Near Death Experience: theoretical implications contingent upon validity of claim?

Evo

Quote by nesp

"You made the claim

but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement.

All right, let's see those scientific studies that verified these valid NDE's. You'll find that you can't just throw nonsense out on this forum and not be asked to prove it."

Well, this is worse than I thought. Quoting out of context is not in the best spirit of scientific studies. Perhaps it would help if you read my entire post,

"This was the situation with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and the Martian canals, proven wrong, and Galileo's heliocentric theory, proved correct. All of these, and every other scientific theory, began with interesting observations that were new or didn't fit the mainstream. The vast majority of such observations are found to be false, or incorrect interpretations, but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement."

I used well-known scientific observations, not NDEs, as an example of the use of the scientific method. As far as NDE's, you'll have to ask the OP. If you would read my entire post, you will note I was objecting to the casual dismissal of the questions asked in that post. I have no position on NDE's nor have I made any claims.

Now, would you like to post an scientifically objective, rather than an emotional, or knee-jerk, response to the OP's questions?

a) how are more people not talking about this, and b) regardless of the ambiguity that derives from such a claim, why are we (assuming we're not or haven't) investigating this more?

I don't know the answers, but I'm confident that "anecdote doesn't mean jack in science" is not the best answer.

Please learn how to use the quote button.

Perhaps I did misunderstand you, my apologies, you lost me at Galileo.

So back to your post, anecdotes are meaningless in science. You seem to disagree, so post some evidence to show why we should consider unproven anecdotes.

nesp

Apology accepted, let's start over.
Sorry, I don't know how to use the quote button so if that's the price of entry, I'm out.

"So back to your post, anecdotes are meaningless in science. You seem to disagree, so post some evidence to show why we should consider unproven anecdotes."

- Prior to Chladni's "On the Origin of the Mass of Iron Discovered by Pallas and Others Similar to It, and on Some Natural Phenomena Related to Them," (1794) rocks falling from the sky were rejected as merely anecdotal. And they were, since no scientific studies had been done, and no theories had been advanced, other than quasi-religious ones, for meteorites.

- Ball lightning has been reported anecdotaly since at least the 1600s, and it's only recently that plasma theory has been advanced and tested as a hypothesis.

- Curing or betterment of an illness through extra-medical means has been anectdotaly reported for eons, and was only validated by science through double blind studies of placebo effects.

I could go on, but you get the idea. None of these were proven until science took the anecdotes sufficiently serious to begin hypothesizing and testing.

This has nothing to do with NDEs, but neither does my original post.

Evo

Quote by nesp

Apology accepted, let's start over.
Sorry, I don't know how to use the quote button so if that's the price of entry, I'm out.

"So back to your post, anecdotes are meaningless in science. You seem to disagree, so post some evidence to show why we should consider unproven anecdotes."

- Prior to Chladni's "On the Origin of the Mass of Iron Discovered by Pallas and Others Similar to It, and on Some Natural Phenomena Related to Them," (1794) rocks falling from the sky were rejected as merely anecdotal. And they were, since no scientific studies had been done, and no theories had been advanced, other than quasi-religious ones, for meteorites.

- Ball lightning has been reported anecdotaly since at least the 1600s, and it's only recently that plasma theory has been advanced and tested as a hypothesis.

- Curing or betterment of an illness through extra-medical means has been anectdotaly reported for eons, and was only validated by science through double blind studies of placebo effects.

I could go on, but you get the idea. None of these were proven until science took the anecdotes sufficiently serious to begin hypothesizing and testing.

This has nothing to do with NDEs, but neither does my original post.

And the sun used to revolve around the earth, and evil spirits and witches caused disease.

In other words, nothing you've posted has added anything of value to this thread.

The quote button is at the bottom right of all posts.

nesp

Thanks for validating some of my reasons for retiring. It's hard to refute lack of logic. Good luck in all of your endeavors. I'm out.

thorium1010

Quote by nesp

Thanks for validating some of my reasons for retiring. It's hard to refute lack of logic. Good luck in all of your endeavors. I'm out.

Nesp , if you are going to say people have closed their mind, it's because most of the time studies like these are often pushed as evidence for consciousness outside the body (which can be one of several possible explanations ).

An important question is why only a small percentage people (in the study ) have NDE's and majority have no recollection of the event ?

But the most important question is, how do you proceed from anecdotal stories (however accurate they maybe) to testable hypothesis or a RCT ?. There is no possible way to do that (I may be wrong on this ).

Ryan_m_b

Quote by thorium1010

Nesp , if you are going to say people have closed their mind, it's because most of the time studies like these are often pushed as evidence for consciousness outside the body (which can be one of several possible explanations ).

An important question is why only a small percentage people (in the study ) have NDE's and majority have no recollection of the event ?

But the most important question is, how do you proceed from anecdotal stories (however accurate they maybe) to testable hypothesis or a RCT ?. There is no possible way to do that (I may be wrong on this ).

I kind of agree but anecdotes can be a way for scientists to find observations. For example someone might say to me "I just added X chemical to Y chemical and it blew up in my face". It might already be well established that X added to Y does nothing. However if we take the person to be telling the truth we may ask him to replicate the conditions for us to observe. We may then discover that when X is added to Y under a specific variable that has previously not been taken into account that an explosion does follow.

The problem is with verifying the truthfulness of anecdotes (rarely are they first hand) and whether or not you could replicate them. If I told you that a ball of exotic matter just floated around the room before disappearing we have no way of testing it even if I am telling the truth because we cannot replicate it.

Large quantities of anecdotes may point to there being some phenomenon going on but it is not necessarily the phenomenon the anecdote is describing. Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel is an often said anecdote but under investigation we may find out it is caused by oxygen starvation rather than a vision of Heaven. I find that proponents of anecdotes often ignore this and cite examples where fact was just anecdotes as proof that their anecdote must be true rather than being an indication of something else.

pftest

I suggest people here read the previous topic, it contains an abundance of scientific sources on the subject:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=479733

Heres a bit about NDEs and oxygen deprivation of the brain:

In this study possible physiological causative factors could not be investigated adequately in view of the relatively small number in the study (NDE) group. Nevertheless it was interesting that patients in the study group had higher oxygen levels than those in the control group. This may simply be a skewed result due to the low patient numbers. Alternatively it may indicate that patients who had NDEs had better oxygenation during the resuscitation, allowing better cortical function. Provided that blood oxygen levels reflect cerebral oxygen levels, the findings suggest that in this cardiac arrest model, cerebral anoxia may not be an important causative factor in these experiences, and indeed may mitigate against them. There is support for this in other models of the NDE, where psychological causes are thought to trigger the experience such as in those occurring just before a major accident, the cerebral circulation is not compromised and hypoxia cannot be a factor. However, it would be unwise, with such small numbers, to draw any significant conclusion from this finding.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=89

nesp

Quote by ryan_m_b

I kind of agree but anecdotes can be a way for scientists to find observations. For example someone might say to me "I just added X chemical to Y chemical and it blew up in my face". It might already be well established that X added to Y does nothing. However if we take the person to be telling the truth we may ask him to replicate the conditions for us to observe. We may then discover that when X is added to Y under a specific variable that has previously not been taken into account that an explosion does follow.

ryan, at the risk of extending an exchange that went well off track, let me attempt to address your reasonable response in a way consistent with my original intent.

The point of my response was not primarily about NDEs, nor did I take a position one way or the other about the subject. For some reason, my post was confused with that of the OP, and I was asked to defend the objectiveness of NDEs. To repeat, my response to the OP was not about that at all but, rather, an appeal to those who reject anectodes out of hand as being nonscientific and, therefore, of no use to the advancement of science. Since you responded to that aspect, yes, your example of chemicals mixed in a different way, is a good example of precisely the point I was trying to make. And the keys, as you note, are validation of the report (to remove outright lies and misunderstandings), a suitable hypothesis, and replication under controlled test conditions.

This may or may not be possible for NDEs, I don't know nor do I care. But I would hope that, as in the case of reports of falling rocks, that we at least take the time to validate the reports and attempt to hypothesize and formulate a test.

nesp

Quote by pftest

I suggest people here read the previous topic, it contains an abundance of scientific sources on the subject:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=479733

Heres a bit about NDEs and oxygen deprivation of the brain:

Thanks for the link. I'm glad some consider such anecdotal data sufficiently serious to attempt to construct hypotheses, such as oxygen deprivation, which may be suitable for some type of controlled testing.

rockhouse

No matter what anyone says, the stories of clinically dead people being able to see what's going on around them is a trip.

And personally i believe most of these accounts.

Evo

Quote by nesp

Thanks for the link. I'm glad some consider such anecdotal data sufficiently serious to attempt to construct hypotheses, such as oxygen deprivation, which may be suitable for some type of controlled testing.

Yes, but realize that some people here don't understand science.

pftest

This whole "anecdotes are meaningless in science" was settled in the previous topic (see the example of a woman with epilepsy who had her brain stimulated and experienced an OBE) and also in this topic (someone mentioned synesthesia). To find the relation between activity of the brain and cognitive abilities and experiences, anecdotes are often very useful.

Testing of the OBE part of NDEs is also mentioned in the previous topic:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...4&postcount=73

MACHO-WIMP

Quote by pftest

This whole "anecdotes are meaningless in science" was settled in the previous topic (see the example of a woman with epilepsy who had her brain stimulated and experienced an OBE) and also in this topic (someone mentioned synesthesia). To find the relation between activity of the brain and cognitive abilities and experiences, anecdotes are often very useful.

Testing of the OBE part of NDEs is also mentioned in the previous topic:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...4&postcount=73

Can you elaborate on the person with epilepsy having an OBE after having her brain stimulated?

zoobyshoe

Quote by MACHO-WIMP

Can you elaborate on the person with epilepsy having an OBE after having her brain stimulated?

Here's an article about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/0209...s020916-8.html

Here's the researcher:

http://lnco.epfl.ch/olaf.blanke

Here's the abstract of one of his papers:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cont...2/243.abstract

MACHO-WIMP

Quote by zoobyshoe

Here's an article about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/0209...s020916-8.html

Here's the researcher:

http://lnco.epfl.ch/olaf.blanke

Here's the abstract of one of his papers:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cont...2/243.abstract

Thanks

samsracecar

Quote by hereandnow672

Are they able to perceive physical reality from some sort of lateral metaphysical standpoint?
It is unclear to me why this alleged patient and nurse would fabricate such a story; there is no monetary incentive, fame incentive - the man, if the story is true, didn't care at all that much about its implications. It seems highly unlikely that this was fabricated as it was published by what popular opinion has dictated as a heavily credible source.

The point being: if what this study says is true, then there are profound implications regarding the mutual compatibility of perceptual reality and 'metaphysical' reality. And I see no reason for disinformation.

Entirely separate, but am I correct I'm deducing that, generally speaking, nobody seems to be interested pursuing a complete understanding of the dream-state? That would be amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

I feel that this explains most NDE's. The visual, tactile, and auditory stimuli are sometimes imperceptible from reality. I know, I've experienced this multiple times.

IDOGAWACONAN

Well infact these phenomenons have been well investigated...
they can be explained by science,nothing strange.

Similar Threads for: Near Death Experience: theoretical implications contingent upon validity of claim?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Pam Reynold's Near Death Experience	General Discussion	1
Science Of Near Death Experience	Medical Sciences	13
the Near Death Experience, Out of Body Exp and their ontological interpretations	General Discussion	9
Near Death Experience	General Discussion	4
Ex-atheist describes near-death experience	General Discussion	29

nesp	Thanks for validating some of my reasons for retiring. It's hard to refute lack of logic. Good luck in all of your endeavors. I'm out.

rockhouse	No matter what anyone says, the stories of clinically dead people being able to see what's going on around them is a trip. And personally i believe most of these accounts.

IDOGAWACONAN	Well infact these phenomenons have been well investigated... they can be explained by science,nothing strange.