General anesthesia and consciousness

[Tinker Grey]

IDK if I believe that you are a billionaire or not. There are 8 billion people in the world and only 735 billionaires, so it would be unlikely that you are actually a billionaire. But IDK that. And you used this as an argument against my position so I have even more reason not to believe you.

You didn't answer the question. Why aren't the doubts of NDEs expressed here enough for you not to believe them?

 

[All Becomes New]

You didn't answer the question. Why aren't the doubts of NDEs expressed here enough for you not to believe them?

Because first of all, they are too common for it to simply be a conspiracy.
Secondly, some of them are impossible to explain naturally.
And third, because I think incredulity is somewhat a poison of the mind.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Because first of all, they are too common for it to simply be a conspiracy.
Secondly, some of them are impossible to explain naturally.
And third, because I think incredulity is somewhat a poison of the mind.

I don't think anyone here called them a conspiracy.
Which ones can't be explained naturally?
Healthy skepticism is healthy.

(Oh, the 735 billionaires are in the US. Worldwide total is 2640. My mistake.)

 

[All Becomes New]

Which ones can't be explained naturally?

The ones that are well documented that say such.

 

[All Becomes New]

Like, here's a study you can look at. In the "Discussion," it reads:

Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience. Patients' medication was also unrelated to frequency of NDE. Psychological factors are unlikely to be important as fear was not associated with NDE.

Paper here (peer-reviewed as far as I am aware): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673601071008/fulltext

 

[BeyondET]

You are not "asleep" under anesthesia

While general anesthesia is far different from natural sleep, our job is to make sure that you wake up just the same.

www.kevinmd.com

What’s the Difference Between Sleep and Anesthesia?

It feels like falling asleep, but anesthesia and snoozing are completely different. Neuroscientist and anesthesiologist Emery Brown explains what makes them different.

www.brainfacts.org

1. Analgesia — you don't perceive pain

 

[Hans Blaster]

For example, what reason do you have for doubting that the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to a small child in Guadalupe? Catholics believe this--so there are Christians who believe this, do you (though non-Catholic) believe this? If not, why not? What would your reason be for doubting it. Is it because you don't want to believe it is true?

Not all Catholics believe in Marian apparitions, in general or for specific ones. It isn't even an article of faith to accept them. Even the Church accepts that some claimed apparitions are false.

 

[Emmawowee]

The thing with NDEs is that anecdotal stories and reports all demonstrate a high diversity of experiences. If every single alleged NDE shared something identical--regardless of the individual's views and life circumstances (religious views, the culture they lived in, etc) that could (emphasis on could) indicate something worth investigating further.

But it appears that NDEs are all flavored by the individual's own experiences during their life, and so they see images and experiences which reflect how they experienced the world. So in a predominantly Christian society, images that reflect something nominally Christian are common. For a person with little to no experience of anything remotely Christian, they are going to experience something different.

Given the anecdotal nature of NDEs, and the deep problems of hearsay, "There once was a person who said they knew someone who had a friend who experienced X, Y, and Z"; and just how wildly different and subjective such experiences seem to be. I don't see any reason to think they are anything other than a purely subjective mental phenomenon. That NDE's are purely subjective mental phenomenon does not invalidate the existence of life after death; but neither does it demonstrate as evidence for life after death. Life after death being something untouchable by science, and remains entirely within the realm of faith.

-CryptoLutheran

My view on this, is most medically validated NDEs I read that were verified by several doctors/researchers while the person had zero brain activity, involved deceased relatives, God, and Jesus. And not to mention atheists who became Christian after they had NDEs. And atheists are STUBBORN. Like they always dismiss everything, so if that can convert an atheist to a priest, there’s gotta be something more to it.
The ones regarding Krishna and all that seem more anecdotal and hearsay.

 

[partinobodycular]

Paper here (peer-reviewed as far as I am aware): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673601071008/fulltext

As far as I can tell all that that paper says is that people experience NDE's, and that exactly what factors are involved in them isn't clear... nobody is arguing that point.

So I'm still waiting for evidence, which you seem completely unable to provide, that NDE's are inexplicable by natural processes.

So far all that you claim to have are stories... stories which from an analytical point of view actually refute a supernatural cause for NDE's, not support it.

 

[Emmawowee]

Does N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) Adequately Explain Near-Death Experiences?

Abstract: Some NDE researchers have suggested that because some users of psychedelic drugs have experiences purportedly similar to near-death experiences (NDEs), neural receptors and neurotransmitters affected by a particular drug may underlie out-of-body experiences and NDEs. One of the most...

digital.library.unt.edu

No reason to believe the pineal gland alters consciousness by secreting DMT, psychedelic researcher says

Psychedelic researcher David E. Nichols is pushing back against the belief that the pineal gland in the brain produces mystical experiences because it

www.psypost.org

N,N-dimethyltryptamine and the pineal gland: Separating fact from myth - PubMed

The pineal gland has a romantic history, from pharaonic Egypt, where it was equated with the eye of Horus, through various religious traditions, where it was considered the seat of the soul, the third eye, etc. Recent incarnations of these notions have suggested that N,N-dimethyltryptamine is...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://iands.org/images/stories/pdf_downloads/vanLommel-Greyson-2023-Critique-Recent-Report-Electrical-Activity-Dying-Human-Brain.pdf

Getting Comfortable With Near Death Experiences: An Overview of Near-Death Experiences - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bumping this

 

[All Becomes New]

As far as I can tell all that that paper says is that people experience NDE's, and that exactly what factors are involved in them isn't clear... nobody is arguing that point.

So I'm still waiting for evidence, which you seem completely unable to provide, that NDE's are inexplicable by natural processes.

So far all that you claim to have are stories... stories which from an analytical point of view actually refute a supernatural cause for NDE's, not support it.

"Can't explain" is the naturalistic version of "it's supernatural." Science cannot actually say that things are supernatural because of the assumption of methodological naturalism. The idea is that science has to remain "neutral" in matters pertaining to the supernatural so it cannot actually make claims that things are supernatural even if they are.

 

[All Becomes New]

My view on this, is most medically validated NDEs I read that were verified by several doctors/researchers while the person had zero brain activity, involved deceased relatives, God, and Jesus. And not to mention atheists who became Christian after they had NDEs. And atheists are STUBBORN. Like they always dismiss everything, so if that can convert an atheist to a priest, there’s gotta be something more to it.
The ones regarding Krishna and all that seem more anecdotal and hearsay.

This.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Can't explain" is the naturalistic version of "it's supernatural."

Nope. Astronomers "can't explain" what fast radio bursts are. That doens't make these distant and powerful bursts of radio waves supernatural.

Science cannot actually say that things are supernatural because of the assumption of methodological naturalism. The idea is that science has to remain "neutral" in matters pertaining to the supernatural so it cannot actually make claims that things are supernatural even if they are.

The fact that you can report scientific papers studying NDEs shows that either they are natural or that they interact with the natural (the body).

 

[All Becomes New]

The fact that you can report scientific papers studying NDEs shows that either they are natural or that they interact with the natural (the body).

The results say that natural causes are out of the question. So if natural causes are out of the question, what does that leave us with? The most likely explanation is the supernatural unless you are already biased against such notions.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not all Catholics believe in Marian apparitions, in general or for specific ones. It isn't even an article of faith to accept them. Even the Church accepts that some claimed apparitions are false.

Oh I know. But I also know that a lot of Protestants are highly antagonistic toward Marian apparitions as a concept--which was the rationale for me mentioning it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

But this same religion affirms the supernatural.

But not all or every alleged supernatural claim.

Some things are just psychology tricks. Of course, I believe that as I have studied Jung and others in the psychological field. But some things cannot be explained merely by psychology. All I need is one example that cannot be explained by psychology for NDEs to be true after-death experiences.

So if there's something that doesn't immediately have a clear naturalistic explanation, then one must always assume there is a supernatural cause? I simply do not understand why anyone should hold to such a view, to me that comes across as being actively gullible.

OTOH, you need to have a psychological reason for each and every NDE anyone ever experiences for your view to be true.

I really don't. The burden of evidence rests on the one making a positive claim. I need a reason to believe that an NDE is supernatural; rather than just assuming it must be. For the same reason I need a reason to believe that a UFO sighting is extraterrestrial, rather than just assuming it must be. I need evidence that Sasquatch exists, not rustling bushes and unexplained sounds.

I have precisely zero reason to assume the supernatural in all cases until proven otherwise. I simply cannot conceive operating with that kind of mindset. Not merely from a rational perspective, but even from a religious perspective. To assume all claims of the supernatural are true, until proven otherwise, is not faith, from an explicitly Christian perspective it is imprudent and harmful.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[All Becomes New]

So if there's something that doesn't immediately have a clear naturalistic explanation, then one must always assume there is a supernatural cause? I simply do not understand why anyone should hold to such a view, to me that comes across as being actively gullible.

I invite you to look at the actual papers on this subject that both @Emmawowee and I have posted that show there is no naturalistic explanation for these events.

I'm honestly surprised that I am coming against such resistance to these things from other Christians. Christianity teaches there is life after death. Why Christians would in a sense reject this reality is mind-boggling.

Are you a cessationist?

 

[Emmawowee]

I invite you to look at the actual papers on this subject that both @Emmawowee and I have posted that show there is no naturalistic explanation for these events.

I'm honestly surprised that I am coming against such resistance to these things from other Christians. Christianity teaches there is life after death. Why Christians would in a sense reject this reality is mind-boggling.

Are you a cessationist?

and even if there IS a natural explanation, it would be far more complex than something as simple as "hidden brain activity" it would go full on into deep quantum physics

 

[All Becomes New]

and even if there IS a natural explanation, it would be far more complex than something as simple as "hidden brain activity" it would go full on into deep quantum physics

I agree and I alluded to something similar earlier in the thread. Whatever it is that is causing this is not physical.

 

[Emmawowee]

Also @myst33 I would recommend the book Why Materialism is Baloney by Dr. Bernardo Kastrup. He's atheist so I don't agree with everything he says, but he gives interesting non-materialist answers to these questions because he doesn't believe consciousness comes from the brain. I believe he mentions in the first chapter how with a "filter brain" hypothesis things like fainting, general anesthesia, and psychedelics work.