: concluding for example that this paper demonstrates strongly that NDEs aren’t physical. I don’t think it does. It’s a controlled study, but not on the elements that are most hotly debated here – that of whether NDEs are brain based or not.

I'm glad you added "my take" at the beginning and " how some people have interpreted it" at the end. I would suggest to you that the best person to "interpret" this research is the lead investigator, but you seem to keep resisting this notion. I am again pointed you to a published piece where the researcher explains how others have misinterpreted HIS research: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

I give more weight to the researcher that spent nearly 20 years on the project than "your take".
 
Last edited:
Alex, Smithy approached the researchers and one of them responded and Smithy posted his reply in this thread which supported the main premise of my analysis.

I'm not sure though where you think I've misinterpreted something - can you be more specific - what particular issue do you have with what I wrote? Could you also point out which parts of the Response to Shermer article you posted relates to my analysis?

You suggested that we'd have a more substantive discussion in the new forum, so far all you have done is posted a link and I'm not sure what I wrote contradicts anything in that link (which isn't surprising since it deals with different issues).
 
Could you also point out which parts of the Response to Shermer article you posted relates to my analysis?

Well the Shermer article goes on to say "mind = brain, obviously, because there is no evidence that it doesn't." Van Lommel's reply seems mostly around this point, that Shermer is begging the question and there is reason to consider other options. I don't think either of those two posts seek to prove a definitive answer, only that a skeptic is declaring one answer is truth and the researcher is noting that there isn't absolute proof of Shermer's position.

They're not really talking about if the study was meant to confirm mind /= brain.because the study wasn't making that claim. That claim is in the discussion section, and is posited as an avenue of research.
 
Arouet is clear that this is his take on the study as it appears in the journal. If some interpret it in a way that the lead author disagrees with, then the original document should have been clearer in its conclusions. Arouet's report seems fair, honest and thorough IMO.(It may well be the work of someone with too much time on his hands, however ;)) A curt dismissal of it appears churlish...

An argument from authority (PVL knows best) rings hollow. The data is the data.
 
Last edited:
Alex, Smithy approached the researchers and one of them responded and Smithy posted his reply in this thread which supported the main premise of my analysis.

I'm not sure though where you think I've misinterpreted something - can you be more specific - what particular issue do you have with what I wrote? Could you also point out which parts of the Response to Shermer article you posted relates to my analysis?

You suggested that we'd have a more substantive discussion in the new forum, so far all you have done is posted a link and I'm not sure what I wrote contradicts anything in that link (which isn't surprising since it deals with different issues).

I quoted directly from the conclusion of your post... I repeat, you write: "concluding for example that this paper demonstrates strongly that NDEs aren’t physical. I don’t think it does". This is your conclusion! This is your main point! I pointed out that the author of this research refutes/disagrees with your conclusion. I further suggest that kind of exercise in nincompoopery is typical of a lot of Skeptics. We must... if we are to have substantive discussions... be able to get past such silliness.

My conclusion, unless there's some substantive mistake in this research (we all agree there is not) then we should accept the authors conclusions over yours or Shermer's (who made a similar romp on the skeptical silliness tour bus). Now you can go on-and-one with 100s of posts about whether Noah might have used nails in the construction of the Ark (which is the kind of ep. 199 apologetics you're engaged in) but I don't think serious minded people ought to go with you. there are too many real mysteries to tackle.
 
To be fair, looking at the results of the research, rather than looking at the author's conclusions, is a science/critical review thing, not a skeptical nincompoopery thing. When you learn how to evaluate research, it is the results that matter. The author's conclusions get skipped over, because to be frank, it is sorta presumed that they are going to be inclined to over-state the case anyway. Besides, their conclusions are only as valid as their results anyway, so why bother with the middle man?

Linda
 
Last edited:
Well the Shermer article goes on to say "mind = brain, obviously, because there is no evidence that it doesn't." Van Lommel's reply seems mostly around this point, that Shermer is begging the question and there is reason to consider other options. I don't think either of those two posts seek to prove a definitive answer, only that a skeptic is declaring one answer is truth and the researcher is noting that there isn't absolute proof of Shermer's position.

They're not really talking about if the study was meant to confirm mind /= brain.because the study wasn't making that claim. That claim is in the discussion section, and is posited as an avenue of research.

come on... did you really read both... do you understand the boldness of van Lommel's language:


Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).


This very strong for an academic response... he can't exactly say (like I can) that Shermer is a nincompoop for totally missing the point of the study.
 
Alex- do me a favour - even if you think it is a waste of time - humour me in recognition of the work that I did in doing the analysis: Read my entire post and provide comments on your take on the various things I write in the post. Go parapgraph by paragraph and tell me where you think my reasoning goes off the rails. My conclusion was as a result of my analysis - if there is an error in my conclusion then it stems from an error in my analysis. I have been very specific in my post about how I got to the conclusion.

Please note that I am completely open to having made errors or misunderstood some things in the paper - I will not be surprised if someone points them out and won't be offended. I welcome it. If errors are identified I will re-do the analysis with the new premises - this may or might not change the conclusion. By doing this we can really zero in on where our thinking diverges on this. We can discuss the areas of contention and try and see if we can resolve them.

My post was meant to launch a discussion, to provide a framework for analysing this paper. You up for it?
 
come on... did you really read both... do you understand the boldness of van Lommel's language:

Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).

This very strong for an academic response... he can't exactly say (like I can) that Shermer is a nincompoop for totally missing the point of the study.

The problem is, as Arouet has pointed out, is that the study doesn't actually look at whether "consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia)" (that is, no variables were measured which would address this point). The authors review some other somewhat related research which suggest this may be the case, as part of the suggestions for further research. But the primary study undertaken by van Lommel et. al. is not a study of "do these experiences occur during a period of non-functioning brain".

Linda
 
I also found the anoxia comment from van Lommel strange, coming from a physician. It would be like saying that aspirin can't have any effect, otherwise, all those who take aspirin would never have heart attacks.

Lommel makes a similarly odd statement in his recent paper [1], to do with the OBE portion of the NDE (the area I'm most interested in):

“…missing a hidden target during an OBE must be the result of lack intention and attention…”

I don’t know how Lommel can make so certain an assertion in his paper. He uses the word ‘…must…’, when its obvious he cannot make so certain a claim. In reality, ‘…maybe…’ is about as certain is he can possibly be.

Viewing the hidden target is an absolutely key point of Lommel’s ideas. Yet no one has seen a hidden target. It makes the strength of Lommels assertion all the more odd in my view?

[1] 'Non-local Consciousness' Pim van Lommel - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20, No. 1–2, 2013, pp. 7–48
 
Lommel makes a similarly odd statement in his recent paper [1], to do with the OBE portion of the NDE (the area I'm most interested in):

“…missing a hidden target during an OBE must be the result of lack intention and attention…”

I don’t know how Lommel can make so certain an assertion in his paper. He uses the word ‘…must…’, when its obvious he cannot make so certain a claim. In reality, ‘…maybe…’ is about as certain is he can possibly be.

Viewing the hidden target is an absolutely key point of Lommel’s ideas. Yet no one has seen a hidden target. It makes the strength of Lommels assertion all the more odd in my view?

[1] 'Non-local Consciousness' Pim van Lommel - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20, No. 1–2, 2013, pp. 7–48

It IS pretty obvious why Van Lommel makes such a claim, because in all his interviews with NDE'rs as well as what can be found in the literature, it has become clear that NDE'rs are not in the least interested in "hidden targets". When the AWARE study began quite a few NDE'rs or NDE-interested (I was one of them) made it clear to Parnia that the chance of success would be very small. Reason: when an NDE'r, while in OBE, looks down, he sees him- or herself on the operation table and that is where his/her focus lies. He/she could not care less about a hidden target.
When a hidden target has been reported about, it just happens to be the case, hence accidentally and thus not on purpose.

BTW - I have had again contact with the authors of the paper, and will report about that later. Right now I have other things to do.
 
The disconnect here is what PVL believes (based on a long life of discovery, study and, let's be honest, faith) and what we can draw from the results of this specific study (IMHO).
 
come on... did you really read both... do you understand the boldness of van Lommel's language

The point of the study was to demonstrate that NDEs existed and were worth studying, it says as much on the paper itself. I read the quibble between the both of them, and that doesn't address anything to do with Arouet's topic (mind /= brain not being tested by the 2001 report.) If the point of the study was to prove mind /= brain, it would have been in the findings section. Also, the discussion section even covers that mind /= brain is only one of the possible explanations. This doesn't somehow invalidate the paper; the paper was simply not asking that particular question.
 
I don’t know how Lommel can make so certain an assertion in his paper. He uses the word ‘…must…’, when its obvious he cannot make so certain a claim. In reality, ‘…maybe…’ is about as certain is he can possibly be.

As Smithy says, the hidden targets are not designed with input from people who actually experienced the phenomenon. This is the same reason people still think OBE tests should use complicated hash codes or some strange key, when the OBErs didn't make the claim they could read finely detailed text (and who remembers hash codes that they do read once?) and then complain when people can't do what they didn't claim they could do.
 
Back
Top