(2021-04-24, 02:52 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]We also very much need to keep hold of the fact that a full NDE can take place in a healthy and normal-functioning brain. It is by recognising this that we see the brain does not cause NDE's, since they take place without any abnormality as well as in complete shutdown.
Yes but I think you may be referring in the main(?) to fear death experiences? Car crashes (just before impact etc) and falls down mountains? Whilst these are interesting, they are rarely (there are exceptions) sources of veridical evidence that might convince the sceptic that something extraordinary has occurred.
In fact the reverse happens. They use these to rubbish the reports from people that have actually died, by inferring that what they experienced can all be experienced by someone who was nowhere near dead or anything like it.
(2021-04-24, 08:03 AM)Smaw Wrote: [ -> ]since them occurring during cardiac arrest makes them inherently remarkable and very hard to explain.
Didn't understand the first bit but this is precisely what is so perplexing about them. And also the fact that they are remembered, when cardiac arrest is a massive insult (short term memory destroyer) to the brain (apparently they tell us) and
nothing at all should be remembered.
Tim, I appreciate your point of view. I think you and I approach this topic with different interests and consequently different emphasis. For myself, it has always been the spiritual or mystical component which interests me most of all. This mirrors my personal experience of such things as dreams or answers to prayers and other experiences. Really, none of this is veridical, but it has been of the highest value and significance in my life.
There have been other things in my life which have been veridical, and these certainly shifted my viewpoint over what was possible within this reality - certain things which broke accepted scientific beliefs. So I do see the importance of the veridical material. But I don't consider it necessary or even possible for everything to be verified, and likewise It would be disrespectful to dismiss experiences of other people simply because they didn't happen to have any handy witnesses available to corroborate things. Life is just too varied to expect that.
As for 'fear death' there is a possibility of that term to be used in a misleading way, for example there may be simply be surprise rather than fear. There are other circumstances, perhaps when a person reaches some sort of critical point in their life, which may trigger some profound experience. Another area of what I call the normal brain function is the shared death experience, where a person is present at the passing of someone else. These are rarely veridical, unless there are multiple people simultaneously involved, but I would not want to disregard these simply on the grounds of it being something shared between two people, only one of whom survived to tell the tale. There is a richness to life that should be talked about, and too much emphasis on 'proof' would be limiting, in my opinion.
As I say, it's just a perspective, a point of view. I don't think there's any right or wrong in these matters.
(2021-04-24, 01:10 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Tim, I appreciate your point of view. I think you and I approach this topic with different interests and consequently different emphasis. For myself, it has always been the spiritual or mystical component which interests me most of all. This mirrors my personal experience of such things as dreams or answers to prayers and other experiences. Really, none of this is veridical, but it has been of the highest value and significance in my life.
There have been other things in my life which have been veridical, and these certainly shifted my viewpoint over what was possible within this reality - certain things which broke accepted scientific beliefs. So I do see the importance of the veridical material. But I don't consider it necessary or even possible for everything to be verified, and likewise It would be disrespectful to dismiss experiences of other people simply because they didn't happen to have any handy witnesses available to corroborate things. Life is just too varied to expect that.
As for 'fear death' there is a possibility of that term to be used in a misleading way, for example there may be simply be surprise rather than fear. There are other circumstances, perhaps when a person reaches some sort of critical point in their life, which may trigger some profound experience. Another area of what I call the normal brain function is the shared death experience, where a person is present at the passing of someone else. These are rarely veridical, unless there are multiple people simultaneously involved, but I would not want to disregard these simply on the grounds of it being something shared between two people, only one of whom survived to tell the tale. There is a richness to life that should be talked about, and too much emphasis on 'proof' would be limiting, in my opinion.
As I say, it's just a perspective, a point of view. I don't think there's any right or wrong in these matters.
I don't disagree with most of that, Typoz (there are a couple of things though, but I don't want to pursue it).
However, you're maybe inadvertently equating me (and what I think) with the scientific necessity to narrow down precisely what is being studied, hence only cardiac arrest experiences. (Parnia and his colleagues)
I'm just trying to explain the field, it isn't necessarily my point of view, you see (it might be and then again...). I'm not sure how else I could have explained it. It doesn't matter what I think anyway.
(2021-04-24, 08:56 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]An afterthought? I don't understand your reasoning process, how you reached that point of view.
An afterthought in the way that when people think of NDEs, the first thing that occurs to them isn't that they happen outside of cardiac arrest. And the research and discussion around them very much focus on their happening in cardiac arrest since it's the hardest to explain. It's not a bad thing, just not many people think about it.
What happened to Aware II? I thought it had concluded in 2017 but there's nothing published on it..
Thanks for the effort, tim.
(2023-01-02, 05:27 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the effort, tim.
No worrries, Ian. I could have polished it up a bit based on what I know he is saying (from past interviews) but I only made a couple of slight adjustments, which were obvious.