General anesthesia and consciousness

[partinobodycular]

You did exactly what illinformed apriori sceptics always do.

1/ Not study anything. Not read a single book or substantive paper
2/ Respond only to the summary of a case, without studying the detail of it.
3/ Use a cookie cutter objection however irrelevant to the details of the specific case, presumably from a skeptic site.

Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing that Howard didn't have an NDE, I'm actually quite convinced that he did. What I'm arguing is that some of the details in his subsequent memories of that experience (Specifically the ones about the upper room) could be false memories innocently acquired during the initial interaction between Howard and Dr. Bellg. Details that Howard had no way of knowing, but that Dr. Bellg was fully aware of and could've inadvertently passed on to Howard during their initial interaction. We have no way of knowing, because we have no way of knowing what their initial interaction involved.

What studies of memory indicate is that Howard and Dr Bellg probably don't have an accurate recollection of that initial interaction either. Memories are very fickle things. The following video may be helpful in this regard:

The point of my argument is that some people regard Howard's case to be irrefutable proof of a veridical NDE, but there are other ways of accounting for the inexplicable details in Howard's version of events beyond simply chalking them up to the supernatural.

Howard's case, although interesting, is more likely a study in the prevalence of false memories and the inadvertent planting thereof. What we ended up with is a hybrid between the story that Howard was attempting to relate and how Dr. Bellg was erroneously interpreting it.

Combine the two together and you get a veridical NDE that never actually happened.

 

[Emmawowee]

Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing that Howard didn't have an NDE, I'm actually quite convinced that he did. What I'm arguing is that some of the details in his subsequent memories of that experience (Specifically the ones about the upper room) could be false memories innocently acquired during the initial interaction between Howard and Dr. Bellg. Details that Howard had no way of knowing, but that Dr. Bellg was fully aware of and could've inadvertently passed on to Howard during their initial interaction. We have no way of knowing, because we have no way of knowing what their initial interaction involved.

What studies of memory indicate is that Howard and Dr Bellg probably don't have an accurate recollection of that initial interaction either. Memories are very fickle things. The following video may be helpful in this regard:

The point of my argument is that some people regard Howard's case to be irrefutable proof of a veridical NDE, but there are other ways of accounting for the inexplicable details in Howard's version of events beyond simply chalking them up to the supernatural.

Howard's case, although interesting, is more likely a study in the prevalence of false memories and the inadvertent planting thereof. What we ended up with is a hybrid between the story that Howard was attempting to relate and how Dr. Bellg was erroneously interpreting it.

Combine the two together and you get a veridical NDE that never actually happened.

Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing that Howard didn't have an NDE, I'm actually quite convinced that he did. What I'm arguing is that some of the details in his subsequent memories of that experience (Specifically the ones about the upper room) could be false memories innocently acquired during the initial interaction between Howard and Dr. Bellg. Details that Howard had no way of knowing, but that Dr. Bellg was fully aware of and could've inadvertently passed on to Howard during their initial interaction. We have no way of knowing, because we have no way of knowing what their initial interaction involved.

What studies of memory indicate is that Howard and Dr Bellg probably don't have an accurate recollection of that initial interaction either. Memories are very fickle things. The following video may be helpful in this regard:

The point of my argument is that some people regard Howard's case to be irrefutable proof of a veridical NDE, but there are other ways of accounting for the inexplicable details in Howard's version of events beyond simply chalking them up to the supernatural.

Howard's case, although interesting, is more likely a study in the prevalence of false memories and the inadvertent planting thereof. What we ended up with is a hybrid between the story that Howard was attempting to relate and how Dr. Bellg was erroneously interpreting it.

Combine the two together and you get a veridical NDE that never actually happened.

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

Since the dawn of time, Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) have intrigued and, nowadays, are still not fully explained. Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories...

journals.plos.org

 

[partinobodycular]

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

Since the dawn of time, Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) have intrigued and, nowadays, are still not fully explained. Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories...

journals.plos.org

I don't have time to read this at the moment... but it looks quite interesting. Thanks

 

[Emmawowee]

I don't have time to read this at the moment... but it looks quite interesting. Thanks

np mr agnostic

 

[Mountainmike]

I did exactly what I should be expected to do on a forum such as this one. I should not be expected to buy and read a book every time that I want to engage someone here in a discussion.

1. I asked for a specific case example.
2. After numerous futile attempts by others, you finally gave me one... thank you
3. I then spent a number of hours searching the internet for all the pertinent information that I could find on the case. (If I'm missing some, please point out what it is.)
4. I then formed what I believe to be a very cogent argument questioning the claims of a supernatural explanation, and I presented it to you for your assessment. #171

But rather than respond to my argument you've chosen to attack my qualifications, as if the veracity of my argument is somehow determined by how much I've read.

If I'm lacking some crucial bits of information, now is the place in the discussion where you're supposed to point it out to me. If my argument is somehow flawed, now is your chance to demonstrate how. If you would like me to clarify my argument, now is the time to ask.

You can't simply dismiss my argument with the claim that smarter people than I disagree with it... therefore it must be wrong... you have to demonstrate how it's wrong.

So... can you do that?

The fact that you choose to side with them instead of me is irrelevant.

You are missing reading the book by bellg , the background by such as van lommel , and all similar cases that lead them to believe your objection is generic nonsense.

So in the red corner we have
many medics who were actually there, understand the limitations of perception on cardiac arrest, performed longitidinal studies , , hundreds of peer reviewed papers , many books , who have discounted the alternative explanations

In the blue corner
We have just you who forms a lazy opinion based on a summary of one case ignoring all medical detail.

no contest,

Your objection is generic nonsense - because you refuse to study anything.
I don’t side with you because there is no cogent argument to side with.

 

[partinobodycular]

You are missing reading the book by bellg , the background by such as van lommel , and all similar cases that lead them to believe your objection is generic nonsense.

So in the red corner we have
many medics who were actually there, understand the limitations of perception on cardiac arrest, performed longitidinal studies , , hundreds of peer reviewed papers , many books , who have discounted the alternative explanations

In the blue corner
We have just you who forms a lazy opinion based on a summary of one case ignoring all medical detail.

no contest,

Your objection is generic nonsense - because you refuse to study anything.
I don’t side with you because there is no cogent argument to side with.

In my previous post I pointed that this is the point in our discussion when you should exercise one or more of the following options:

If I'm lacking some crucial bits of information, now is the place in the discussion where you're supposed to point it out to me. If my argument is somehow flawed, now is your chance to demonstrate how. If you would like me to clarify my argument, now is the time to ask.

You have chosen to do none of these three things. I can therefore only assume that I haven't missed any crucial bits of information. My argument isn't flawed. And you have a clear understanding of what my argument is.

My argument therefore would seem to stand unchallenged.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[partinobodycular]

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

Since the dawn of time, Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) have intrigued and, nowadays, are still not fully explained. Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories...

journals.plos.org

First, let me thank you for the link. (Among others...yes I read them) The link was informative, but to be honest I'm not sure how useful it is in supporting or refuting the claims made by either side about the nature of NDE's. To me as a skeptic it shows exactly what I would expect it to show, and the authors draw the exact same conclusion that I would draw. (Almost) However a proponent of NDE's would almost certainly claim that the results demonstrate what they've been claiming all along... that NDE's are qualitatively different than other types of memories. On that point I wholeheartedly agree.

I was quite pleased to see that the authors recognized the similarities between NDE's and flashbulb memories, because to me NDE's are a clear example of flashbulb memories, even if they don't quite fit the clinical definition of one. They're vivid and detailed memories formed during a period of high physical or emotional duress. Where I would disagree with the authors however, is that I don't believe that all NDE's can be classified as hallucinations. NDE's form under a wide variety of circumstances. Some that involve no danger of death at all. Some, such as those that involve talking to long dead relatives may indeed be hallucinations, but others, such as those that describe the immediate surroundings... be it a surgical arena or an accident scene may simply be the brains attempt to form a flashbulb memory out of whatever information is available. Then there are still other NDE's that involve bright lights, tunnels, and feelings of profound peacefulness that may simply be the byproducts of a dying brain.

My point is that all NDE's are not the same, you can't lump them all together and expect to find one overarching cause. It's just not gonna happen. Hence I don't give a lot of merit to studies that claim to disprove that this thing, or that thing is the cause of NDE's, because you're never gonna find something that's universally true in all cases. They're just too diverse. Heck, even 'Near Death' isn't true in all cases.

So what do I think? I think that NDE's are flashbulb memories formed during periods of high physical and emotional duress. They're very vivid and very detailed, but they're prone to distorting things. It's the brain attempting to combine a disparate set of limited sensory information into what may at times seem more like a dream sequence than a memory... but with extreme detail that in hindsight may border on the supernatural.

I also think that we as humans tend to see things that aren't there... and to remember things slightly differently than they actually happened.

 

[Emmawowee]

First, let me thank you for the link. (Among others...yes I read them) The link was informative, but to be honest I'm not sure how useful it is in supporting or refuting the claims made by either side about the nature of NDE's. To me as a skeptic it shows exactly what I would expect it to show, and the authors draw the exact same conclusion that I would draw. (Almost) However a proponent of NDE's would almost certainly claim that the results demonstrate what they've been claiming all along... that NDE's are qualitatively different than other types of memories. On that point I wholeheartedly agree.

I was quite pleased to see that the authors recognized the similarities between NDE's and flashbulb memories, because to me NDE's are a clear example of flashbulb memories, even if they don't quite fit the clinical definition of one. They're vivid and detailed memories formed during a period of high physical or emotional duress. Where I would disagree with the authors however, is that I don't believe that all NDE's can be classified as hallucinations. NDE's form under a wide variety of circumstances. Some that involve no danger of death at all. Some, such as those that involve talking to long dead relatives may indeed be hallucinations, but others, such as those that describe the immediate surroundings... be it a surgical arena or an accident scene may simply be the brains attempt to form a flashbulb memory out of whatever information is available. Then there are still other NDE's that involve bright lights, tunnels, and feelings of profound peacefulness that may simply be the byproducts of a dying brain.

My point is that all NDE's are not the same, you can't lump them all together and expect to find one overarching cause. It's just not gonna happen. Hence I don't give a lot of merit to studies that claim to disprove that this thing, or that thing is the cause of NDE's, because you're never gonna find something that's universally true in all cases. They're just too diverse. Heck, even 'Near Death' isn't true in all cases.

So what do I think? I think that NDE's are flashbulb memories formed during periods of high physical and emotional duress. They're very vivid and very detailed, but they're prone to distorting things. It's the brain attempting to combine a disparate set of limited sensory information into what may at times seem more like a dream sequence than a memory... but with extreme detail that in hindsight may border on the supernatural.

I also think that we as humans tend to see things that aren't there... and to remember things slightly differently than they actually happened.

I disagree of if being a flashbulb memory, as those who still had brain activity didn’t have an NDE in the most recent study, and those who had zero brain activity did. I feel like if it was a flashbulb memory it’d occur in every single cardiac arrest, not just with the ones with complete EEG flatline
My parents are devout Christians and believers in heaven and they believe NDEs to be false memories. But it makes no sense to me they’d specifically happen when people die physically and their brain goes flat, and not in any other distressing circumstances.

 

[partinobodycular]

those who still had brain activity didn’t have an NDE in the most recent study

What study is this... supposedly Buddhist monks can induce an NDE at will... so this would seem to negate the idea that they're restricted to the brain dead.

I feel like if it was a flashbulb memory it’d occur in every single cardiac arrest, not just with the ones with complete EEG flatline

Why would you assume that it should occur in all instances of cardiac arrest? It's not a strictly physical phenomenon, it has a definite mental/emotional component. It's like expecting everyone to have a panic attack under a given set of circumstances... that wouldn't seem to be a logical assumption to make. For some triggering a flashbulb memory might be quite easy... for others nearly impossible. Some people claim to have vivid flashbulb memories concerning 9/11, but I don't remember squat.

And as for NDE's only occurring with complete EEG flatline I'm gonna need you to cite a source, just because it goes against everything that I've ever seen on the subject.

 

[Emmawowee]

What study is this... supposedly Buddhist monks can induce an NDE at will... so this would seem to negate the idea that they're restricted to the brain dead.

Why would you assume that it should occur in all instances of cardiac arrest? It's not a strictly physical phenomenon, it has a definite mental/emotional component. It's like expecting everyone to have a panic attack under a given set of circumstances... that wouldn't seem to be a logical assumption to make. For some triggering a flashbulb memory might be quite easy... for others nearly impossible. Some people claim to have vivid flashbulb memories concerning 9/11, but I don't remember squat.

And as for NDE's only occurring with complete EEG flatline I'm gonna need you to cite a source, just because it goes against everything that I've ever seen on the subject.

AWARE II

“That is, those patients who had near-death experiences did not show the reported brain waves, and those who did show the reported brain waves did not report near-death experiences,” Greyson told CNN via email.”

 

[partinobodycular]

AWARE II

“That is, those patients who had near-death experiences did not show the reported brain waves, and those who did show the reported brain waves did not report near-death experiences,” Greyson told CNN via email.”

Okay, well that explains it. I think that you've read way too much into that email. AWARE II concerns a small group of subjects (28), all of whom had actually flatlined. Of those 28, 11 had NDE's, of which only 6 had lucid recall of those NDE's.

But here's the really interesting part... the part that you're basing your whole conclusion on... some of those 28 subjects had spikes in brain wave activity up to an hour into resuscitation, yet those subjects didn't have NDE's... amazing isn't it. Well not really, when you consider that the total number of those 28 people who had spikes in brain wave activity was....... 2

Yup, that's right... 2 people. So you're basing your conclusion on the fact that those two people didn't have NDE's. If there was ever a case in which the sample size was too small to draw a conclusion, this is it. Especially when there's overwhelming evidence that people don't have to be flatlined to have an NDE.

Sorry, but I think that you've read way too much into an out of context email quote.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In other words, you don't think the supernatural is even possible and everything has a naturalistic explanation. Look, the reason NDEs are unique is that there is no natural explanation and people have really tried to figure them out.

"God of the gaps" is a fallacy in which when something is unknown or has no (currently) known natural explanation God is invoked. It is a fallacy because it does not account for the possibility of new scientific findings which might further our understanding of the universe.

A rejection of the "God of the gaps" fallacy is not a rejection of the supernatural, it is not a rejection of God. It is a rejection of a fallacy.

What we cannot do, however, is go "I don't understand this right now" and conclude "God did it, and there is no natural explanation possible."

If I don't understand how rain happens, I don't say "God did it" and then say rain is a purely supernatural phenomenon without any natural explanation. You and I immediately recognize that when it comes to rain there is a solid explanation, a natural explanation, for how rain works. That's the benefit of living right now where we have that knowledge--but four thousand years ago, living as hunter-gatherers or a tiny agrarian society, we couldn't possibly know that, and so we'd probably assign weather patterns to some supernatural cause--the gods are capricious, the spirits must be appeased, etc.

We who believe that God is real; and not just any "god", but specifically the God you and I believe in, are confessing belief in that God in the context of a real world. In order to do that we maintain God's existence (in spite of material evidence) and within a world that has mundane, natural explanation. Rain is caused by climatological patterns and interconnected natural systems happening on our planet as it spins on its axis, orbiting around its host star--the sun. And God is real, and "sends His rain on the just and unjust alike". We maintain both are true statements, that these are not mutually exclusive statements.

Because we maintain these things together, not at odds, then that means God--and His power to superintend, interpose, and upend the natural when He so deigns to do so (He makes the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to live)--is real and exists and His absolute power exists alongside His ordered power, in a world where NDEs can be explained naturally. Even if we do not always and/or currently have that explanation. If explanation does happen, that does not negate God nor His absolute power; if NDEs are mere mental phenomenon, God is not negated nor is His absolute power negated.

We do not need to depend upon things like NDEs and claims of supernatural happenings in order to believe in "one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary ..."

Faith does not depend on these things.
Faith does not appeal to evidence, faith--if we are Christians--is itself the supernatural activity of God granted to us by His grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Speaking for myself, I have no rational explanation for my faith. I believe because I believe. Not because of my will, but generally, in spite of my will.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emmawowee]

At this point I’m kind of tired of debating it, because I think NDEs are so vague regarding both science and spiritual aspects, that we can all interpret it in our own way. There’s atheists on the NDE subreddit who still firmly believe in NDEs being spiritual and proof of an afterlife, but they just don’t believe in a God. There’s Christians who think it’s brain activity and that we can only know God in final death. And vice versa.
I think it is very compelling, regardless if the causes are natural or spiritual.
Dipping out of this thread because I’m always going to disagree and believe it’s a reality beyond our own. Peace be with you all.

 

[All Becomes New]

"God of the gaps" is a fallacy in which when something is unknown or has no (currently) known natural explanation God is invoked. It is a fallacy because it does not account for the possibility of new scientific findings which might further our understanding of the universe.

A rejection of the "God of the gaps" fallacy is not a rejection of the supernatural, it is not a rejection of God. It is a rejection of a fallacy.

What we cannot do, however, is go "I don't understand this right now" and conclude "God did it, and there is no natural explanation possible."

If I don't understand how rain happens, I don't say "God did it" and then say rain is a purely supernatural phenomenon without any natural explanation. You and I immediately recognize that when it comes to rain there is a solid explanation, a natural explanation, for how rain works. That's the benefit of living right now where we have that knowledge--but four thousand years ago, living as hunter-gatherers or a tiny agrarian society, we couldn't possibly know that, and so we'd probably assign weather patterns to some supernatural cause--the gods are capricious, the spirits must be appeased, etc.

We who believe that God is real; and not just any "god", but specifically the God you and I believe in, are confessing belief in that God in the context of a real world. In order to do that we maintain God's existence (in spite of material evidence) and within a world that has mundane, natural explanation. Rain is caused by climatological patterns and interconnected natural systems happening on our planet as it spins on its axis, orbiting around its host star--the sun. And God is real, and "sends His rain on the just and unjust alike". We maintain both are true statements, that these are not mutually exclusive statements.

Because we maintain these things together, not at odds, then that means God--and His power to superintend, interpose, and upend the natural when He so deigns to do so (He makes the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to live)--is real and exists and His absolute power exists alongside His ordered power, in a world where NDEs can be explained naturally. Even if we do not always and/or currently have that explanation. If explanation does happen, that does not negate God nor His absolute power; if NDEs are mere mental phenomenon, God is not negated nor is His absolute power negated.

We do not need to depend upon things like NDEs and claims of supernatural happenings in order to believe in "one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary ..."

Faith does not depend on these things.
Faith does not appeal to evidence, faith--if we are Christians--is itself the supernatural activity of God granted to us by His grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Speaking for myself, I have no rational explanation for my faith. I believe because I believe. Not because of my will, but generally, in spite of my will.

-CryptoLutheran

NDEs are literally the same exact sort of thing as abiogenesis, meaning we have no reason to believe that abiogenesis is naturally how life began just as we have no naturalistic explanation for NDEs.

Do you accept abiogenesis, or do you think God created life?

 

[partinobodycular]

NDEs are literally the same exact sort of thing as abiogenesis, meaning we have no reason to believe that abiogenesis is naturally how life began just as we have no naturalistic explanation for NDEs.

Sorry, but this isn't gonna fly, because so far you haven't offered a single example of an NDE that can't be explained by natural means. I know... you claim that you have, but I've been back over all the posts, and I can't find one. But maybe I missed something... so feel free to set me straight and offer up any example that tickles your fancy. I promise to consider it.

 

[All Becomes New]

Sorry, but this isn't gonna fly, because so far you haven't offered a single example of an NDE that can't be explained by natural means. I know... you claim that you have, but I've been back over all the posts, and I can't find one. But maybe I missed something... so feel free to set me straight and offer up any example that tickles your fancy. I promise to consider it.

When I bring one up, you claim that they are lying.

 

[partinobodycular]

When I bring one up, you claim that they are lying.

Example please.

 

[All Becomes New]

Example please.

Taken from one of the earliest sources I linked to found here: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58820073.pdf

An upcoming book by Kimberly Clark Sharp will also document a highly
confirmed case of this sort. One congenitally blind woman had an NDE complete
with color images, reporting correctly several items from her surroundings. But
even more evidential, she reported a rendezvous with two close friends, both of
whom were also blind, and was able to give accurate physical descriptions of
each, even though she had never seen either one! Further, both of these friends
were dead.

You can read about this story in Kimberly's book which has now been released here: https://www.amazon.com/AFTER-LIGHT-Discovered-Other-Change/dp/0595280285

 

[partinobodycular]

You can read about this story in Kimberly's book which has now been released here: Amazon.com

As per usual, don't expect me to actually go buy a book just to respond to a forum post. I'm assuming that this 'highly confirmed case' must be documented somewhere other than just in Kimberley Clark Sharp's book. But so far I've been unable to find any mention of the story. I'll keep looking, but if you have anything to help me in my quest it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise this is going to be a very brief discussion. I can't refute a claim that I know absolutely nothing about.

But just to get the discussion rolling I thought that I'd post the following:

Suppose you were all alone your whole life, cut off from all people and all of society, and you came across a bag of very salty potato chips for the first time. When you eat the chips, you would experience the taste of salt for the first time, but you would have no way to describe it, because you would have no other previous experiences or connections with it. Similarly, people who have been blind since birth have no experience of connecting visual sensations with external objects in the real world, or relating them to what sighted people describe as vision. Therefore, asking them about it is not useful.


Instead, scientists have performed brain scans of people who have been blind since birth while they are sleeping. What scientists have found is that these people have the same type of vision-related electrical activity in the brain during sleep as people with normal eyesight. Furthermore, people who have been blind since birth move their eyes while asleep in a way that is coordinated with the vision-related electrical activity in the brain, just like people with normal eyesight. Therefore, it is highly likely that people who have been blind since birth do indeed experience visual sensations while sleeping. They just don't know how to describe the sensations or even conceptually connect in any way these sensations with what sighted people describe as vision.

Do blind people dream in visual images?

So although it might seem impossible, it is perfectly natural for blind people to have visual elements to their NDE's.

 

[All Becomes New]

As per usual, don't expect me to actually go buy a book just to respond to a forum post. I'm assuming that this 'highly confirmed case' must be documented somewhere other than just in Kimberley Clark Sharp's book. But so far I've been unable to find any mention of the story. I'll keep looking, but if you have anything to help me in my quest it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise this is going to be a very brief discussion. I can't refute a claim that I know absolutely nothing about.

But just to get the discussion rolling I thought that I'd post the following:



Do blind people dream in visual images?

So although it might seem impossible, it is perfectly natural for blind people to have visual elements to their NDE's.

Yeah, the solution would be to get the book if you are interested in this topic enough to actually study it.