(2019-05-02, 04:03 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I was struggling with google translate, particularly here:
which google assures me translates as
Pretty sure that's not it, but I don't have any expertise in that language myself. Probably something like "the scales fell from her eyes" which is an English idiom, not meant literally.
I think it's...tears fell from her eyes or she had tears in her eyes, Typoz. (could be wrong, though)
I would encourage anyone interested in NDE's to go through all these German interviews. I don't want to take any credit for simply sticking a few of them up. But I think it's quite clear now that, yes, Germans have NDE's too
(with reference to past discussions with some sceptics who doubted that the phenomenon was as prevalent in Germany as it is over here and in the USA.
(2019-04-01, 04:25 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]You see the thing is, only people who are still alive can report them, the dead can't. What does this tell us? It tells us the brain at that point is still active, there is the clue.....
I see this kind of argument made all the time "it's not a near death experience because you're either dead or you're not." It strikes me as kind of goofy, does anyone have on hand what the formal claim being parroted is here?
(2019-05-04, 02:16 AM)letseat Wrote: [ -> ]I see this kind of argument made all the time "it's not a near death experience because you're either dead or you're not." It strikes me as kind of goofy, does anyone have on hand what the formal claim being parroted is here?
Well, there are lots of sweeping statements. Sometimes after a presentation of mountains of detail, someone will glibly respond, "We will never know" or "Nobody knows", something like that. Rather than engage with the evidence, some, even seemingly well-intentioned, prefer vagueness.
When it comes to the "you're either dead or you're not; no-one has ever come back to tell us", that's a similar pinning one's hopes on vagueness. It's strange how uncertainty is so compelling that it becomes almost a dogma in its own right.
My response, at a personal level that is, not necessarily how I'd try to reply to someone, is to look at evidence from many directions, many fields. There is sufficient information available from a broad range of human experiences that it seems the "nobody knows" argument is simply unsustainable. I'd say there are a great many people who do know. The difficulty isn't the knowing, but the communicating.
Even ordinary human experience, unrelated to these topics, can be impossible to communicate. This is why I tend towards art and music, these media won't explain scientific topics, but can at least address mind-to-mind communication. At times in my life I've felt that the impossibility of communication is the single greatest obstacle I've faced.
(2019-05-04, 02:16 AM)letseat Wrote: [ -> ]I see this kind of argument made all the time "it's not a near death experience because you're either dead or you're not." It strikes me as kind of goofy, does anyone have on hand what the formal claim being parroted is here?
The term near death experience was coined by Raymond Moody and has been used by everyone else for convenience since 1975. It's used to represent the totality of experiences during life threatening or actual death situations, but it's not accurate.
For many people (and medical professionals), 'life after death'...or more accurately a continuation of consciousness, is anathema. When forced to deal with unpalatable evidence that threatens their world view (one life, mind=brain) they nearly always resort to the sceptic's favourite objection,
they weren't really dead...and therefore the experience they are describing is nothing to do with life after death etc etc.
In fact, there are numerous cases in the literature of people having no vital signs for hours and somehow being revived and reporting experiences. Ward Krenz (link) was dead by every criteria, he was literally ice cold, blue/stiff. His father was told he was dead but nevertheless, somehow he was brought back (he did report an NDE or A (actual) DE as Parnia prefers)
https://abc7chicago.com/archive/5914262/
Neurologist and NDE sceptic Kevin Nelson uses the same "logic"..."
there's no returning from death" (he's often stated) so they weren't really dead...and the experiences they describe cannot be taken as after death experiences. The absurdity of Nelson's position becomes apparent when you realise that he doesn't actually rule out the concept of "life after death", he merely thinks that it must remain a property of 'faith' alone.
So, he clearly allows for the possibility (at least) of a continuation of consciousness (after death) but he just doesn't think that the elements described by all these "revived patients" could legitimately have anything to do with it. And that is frankly absurd because most of the elements of the NDE are precisely what one would expect to occur if consciousness continued.
The "you're dead or you're not" argument is like saying that someone who's paralysed. is cured of their paralysis, and then tells people what it was like to be paralysed was not really paralysed because "you can't talk when you're paralysed."
(2019-05-04, 02:16 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]The term near death experience was coined by Raymond Moody and has been used by everyone else for convenience since 1975. It's used to represent the totality of experiences during life threatening or actual death situations, but it's not accurate.
For many people (and medical professionals), 'life after death'...or more accurately a continuation of consciousness, is anathema. When forced to deal with unpalatable evidence that threatens their world view (one life, mind=brain) they nearly always resort to the sceptic's favourite objection, they weren't really dead...and therefore the experience they are describing is nothing to do with life after death etc etc.
In fact, there are numerous cases in the literature of people having no vital signs for hours and somehow being revived and reporting experiences. Ward Krenz (link) was dead by every criteria, he was literally ice cold, blue/stiff. His father was told he was dead but nevertheless, somehow he was brought back (he did report an NDE or A (actual) DE as Parnia prefers)
https://abc7chicago.com/archive/5914262/
Neurologist and NDE sceptic Kevin Nelson uses the same "logic"..."there's no returning from death" (he's often stated) so they weren't really dead...and the experiences they describe cannot be taken as after death experiences. The absurdity of Nelson's position becomes apparent when you realise that he doesn't actually rule out the concept of "life after death", he merely thinks that it must remain a property of 'faith' alone.
So, he clearly allows for the possibility (at least) of a continuation of consciousness (after death) but he just doesn't think that the elements described by all these "revived patients" could legitimately have anything to do with it. And that is frankly absurd because most of the elements of the NDE are precisely what one would expect to occur if consciousness continued.
Thanks, I think I heard this line from Shermer originally, but he plausibly got it from Nelson.
(2018-01-21, 06:55 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Dr's Jeff Long, Kevin Nelson and one of the cardiac surgeons who treated her, Hans George Kaulbach discuss her NDE here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNT57zD8AyY
I really wanted to watch this but its blocked in America now...
(2019-05-09, 09:10 AM)letseat Wrote: [ -> ]I really wanted to watch this but its blocked in America now...
Did you try this alternate link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwHPcXl27q8
On second thoughts, though that's the same video, it has been carefully edited to remove Kevin Nelson's comments. That's a shame, because they are interesting.
You might try a proxy server, perhaps, to choose a location outside America.
(2019-05-09, 09:10 AM)letseat Wrote: [ -> ]I really wanted to watch this but its blocked in America now...
That's a shame. We get the same thing over here on some American stuff. Nelson "believes" REM intrusion (waking dreams) are responsible for NDE's and that the veridical observation content is gained by patient's eyes opening slightly or just enough to see whatever they claim to see ...and then added into their narrative subconsciously and then it's all blended together.
I'm pretty certain he's just deliberately being a "dick" about it....he can't really be a fool as a neurologist. He must be aware that lucid dreaming is not an adequate explanation...and as for patients opening their eyes.... :/
Sadly, Hans Kaulbach died recently :
https://traueranzeigen.noz.de/traueranze...g-kaulbach
