I find older reports of near-death experiences interesting, because they predate the popular interest in the subject that developed once Life After Life was published in 1975. Such reports can be traced back at least as far as the Middle Ages, and arguably earlier. Two that recently came to my attention are mentioned in Guided by Spirit, by Charles Emmons and Penelope Emmons (p. 219).
The first involves a woman who went on to become a medium. Guided by Spirit offers a brief summary:
Mrs. J. H. Conant had [an NDE] in 1851 at age 20. When ill she was prescribed a large overdose of morphine and went unconscious. The doctor thought she was going to die. She went into trance and channeled a simple medication, and recovered. While in trance she went to "some beautiful place; she thought she was in heaven." There she met her mother, begged to be allowed to stay there, and was told she must return to Earth because "she had yet a mission to perform."
The source cited is Allen Putnam's Biography of Mrs. J. H. Conant, the World's Medium of the Nineteenth Century (1873). Intrigued, I Googled the title and found that it is available on Amazon. Using the "search inside" feature I was able to find the appropriate passage, written in the florid style of its day. The passage is reproduced below, broken up into shorter paragraphs for easier reading:
In the year 1851 [Mrs. Conant] left Lowell, and, with her husband, came to reside at the North End of Boston. Here her health, never robust, gave way, and she was again prostrated by sickness. Dr. Tobey, a well known physician, was summoned to attend her, who in view of the exigencies of the case, prescribed a certain preparation of morphine -- he being at the time, unfortunately, under the influence of stimulants. Mr. Conant obtained the prescription, as ordered, from a neighboring apothecary, and it was administered, per directions, to his wife. The amount written down by Dr. Tobey proved to be a large overdose; she was thrown into a semi-unconscious state, and began to sink so rapidly as to alarm all those residing in the house.
Mr. Conant immediately proceeded to the doctor's office to apprise him of the fact. He inquired concerning the medicine and its effect -- became agitated, and hurried to the sick chamber. A glance told him that there was some mistake in the remedy administered, and the imminent danger of his patient immediately sobered him. He doubted that he had prescribed so much, and was utterly confounded when, on applying to the druggist, he found the prescription filed in his own handwriting -- the apothecary meanwhile assuring him that he should not have put up the medicine in such quantity had he not known him well, and supposed that he was acquainted with his business. Dr. Tobey said there was no help for Mrs. Conant -- she must die. She, however, told him that she should not.
During the absence of her husband in search of the physician, the second time, Mrs. C. had been mysteriously aroused from the deadly stupor -- her body was shaking, involuntarily as it seemed, and a series of shocks, as from an electric battery, passed through her frame; she then began to speak, and prescribed for herself as she had done frequently before at Portsmouth in her childhood. The medicine, which was something of a simple nature, had been given to her, and by its influence, while the terrified physician stood by her side anticipating her speedy dissolution, perspiration began to set in, and witnessing this sign of returning power -- though ignorant of its cause -- he declared, with great relief to his mind, that she would yet survive.
Although neither herself nor the parties in the house were at that time disposed to attribute the cure to the agency of spirits -- by reason of want of information on the subject -- yet in after years she was told, through the organism of a medium, William Rice, whom she had never before seen, and who was a perfect stranger to the facts in the case, that she had been restored through the efforts of Dr. Kittredge, an old physician of her native town, who had been several years in the spirit world.
Nature rallied, and she rapidly recovered. When she regained full consciousness, she remembered that she seemed to have been in some beautiful place, she thought was heaven. Here she met the mother who left her in earlier years, and when she wept and begged to be allowed to stay with her, her parent gently but firmly told her that she must return to earth life -- that she had yet a mission to perform -- and her poor tempest-tossed bark was again obliged to put to sea from out the haven of peace where it hoped to rest; but blessed were the assurances she received, that in due time she should again and finally cast anchor amid the golden sand that sparkles in the river of Paradise.
Besides the channeled cure, what interests me about this material is that Mrs. Conant's subjective experience of heaven dovetails neatly with many modern accounts. She described it as a beautiful place where she was reunited with a deceased relative; she reported begging to stay, but being ordered to return because she had further work to do on Earth; and she remembered the assurance that she would return when her work was done. All of this is familiar to anyone who has read contemporary accounts of NDEs. It is sometimes argued that the similarities of modern accounts are attributable to the popularization of NDEs in movies and books. But this account, published 102 years before NDEs entered popular consciousness via Life After Life, contains many of the same elements.
Here is the other 19th century NDE mentioned in Guided By Spirit:
John Brown, the "medium of the Rockies", born in 1817, seemed to have one (sometime around 1850 perhaps), although without a vision of "the other side." They had not thought him to be "unusually ill," but then he had an out-of-body experience, looking down on his own body. He heard the doctor say, "He's dead." However, he revived. [p. 219]
On Google Books I found the relevant title, Mediumistic Experiences of John Brown, the Medium of the Rockies, written by Brown himself and published in 1897. Brown devotes a brief chapter to his NDE (p. 87-91), and it is reproduced in its entirety below:
Chapter VI, "John Brown Leaves The Body"
One bright Sunday morning a few years ago, I was not feeling very well, though not unusually ill. I took a bath and went up stairs to change my wearing apparel. I felt as if I was surrounded by a great many people who seemed to say: "John, wait a little while, lay down and take a rest." I did so; in a few moments Mrs. Brown entered with a comb and brush; as she entered the room there seemed to be two persons, Mrs. B. being one, the other resembling her in all respects; They [sic] moved side by side; as they approached the bed I drew the quilt over my head, feeling at the same time that I was in the hands of those not made of clay, in the hands of those I could not resist.
Mrs. Brown, seeing something strange in my appearance, asked me what was the matter; I made no reply, but tried to hide from her. She then went down stairs and requested my son-in-law, Mr. S.P. Waite, to "run up stairs and see what ailed Mr. Brown." Mr. Waite was at my door in a moment and asked if I wanted a doctor? I could not speak, yet I knew all. It then became dark, my eyes could no longer see. In a few minutes my room was filled with friends, among them was W.A. Conn, J.W. Waters, Dr. Peacock, Dr. Hickey, Dr. Oliver, and Dr. Herrold. By this time my limbs were useless, I could not move them; my breath had almost stopped, but I heard and knew all that was said and done. Before my arms had lost their power I shook hands with all and tried to bid them goodbye -- but all was darkness and I could not speak. I could inhale but little air, and that became less every moment, and I knew that I was dying, knew that in a few moments dissolution would take place, and I would no longer be an occupant of this, my earthly body.
Here, my reader, is where I lack the power -- the gift to convey to you the correct idea of this wonderful change of being "born again." It seemed as though a demand was made to settle all that was earthly, and give up all of me that was not spirit. To separate from this house of mine, that I had lived in and carried with me so long, was a thought that impressed me with sorrow. Yet, in all that was transpiring around me, I had no will, no desire, no control; all was outside and beyond; and, I alone seemed to be the entire subject of its lawful working.
In a few moments, my head fell to one side, my heart having ceased to vibrate; then the whole involuntary machinery made one last effort for breath, but in vain. In a moment my entire nervous system gave one shake and all was still; all was quiet. I heard the doctors say, "that is the last; he will not move again; he is dead." Yes, I heard all, but I did not see with my eyes.
At this time it seemed to me, that I was moving slowly through a warm atmosphere; and in the distance I began to perceive a lighter or whiter spot in the darkness. As this light gradually increased in size, it came nearer to me, till finally it filled the room, and all outside. It was not like the light of our sun -- it was more white, more still. It appeared to carry with it a life principle.
At this moment I found myself lying horizontally above my body and about 2 feet from it. With no effort on my part I moved off from over my body and stood upon my feet, about 5 feet from it. I knew that I had left my body. I could see it on the bed, and I saw Mr. Woodward, a near neighbor of mine to-day, let go my head that he had been holding, and straighten my body on the bed. I stood right there. I heard all that was said. I heard Dr. Dickey say to one he met he met on the stairs: "You are too late; he is dead." "Is that so?" replied the man. I could see and hear everything as well as I ever did in my life. I stood near the center of the room and did not move when others would pass where I stood. They seemed to go right through me and still not interfere with me in the least. They, to me, were like men and women of wood.
Oh, how I wished to take hold of them and give them a shake and make them know that I was not dead, but I could not. I viewed with care, the dress I had on. I was dressed, not naked. During the time I had stood on the floor, my [spirit] guide stood with me a little to my right. He was constantly writing in a small book or diary, and while I was examining the clothes I had one, he pointed to the corner of the room, saying: "That is the dress, John, you will put on, but not yet; you shall not die yet!" I looked in the quarter of the room and there stood a well formed body of a man. It did not resemble me; it was not so tall and a little darker than myself. I examined it minutely. It was well formed -- new, and still it might have been as old as time; but it had no marks of having been used. Its dress was rather after the Quaker style, with a star on each hip, with stripes of different width and color. It did not appear to me that his body was like the one I had just left; It [sic] was lighter and more spiritual, yet it was not condensed enough to admit of being seen by earthly eyes.
While standing there, I thought of all my business affairs, and was glad that two days before, I had arranged all matters and owed no man a cent. I thought of what I was told when a boy, that at death we went and kept going -- that we did not stop within the bounds of time and space. But, I saw no place to go to, and had made up my mind to stay with my family till something occurred to call me away; when all at once I was raised by a power, unseen by me, and moved directly over my body. The neighbors and friends had all left except two of the doctors, who were consulting in an adjoining room, as to what they should name the disease of which I had died. Up to this time, I had been conscious of all that had been said and done. I then lowered down and seemed to soak back into the body which all had pronounced dead.
Then, for the first time, I went into a sleep, which was of short duration, for, in a minute or two, something caused a rush of air and froth to emanate from my breast. My eyes could see, and I was alive in the same body I now inhabit. As soon as life was visible the doctors were recalled, but said they could do nothing for me, as they knew not the cause of my illness and had never seen or heard of a case of the kind before. They instructed my family to let me remain just as I lay until next day, and let nature have its own way, which they did. Doctors Peacock and Dickey are my neighbors, both eminent physicians, and loved by all.
As you can see, this NDE also has features found in modern accounts, specifically: hovering in a horizontal position directly above one's physical body; awareness of a wonderful, bright light that is not like sunlight and seems to contain a "life principle"; the frustrating inability to communicate with people in the room; the clear observation of what those people are saying and doing (including visual perception, despite the prior loss of eyesight); one's spirit body being clothed, not naked; communication with a spirit entity; sinking back into the earthly body prior to resuscitation; and a period of blackout.
There is also an unusual and rather enigmatic element, the apparently unused spirit body standing in a corner of the room. Brown's perception of his wife's double near the start of his experience may indicate that he was seeing her astral body, though he himself does not make this claim.
I've read quite a few NDE's that were published before Raymond Moody wrote and published Life After Life. I've bought little paperback books at used bookstores about life after death that are a grab-bag of stories about life after death, reincarnation, mediums, spirit possession etc. all mixed together - and there will usually be a couple of stories in each book that would be labeled as obvious NDE's today. One of these books is "Glimpses of the Beyond", by Jean-Baptiste Delacour published in 1971. http://www.amazon.com/Glimpses-Beyond-Jean-Baptiste-Delacour/dp/B000BBQL6K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259358410&sr=8-1
Posted by: Art | November 27, 2009 at 02:47 PM
“that she had been restored through the efforts of Dr. Kittredge, an old physician of her native town, who had been several years in the spirit world”
The data just keeps on coming in that there is more to this world than meets the eye of materialism.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Another wonderful entry!
Now if only we could get some information on how to cultivate some sort of relationship with this other plane now, rather than passively read the accounts of others and wait impatiently with our doubts and uncertainties.
Posted by: Kevin | November 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
“Now if only we could get some information on how to cultivate some sort of relationship with this other plane now, rather than passively read the accounts of others and wait impatiently with our doubts and uncertainties.”
Maybe doubts and uncertainties are the very stuff of the development of the soul as an individual identity that can become a unique expression of that that is or that Isness that most call God. Most talk about the ego as some kind of fallen nature to overcome that has no purpose. Maybe egotism is a phase of development that creates through experiences and choices this individual identity that is utilized by Oneness as a unique expression of its qualities of love and divine intelligence.
If you were Oneness and wanted to create infinite unique expressions of your Oneness what process would you use to create those infinite unique expressions? Is egotism one phase of development of that soul?
Your may want to reread the recent post entitled the gift of doubt.
I remember reading in one of Brunton’s books that he believed that an enlightened Hindu that had removed all doubt about death being the end of our existence; Brunton believed they might be reincarnated in America in their next life to learn the many lessons they did not learn as an enlightened Hindu.
Maybe being enlightened and removing all doubts about death being the end as Michael stated causes one to check out so to speak in this world and not participate in the drama of the world. Maybe that drama teaches us more then we have given it credit for.
It appears to me most of us want paradise here and now without realizing it is our level of consciousness and awareness that creates our heaven not how much knowledge we have obtained such as creating a relationship with the other plane or world of existence.
That said if a medium was coming to town that could do direct voice mediumship or physical manifestations I suspect I would attend that séance.
Just some random thoughts not meant to be taken as truths.
Posted by: william | November 28, 2009 at 01:02 AM
When he first begins to feel peculiar, I noted that he thought he was surrounded by 'people' urging him to, in this case, rest.
I've come across this many times before, in fact I've just finished reading about French film director Philipe Lambro's experiences while gravely in hospital. He described a whole line of 'dead' relatives and friends urging him to give up the struggle and go with them, his father being the first to address him.
This is the dying experience. It will happen to all of us.
Posted by: s wood | November 28, 2009 at 05:46 AM
One wonders why there is not more of this from earlier times, the idea of the Greek or Roman underworld is not appealing.
Posted by: Alice | November 28, 2009 at 09:25 AM
“One wonders why there is not more of this from earlier times, the idea of the Greek or Roman underworld is not appealing.”
I suspect these NDE’s did occur in earlier times but were not documented. With books and now the Internet they are coming out of the woodwork so to speak.
Would you explain Alice what you mean by the idea of the Greek or Roman underworld is not appealing.
Posted by: william | November 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM
"Biography of Mrs. J. H. Conant, the World's Medium of the Nineteenth Century"
This book seems to be on archive.org
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Biography%20of%20Mrs.%20J.%20H.%20Conant%2C%20the%20World%27s%20Medium%20of%20the%20Nineteenth%20Century
It's also at google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=P4oDAAAAYAAJ&dq=Biography+of+Mrs.+J.+H.+Conant,+the+World's+Medium+of+the+Nineteenth+Century&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=kP3lparp62&sig=H9Y2hkPiO43IHEDxuQyVkTsQVxw&hl=en&ei=FB0SS-S3IYaMMtDEmDM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA
The first page at google says "image not available" but subsequent page images seem to be there. You can download a pdf file of the page images.
Posted by: | November 29, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Thanks, anonymous, for the links.
Regarding the Greco-Roman underworld ("Hades"): it was seen as a dark, misty place populated by wraiths. The spirits possessed memory and some self-awareness, but were incapable of taking any action. A better afterlife was reserved for a few heroes, who went to romp and feast in the Elysian Fields. For the average person, the afterlife was seen as an eternity of aimless wandering through a murky, gloomy netherworld.
I suspect that this idea arose because such a condition is indeed often encountered in an early stage of death, and a few spirits get stuck there for a long time. Most spirits, however, seem to pass through this twilight zone very quickly, and in some cases they are not even aware of it. Passage through the dark "tunnel" (in NDEs) may possibly represent passing through this zone, with the "tunnel" imagery intended to screen out awareness of the disturbing environment.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | November 29, 2009 at 11:17 AM
and of course if you were dead enough to make it to the latter stages of an NDE 2500 years ago well lets just say it became a DE.
Posted by: Kris | November 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM
One early account of an NDE is from Plato- the story of ur (or er). This account has many elements that would be in alignment with what is currently considered 'standard fair'.
Posted by: sonic | November 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM
True, although I'm not convinced the story of Er is meant to be taken literally. Still, it may have been inspired by some actual incident that Plato had heard about.
A similar but much more lively debate rages over the story of Atlantis, also found in Plato.
Carol Zaleski's "Otherworld Journeys" traces NDE accounts back to medieval times. You can read some of these accounts here:
http://www.near-death.com/medieval.html
Posted by: Michael Prescott | November 29, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Hi MP,
Thanks for these, always enjoy reading these early accounts to look for the commonalities. As you know, I wrote an article on this very subject for Darklore #3, and included in it the 'dream' that Mrs Piper had while in hospital which again shares many commonalities with NDEs:
http://www.dailygrail.com/essays/death-before-life-after-life
BTW, I'm currently reading Archie Roy's "The Eager Dead", and noted an interesting vision experienced at the death-bed of former British Prime Minister Alfred Balfour:
http://www.dailygrail.com/essays/death-before-life-after-life
Sorry for the multiple links, don't mean to spam your comments! Just fascinating material that I enjoy discussing.
Posted by: Greg Taylor | November 30, 2009 at 02:12 AM
Er, sorry - that second link should've been:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Greg/2009/11/Mighty-Rushing-Wind
Posted by: Greg Taylor | November 30, 2009 at 02:15 AM
"I suspect these NDE’s did occur in earlier times but were not documented." - william
--------------------------------------------
Very few people were literate until just recently. So I suspect what happened is that those that had NDE's, death bed visions, and mystical experiences told their stories sitting around campfires and whatnot and the few who were literate heard those stories and then embellished them and added their own interpretation to what the stories meant. Perhaps it is just human nature that when we hear of unconditional love and forgiveness that we just can't believe it. We have to add in justice, retribution, vengeance, and punishment in order to make the story fit more with our own belief system and culture. We have to make God in our own image. We believe God, the Creator of the Universe, is just as stupid as we are. That it would be impossible for Him or Her to create a Universe where the soul learns what it is supposed to learn, and where we can't really hurt ourselves because this Universe is "Maya", an Illusion, and where the soul's lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and it learns what it supposed to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live, or what we believe.
Posted by: Art | November 30, 2009 at 07:56 AM
“We believe God, the Creator of the Universe, is just as stupid as we are.”
As a famous person once stated stupid is as stupid does.
I think the term stupid is why so many or even most people will not admit to their ignorance. We would rather be called sinners than ignorant because often stupid is used as a synonym for ignorance. I also think that maybe the human ego really self confirms itself as a reality by being called a sinner.
But then without that ignorance that many call stupid there would be no us just Isness. We exist as perceived separate entities that most call souls or spirits due to our ignorance of our perfect reality. There may be a lot more to the Adam and Eve “myth” than meets the eye.
Posted by: william | November 30, 2009 at 05:45 PM
FCOL! Plato wrote the Socratic dialogs almost 2500 years ago, and he says that Socrates had a long talk with a fellow Athenian soldier who had an NDE after being severely wounded. And what he saw on the Other Side was in intense color, with sound! Plato has been translated into Arabic and every Western language looong ago, FCOL!
Posted by: brian white | December 01, 2009 at 10:31 PM
been , I find your comment on Islam deeply offensive and don't think it has a place on a blog such as this.
Posted by: Pearl | December 02, 2009 at 06:54 AM
I agree with Pearl, and I will delete the comment by "been."
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 02, 2009 at 11:02 AM
The first person I resuscitated from heart attack told me about how she had seen me working from above. She relayed a number of details about what went on (a nurse and doctor showed up during the CPR, she knew what they said and so on…). She had seen a ‘light’ of some sort, but had decided to return to her body. One funny thing was she somehow knew that I was a bit timid in my efforts at first (it was my first time doing this in real life and I needed to push down on this woman’s chest and… it was strange for me.)
Anyway, after she talked for a bit about what she had experienced I asked the doctor what he thought about what she was saying.
“She’s very confused,” was his reply.
The nurse hadn’t heard anything.
This is why I think NDE’s may have been common for along time before they were well reported.
PS- I think Er is based on an actual incident- I'm not sure the reporting is meant to be exact--
Posted by: sonic | December 02, 2009 at 12:34 PM
I agree with sonic. When I woke up in the hospital after my car accident and tried to tell my doctor about what I had experienced (my NDE), he looked uncomfortable and changed the subject. People were very dismissive, so I learned not to talk about it. I still don't.
Posted by: Sandy | December 02, 2009 at 12:39 PM
what did Been say?
Posted by: Kris | December 02, 2009 at 08:54 PM
"what did Been say?"
he was not too keen on the religion of Islam.
he appeared to miss the point of the teachings of jesus.
but then the teachings of jesus were and are profound and easier to talk about then to live in our everyday lives.
ie the love your enemies thing.
Posted by: william | December 03, 2009 at 12:46 AM
I think the position of the medical profession by and large is still that these 'things'(like Sonic's anecdote of an OBE) happen but they don't really happen because they can't happen because science says they can't happen.
That's why Dr Kevin Nelson(a neurologist from Kentucky) is persisting with his theory that REM is responsible for the near death experience. You have to ignore most of the known facts in the literature but hey, when one is trying to help science get rid of the pesky NDE, little things like that don't matter.
Laura Geraghty, a school bus driver from Boston Massachusetts had a heart attack and floated out of her body etc. She was interviewed by CNN and was certain of what had occured to her. Certain that she had 'seen herself.'
Dr Nelson was then interviewed on behalf of common sense and relayed his theory. And I'll bet that more people believed him than believed in the word of Laura and of course that's understandable. It happens... but it doesn't really happen because it can't happen.
Posted by: s wood | December 03, 2009 at 04:53 AM
I 'defy' anyone(except Keith) to read thoroughly the experience of Stefan Von Jankovitch when he was watching his own resuscitation at the roadside after his near fatal car accident... and then propose REM or the mind model as an explanation for the fascinating information he was able to gather.
There are only two possibilties, in my humble opinion.
1. He made it all up
2. He really was watching from above.
link...(just type the following, most of you will be familiar with the case) Do any near death experiences provide evidence for survival of the human personality after death, Cook, Greyson and Stevenson case 12
His life was dedicated to all matters spiritual after the experience(1964) and he only recently died in 2006 (aged 86) so that is rather a long time to kid oneself.
Posted by: s wood | December 03, 2009 at 05:39 AM
The *link* that S Wood above refers to posting is here: (not sure if one was posted - or just stripped out in the comments)
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_3_cook.pdf
(it's a PDF file and as above, the case is #12 within the document)
Posted by: felipe | December 03, 2009 at 06:29 AM
Thanks felipe. I'm not exactly a magician on the old type-pad, and believe it or not, I'm not sure how to post links correctly, so instead of confusing everybody, I tend not to bother.
Hope it doesn't annoy anyone too much.
I find I can get to where I want to go in cyber space with just typing in the sentence(as I posted)above.
Posted by: s wood | December 03, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Gee I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be too fond of Islam now days. I for one like planes slamming against buildings and suicide bombers....
Thanks for the link Felipe.
And I am positive Keith could cook up a how it could have been explanation.
Posted by: Kris | December 03, 2009 at 09:04 AM
Although for the life of me I am trying to figure out what Islam had to do with this blog.
Oh well but seriously can't people see why many many people have a problem with Islam and the only people to blame for that are Muslims.
Just me two cents now, I was just curious.
Posted by: Kris | December 03, 2009 at 09:11 AM
"Dr Nelson was then interviewed on behalf of common sense and relayed his theory. And I'll bet that more people believed him than believed in the word of Laura"
Maybe. Maybe not. Scientific materialism enjoys enormous prestige among people who style themselves as deep thinkers and policy makers, but I think its prestige among regular folks has been eroded somewhat. Note the disconnect between the popular reaction to Climategate and the response of governments and media. At a popular level, the scandal has badly damaged the credibility of the AGW movement (to the point where TV comics are now ridiculing climate scientists), but at the level of politics and media, things are proceeding as if nothing has changed.
Similarly, Dr. Nelson's approach may be persuasive to the reporters covering the case and to Dr. Nelson's academic colleagues, but less persuasive to average TV viewers, who do not view life after death as an impossibility and may even have had some paranormal experiences of their own.
Increasingly, politicians, academics, media people, and other would-be opinion shapers are talking only to themselves, while the general public tunes them out.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 03, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I remember a recent CNN article about NDEs featured Nelson's theory (which has interestingly been around for about three years now) and another doctor interviewed said something along the lines he felt that NDEs were real and naturalistic explanations was "agnostic hogwash". Of course it's just his opinion, but it's really hard to know what the mainstream thinks about things like NDEs. I think it might be possible people are too busy enjoying life to concern themselves too much about things like this, which maybe a good thing.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | December 03, 2009 at 12:43 PM
If a NDE were just this great experience of bliss that ended when you came back and didn’t really affect you life once it was over, then I could understand the materialist explanation of it being a product of brain chemistry or something like that. But the experience isn’t over when you come back. In many ways it is just getting started at that point. It isn’t all bliss and love and “isn’t the universe awesome?” kind of stuff. There are some pretty significant challenges to be dealt with along the way.
I’m not the same person I used to be. I’m still “me” in the sense that there is continuity of experience. But in many ways I’m not “her”, the girl who died in a head-on collision. This is a common experience among NDErs. I think the cumulative body of evidence shows something important happened to us.
Posted by: Sandy | December 03, 2009 at 01:02 PM
Sandy, unfortunately the skeptics say drastic life changes as a result of NDEs isn't good evidence for NDEs being real. Putting themselves in their shoes, I can see where they're coming from.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | December 03, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Sorry, I meant to say "Putting myself".
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | December 03, 2009 at 01:07 PM
"I think it might be possible people are too busy enjoying life to concern themselves too much about things like this, which maybe a good thing."
To some extent this must be true, but I also think there's a lot of denial about death. This week's TV Guide includes an interview with Ray Romano, who is starring in a new cable series called "Men of a Certain Age." The show deals with men having a midlife crisis. From the article:
=====
Asked if he ever thinks about his mortality, Romano says, "I'm 51 ... So this show is gonna be over and I'm gonna be 56, and then I'm gonna be 60 -- how am I not gonna be scared of death? And I decided you just have to ignore death until it happens. You *want* to be blindsided by death."
"I don't ignore it," [his costar Andre] Braugher says. "I just try to prepare for it."
"No!" Romano shouts. "*Ignore it*."
Braugher says he just finished reading a book he bought for his wife called *How We Die.* "So I know what happens," he says, "how you feel when you die."
"Well, don't tell Ray," [costar Scott] Bakula says, "'cause that's gonna blow his plan."
=====
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 03, 2009 at 01:19 PM
“Oh well but seriously can't people see why many many people have a problem with Islam and the only people to blame for that are Muslims.”
Blaming almost always if not always moves one away from seeking understanding. Victim hood is also a move away from understanding.
When my religion becomes thee religion problems arise. The history of Christianity and Islam is filled with self-righteous horrible actions against humanity in the name of God.
I have noticed in my life that looking into a mirror whether it is a nation or individual can be an awaking and not a pleasant awaking.
“the only people to blame for that are Muslims.”
That is a very convenient statement that suggests in life we often resort to it is them not us. All is connected nothing happens in isolation. The ripple effect is a condition of the relative phenomenal world.
When I was a consultant we had something we called the organizational salute and it basically was cross your arms and point in both directions and say it is them not us. Most of my consulting revealed to me that most mangers wanted to fix their employees and did not have a clue that as manager or CEO they were the biggest cause of the problems that existed within their organizations.
Deming tried by failed to much of what he called this profound knowledge to American managers with little success. The end result the taxpayers now are bailing out two of the big three and then we have banks and Wall Street, which is another story there to be told.
Posted by: william | December 03, 2009 at 02:18 PM
William
Only Muslims are to blame for Islamic Terrorism. No one forced them strap bombs on themselves, bomb cities, murder non Muslims, fly planes into building. I do not support attacking Muslims at will but seriously if they want people to respect them they need to become respectable.
Posted by: Kris | December 03, 2009 at 02:51 PM
Michael, on the flip side there are those people in the world who are on the other side of the spectrum and are constantly worried about death even though they may not be seriously ill or even that advanced in age. I've heard of cases that are so extreme people have essentially locked themselves in their homes. Death is constantly on their minds even as they try to go on with their lives. Admittedly, these people are probably less common then people who deny or accept death.
Which brings us to the question, how do we accept death regardless of our views on the afterlife but at the same time without fearing it to the point we can't function? It seems like a balance.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | December 03, 2009 at 03:36 PM
I deleted the comment by "been" because
a) the comment was totally off-topic,
b) the comment was bigoted and nasty, and
c) I did not want the thread hijacked.
I also banned "been," making him a "has-been."
The topic of this post and the accompanying thread is NDEs. Please stick to the subject.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 03, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Sandy, unfortunately the skeptics say drastic life changes as a result of NDEs isn't good evidence for NDEs being real.
Aftrbrnr, the skeptics don’t seem to be interested in actually looking at the evidence that has been collected over the years. The link I put into my last post connects to a talk by Dr Bruce Greyson that goes over quite a bit of history of NDE research and covers many of the things that skeptics just ignore. It is well worth watching.
BTW, I found it interesting that Dr Greyson mentions a geology professor from Zurich who collected 30 accounts of NDEs and had them published in the yearbook of the Swiss Alpine Club in 1892. I wonder if these accounts are online somewhere. Has anyone heard of these before?
Posted by: Sandy | December 03, 2009 at 05:05 PM
Hey Sandy, just wondering. . .
As someone that has never had an NDE (and don't plan on having one unless the circumstances force me into the situation), why do you feel your NDE was real and gave you closure? I'm not being skeptical, I'm just curious because this is a position the vast majority of NDE experiencers take. I suppose this maybe a question that will be hard to put in words for you.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | December 03, 2009 at 05:17 PM
"I wonder if these accounts are online somewhere."
The researcher was Albert Heim, a.k.a. Albert von St. Gallen Heim. His report was "Notizen uber den Tod durch Absturz" or "Remarks on Fatakl Falls," 1892. It was translated into English in 1972. As far as I know, the text is not online.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 03, 2009 at 05:39 PM
Closure??? That isn’t a word that comes to mind when I think of my NDEs (I had one as a small child as well as an adult experience). I do think I’ll survive death. I don’t think that my sense of that experience is going to convince anyone else of the “realness” of NDEs, and maybe it shouldn’t. As a scientist I think that it is the cumulative body of evidence that is important, not the individual stories. That being said, my experience is personally very important to me. And yes, it seemed very real. More real that this life seems to be.
Posted by: Sandy | December 03, 2009 at 05:42 PM
Okay I will be nice again Michael.
Posted by: Kris | December 03, 2009 at 05:49 PM
The researcher was Albert Heim, a.k.a. Albert von St. Gallen Heim. His report was "Notizen uber den Tod durch Absturz" or "Remarks on Fatakl Falls," 1892. It was translated into English in 1972. As far as I know, the text is not online.
Thanks, Michael.
Posted by: Sandy | December 03, 2009 at 05:54 PM
"Remarks on Fatakl Falls"
Oops. "Fatakl" should read "Fatal."
But you already knew that.
Heim's study began with alpine climbers but grew to include various other cases in which a person believed he was facing imminent death.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 03, 2009 at 07:43 PM
Michael-ref your comments on Dr Nelson,
My gripe with Dr Nelson is that he's obviously a smart guy. You have to be smart to be a doctor, let alone to specialize in neurology. So he should know that dreaming while awake is not possible when the systems are down, ie no blood flow to the brain(or insufficient blood flow)(If there is sufficient blood flow to the brain then why bother trying to resusitate, surely there's no need to)
Therefore his theory is undermined before we even get to the mechanics of it, which I might add are far fetched to say the least. So why is he persisting ? Some of this stuff sticks and discredits the experiences of people like Sandy. It certainly does over here. Olaf Blanke's OBE experiment for instance, is gaining momentum even though it's completely irrelevant(though it is interesting)
I would just like to hear, just once from Dr Nelson, that hey, you know it's possible that there is a transcendental explanation. Instead
I suspect he has completely ruled it out.
"It can't be THAT"
Posted by: s wood | December 04, 2009 at 01:55 AM
I 'defy' anyone (except Keith) to read thoroughly the experience of Stefan Von Jankovitch when he was watching his own resuscitation at the roadside after his near fatal car accident... and then propose REM or the mind model as an explanation for the fascinating information he was able to gather.
I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I see little point in offering explanations of alleged veridical paranormal perceptions during OBEs/NDEs here. Any explanation I might offer would be dismissed as soon as it is offered, so why put in the work? Indeed, your comment already dismisses the possibility of a credible normal explanation before any explanations have even been offered! So offering one would be as futile as digging a hole only in order to fill it back up. I'm not even sure providing a normal explanation would be necessary given what I say about UFOs below.
(And I don't put much stock in Kevin Nelson's recent REM-intrusion theory of NDEs, though I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that REM-intrusion might have something to do with NDEs without clear evidence that it does not. An example of such evidence would be, for example, the sort of evidence that falsified Carl Sagan's "birth model" of NDEs: that those born by Cesarean section were equally likely to have NDEs. That settles that issue in the negative decisively, IMO. I know that many here believe that NDEs occur during brain inactivity, but that is a merely a claim, a weak inference at best--not an established fact.)
The reason I suggested that some of you take the time to at least give a preliminary look at the UFO evidence (say, by doing something as "demanding" as watching "I Know What I Saw") was to make a point about how you assess the NDE evidence.
The point of the exercise was not to learn about UFOs, but to learn about how you assess evidence. And when it comes to assessing evidence, I think many here invoke an inconsistent double standard in accepting NDE testimony while rejecting UFO testimony.
In essence, some here are eager to take the position that something leaves the body in NDEs because otherwise, "How do you explain that!? At the same time, they are reluctant to take the position that extraterrestrial spacecraft are visiting Earth despite "How do you explain that!? This suggests that such beliefs are not primarily based on evidential considerations, but rather on prior personal inclinations.
Your failure to embrace the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis implies that no counterexplanation is really necessary for the Cash-Landrum radiation burns, or for the Belgian Air Force pursuit of an ostensible aerial object they could never catch up with but which was detected on radar. (And I think that's right; ignorance of an explanation is not a positive reason to affirm any particular imaginable explanation. "You can't explain it, therefore extraterrestrials are visiting us" is an argument from ignorance.)
However, my point--which seems to have been lost on many here--was this: It seems to me that if no counterexplanation is needed for "inexplicable" UFO cases, none is needed for "inexplicable" NDE cases, either. If it is reasonable to be skeptical of extraterrestrial visitation in spite of such prima facie evidence for it, then it is reasonable to be skeptical of something leaving the body in NDEs in spite of prima facie evidence for that, too.
I don't expect you to agree, but at least I can offer a rationale for why one should be skeptical of both (or else believe in both.) I've never seen a decent rationale for why one should believe in interacting spirits but disbelieve in visiting extraterrestrials (or vice versa) when there is so-called "inexplicable evidence" for both.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | December 04, 2009 at 01:31 PM
I swear I am about to write Winston Wu and have him add this to his long list of skeptical fallacies.
You cannot research the paranormal unless you also research alien abductions.
I would recommend we call this new fallacy The Augustine.
Christ Myth, Memes, The Universe popped out of nothing, hallucinations which are identical the actual events going on around them and now the alien objection.
I do not see the 21st century being kind to materialists.
Posted by: Kris | December 04, 2009 at 02:38 PM
I suspect this has been explained to you know and I suspect it will be again and again.
The issues in of itself isn't if the brain completely has no activity but does it have enough activity to do what NDErs do. The answer is a firm no.
Let me give you an analogy . Lets say we had a flashlight with batteries in it that were 99% dead. Barely alive. I think you would find it to be a remarkable thing then if that flash flight shined brighter then normal. If not, why not?
I think you know enough about NDEs to see the parallels.
Posted by: Kris | December 04, 2009 at 02:45 PM
Say his name and he shall appear. In b4 600 comment shitstorm. ;)
Anyway, one can have no opinion on a subject. One can say "I don't know because I don't know" and be done with it. What's so wrong with that? I wouldn't demand an opinion from someone on the viablity of reopening Cornish tin mines, or the quality of Tonga's national rugby team, if it doesn't interest you and you've never bothered to research the subject, how could you have an opinion?
My opinion on UFOs is that they exist (that much is obvious) but I haven't done enough resarch to have an opinion on what they ARE, where they come from, if they're here for a reason, etc etc etc. I don't know if anything leaves the body during an NDE or if it's all in the head. Some evidence suggests transcendence, some evidence suggests brainspaz. If neurologists can't agree on what's going on, who am I to assert anything?
So yeah, up agnosticism. I'm staying on my fence. It's safer. ;)
Posted by: Breanainn | December 04, 2009 at 03:01 PM
I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek but I see little point in offering explanations....
Keith,
Von Jankovitch either made it up for some reason known to himself, or he really was watching from above the scene of the crash. The information he gained was far too detailed to be garnered by a critically injured victim of a head on car smash. The information gathered included 'private thoughts' from observers who were deeply affected by the distressing scene.
Jankovitch's 'life change' lasted until his death, forty two years later.
Posted by: s wood | December 04, 2009 at 04:55 PM
I swear I am about to write Winston Wu and have him add this to his long list of skeptical fallacies.
Make sure that he quotes my actual point, word for word. It's easy to come up with a fallacy and then attribute it to someone with the audacity to conclude differently than you do.
You cannot research the paranormal unless you also research alien abductions.
I never said that. Indeed, my earlier comment should make it absolutely clear why I think that it would be an instructive exercise to look at some other controversial field, that offers similar kinds of evidence, and ask yourself why you reject that evidence as compelling, while finding the same kind of evidence compelling elsewhere.
But if you're not even willing to consider my suggestions, I can't compel you to actually try the exercise out and see if you learn anything from it.
I would recommend we call this new fallacy The Augustine.
I guess that's the price I pay for not hiding behind an anonymous first name.
Christ Myth
If a consensus of New Testament scholars conclude that there was a historical Jesus, I'm inclined to defer to their expertise.
Memes
A pregnant idea. Whether a reality or not I don't know. I suppose it depends on how loosely or stringently you define "meme."
The Universe popped out of nothing
If a consensus of cosmologists conclude that there was a Big Bang, I'm inclined to defer to their expertise.
Whether that was preceded by "nothing" is a separate question. To my knowledge none of the cosmological models suggest this. Some think that there was nothing before the Big Bang only in the same sense that there is nothing north of the North Pole. Just as there is no nothingness north of the North Pole, there needn't be nothingness before the Big Bang, either. And of course there are other theories involving metatime and so forth, all speculative (at least at this point). (Can ya smell the seething fundamaterialist certainty yet?!)
hallucinations which are identical the actual events going on around them
There are reports of experiences, and then there are experiences. All we have access to is the reports. Those reports may or may not be accurate. Not long ago Vitor was pointing this out here about reports of mediumistic magic.
now the alien objection
Not an objection, an opportunity to learn, if you want to learn.
I do not see the 21st century being kind to materialists.
Well get out your time machines ladies. I smells me a bet.
The issues in of itself isn't if the brain completely has no activity but does it have enough activity to do what NDErs do. The answer is a firm no.
Humor the "arrogant agnostic" position for a moment: How do you know?
I grant that brain activity a few minutes before the deepest hypothermia is not sufficient to generate experiences. But brain activity two hours before any drop in body temperature at all is more than sufficient to generate experiences. And here I'm talking about the most monitored NDE case to date. How confident should we be about NDE cases with much less stringent monitoring (if any monitoring at all)?
(I know, it doesn't matter. Since you already "know" that NDEs occur outside of the brain, they're just as likely to occur with no brain activity as with normal brain activity. Just tuck your conclusion among your premises, and you're all set.)
Lets say we had a flashlight with batteries in it that were 99% dead. Barely alive. I think you would find it to be a remarkable thing then if that flash flight shined brighter then normal.
And an impartial observer is supposed to take this as an accurate analogy, why exactly?
Anyway, one can have no opinion on a subject.
Indeed. But not according to someone like Kris. If you familiarize yourself with the NDE evidence and still come away unconvinced, you are somehow culpable for not affirming that something leaves the body. I can see no other justification for his militancy against skepticism about this possibility.
What I'd like to know is why NDE skeptics are culpable where UFO skeptics get a pass.
(Wait: I know--because one is totally ignorant of the UFO evidence and thus cannot have any thoughts about it at all--even when the evidence is directly mentioned here and so cannot be missed.)
I don't know if anything leaves the body during an NDE or if it's all in the head.
Wow! I feel so sorry for you. You must be subconsciously ensconced in some sort of self-destructive materialist paradigm not to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that something leaves the body during NDEs.
I'll pray for you :)
So yeah, up agnosticism.
Being unsure is acceptable, just like being sure that spirits exist is acceptable. And doubts are acceptable, so long as they are about one particular piece of evidence or another. But doubt about the reality of any spiritual realm at all--that's just plain wrong, man.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | December 04, 2009 at 05:02 PM
Keith
Sometimes I wish you could take some time out and try to imagine your scenarios, just try to imagine them.
Pam Reynolds. Unconscious. Pain Killer. Ear Plugs which everyone else insisted clicked a loud constant noise. Now this is not an exactly ideal conditions to perceive your environment and yet she does it remarkable well to the point that to explain away her accurate observations some unnamed skeptic had to create an explanation that revolved around her having a toothbrush fixation.
The point is that you cannot accept people can research one area without giving a tinkers damn about another area. So yes I think your contribution to Paranormal skepticism will be the aliens objection and the tooth fixation.
Christ Myth- Robert Price, Richard Carrier denizens of infidels.org
Memes- Infidels period. Preferred by Dawkins and Blackmore. What about the " atheism meme"?
The Universe popped out of nothing- Quentin Smith of infidels.org
Hallucinations which resemble the events going on around them. Keith Augustine. Odd hallucination indeed. Kinda like me hallucinating I am typing hallucinating. And yes this was investigated. By Michael Sabom in 1982. He confirmed the verifiable parts.
Yes I think the greatest minds of the 21st century will be swayed by these arguments.
Like I said before Keith I am willing to make you an offer. If you are rendered unconscious and can give a very accurate report of what happened around you I will give you are whatever charity you wish 500 dollars. Eyes closed though.
If you are rendered unconscious, ears plugged and eyes taped closed and can do the above I will give you are a charity 1000 dollars.
Seeing this is a simple thing why don't you collect my money.
When you have an actual complaint about my flash light analogy I will respond to it.
Posted by: Kris | December 04, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Actually, a slight addendum, one can have an opinion about anything, but it would probably be uninformed and likely to make you look ignorant. As it happens, I read up on the Belgian Triangle years ago when I couldn't think of any good explanation other than something weird was up in the sky that night, and it wasn't a weather balloon. Now I can't say if it was aliens, time travellers, or the Illuminati testing backengineered nazi tech from the 40s, but car headlights it certainly wasn't. That's my somewhat informed opinion on that particular case.
"Wow! I feel so sorry for you. You must be subconsciously ensconced in some sort of self-destructive materialist paradigm not to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that something leaves the body during NDEs.
I'll pray for you :)"
I know, it's a pain I have to live with on a daily basis. ;)
Posted by: Breanainn | December 04, 2009 at 06:11 PM
In essence, some here are eager to take the position that something leaves the body in NDEs because otherwise, "How do you explain that!? At the same time, they are reluctant to take the position that extraterrestrial spacecraft are visiting Earth despite "How do you explain that!? This suggests that such beliefs are not primarily based on evidential considerations, but rather on prior personal inclinations.
This is a good point, I's like to ask Keith if he would apply the same argument against materialists - i.e. people with prior personal inclinations to deny afterlife evidence due to a commitment to defend materialism.
In regards to "impartiality" and "prior personal inclinations", it's interesting that Internet Infidels is a "nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet."
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
If internet infidels is dedicated to defending the naturalistic worldview, we could to think it has as part of its mission the debunking of afterlife evidence, including NDEs, because as Keith has repeatly admitted, if survival is true, his naturalism is falsified.
The question would be if a member of an organization with that anti-survival mission is "impartial" and reliable to assess survival evidence.
Just imagine that I'm member of an organization dedicated to promote and defend nazism and anti-semitism. Am I a reliable and impartial source to judge the Jews?
If I'm a member of an organization dedicated to promote and defend comunism, am I an impartial person when evaluating the merits of capitalism?
Formalizing the argument:
1)The naturalistic worldview implies the nonexistence of survival.
2)Keith Augustine is committed to the defense of the naturalistic worldview.
3)Ergo, Keith Augustine is committed to the defense of the nonexistence of survival.
If the argument is valid, and the premises are true, then Keith Augustine is not impartial in regards to survival. And this fits Keith's own characterization of a person with "prior personal inclinations" (against survival)
Summarizing:
Naturalism implies the nonexistence of survival. Hence, defense of naturalism implies the attack and refutation of evidence supporting survival.
And Keith is committed to defense of naturalism, hence it follows that he's commited to attack evidence for survival.
Is Keith an impartial observer and reliable objective source to assess possible evidence for survival, including NDEs? Decide yourself.
P.S.
I don't want enter into a debate here, and less with Keith-- With all due respect, I'm of the opinion that a debate about survival is not possible nor constructive with him.
I'd only want to know whether, as a defender of philosophical naturalism, Keith considers himself an impartial, objective observer and evaluator of the afterlife evidence...
... without prior personal inclinations against survival.
I would thank Keith avoid to replying with a tu quoque (e.g. you survivalists are not impartial either)
Thanks.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | December 04, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Of course naturalism says zilch about life after death. As people keep trying to pound into Keith's head all that naturalism states is that things are explainable naturally so if life after death existed then therefore it would be a natural thing.
Now Augustinism denies the possibility of life after death but this is just his personal prejudice guide by such wisdom as ignoring testimonial evidence and his startling revelation that one needs to be become an expert of UFOs in order to have an opinion on the paranormal. It is also the same wisdom that found a truly new use for a toothbrush!
Posted by: Kris | December 04, 2009 at 08:45 PM
"In essence, some here are eager to take the position that something leaves the body in NDEs because otherwise, "How do you explain that!? At the same time, they are reluctant to take the position that extraterrestrial spacecraft are visiting Earth despite "How do you explain that!? This suggests that such beliefs are not primarily based on evidential considerations, but rather on prior personal inclinations[..]
"I don't expect you to agree, but at least I can offer a rationale for why one should be skeptical of both (or else believe in both.) I've never seen a decent rationale for why one should believe in interacting spirits but disbelieve in visiting extraterrestrials (or vice versa) when there is so-called "inexplicable evidence" for both."
Keith i think you have missed a really important distinction between the two cases, that there is a lot of evidence from other branches of the paranormal that points DIRECTLY to the fact that after death our spirit keep surviving, detaches from the human body and can sometimes communicate with the world.
Let's take mediumship, and especially Direct Voice, as example: when a voice is produced in a seance, this voice clearly states that is a spirit communicating with us, and is a spirit of someone we knew in the past and that now is dead. The same with Crisis Apparitions, where someone see and sometimes talk with the "ghost" of a just dead guy without he could know about the fact. In serious Instrumental Transcommunication (see Marcello Bacci), the voice that speaks from the radio or another device say us it is a voice of a spirit of a departed man or woman, and so on..
So you can see that if we believe that those other phenomena are true and communications are genuine, the logical thing to think is that at the moment of death our spirit detaches from the body and goes to a place that we can call the "Spirit World", and it is exactly what seems to happen in a NDE.
More than this, as stated by Michael in the next post, there are a lot of things in common between the description of the death process given by Spirits through a medium and the description given by NDErs.
In conclusion, we have a lot of corroborative evidence that what happens in a NDE is a spirit departing from a body, while we have not so much corroborative evidence (and not so good) that what we see in Ufo sightings is really an alien spacecraft (i can only think of alien abduction and maybe circle crops, but i'm not so expert in the field).
Posted by: Coffones | December 05, 2009 at 06:37 AM
I just wanted Keith to admit that he thinks Von Jankovitch made it up. That would be fair enough(it could be a third- super psi, I suppose,but that would have to include panoramic vision as well as reading minds- while clinically dead)
This is the place I was trying to get to. We have enough evidence to convict Von Jankovich of recklessly leaving his body while it was smashed up at the roadside. He has happily admitted his guilt and accepted the sentence(life after death) but Keith is trying to get him off.
Posted by: s wood | December 05, 2009 at 07:42 AM
Folks, please stop using italics in the comments. It's creating more problems than it's worth.
I suggest using quote marks around material you are quoting, rather than trying to italicize it.
Also, the use of triangular brackets confuses TypePad, which reads anything enclosed in such brackets as HTML code. (Square brackets are okay.)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 05, 2009 at 09:23 AM
ZC: "I's like to ask Keith if he would apply the same argument against materialists - i.e. people with prior personal inclinations to deny afterlife evidence due to a commitment to defend materialism."
Definitely. Anyone who scoffs at the very mention that there might be an afterlife is being unduly dismissive. We should all acknowledge the possibility that we might be wrong. Indeed, there would be no point for someone like me to look into it at all if I thought I already knew for sure that there was no afterlife. There's always a possibility that the evidence will shift. My position is simply that the *current* balance of probabilities makes an afterlife pretty unlikely. Replicable positive results from AWARE, though, or the opening of Ian Stevenson's combination lock, would flip the balance. That's why I am paying attention to such things.
ZC: "In regards to 'impartiality' and 'prior personal inclinations', it's interesting that Internet Infidels is a "nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet.'"
Yes, Internet Infidels has a position. Much like evolutionary biologists have a position on whether evolution has happened, or historians have a position on whether the Holocaust has happened.
Is having a position equivalent to being biased? If not, why do I keep seeing this canard parroted over and over again?
I wonder where from that quote you derive your conclusion that naturalism is defended for nonrational reasons. I mean, if naturalism is the best working hypothesis for explaining the natural world (an a posteriori reason), is that not a rational reason to argue for it? And if some evidence (from AWARE, say) is produced entailing that naturalism is no longer a working hypothesis, is that not a reason to stop defending it, and defend instead whatever working hypothesis would best explain that evidence, too?
Isn't this so obvious that I should not have to state it explicitly?
I mean, before quantum mechanics I could see that people would think that all physical events proceed deterministically. After quantum mechanics that is no longer tenable. But physicists didn't suffer paradigm paralysis and defend determinism to the death. They changed their "paradigm"--but only because the evidence warranted the change. And that's the issue: does the controversial evidence we currently have for survival warrant jettisoning an otherwise working hypothesis? I don't think so--at least not yet.
ZC: "The question would be if a member of an organization with that anti-survival mission is "impartial" and reliable to assess survival evidence."
By this reasoning you should be equally suspicious of the Division of Perceptual Studies or the Windbridge Institute. I mean, are the members of a pro-survival mission partial and thus unable to reliably assess survival evidence? The door swings both ways.
Indeed, eternal agnosticism or eternal ignorance would seem to be the only rational conclusion on any issue if this line of reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion.
But since this has already been pointed out here before, even by people other than me, why do you repeat this canard? Why should I have to respond to misdirection like this over and over again? Don't complain about others' fallacies when you make them yourself, even after they have been pointed out to you. (And no, that's no tu quoque, but simply calling out hypocrisy when I see it.)
ZC: "If I'm a member of an organization dedicated to promote and defend comunism, am I an impartial person when evaluating the merits of capitalism?"
It depends on your reasons for being a communist. If you are a communist only because your parents were communists, probably not. If you are a communist because you're an economist who has studied the real-world affects of different economic arrangements in different nations, and found this one to be the least injurious of the ones tried, then you could very well be impartial.
Why do you fail to grasp the distinction?
ZC: "I'd only want to know whether, as a defender of philosophical naturalism, Keith considers himself an impartial, objective observer and evaluator of the afterlife evidence..."
Is David Lund, as a philosophical defender of the survival hypothesis, an impartial, objective observer and evaluator of the afterlife evidence?
By the way, this is not a tu quoque--it's an example showing that your position that holding a position equals bias is BS. Lund could be objective, just as a nonbeliever in survival could be objective.
Or do we all have to be completely agnostic or as ignorant as possible about everything in order to be impartial or objective? How pathetic we would all be were that true.
Incidentally, ZC, I thought it pointless to say anything earlier since you had already vowed to stop discussing survival with me. (On what basis, I know not--I suspect that you simply got tired of arguing about survival at that point, which is reasonable enough, but hardly a basis for concluding that it would be futile to talk about survival with me evermore, particularly since your aim from the beginning was not to convince me, but to raise issues for others.)
But since you are addressing me by proxy now, I'll make my point.
I pointed out why my response to you before was not "tu quoque" and you never showed that I was wrong in my response. By then you had already put me on an imaginary ignore list.
That said, what had occurred to me back then was that the line of questioning that you threw at me in order to try to show some kind of inconsistency in my position could in fact be asked of you as well. And I suspect that had I asked you a similar question, you would have responded to me just as I responded to you. But if your response was an appropriate one, why wouldn't mine have been? (How is that tu quoque in any way? It's just part and parcel of Socratic dialogue as far as I can see.)
Trying to back me into some sort of conceptual corner, you had asked what I would make of neuroscientific evidence if survival were virtually proven by the results of the AWARE study or something like that. And I gave reasonable answers to those questions, ones that there was no reason for you to object to for either logical or emotional reasons. (My response didn't even require you to jettison any of your views on the paranormal, for example.) But for some reason you didn't like my response--maybe because your interrogation had failed to back me into a corner as you had hoped. (After all, my discussion with you on the point under discussion was initiated by *you* for some explicit purpose. I was not the one pushing a particular line of questioning then; you were.)
Now here's my point, since I held my tongue earlier: I could have asked you an identical hypothetical question. Namely, what would you make of the survival evidence were "the productive hypothesis" virtually proven by, say, the creation of an apparently sentient android based on technology derived from how neural networks are formed in real human brains? And your answer would've likely been mine: you would've gone back and scrutinized how the survival evidence could have been so far of the mark in light of such decisive evidence against survival. (Or would you say something ad hoc like souls can now enter android bodies, too?)
Kris: "As people keep trying to pound into Keith's head all that naturalism states is that things are explainable naturally so if life after death existed then therefore it would be a natural thing."
If Zeus were a natural being he would be explainable naturally. The point is that Zeus probably does not exist whether you conceive of him as a supernatural being or an exotic natural being. The same could be said of the afterlife. Will it ever sink in, Kris?
Kris: "Now Augustinism denies the possibility of life after death but this is just his personal prejudice..."
Wrong. Life after death remains speculative. So long as it is mere speculation, one can have rational reasons for thinking that it is unlikely (or likely). It is not a fact, and there is evidence suggesting that it does not occur, just as there is evidence suggesting that it does occur. The question is which evidence is more reliable. If a lobotomy of part of the brain can destroy the person Kris, it is reasonable to ask how the person Kris could survive a "full-brain lobotomy" like death.
wood: "I just wanted Keith to admit that he thinks Von Jankovitch made it up."
Just as soon as you "admit" that the former governor of Arizona made up his sighting of an enormous technological craft dissimilar to any man-made craft he'd ever seen (and he was a former air force pilot, if I recall correctly).
Posted by: Keith Augustine | December 05, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Keith,
The governer of Arizona didn't provide any evidence whatsoever as far as I know, that this craft flew over his house.
Von Jankovitch gained information 'about' the scene of his near fatal accident, which he couldn't have had any access to. That's one of the differences.
Posted by: s wood | December 05, 2009 at 12:13 PM
and Keith still fails to realize that just because he say naturalism and the afterlife are incompatible does not make it so.
I swear this man is more evangelical and bigoted then any member of focus on the family.
Of course the evidence for a specific Zeus is pretty slim and the afterlife is pretty solid so his response is a tremendous false analogy.
Posted by: Kris | December 05, 2009 at 12:25 PM
"My position is simply that the *current* balance of probabilities makes an afterlife pretty unlikely." - Keith Augustine
-------------------------------------------
There is a connection between NDE's and the holographic universe theory and quantum physics that no one has ever been able to adequately explain away to me. How is that people who have NDE's routinely describe them in terms that can only be called "holographic?" Saying things like "I felt an overwhelming feeling of oneness and connectedness," or "I could see in 360 degrees in one time," or "I literally felt like I was everywhere in the Universe at once," or "time and space didn't seem to exist," or "I had access to all information," or "information was downloaded in a bolus of information (all at once instead of in a stream)," or during the life review feeling like you literally became the other people you interacted with, hearing their thoughts, feeling their emotions so much so that you felt like you were them. In fact the Life Review is a holographic experience par excellance - seeing your whole life in 3 dimensions all at once. Also I've read some NDE's where they said they went into a hall of knowledge or a place of learning and it seemed the building itself was "made of information" which matches with the idea that it takes consciousness to collapse the quantum wave into a particle. Mark H in his NDE said he thought of a mountain and the mountain instantly appeared. A.J. Ayer said it was strange because "his thoughts became people."
I find it highly unlikely that it is mere conincidence that all these near death experiencers have read Michael Talbot's book or were formerly exposed to the idea of a holographic universe yet consistently, over and over again, people come back after their experiences and describe them in terms that match or parallel what Michael Talbot describes in his masterpiece, The Holographic Universe.
When someone can adequately explain that away to me I'll quit believing that NDE's are exactly what they purport to be, a visit to another dimension or "life after death." Until that time I will remain sincerely and completely devoted to the idea of near death experiences, death bed visions, and the holographic universe theory.
Posted by: Art | December 05, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Recently I read an online article in New Scientist magazine about how they were doing this experiment to study gravity waves but what they actually found was this blurriness or "fuzziness" in the Universe. The guy who ran the experiment, Hogan, said that he thought they had found evidence for the holographic nature of the Universe. He said that in a holographic projection there is always a certain degree of inherent blurriness.
Now why I found this interesting is because it is quite common for near death experiencers to come back after their experience and say that they had "more consciousness than normal" and that things seemed even more clear than normal. Another words, they went to a place where it was even "more real" than this physical universe. I've read some NDE's where they said that the other side will feel even more real to us than this side does.
I never understood how it could be even "more real" or "more clear" till I had read that article in New Scientist about how there is a certain level of blurriness in a hologram. Perhaps on the other side that blurriness doesn't exist because it is the place from which this side is projected from?
excerpt from Mr. W.s NDE:
"I became aware of my senses at that moment and how much more detailed everything seemed and how it all appeared more focused and more sharp. It was like I was seeing the world for the first time with my own true eyes. It was the equivalent of taking off a pair of foggy ski-goggles or glasses."
http://www.nderf.org/mr_w_nde.htm
Posted by: Art | December 05, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Oh Keith forgot to mention
lobotomy- ever heard of the transmission theory? That would answer the question nicely.
Now would you kindly answer how people in the Lorber study were conscious and had normal IQs, with no brains?
Posted by: Kris | December 05, 2009 at 01:40 PM
Art: See http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Holographic%20Analysis.pdf
wood: "The governer of Arizona didn't provide any evidence whatsoever as far as I know, that this craft flew over his house."
You said: "Von Jankovitch either made it up for some reason known to himself, or he really was watching from above the scene of the crash."
I'm curious as to what you think the other possibilities are for the former governor of Arizona--other than that he "made it up for some reason known to himself, or he really was watching" something unlike any known man-made aircraft fly over his house.
I ask because you seem to think that the only two possibilities are (a) the person lied or (b) something extraordinary happened; that this is reason to accept that something extraordinary happened in your NDE case; and that this is NOT reason to accept that something extraordinary happened in the UFO case.
wood: "Von Jankovitch gained information 'about' the scene of his near fatal accident, which he couldn't have had any access to. That's one of the differences."
Independent witnesses described seeing something similar, in the same area that night, as the governor. Does not the correspondence between what they described, independently, and what the governor described, provide some level of corroboration? If it was all made up, why the consistency of the descriptions?
If that's not sufficient reason to affirm that the governor saw exactly what he reported seeing, why are the details of the Von Jankovitch case sufficient reason to affirm that Von Jankovitch experienced exactly what he reported experiencing?
See, these questions have nothing to do with UFOs. That have to do with one's standards of evidence, and their consistent application. It's just easier to make the point when you use real-life examples.
Kris: "Keith still fails to realize that just because he say naturalism and the afterlife are incompatible does not make it so."
Why do you repeat this when I just got through saying that naturalism is compatible with an afterlife? If you define natural loosely enough, anything is compatible with naturalism--but then naturalism becomes a trivial hypothesis about what sorts of events occur.
Kris: "Of course the evidence for a specific Zeus is pretty slim and the afterlife is pretty solid so his response is a tremendous false analogy."
The analogy doesn't concern the evidence for Zeus. The point of making it was to show that "Zeus exists" is compatible with naturalism if you characterize Zeus a certain way (just as naturalism is compatible with an afterlife if you characterize the afterlife a certain way).
You seem to think that I affirm or deny an afterlife on the basis of whether an afterlife is compatible with naturalism. This is incorrect.
I (provisionally) deny an afterlife because it is unlikely given certain well-established background knowledge, and the "alternative evidence" contradicting that background knowledge does not overcome the strength of the background itself, so the balance of probabilities disfavors survival of death.
This is the same reason I don't believe in miracle stories or plesiosaur sightings, even though the latter is not even possibly incompatible with naturalism. That's why I use the UFO analogy, too: naturalism would not be falsified if extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, but that is not a reason to affirm that extraterrestrials *are* visiting Earth.
The issue is whether or not we have good reason to believe that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, whether or not naturalism is true. If they are, or are not, either way the answer makes no difference to naturalism. Still, there is insufficient evidence for affirming that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth.
The other issue is whether or not we have good reason to believe that there is an afterlife, regardless of whether naturalism is true. If there is an afterlife, then (non-vacuous) naturalism is simply false, and if there is no afterlife, naturalism may or may not be true (since there conceivably could be nonhuman spirits, as Chinese philosopher Fan Chen believed when he wrote his essay on the extinction of the soul, or as nonreductive physicalist theologians like Nancey Murphy believe today.) Still, there is insufficient evidence for an afterlife, even if naturalism is false for other reasons (because, say, nonhuman spirits exist).
I know that most of your paranormal in-group propaganda compels you to think that the belief "naturalism is probably true" comes first, as if I would go insane if that belief changed, but that is just a polemical caricature. I assure you that I have no plans to kill myself should naturalism be falsified (sorry to disappoint!) anymore than I would kill myself should I be wrong about health care reform. Getting one's metaphysics right is just not that important. The potential for being wrong comes with the territory of not being an omniscient god, and is nothing to be ashamed of if it happens. If I do happen to be wrong, it's not my fault that the evidence currently available for survival is less than compelling. I simply concluded what it was reasonable to conclude given the evidence available to me--just like for any other issue for which I have beliefs. So I don't know why you are so damn militant about this one particular belief, Kris.
And the fix is simple anyway: Simply provide conclusive evidence for an afterlife. Why is it wrong to ask for that before affirming the afterlife as a reality? If you want to believe on less evidence, more power to you. But that's no reason to chastise those who don't see eye to eye with you about that. Unfortunately, I have seen you make comments about many different skeptics, and they are invariably negative in every case. I have never heard you give a skeptic a thumbs up for any point he or she ever made. As far as who is being partial is concerned, actions like that speak louder than words.
I know you like to shift the burden of proof on to some other -ism to avoid doing the work yourself, like naturalism or materialism, but in truth the burden of proof has always been on "survivalism." Just as it has been on UFOlogy rather than on "terrestrialism," or on cryptozoology rather than mainstream zoology.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | December 05, 2009 at 06:40 PM
I, too, forgot to add:
hydrocephaly- ever heard of neuroplasticity? (A shown-to-occur phenomenon, I might add, unlike your purely hypothetical "transmission.")
Here's what one scholarly source says:
"It appears that there is considerable neural plasticity that occurs in some patients with congenital hydrocephalus and much of this functional reorganization may take place at subcortical and subtentorial levels."
Big surprise, though, right?--since we already know that plasticity happens (hence why rehabilitation is possible).
Kris: "Now would you kindly answer how people in the Lorber study were conscious and had normal IQs, with no brains?"
Sure. Less cortical tissue is not the same as no cortical tissue. In Lorber's cases we only have less cortical tissue, not none at all. And preserved IQ doesn't mean no cognitive deficits elsewhere for that lesser tissue.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | December 05, 2009 at 06:52 PM
Keith I think you and I have very different views on what is remarkable. I find brainless people with normal IQs to be remarkable and I find that it is remarkable that the unconscious and near dead can have super accurate memories of their environment. You find it to be remarkable that we don't devote more time to looking at alien abductions. Oh well
The Lorber study- http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm
People missing up to 90% of their brains had normal IQs and this doesn't even make you bat an eye. The fact they have consciousness with virtually no brain doesn't even for a second make ponder where consciousness is truly located?
But is is not true to state even with normal IQs the people in question were still impaired. The study does not mention then at all and read this part
" Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain."
Does this even make you blink?
Do you really think plasticity can explain this? Especially when this is a condition one is born with?
By any normal understand of medical science they simply did not have the parts of the brains period associated with any kind of functioning, much less normal. How can plasticity recover which was never there?
Keith naturalism is a vague view. It simple states things and events have natural explanations. That is it. You can state something is unusual under naturalism but the obvious flaw with that is that in order to know what is unusual and usual you have to know everything.
You are free to find the afterlife to be unusual. More and more I don't. I find man made global warming claims to be unusual, you support it ( I do feel vindicated in light of recent events). But then we are both drawing of different finite now aren't we.
I have read your explanations and tried to be as charitable with them as possible and they are absolutely unconvincing.
It took me awhile to find this letter from Farrell Tills Skeptical View and in many ways it seems perfect to understanding why no one finds your arguments on NDEs ( obviously this letter does not discuss NDES)
" Letter to Hatcher...
I read your articles in The Skeptical Review. I was raised a Christian and am now an unbeliever, and wanted to share with you what I believe to be the greatest problem with the Bible.
I used to be an attorney (I now work in high tech), and I once represented a young man who was accused of stealing a lot of money from his employer. There was a lot of accusatory evidence, and for what it's worth his wife and his attorney both believed him to be guilty. For every piece of incriminating evidence he had an answer. For example, he had forged someone's signature on a number of documents; he said that person had verbally authorized him to do so. (The person had since died and was not available to either corroborate or disprove my client's statements.) He claimed to have made a trip on company business but there was no record of the trip having actually been made; he claimed that company officials had instructed him to travel incognito because of the highly sensitive nature of ongoing negotiations. And on and on it went.
At some point, the problem with his case became no one piece of evidence, but the cumulative weight of everything. And at some point it really didn't matter that he had an answer for everything; people just stopped listening.
That's the problem I have with the Bible. It contains a whole lot of what on the surface appears to be contradictions, historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, absurdities and outrages. Inerrantists such as you have an answer for every blessed one of them, your current discussion with Farrell Till about the Book of Daniel being a case in point.
But the real problem with your case, as I see it, is not whether you can answer this skeptical argument or that one; it is that there is such a multitude of problems with the text that at some point it just doesn't matter any more. The cumulative weight of contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies and the like are just too much. I call this the "Everything Problem," and, brother, you've got it bad.
(Mel Dahl, 87 Hortonville Road, Swansea, MA 02777; e-mail, mel.dahl@mindspring.com) "
Keith the cumulative force of each unlikely argument you employ shows that you are almost certainly wrong and that another answered should be preferred.
Posted by: Kris | December 05, 2009 at 07:37 PM
lets me give an analogy and you can see why your plasticity argument simply doesn't cut it.
Lets say we had an unfortunate person who was born with virtually no legs ( and still has no legs) and he was running a normal pace on a mile track. Most people would find that to be amazing.
What would you think if someone said that is not amazing at all, muscles grow stronger the more and more you use them and he has grown a bit over the past few years. Both are true but woefully inadequate explanations for what just happened.
I do not doubt the brain, like any other part of the body can heal itself over time. But like any other part of the body it has rational limits. That is why the lorber study is so odd. It defies these rational limits and many of the people involved with them should never been conscious in the first place under current scientific views. Any remotely sane person is going to ask " just where is consciousness for these people"
Posted by: Kris | December 05, 2009 at 07:44 PM
Art see: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Holographic%20Analysis.pdf - Keith Augustine
--------------------------------------------
I clicked on and read (waded through) the whole article. The Stephen Braude article was written in 1981. In 1981 Mr. Braude didn't believe in the holographic nature of the Universe. I wonder if he still feels that way? Since that time there has been a plethora of articles and research that support the holographic nature of reality and point very strongly in that direction.
I could supply a number of links in reputable journals and magazines that would disagree with Mr. Braude's conclusions but I doubt anyone would read them. My most recent favorite article on the holographic nature of the Universe is the one in the January issue of New Scientist.
I'm afraid Mr. Stephen Braude is also woefully ignorant of what happens in or during a NDE. He has probably summarily dismissed them and feels no need to read any more than the few he has read. However, Mr. Braude is free to believe that the Universe is not holographic in nature because it is probably in his nature to be skeptical. That is okay. It probably doesn't matter what we believe. I believe it is in the nature of this physical universe for duality (and separation) to exist and it is probably that way for a reason.
In conclusion, I don't think Mr. Stephen Braude's article did a thing to change my mind.
Posted by: Art | December 05, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Keith,
Your analogy with UFO'S etc is not necessary to make a judgement on whether or not someone has had a true OBE during a NDE. They(alien craft)may or may not exist, although if you keep telling me that's hundreds of American citizens are sighting them, then that would indicate that there is something in it. Probably.
Keith- 'I'm curious as to what you think the other possibilties are for the former governer of Arizona'
There are obviously more than two possibilities, of course there are, but I haven't studied the case so I can't say what they might be. That's fair enough, isn't it ?
I have studied the Von Jankovitch NDE.
Keith- 'why are the details of the Von Jankovitch case sufficient reason to affirm that Von Jankovich experienced exactly what he reported experiencing'
Because he obtained information from the scene of his near fatal crash when his normal information gathering systems were not functioning. The first Doctor who attempted to revive him, gave up and pronounced Von Jankovitch dead. The second doctor who Von Jankovich saw arrive 'from above,' rammed a needle into his heart as a last deparate attempt to save him. The facts were later confirmed (or as I said he made it all up)
He also saw and 'read the minds' of a woman and her daughter who were observing the scene(the woman prayed and the daughter tried to run away)and later traced them, gaining confirmation that these things had in fact occured( or he made it all up)
Posted by: s wood | December 06, 2009 at 05:37 AM
The reason why I stated earlier that it (in this case and many others like it) either has to be...
1. He/they really did see his/their own resuscitation
2. He/they made it up
....is because I can't work out a way for the concept of the 'mind model' to accomplish this complex feat of information gathering. Maybe you can, but I can't think of anything else except super psi(I assume you wouldn't advocate that, though)
I don't and never have accepted the mind model as anywhere near a satisfactory explanation as to why comatose patients are convinced that they have seen themselves. Why is the mind modelling capability so selective, almost always creating the perfectly lifelike model of what is actually occuring around them, their own grisly operations. They are always totally convinced that they have actually witnessed their own surgery. Why ?
Why do they not create models of making love to the most beautiful woman/man in the world for instance...or climbing Mount Everest, and then truly believe that they actually 'have' when they wake up?
Can you explain why.. and also why the mind can even make models at all, when there is no brain activity or sufficient brain activity ?
Posted by: s wood | December 06, 2009 at 06:27 AM
I have observed this too S Wood
People having NDEs hallucinate with completely accuracy what is going on around them. Truly an odd form of hallucination. It is like saying I am hallucinating typing on my keyboard.....
Good luck with getting Keith to actually answer your question. He tends to avoid questions he doesn't consider to be user friendly.
Posted by: Kris | December 06, 2009 at 06:48 AM
Kris,
And it works best when one is having one's head sawn open. :)
Posted by: s wood | December 06, 2009 at 08:44 AM
"Good luck with getting Keith to actually answer your question. He tends to avoid questions he doesn't consider to be user friendly." - Kris
-------------------------------------------
In answer to my question about the connection between NDE's and the holographic universe I got a link to a 1981 article by Stephen Braude from Keith Augustine that basically made two points. Point #1 was basically that the Universe wasn't a hologram because we don't have an answer to where the hologram originates from. Point #2 was basically that consciousness is a product of the brain and a hologram couldn't produce consciousness. It made no sense to me. #1, just saying that the Universe isn't a hologram because we don't know where or how it originates doesn't negate all the research that seems to point in that direction. No, we don't have all the answers, but there are quite a bit of experiments that seem to point in that direction. #2, as far as where or how consciousness originates, the truth is that no one really knows and there are those of us that believe that consciousness is something entirely separate from the brain. I think we are labeled "dualists?" So, I found the Stephen Braude article pretty useless as a counterpoint in explaining away the connection between NDE's and the holographic universe. The question still remains, "why do people who have NDE's routinely describe them in ways that sound very holographic?" I find the connection between the two to be very evidential.
Posted by: Art | December 06, 2009 at 08:51 AM
I do wish Keith would take my challenge, I do have the money to pay out if he can do it. I for one think it is easy money seeing people who are unconscious according to Keith gain great powers of observation.
Oh neat article on just how much we don't know about consciousness.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/the-consciousness-conundrum/1
isn't an article from 1981 just a bit dated.....
Posted by: Kris | December 06, 2009 at 09:06 AM
I for one think Keith has solved the education problem in America without knowing it.
I am going to recommend the following based on studying Keith's theories.
a.) At a very young age children will be introduced to alien abductions so that they can learn critical thinking.
b.) Also they will all be rendered unconscious during the above lessons and truth be told during all lessons of the day. I think this approach has many clear benefits.
1.) As we learned from Keith unconscious people tend to have very active minds that are profoundly aware of their environment.
2.) Being unconscious they will not be behavior issues
3.) With any luck this would count toward their daily required sleep so when they get home they can do homework( however would such work be done as productive with a conscious mind?)
I am still not sure if we should plug their ears during this time period though. Keith insist ear plugs do not block sound but I am just not convinced. This is a maybe... I think thought we would have to close their eyes for safety reasons. I do not see any particular reason why this would prevent them from seeing what is going around them.
So I think in if we embraced the above ideas our educational crises would be solved.
Posted by: Kris | December 06, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Oh I have another idea for education reforms in poorer parts of the world. As we also learned from Keith it isn't a big deal at all for people to have normal IQs and be completely functional with virtually no brain so I have another idea.
The brain requires a lot of calories to keep running. Basically it is a calorie hog.
If we removed say 85% of the brains of infants when they were born they would not need nearly as many calories per day to survive. This might be the difference between starving and surviving in say Africa.
The now virtually brainless but not starving children can be sent to school where they will be promptly knocked unconscious ( thus again reducing the amount of calories needed per day) and introduced to Alien Abduction to increase their critical thinking skills.
In Western Countries I fear for now we must keep the brain at normal size but that is mainly cause we have an obesity epidemic and we need to burn all the bloody calories we can.
Posted by: Kris | December 06, 2009 at 09:43 AM
Kris, I guess you're not really buying into the whole "treat your opponents with respect" thing that I riffed on in my latest post.
How about this? You have a worldview that works for you. Keith has a worldview that works for him. Peace on earth, good will toward men.
Or, since I seem to be in a Biblical mood today, consider this advice from an itinerant rabbi:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48; NIV)
If someone disagrees with you, why not treat him with kindness and affection? You won't win over hearts and minds by being mean.
In Internet exchanges it is all too easy to forget that there is a real human being behind the pixels.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 06, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Michael
Normally I am a nice person but I lost a lot of respect for Keith for his sheer amount of data twisting, implying on other forums that we are close minded and for referring to you as a pundit.
He doesn't mind being nasty, and basically telling tens of millions that they are deluded and impugning the integrity of medical professionals.
So I think my nastiness is mild compared to his.
Posted by: Kris | December 06, 2009 at 01:17 PM
Kris, I wasn't trying to put you down -- just hoping to keep the exchanges on this blog as civil as possible.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 07, 2009 at 08:45 AM
I think I've bored Keith to death with my 'mind model' fixation. 'Who can I start banging on about 'mind models' to now.....where's the wife.
Posted by: s wood | December 07, 2009 at 09:03 AM
No problem Mike
I know I can be mean, I guess I went wrong in joining the military at 18 and getting a degree from a military college. It just doesn't make one as kindly as they should be.
Still Keith has a huge kick me sign on him cause he can be whinny and some of his ideas are seriously absurd.
Still his question about can your PERSONALITY survive death is a good question and more and more I think personality can no more survive death then your 3rd grade personality can survive becoming an adult. Still I think conscious survives and I do think old affections from the past survive. Right know this it was almost 20 years ago if I saw one person from the 7th grade I would hug her for so long, though my 7th personality is not extinct my consciousness still cares for her. And I do think aspects from extinct personalities do affect your present personality.
Posted by: Kris | December 07, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I hear what you're saying, Kris, but I have a somewhat different perspective. I don't want to harangue you on this thread, but if you'd like to discuss it, feel free to email me.
My email address can be found here (top of page):
http://www.michaelprescott.net/#C
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 07, 2009 at 11:32 AM
email on which subject, Keith or personality?
Posted by: Kris | December 07, 2009 at 02:51 PM
I just thought it might help to talk a little more about the best way of dealing with disagreements. But on second thought, it's probably unnecessary, since I've already imparted what little wisdom I have to offer.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 07, 2009 at 03:49 PM
well its your house and thus your rules so if you want me to be nice to the guy I will.
Posted by: Kris | December 07, 2009 at 05:00 PM
Kris the most sensible thing you can do is always just ignore Keith, Others here aren't getting so wound up about what he is saying cause the truth is we just don't have a solid answer in regards to Life after Death, In saying that though there is still many things Atheists like himself can not explain.
What has shaked my own Belief a little in Mediumship in recent days is when I was watching a re-run episode of Ghost Hunters and Grant and Jason were sitting with a Medium, They were using a Camera with UV and picked up some energy/heat or whatever coming from the Medium on it, when the Medium moved his hand whatever that was there went away.
Regardless of whatever happened there I still am Agnostic, But that is quite hard to just explain it all away as being nothing of significance.
Posted by: Andrew Davidson | December 07, 2009 at 09:11 PM
Andrew, I wouldn't give too much credit to anything shown on Ghost Hunters. The show has a bad reputation. I know they like to claim to be scientific, but they don't even have a good handle on what the instruments they use actually measure and what those measurements signify.
It is the silly stuff shown on TV that makes Randi's job so much easier. Please don't confuse realty TV shows with reality.
Posted by: Sandy | December 07, 2009 at 09:33 PM
The metaphorical use of the term likewise groups several related meanings:
1. The loyalty and feeling of inclusion in the social history or collective essence of an institution or group, such as in school spirit or esprit de corps.
2. A closely related meaning refers to the worldview of a person, place, or time, as in "The Declaration of Independence was written in the spirit of John Locke and his notions of liberty", or the term zeitgeist, meaning "spirit of the age".
3. As a synonym for "vivacity" as in "She performed the piece with spirit" or "She put up a spirited defense".
4. The underlying intention of a text as distinguished from its literal meaning, especially in law; see Letter and spirit of the law
5. As a term for alcoholic beverages — stemming from medieval superstitions that explained the effects of alcohol as demonic activity.
6. In mysticism: existence in unity with Godhead. Soul may also equate with spirit, but the soul involves certain individual human consciousness, while spirit comes from beyond that. Compare the psychological teaching of Al-Ghazali.
Posted by: viagra online | January 08, 2010 at 09:53 AM