I get inspired from nderf NDEs, and I believe the majority is actually the real deal. Keep em coming!
that's not going to achieve anything
We don't need more afterlife tours
You mean keep them coming like pop corn and hot dogs ? With respect, that's not going to achieve anything, it's just going to cheapen the sincere experiences that have been authenticated. We don't need more afterlife tours, we need to persuade the scientific hierarchy that consciousness can exist independently from the brain.
I see where you're at. It's coming to the point where if you haven't had an NDE you can feel left out of the party. On the other hand I think many accounts are genuine, but the contrast between the experience and peoples' capacity to express it makes it sound trite. In the few truly profound dreams I've had, the depth of awareness and knowledge is so far beyond ordinary experience, that any attempt at retelling it could only deal in mundane equivalents of events and places, because the things themselves were transcendent, or sacred to use a more authentic word.I guess what I'm saying is I like my NDE rare.
The view from the scientific community is reflected in the mainstream media, and is echoed in many walks of life from business to politics, and affects the practices, activities and decisions of those organisations. For example in my working life I've been bombarded on an almost daily basis with behaviourist psychology throughout companies I've worked for. That has a direct influence, for better or for worse on peoples actual daily lives.(Genuine question though I know it probably sounds obtuse): Why do you care what the scientific community think about consciousness existing separately? Haven't you formed your own view based on the evidence you have read/seen? Countless people already have.
If I recall, perandre said that NDE reports were a source of inspiration. That is very different from saying they are a way of finding consolation, which is edging towards the idea that people seek comfort because they are afraid, at least that's a common sceptical explanation for people believing any afterlife-related ideas. Inspiration on the other hand is more than a mere comport, it can be give rise to creativity, joy, achievements in any area of life, and also ripple outwards to have a positive and beneficial effect on others.I think people get their evidence in different ways. I am not sure perandre is atypical in getting some consolation from hearing the experiences of others I don't see what is wrong with that. Each NDE report should be judged on its own merits.
(Genuine question though I know it probably sounds obtuse): Why do you care what the scientific community think about consciousness existing separately? Haven't you formed your own view based on the evidence you have read/seen? Countless people already have.
I think people get their evidence in different ways. I am not sure perandre is atypical in getting some consolation from hearing the experiences of others I don't see what is wrong with that. Each NDE report should be judged on its own merits.
I just told you, they inspire me. Different stories contributes to the full picture in different ways. So yes, they do achieve something. There is more to the afterlife than the hard Q of C (like, say, the title of this thread).
Or songs ...or poems.
I see where you're at. It's coming to the point where if you haven't had an NDE you can feel left out of the party. On the other hand I think many accounts are genuine, but the contrast between the experience and peoples' capacity to express it makes it sound trite. In the few truly profound dreams I've had, the depth of awareness and knowledge is so far beyond ordinary experience, that any attempt at retelling it could only deal in mundane equivalents of events and places, because the things themselves were transcendent, or sacred to use a more authentic word.
One dream many years ago involved a recently deceased uncle, and the scope of it left me with a little of the bereft feeling NDErs must experience on returning. It's impossible to convey that kind of stuff because it is literally beyond words, or even concepts.
Apologies Tim, you weren't addressing me, but I hope you don't mind me chipping in with some thoughts.,,, would he be happy to be possibly duped ?
Apologies Tim, you weren't addressing me, but I hope you don't mind me chipping in with some thoughts.
I tend to look at such things as NDE accounts or other semi-mystical experiences from three points of view. One, I go by gut feeling and instinct as to whether I regard any one account as being valid or bogus. Often the contrived accounts contain a lot of the same elements as those which are (as far as i can tell) true, but there are hints and clues in the writing style. Rather like an implausible dialogue in a badly-written play, some things just don't feel right. Secondly, I weigh an account for its similarities and differences to other accounts. If it is very similar to the typical account it could be bogus, but is to me at least relatively harmless. Someone may be having a laugh at having sneaked their contrived account beneath my radar, but if it doesn't alter the overall picture, then I don't feel bad about it.
As for those accounts which break the mould and either contradict or extend the typical account, again I'd consider the style of presentation first of all, Some accounts are well-written, quite polished and could well be either fact or fiction. In these sorts of case I don't feel obliged to file these under the category of "scientific evidence", but consider them more as I would a piece of poetry, or some other great art - if the overall effect is uplifting, then I don't feel bad about that at all. Which leaves perhaps the category which leads into darker, more hellish experiences. These are something which again I would weigh against other accounts for its consistency or otherwise. But personally I don't dwell on these darker reports regardless of their apparent veracity.
Perhaps I look at the world as a whole with a relatively non-credulous eye. For example, take any news report. We are supposed to take these as factual. But read of the same incident in several sources and the accounts may differ. And even if they agree, the report is almost inevitably coming from a particular angle, and doesn't necessarily represent the views of other people who witnessed the event. I tend to take everything i come across with a pretty large pinch of salt, no matter what its source. Perhaps some people are looking to the external world to provide certainty. I take the view that the only certainty is from within.
Edit: I should add that I consider the number of bogus NDE reports to be a very small proportion, and for that reason it isn't something which worries me unduly.
Hi Typoz
I wouldn't suggest that scientific opinion isn't important in our daily lives, it clearly is. I'm not so sure in this instance though that it makes much difference. The reason I say that is that such experiences as NDEs, mediumship etc have been experienced by folk for centuries, probably millennia and in the case of the latter are to many people 'common knowledge', by that I mean they have an opinion on the matter based on their own experience or lack thereof.
A scientific body endorsing it won't, I don't think, make much difference to the vast majority of people unless it is accompanied by a direct personal experience, which is the same position we seem to be in today.
As for the consolation/inspiration; I think probably consolation is not the right word as you say. Having said that it depends on what perandre means. If what is meant is that 'I feel reading these experiences helps me feel better about the concept of death' then I'd say that's consolation, if it's inspiration then I'm not sure how perandre is inspired or to what end. Perhaps they will say.
@tim - whenever we listen to another's evidence we risk being duped no matter how well-presented the material. If we know that it is possible that anything we receive from sources we don't know and trust might be tainted it's a good discipline to apply some kind of criteria to assess its value, as I'm sure you'd agree. Reading through lots of 'low value' reports might sharpen one's powers of analysis, no? :)
Hi Tim
Taking them at face value with the usual caveats, I'd say both experiences may have been reported honestly but what were is perhaps moot. They both seem to have had a singular effect on the person who was the subject of them however the evidence they give is, by its nature, subjective. The first one seems more typical of the 'classic NDE' report I'd say (though I am no expert and it isn't really an area of particular interest to me). There is no objective evidence in it as far as I can see but I'd be inclined to view it as being what was reported - an NDE with separation between consciousness and body. I am sure for Kathleen there is no doubt in her mind, however I find it 'interesting' but not compelling personally. It certain reads like a coherent observation by someone clear-minded.
The second one is interesting too. It is perhaps coloured by the fact that the person reporting it was under the influence of a 'substance' which was intended to alter their consciousness. I'd say it is more likely to be a hallucination but that is a layman's assessment.
Do I win a cigar? :)