Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100
  1. #41
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Of course not. However, in order to accept that belief as true I would need to think logically about what happened and what could have caused my senses to detect being abducted by aliens. Being abducted by aliens does cause such sensory experiences but so can hallucinations.
    No one needs to think logically about what they see to form the rational belief they've been appeared to in a certain way; as in our example in that complex way that any rational human being would interpret as being appeared to by kidnapping aliens. Generally, what our visual faculty delivers to us of the world external to ourselves we believe in what is called "the basic way". We don't form our visual perceptive beliefs after the mental analysis of the image formed by it appears to us, but as the image formed by it appears to us. Later on, upon further reflection, we may come to doubt the belief our visual perception faculty delivered to us, and eventually reject it, but this is not what we normally do with such beliefs. We are appeared to by, for example, a rose in full bloom, and in the non-analytical, "basic way" form the belief we see a rose in full bloom. And we form the majority of our beliefs this way, which is why I get so tired of people thinking they don't; that they only believe what they can demonstrate empirically to be true. That is such a bunch of poppycock, and only the person who is completely insensitive to how they get through an average day could honestly think such a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide
    I can pick up the material, I cannot pick up the supernatural. Yes my senses might be malfunctioning, but to believe that is insane.
    Okay, but then how would a person know whether or not their cognitive equipment was functioning properly or malfunctioning? More to the point, how does being able to pick up what is material provide any compelling evidence one way or the other between supernaturalism and naturalism?

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    No one needs to think logically about what they see to form the rational belief they've been appeared to in a certain way; as in our example in that complex way that any rational human being would interpret as being appeared to by kidnapping aliens. Generally, what our visual faculty delivers to us of the world external to ourselves we believe in what is called "the basic way". We don't form our visual perceptive beliefs after the mental analysis of the image formed by it appears to us, but as the image formed by it appears to us. Later on, upon further reflection, we may come to doubt the belief our visual perception faculty delivered to us, and eventually reject it, but this is not what we normally do with such beliefs. We are appeared to by, for example, a rose in full bloom, and in the non-analytical, "basic way" form the belief we see a rose in full bloom. And we form the majority of our beliefs this way, which is why I get so tired of people thinking they don't; that they only believe what they can demonstrate empirically to be true. That is such a bunch of poppycock, and only the person who is completely insensitive to how they get through an average day could honestly think such a thing.
    True. In the moment of experience the vast majority of the time we do not question if what we are seeing or hearing is real/true/accurate. To do so would be insane as it would take forever to do anything. However being abducted by aliens is an extremely unique moment. My first thought as I am being abducted may not be 'is this real?' but my 10th thought might be. My first thought would probably be an instinctual reaction and out of my control entirely.

    Okay, but then how would a person know whether or not their cognitive equipment was functioning properly or malfunctioning?
    You don't. Schizophrenia is a good example to illustrate this. So people with Schizophrenia literally hear voices and see 'demons' (scary images). So they find themselves able to think logically but they cannot trust what their senses are telling them because their senses are malfunctioning (kind of like in a Beautiful Mind at the end when he asks another person if he can see the person he is talking to). So they see red when their is no red light in the room because their brains are physically wired incorrectly. The way you can know if your senses are working incorrectly is to ask people you trust (or people who would logically have no reason to lie to you in that moment) if they are experiencing the same thing you are experiencing. Basically scientific validation by redoing the experiment with different lad equipment (your sense organs) in case the equipment you used was malfunctioning. This is common practice in science when you get 'strange' results.

    More to the point, how does being able to pick up what is material provide any compelling evidence one way or the other between supernaturalism and naturalism?
    By picking up the rock my brain has indirectly via my sense organs experienced the presence of the rock. I have no such experience from the supernatural and thus to think it exists is illogical to me. If a unicorn slapped me in the face several times while other people stood around accurately describing what I was seeing and experiencing in repeated settings with millions of people then I would have very good reason to believe that unicorns are real. Otherwise I don't and to accept as true that for which I have no reason to is insane (by which I mean it is in no way useful with regards to what most humans want to accomplish in their life).
    abc

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    By picking up the rock my brain has indirectly via my sense organs experienced the presence of the rock. I have no such experience from the supernatural and thus to think it exists is illogical to me. If a unicorn slapped me in the face several times while other people stood around accurately describing what I was seeing and experiencing in repeated settings with millions of people then I would have very good reason to believe that unicorns are real. Otherwise I don't and to accept as true that for which I have no reason to is insane (by which I mean it is in no way useful with regards to what most humans want to accomplish in their life).
    You are once again illustrating a thought process along pretty much the same lines that you did earlier, and no offense but I doubt you are being perfectly honest with yourself. And I mean that because of the impressions I've gotten over time from previous debates with you. This kind of thought process flies in the face of things I think that you probably value as a naturalist, things like utility, correspondence, and pragmatism. These seem to be principles, used to varying degrees, that appear to have the propensity to support a viewpoint like naturalism, which is somewhere in the middle ground between the types of empiricism touted by theists, dualists, soul proponents, etc. and less utilitarian rationalists like Descartes. What seems much more likely to me as a theory of truth that you function by from day to day, is the correspondence theory of truth.

    Now you guys can go ahead and stone me for quoting wikipedia, but I just pulled it up because I was sure that this wasn't a terribly contentious issue:

    Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.
    Your frame of reference as to "the actual state of affairs" is naturalism, correct? So if a unicorn were to slap you in the face, while it would probably be puzzling, if you could rule out any hallucinatory symptoms and there were others present, you would probably examine it to see if it was a hoax and even possibly make the claim that this is a species previously unbeknownst to us. At that point you might even theorize that all of these different references to it may not have been entirely saturated in legendary detail, right?

    Is that not the basic form of empiricism that you probably use throughout your everyday life?
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    You are once again illustrating a thought process along pretty much the same lines that you did earlier, and no offense but I doubt you are being perfectly honest with yourself. And I mean that because of the impressions I've gotten over time from previous debates with you. This kind of thought process flies in the face of things I think that you probably value as a naturalist, things like utility, correspondence, and pragmatism. These seem to be principles, used to varying degrees, that appear to have the propensity to support a viewpoint like naturalism, which is somewhere in the middle ground between the types of empiricism touted by theists, dualists, soul proponents, etc. and less utilitarian rationalists like Descartes. What seems much more likely to me as a theory of truth that you function by from day to day, is the correspondence theory of truth.

    Now you guys can go ahead and stone me for quoting wikipedia, but I just pulled it up because I was sure that this wasn't a terribly contentious issue:

    Your frame of reference as to "the actual state of affairs" is naturalism, correct? So if a unicorn were to slap you in the face, while it would probably be puzzling, if you could rule out any hallucinatory symptoms and there were others present, you would probably examine it to see if it was a hoax and even possibly make the claim that this is a species previously unbeknownst to us. At that point you might even theorize that all of these different references to it may not have been entirely saturated in legendary detail, right?

    Is that not the basic form of empiricism that you probably use throughout your everyday life?
    I am not a naturalist. I am a sense-alist: I believe that which my senses tell me. My senses tell me a lot of things which allows me to create complex thoughts/assumptions/ideas about what my senses are sensing. The question of if my senses are sensing reality or not is irrelevant to me because what my senses tell me is my reality.
    abc

  5. #45
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    True. In the moment of experience the vast majority of the time we do not question if what we are seeing or hearing is real/true/accurate. To do so would be insane as it would take forever to do anything. However being abducted by aliens is an extremely unique moment. My first thought as I am being abducted may not be 'is this real?' but my 10th thought might be. My first thought would probably be an instinctual reaction and out of my control entirely.
    This may seem to be irrelevant to the thread to you (or maybe not), but just as a very rough guesstimate, what would you say was the ratio of the beliefs you formed yesterday in the basic way just described, and the beliefs you formed by reflection on the propositional truth value of their content? Maybe there's a better way to put this question. What I'd like you to dwell upon for a few moments of critical reflection is, of all the beliefs you formed yesterday, whether you acted upon them or not, how many had a propositional content you came to believe by analysis, and how many had propositional content you never questioned?

    And just to get the ball rolling, so to speak, when I do what I'm asking you to do, my rough (very rough) estimate of the ratio for all of my believings yesterday is about one in a thousand were such that before I believed it I had to analyze the propositional content.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide

    You don't. Schizophrenia is a good example to illustrate this. So people with Schizophrenia literally hear voices and see 'demons' (scary images). So they find themselves able to think logically but they cannot trust what their senses are telling them because their senses are malfunctioning (kind of like in a Beautiful Mind at the end when he asks another person if he can see the person he is talking to). So they see red when their is no red light in the room because their brains are physically wired incorrectly. The way you can know if your senses are working incorrectly is to ask people you trust (or people who would logically have no reason to lie to you in that moment) if they are experiencing the same thing you are experiencing. Basically scientific validation by redoing the experiment with different lad equipment (your sense organs) in case the equipment you used was malfunctioning. This is common practice in science when you get 'strange' results.
    Okay. Have you ever heard of Gettier problems for the "justified true belief" account of knowledge? The basic idea is that your epistemic equipment can be in perfect working condition, actually be working properly, deliver to you a compelling amount of justificatory evidence for a belief you form, and as it happens that belief is actually TRUE, and yet fail to have that belief be knowledge for you!

    Case in point:

    "The sheep in the field (Chisholm 1966/1977/1989). Imagine that you are standing outside a field. You see, within it, what looks exactly like a sheep. What belief instantly occurs to you? Among the many that could have done so, it happens to be the belief that there is a sheep in the field. And in fact you are right, because there is a sheep behind the hill in the middle of the field. You cannot see that sheep, though, and you have no direct evidence of its existence. Moreover, what you are seeing is a dog, disguised as a sheep. Hence, you have a well justified true belief that there is a sheep in the field. But is that belief knowledge?"

    So the point to all of this is to demonstrate for you that it's not just when our epistemic faculties are functioning improperly that our "knowledge" is not actually "knowledge" for us. There are many, many other factors involved in gaining actual knowledge; factors like are our faculties operating at or near their limits for accuracy, is anyone trying to fool us, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide
    By picking up the rock my brain has indirectly via my sense organs experienced the presence of the rock. I have no such experience from the supernatural and thus to think it exists is illogical to me.
    Of course, but how is that relevant to whether or not supernaturalism is true, and naturalism false? As we've just seen, what you "know" for yourself can be a long way from "knowledge" for you, just as it can for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide
    If a unicorn slapped me in the face several times while other people stood around accurately describing what I was seeing and experiencing in repeated settings with millions of people then I would have very good reason to believe that unicorns are real.
    This discussion would be advanced much more expeditiously if we concentrated our efforts on doing that. Are you therefore telling me that were you to experience what you believe at the moment would be a bizarre event, that for you to believe the event actually happened to you you'd first have to have other people verify it for you, in "repeated settings with millions of people"? Are you seriously suggesting that is your minimum criterion for belief in the bizarre? If not, what would be your minimum criterion for belief in the bizarre, how do you go about assigning various degrees of "bizarreness" to events, and how would that assignment affect your criterion for belief?

    I'm asking these questions hoping as you ponder them you'll notice they take you in a very small circle of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide
    Otherwise I don't and to accept as true that for which I have no reason to is insane (by which I mean it is in no way useful with regards to what most humans want to accomplish in their life).
    Given you don't know much about what most humans want to accomplish in their lives, I think we can safely disregard this.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    the basic way just described,
    propositional truth value of their content?
    Could you give me the exact definitions please?

    Okay. Have you ever heard of Gettier problems for the "justified true belief" account of knowledge? The basic idea is that your epistemic equipment can be in perfect working condition, actually be working properly, deliver to you a compelling amount of justificatory evidence for a belief you form, and as it happens that belief is actually TRUE, and yet fail to have that belief be knowledge for you!

    Case in point:

    "The sheep in the field (Chisholm 1966/1977/1989). Imagine that you are standing outside a field. You see, within it, what looks exactly like a sheep. What belief instantly occurs to you? Among the many that could have done so, it happens to be the belief that there is a sheep in the field. And in fact you are right, because there is a sheep behind the hill in the middle of the field. You cannot see that sheep, though, and you have no direct evidence of its existence. Moreover, what you are seeing is a dog, disguised as a sheep. Hence, you have a well justified true belief that there is a sheep in the field. But is that belief knowledge?"

    So the point to all of this is to demonstrate for you that it's not just when our epistemic faculties are functioning improperly that our "knowledge" is not actually "knowledge" for us. There are many, many other factors involved in gaining actual knowledge; factors like are our faculties operating at or near their limits for accuracy, is anyone trying to fool us, etc.
    This is just a fancy way of asking 'what if your sense organs are faulty?".

    Of course, but how is that relevant to whether or not supernaturalism is true, and naturalism false? As we've just seen, what you "know" for yourself can be a long way from "knowledge" for you, just as it can for me.
    Only if your sense organs are not providing you with true information.

    This discussion would be advanced much more expeditiously if we concentrated our efforts on doing that. Are you therefore telling me that were you to experience what you believe at the moment would be a bizarre event, that for you to believe the event actually happened to you you'd first have to have other people verify it for you, in "repeated settings with millions of people"? Are you seriously suggesting that is your minimum criterion for belief in the bizarre? If not, what would be your minimum criterion for belief in the bizarre, how do you go about assigning various degrees of "bizarreness" to events, and how would that assignment affect your criterion for belief?

    I'm asking these questions hoping as you ponder them you'll notice they take you in a very small circle of reasoning.
    There are things which I have observed as true via my sense organs throughout the course of my life. The more of these 'laws' are broken by a new phenomenon the more bizarre it is. Changing core beliefs requires much thought and effort as I would have to rethink how I live my life. The more drastic the change the more evidence is needed to justify making that change. To abandon naturalism is to abandon that my sense organs provide me with true information. This change could result in my death and therefore requires massive proof.

    Given you don't know much about what most humans want to accomplish in their lives, I think we can safely disregard this.
    I know that you wish to accomplish: being warm, having food to eat, having friends, not fearing being murdered by your neighbor ... and all those other basic things all humans have in common. So really I know a lot about what the vast majority of people want to accomplish within their lifetime.

    It is impossible to accomplish getting food if you think that the bagel in front of you is not actually a bagel but something that is fooling you into thinking it is a bagel (like the dog). If you hold such a belief as true then the bagel could be anything, even a bagel (or a star).
    abc

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    I am not a naturalist. I am a sense-alist: I believe that which my senses tell me. My senses tell me a lot of things which allows me to create complex thoughts/assumptions/ideas about what my senses are sensing. The question of if my senses are sensing reality or not is irrelevant to me because what my senses tell me is my reality.
    Would that mean senseaslits believe that reality is relative?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Would that mean senseaslits believe that reality is relative?
    No. Experience of reality is relative based upon the physical structure of the thing doing the experiencing. However, there is a true reality which is fixed. A tree is a tree irregardless of the opinions of the observer.
    abc

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    No. Experience of reality is relative based upon the physical structure of the thing doing the experiencing. However, there is a true reality which is fixed. A tree is a tree irregardless of the opinions of the observer.
    How do you it's true that it's a tree, if you can only rely on your senses, then?
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    How do you it's true that it's a tree, if you can only rely on your senses, then?
    I don't. But it is insane to try and live my life based upon the assumption that what I am sensing is false. If you disagree go step in front of a speeding truck. Since your just hallucinating the truck you will be fine. Of course you may end up hallucinating that you are dead.
    abc

  11. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    However, there is a true reality which is fixed.
    What reality do you believe (have faith) is fixed?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What reality do you believe (have faith) is fixed?
    The one that is real. I have no idea what is real. The best I can do is assume that my senses are accurate. My eyes can detect light and therefore I assume that light is real and part of what makes up our universe. This may not be the best option but it is the only option and therefore I must choose it. Well that is if I choose to choose something. I can choose to choose nothing. Although that would mean I'm dead.
    abc

  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    I don't. But it is insane to try and live my life based upon the assumption that what I am sensing is false. If you disagree go step in front of a speeding truck. Since your just hallucinating the truck you will be fine. Of course you may end up hallucinating that you are dead.
    Then would you say that you assume naturalism is true, at least for the sake of utility? That's what I was trying to get across earlier. I think a good standard to use, especially concerning ground like NDE's and other OBE's, is to simply look at the reasons for either theory and determine which one's explanatory power outweighs the reasons for rejecting it enough. So we operate using ideas like the correspondence theory of truth, even if we can't be absolutely sure. Does that sound reasonable? Or do you prefer to plead Socratic ignorance? That would be understandable as well.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  14. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    The one that is real. I have no idea what is real. The best I can do is assume that my senses are accurate. My eyes can detect light and therefore I assume that light is real and part of what makes up our universe. This may not be the best option but it is the only option and therefore I must choose it.
    How would you explain the difference between this view verses philosophical naturalism?

    Well that is if I choose to choose something. I can choose to choose nothing. Although that would mean I'm dead.
    Or it could mean you truly exist, simply in a different state, with no assumptions of reality and you're just having a temporal human experience.
    Last edited by eye4magic; February 24th, 2014 at 05:03 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    Then would you say that you assume naturalism is true, at least for the sake of utility?
    Yes.

    That's what I was trying to get across earlier. I think a good standard to use, especially concerning ground like NDE's and other OBE's, is to simply look at the reasons for either theory and determine which one's explanatory power outweighs the reasons for rejecting it enough. So we operate using ideas like the correspondence theory of truth, even if we can't be absolutely sure. Does that sound reasonable? Or do you prefer to plead Socratic ignorance? That would be understandable as well.
    That does sound reasonable but because of a lack of evidence for or against NDEs/OBEs I prefer to plead Socratic ignorance.

    ---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    How would you explain the difference between this view verses philosophical naturalism?
    Well from a very brief Wiki reading I would say they are basically the same thing.

    Or it could mean you truly exist, simply in a different state, with no assumptions of reality and you're just having a temporal human experience.
    That is true but I have no evidence to support that. So while that is fun to think about I cannot come to a conclusion as to what is true. All I can do is guess and check (AKA sciencing).
    abc

  16. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Well from a very brief Wiki reading I would say they are basically the same thing.
    Then what is the difference between: MyX: "I am not a naturalist" and "they are basically the same thing?"

    That is true but I have no evidence to support that. So while that is fun to think about I cannot come to a conclusion as to what is true. All I can do is guess and check (AKA sciencing).
    Well, if you plan to keep sciencing, that's great. There is some compelling evidence about what happens to the human senses when the brain and heart go offline from the scientific/medical research field of OBE/NDE for those who are interested in considering the methods and practice of true science, that being, following the evidence wherever it may lead.

    OBE/NED Research and Studies:

    Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience
    Dr. Pim van Lomm
    Dutch Cardiologist and scientist

    Erasing Death: The Science That Is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death
    Dr. Sam Parnia
    Assistant Professor of Medicine State University of New York

    The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation
    Dr. Bruce Greyson
    Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia

    University of Virginia School of Medicine
    The Division of Perceptual Studies
    http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/cli...dops/home-page

    The AWARE Study
    http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38

    Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Near-Death Experience and Journey into the Afterlife
    Dr. Eban Alexander
    American neurosurgeon

    Why science is taking near-death experiences seriously

    Life After Life
    Dr. Raymond Moody
    Psychologist and medical doctor

    • Sommers MS. "The near-death experience following multiple trauma". Crit Care Nurse. 1994 Apr;14(2):62-6.
    • Griffith, Linda J. "Near-Death Experiences and Psychotherapy," Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2009 October; 6(10): 35–42.
    • Greyson B. "Varieties of near-death experience". Psychiatry. 1993 Nov;56(4):390-9.
    • IANDS. "Near-death experiences: Key Facts". Informational Brochure published by the International Association for Near-death Studies. Durham, NC. Updated 7.24.07
      Parnia S, Waller DG, Yeates R, Fenwick P. "A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors". Resuscitation. Feb;48(2):149-56, 2001 PubMed abstract PMID 11426476
    • Greyson, Bruce. "Near-Death Experiences in a Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic Population". Psychiatric Services, Dec., Vol. 54 No. 12. The American Psychiatric Association, 2003
      Mauro, James. "Bright lights, big mystery". Psychology Today, July 1992
    • Morse M, Conner D, Tyler D. "Near-death experiences in a pediatric population. A preliminary report". American Journal of Diseases of Children, Jun;139(6):595-600, 1985
      van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I. "Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A prospective Study in the Netherlands". The Lancet. December 15, 2001 ; 358(9298):2039-45. PMID 11755611
    • Beck, Melinda. "Seeking Proof in Near-Death Claims". The Wall Street Journal (Health Journal), October 25, 2010
    • Greyson, Bruce. "The near-death experience scale. Construction, reliability, and validity". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Jun;171(6):369-75, 1983
    • Graves, Lee. "Altered States. Scientists analyze the near-death experience". The University of Virginia Magazine, Summer 2007 Feature
    • IANDS. Near-Death Experiences: Is this what happens when we die? Durham: International Association for Near-Death Studies. Informational brochure REV 4/11. Available at www.iands.org.
    • Cafferky, Monica. "Does this woman really know what happens to us when we die?" The Daily Express, published online Monday March 14, 2011
    • Hopper, Leigh. "Conference to shed light on 'near-death' experiences." The Houston Chronicle, published online October 25, 2006
    • Orne RM. "The meaning of survival: the early aftermath of a near-death experience". Research in Nursing & Health. 1995 Jun;18(3):239-47. PubMed abstract PMID 7754094
    • Greyson, Bruce. "The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, May;185(5):327-34, 1997
    • Greyson B, Bush NE. "Distressing near-death experiences". Psychiatry. 1992 Feb;55(1):95-110.
    • New York Times staff. "Science Watch; At the Brink of Death". New York Times, November 13, 1990
    • Williams, Daniel. "At the Hour Of Our Death". TIME Magazine. Friday, Aug. 31, 2007
    • Ruttimann, Jacqueline. Are near-death experiences a dream? Nature magazine, Published online 10 April 2006
    • "Near-Death Experiences Illuminate Dying Itself". New York Times, October 28, 1986
    • Boseley, Sarah. Near-death visions baffle doctors. The Guardian, published online Friday 14 December 2001
    • Petre, Jonathan. "Soul-searching doctors find life after death". The Telegraph, published online 22 Oct 2000
    • Adams, Tim. "Sam Parnia – the man who could bring you back from the dead". The Guardian, published online Saturday 6 April 2013
    • Holden, Janice Miner; Greyson, Bruce; James, Debbie, eds. (Jun 22, 2009). "The Field of Near-Death Studies: Past, Present and Future". The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of
    • Investigation. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-0-313-35864-7.
    • Anderson, Jon. "Shedding light on life at death's door". Chicago Tribune, published online May 13, 2004
    • Slayton, Jeremy. "Death Notice: George Gordon Ritchie Jr dies". Richmond Times Dispatch, published online Wednesday, October 31, 2007
    • Noble, Holcomb B. "Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, 78, Dies; Psychiatrist Revolutionized Care of the Terminally Ill." New York Times, August 26, 2004
    • Moody Raymond A. (1976). Life after life : the investigation of a phenomenon - survival of bodily death. Harrisburg, Pa. : Stackpole Books.
    • Brody, Jane E. "Health; Personal Health". New York Times, November 17, 1988.
    • Ring, Kenneth. Religious Wars in the NDE Movement: Some Personal Reflections on Michael Sabom's Light & Death. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 18(4) Summer 2000
    • New York Times staff. Connecticut Guide; Near-death Symposium. New York Times, April 25, 1982
    • Bush, Nancy Evans. "Is Ten Years a Life Review?" Journal of Near-Death Studies, 10(1) Fall 1991
    • Daily Progress Staff. "UVa hopes to participate in near-death experience". The Daily Progress, November 30, 2008
    • McIver, Brian." Ex-nurse Dr Penny Sartori studies amazing experiences of people who come back from the dead." The Daily Record, published online 25 Jan 2011
    • The near-death experience. JAMA 1980 Jul 4;244(1):29-30.
    • Recollections of death: A medical investigation. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
    • Fox, Margalit. "Ian Stevenson Dies at 88; Studied Claims of Past Lives". New York Times, February 18, 2007
    • Wallis, David. "Conversations/Dr. Ian Stevenson; You May Be Reading This In Some Future Past Life". New York Times, September 26, 1999
    • Owens JE, Cook EW, Stevenson I. "Features of “near-death experience” in relation to whether or not patients were near death". The Lancet. 1990 Nov 10;336(8724):1175-7.
    • Stevenson I, Cook EW. Involuntary memories during severe physical illness or injury. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1995 Jul;183(7):452-8.
    • Wheatley, Jane (6 October 2006). "Life goes on... but even after death?". Irish Independent. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
    • Mensel, Lars. "I'm no longer afraid of death". Conversation by Lars Mensel with Peter Fenwick. The European, published online 10.03.2013.
    • Fenwick, Peter and Fenwick, Elizabeth (1997). The truth in the light: an investigation of over 300 near-death experiences. New York : Berkley Books
    • Parnia S, Fenwick P. "Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness". Resuscitation. 2002 Jan;52(1):5-11
    • Parnia S, Spearpoint K, Fenwick PB. "Near death experiences, cognitive function and psychological outcomes of surviving cardiac arrest". Resuscitation. 2007 Aug;74(2):215-21.
    • Ring, Kenneth. (1980) Life at death. A scientific investigation of the near-death experience. New York: Coward McCann and Geoghenan.
    • Greyson, Bruce. "The psychodynamics of near-death experiences." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1983 Jun;171(6):376-81.
    • Greyson B. "A typology of near-death experiences." Am J Psychiatry. 1985 Aug;142(8):967-9.
    • Greyson B. "Biological aspects of near-death experiences". Perspect Biol Med. 1998 Autumn;42(1):14-32.
    • Morse M, Castillo P, Venecia D, Milstein J, Tyler DC. "Childhood near-death experiences". American Journal of Diseases of Children, Nov;140(11):1110-4, 1986
    • New York Times Staff. "Best Sellers: November 25, 1990". New York Times, November 25, 1990
    • UNT (University of North Texas) News. "UNT research produces new findings on combat soldiers' near-death experiences". Published online Monday, July 11, 2011
    • Goza, Tracy H. "Combat Near-Death Experiences: An Exploratory, Mixed-Methods Study". Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas, August 2011
    • Boseley, Sarah. "Near-death visions baffle doctors." The Guardian, published online Friday 14 December 2001
    • University of Southampton Press Release. "World’s largest-ever study of near-death experiences". 10 September 2008. Ref: 08/165
    • Stephey, M.J. "What Happens When We Die?". TIME Magazine, Thursday, Sep. 18, 2008
    • AWARE Study Update April 2011. Published online at http://www.horizonresearch.org/
    • MacDonald, G. Jeffrey. "Scientists probe brief brushes with the afterlife". The Christian Century, Jan 12, 2011
    • New York Times Staff. "Best Sellers: Nonfiction: Sunday, February 7th 2010". New York Times, February 7, 2010
    • McKnight Laura. "Houma oncologist gains national attention with book on near-death experiences". Published on The Houma Courier online edition Houma Today, Sunday, February 14, 2010
    • McKnight, Laura. "Houma doctor hits bestseller list with book on near-death experiences". Published on The Houma Courier online edition Houma Today, Friday, February 5, 2010
    • Schuessler, Jennifer. "Inside the List". New York Times (Sunday Book Review), Published online, January 29, 2010
    • Lester, David. "Depth of Near-Death Experiences and Confounding Factors". Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2003,96, 18.
    • Lai et.al. "Impact of near-death experiences on dialysis patients: a multicenter collaborative study". Am J Kidney Dis. 2007 Jul;50(1):124-32, 132.e1-2.
    • Greyson, Bruce; Ring, Kenneth. "The Life Changes Inventory - Revised." Journal of Near-Death Studies, Vol 23(1), 2004, 41-54.
    • Lange R, Greyson B, Houran J. "A Rasch scaling validation of a 'core' near-death experience". British Journal of Psychology. Volume: 95 Part: 2 Page: 161-177, 2004
    • Thonnard M, Charland-Verville V, Brédart S, Dehon H, Ledoux D, Laureys S, Vanhaudenhuyse A. Characteristics of near-death experiences memories as compared to real and imagined events memories.PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57620. Mar 27.
    • Klemenc-Ketis Z. "Life changes in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the effect of near-death experiences". Int J Behav Med. 2013 Mar;20(1):7-12.
    • Klemenc-Ketis Z, Kersnik J, Grmec S. "The effect of carbon dioxide on near-death experiences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: a prospective observational study". Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R56.
    • Martens PR. "Near-death-experiences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors. Meaningful phenomena or just fantasy of death?" Resuscitation. 1994 Mar;27(2):171-5.
      Corazza O, Schifano F. "Near-death states reported in a sample of 50 misusers". Subst Use Misuse. 2010 May;45(6):916-24.
    • Walker, Barbara & Russell, Robert D. "Assessing psychologists' knowledge and attitudes toward near-death phenomena". Journal of Near-Death Studies, Vol. 8, Number 2, 103-110
      Barnett, Linda. "Hospice Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward the Near-Death Experience". Journal of Near-Death Studies, 9(4), Summer 1991
    • Ketzenberger, Kay E. & Keim, Gina L. "The Near-Death Experience: Knowledge and Attitudes of College Students". Journal of Near-Death Studies, Volume 19, Number 4, 227-232
    • Bechtel, Lori J.; Chen, Alex; Pierce, Richard A.; Walker, Barbara A. "Assessment of clergy knowledge and attitudes toward near-death experiences". Journal of Near-Death Studies, Vol 10(3), 1992, 161-170.
    • Greyson, B. "Dissociation in people who have near-death experiences: out of their bodies or out of their minds?" The Lancet. Feb 5;355(9202):460-3, 2000
    • Greyson, Bruce. "Reduced death threat in near-death experiencers". Death Studies, Vol. 16, Issue 6, 1992.
    • IANDS: Vital Signs. Accessed 2011-02-06.
    • IANDS: NDE Archives. Accessed 2011-02-06.
    • Adler, Jerry. "Back From the Dead". Newsweek, July 23, 2007
    • "IANDS Fact Sheet, As of December, 2010. Accessed 2012-02-09.
    • Forgrave, Reid. "A glimpse of the 'other side': Seattle conference unites near-death individuals". The Seattle Times, published online Friday, July 27, 2001
    • Hopper, Leigh. "Conference to shed light on 'near-death' experiences". The Houston Chronicle, published online October 25, 2006
    • Cosmos Magazine Staff. "Near-death experiences go under the French microscope". Cosmos Magazine, Sunday, 18 June 2006. Cosmos Media Pty Ltd
      IANDS Journal of Near-Death Studies. Accessed 2011-02-06.
    • Bruce Greyson (Editor), Charles P. Flynn (Editor) (1984) The Near-Death Experience: Problems, Prospects, Perspectives. Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd
    • Holden, Jan. M. "UNT Faculty Member Dr. Janice Minor Holden Publishes The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation". University of North Texas Counseling Program News, Vol. 1, Issue 2, Summer/Fall 2010
    • Mahendra Perera, Karuppiah Jagadheesan, Anthony Peake (editors) (2011) Making Sense of Near-death Experiences: A Handbook for Clinicians Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 176 pp
    • Russell, Rebecca. "Book reviews: Making Sense of Near-death Experiences: A Handbook for Clinicians". The British Journal of Psychiatry (2012) 201: 415
    • Anahad O'Connor. Following a Bright Light to a Calmer Tomorrow, New York Times, published online April 13, 2004
      Augustine, K. “Psychophysiological and cultural correlates undermining a survivalist interpretation of near-death experiences”. Journal of Near Death Studies 26 (2):89-125 (2007).
    • Greyson, Bruce. “Commentary on ‘Psychophysiological and Cultural Correlates Undermining a Survivalist Interpretation of Near-Death Experiences’ ’’ Journal of Near-Death Studies, 26(2), Winter 2007
    Last edited by eye4magic; February 24th, 2014 at 10:43 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  17. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
  18. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Science takes NDEs seriously because its still not a well understood phenomena, that doesn't mean the common opinion is that they are likely supernatural/spiritual phenomena. The door remains open of course but so far there is no hard evidence for it.

    This is one of the only properly controlled experiments on the subject
    The AWARE Study
    http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38

    And so far after 5 years they have only had 1 in 10K respondents have an out of body near death experience to report and of those none have seen the targets set for out of body viewing.

    Personally, if everyone has a spirit and spirits can see and remember things out of bodies, I'd anticipate more than a .001% rate of people experiencing this. Coupled with the much more plausible physiological explanations available (though not fully understood) and the marked similarity to hallucinogenic drug experiences and lucid dreaming, the most likely explanations are not metaphysical.

    Though until we fully understand it, there is no reason not to go on investigating.

    Cases like this...
    Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Near-Death Experience and Journey into the Afterlife
    Dr. Eban Alexander
    American neurosurgeon

    Are widely and properly critiqued as highly unscientific. While Dr. Eban is indeed a neurosurgeon, that doesn't make you an expert on memory formation or many other aspects of brain function, it makes you an expert at cutting brains and not doing damage to them. That and he's got a rather spotty record as a surgeon and the doctor who cared for him has contradicted his story of brain death, and peer review of his work found it highly unscientific. Mostly it looks like he's cashing in on his credentials to write a book that makes people feel good and profiting greatly from the effort as so many have done through out human history.

    When you turn a questioning and skeptical eye to the research most of it doesn't hold up beyond anecdotal accounts of a broad range of experience that in truth is quite rare and exceptional. When it comes to hard proof, there is none so far.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. Likes Lukecash12 liked this post
  20. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    I was just wondering, MyX, can someone who is blind, deaf and can’t smell be a senseaslits?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  21. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Coupled with the much more plausible physiological explanations available (though not fully understood) and the marked similarity to hallucinogenic drug experiences and lucid dreaming, the most likely explanations are not metaphysical.
    I think I'll bite: what is it that makes physiological explanations remotely plausible when physiologically speaking this shouldn't be possible period? I mean, when there is no electrical activity in someone's brain whatsoever he/she can't be thinking, at least physiologically speaking. If you can forgive me, I don't have the piece of work on hand right now that I want to share, which if I remember correctly was a survey that indicated a sizable number of people who had NDE's and could prove it by telling the doctors things they shouldn't have known(like I said earlier in this thread) because they weren't producing any EKG readings from their brains... But the problem is that I'm sleepy and have a busy day tomorrow. So, I'll have to see if I can produce that for you tomorrow.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  22. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Out of Body Experiences Validated by Scientific Study

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Then what is the difference between: MyX: "I am not a naturalist" and "they are basically the same thing?"
    I believe what my senses tell me. It so happens that naturalism describes the same thing as what my senses tell me. Therefore I indirectly believe in naturalism. However this indirectness is essentially irrelevant. It is only relevant when naturalism and what my senses tell me no longer agree with each other. At this point I would cease to be a naturalist and switch back to being a sensalist.

    Well, if you plan to keep sciencing, that's great. There is some compelling evidence about what happens to the human senses when the brain and heart go offline from the scientific/medical research field of OBE/NDE for those who are interested in considering the methods and practice of true science, that being, following the evidence wherever it may lead.
    Well thanks for the list but I am not interested enough in this topic to read that.

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I was just wondering, MyX, can someone who is blind, deaf and can’t smell be a senseaslits?
    Yes. They can still taste and touch. Do you mean 'can a person who has no senses be a sensalist?'. I would say no. But I see no relevant difference between such a person and a dead person.
    abc

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 179
    Last Post: May 24th, 2010, 08:47 AM
  2. Religious experiences
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: December 24th, 2007, 03:01 PM
  3. If we are the body
    By ladyphoenix in forum Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 07:44 AM
  4. How often do you have surreal experiences?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 4th, 2007, 03:18 AM
  5. Do you believe in Out-of-Body experiences?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 10th, 2006, 02:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •