Psience Quest

(2017-11-19, 04:14 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Here's another academic article, seemingly unbiased: 

Near-death experiences between science and prejudice

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399124/

I have an equal problem with those papers which attempt to explain NDE's on a psychobiological basis as I do with those which attempt to debunk those xplanations. These questions are empirical in nature, and that is why studies of the kind I mentioned are more relevant. Rather than guessing whether NDEs can be distinguished from hallucinations (which seems to depend upon having an unrealistic stereotype of what a hallucination is like), look at all the experiences together and see if some of them are different, and in what way.

Linda

(2017-12-22, 06:05 AM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean how do I know? There are literally thousands and thousands of pages of NDEs as told by people on nderf.org, and while those aren't studies, they are at least material to study. There are multiple books (including Smitty's) which go into much greater detail about a number of cases and studies. There are other studies like the Pim van Lommel ones and the Parnia studies, the Greyson studies, etc, and those are just for NDEs. I think, to me, those clearly are more voluminous than your 25+ pages.

I was referring to research on these phenomena, which means prospective cohort studies. There have been 6 prospective cohort studies by parapsychologists (http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...post238502) and dozens and dozens of them by mainstream researchers. Now these are not researchers who are setting out to debunk NDE's, like Watt and Mobbs referred to in Kamarling's link. They are performing this research, for the most part, without NDEs in mind.

Quote:Yeah, just saying that they're mistaken is again nonsense. Completely biased opinion that isn't supported by research, if you do what I've been saying here, which is to actually pay attention to the majority of those who have actually studied the material and listened to the experiences from actual NDErs.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Researchers on the parapsychology side have asserted that they think NDEs are different from "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences" based on having a stereotype in mind about what a hallucination is like and comparing this with their stereotype of what an NDE is like. But their description of this stereotype is unrealistic, just like most lay-people seem to have an unrealistic stereotype in mind of what a hallucination is like. For example, many say things like they expect hallucinations to feel like they're not quite real, to be confused and chaotic, or to be delusional. If you actually read accounts of hallucinations, such as the transcripts from Sartori's interviews which she classed as "hallucinations", or from the mainstream research I referenced earlier, you discover that hallucinations take a wide variety of forms and include experiences which feel as though they are more real than real life, that are rich and detailed, which contain elements which are not regarded as delusional, etc. 

Both parapsychology and mainstream researchers start with the same group of experiences for their prospective research. They specify a cohort, which may be people who have experienced cardiac resuscitation, coma or an ICU stay. They ask each subject whether they have any memories from the event, and then they interview them as to the content of those memories. Parapsychologists ask a series of leading questions in order to select out a smaller portion of those experiences on the basis of whether their content fits an "NDE scale" and then they focus on those experiences. All other experiences are "hallucinations". Mainstream researchers look at all the experiences and describe their content and their characteristics.

What happens as a result is that mainstream researchers find these experiences have a variety of characteristics - some are delusional, some have emotional qualities such as feelings of peace or anxiety, some can be grouped by their thematic elements including whether they have spiritual themes, some are transformative, some are distressing, etc. But what they don't find is a set of experiences which are different from the others in terms of whether or not they can be regarded as hallucinatory.

Parapsychologists on the other hand, find a set of experiences which they call NDEs based on their content, emotional qualities, and thematic elements. They describe their content and characteristics, and then assume that they can be distinguished from the  "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences" they discarded from their cohort, without testing whether this is so.   

Quote:This is the perfect example of lending too much credence to opinion and subjective, unsupported statements. The difference between NDEs and hallucinations is clear and well elucidated, so you just saying they're mistaken is point blank false when it's at best debatable.

That's my point. It's not that parapsychologists are performing research which investigates whether or not these experiences can be divided into "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences" or "something else", and that "something else" turns out to be NDEs. They are giving their opinion and making subjective, unsupported statements which assume this is so. While mainstream researchers who are actually investigating "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences", without the NDE-scale in mind, do not find a set of experiences which don't fit in with the rest, that look like NDEs instead.

Quote:Same goes for whether brain activity is insufficient (the key of course being the often severely reduced brain activity of the experiencers, which is itself besides the point given the number of shared OBEs that have been studied and reported).

Same here. Parapsychologists are not actually investigating whether or not there is brain activity, but rather relying on a series of unsupported assumptions. The closest it looked like we were going to get on this was Parnia's AWARE study, where they were going to measure cerebral oximetry in some of these cases. Mainstream researchers, who actually investigate whether brain activity is present during medical crises, find a variety of results. 

Quote:I scanned over some of them, not in great detail. The last few months have been insanely busy for me. I have, in my time studying this materials, read accounts by researchers who, as I said, have felt that the phenomena aren't legitimate. That's fine, and I've read those. But I found the others more persuasive, and in my research I found far more erring towards the proponent side. That's my experience.

These are not references to researchers who feel that the phenomena aren't legitimate. These are references to research which looks at the same experiences which parapsychologists dismiss as "hallucinations" become they don't fit the NDE-scale. I think it is useful to discover what those experiences actually look like. I also think it is useful to discover what experiences from prospective studies which are identified as NDEs look like, because they aren't like the stories you read on NDERF.

Linda

(2017-12-22, 12:12 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I was referring to research on these phenomena, which means prospective cohort studies. There have been 6 prospective cohort studies by parapsychologists (http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...post238502) and dozens and dozens of them by mainstream researchers. Now these are not researchers who are setting out to debunk NDE's, like Watt and Mobbs referred to in Kamarling's link. They are performing this research, for the most part, without NDEs in mind.


I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Researchers on the parapsychology side have asserted that they think NDEs are different from "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences" based on having a stereotype in mind about what a hallucination is like and comparing this with their stereotype of what an NDE is like. But their description of this stereotype is unrealistic, just like most lay-people seem to have an unrealistic stereotype in mind of what a hallucination is like. For example, many say things like they expect hallucinations to feel like they're not quite real, to be confused and chaotic, or to be delusional. If you actually read accounts of hallucinations, such as the transcripts from Sartori's interviews which she classed as "hallucinations", or from the mainstream research I referenced earlier, you discover that hallucinations take a wide variety of forms and include experiences which feel as though they are more real than real life, that are rich and detailed, which contain elements which are not regarded as delusional, etc. 

Both parapsychology and mainstream researchers start with the same group of experiences for their prospective research. They specify a cohort, which may be people who have experienced cardiac resuscitation, coma or an ICU stay. They ask each subject whether they have any memories from the event, and then they interview them as to the content of those memories. Parapsychologists ask a series of leading questions in order to select out a smaller portion of those experiences on the basis of whether their content fits an "NDE scale" and then they focus on those experiences. All other experiences are "hallucinations". Mainstream researchers look at all the experiences and describe their content and their characteristics.

What happens as a result is that mainstream researchers find these experiences have a variety of characteristics - some are delusional, some have emotional qualities such as feelings of peace or anxiety, some can be grouped by their thematic elements including whether they have spiritual themes, some are transformative, some are distressing, etc. But what they don't find is a set of experiences which are different from the others in terms of whether or not they can be regarded as hallucinatory.

Parapsychologists on the other hand, find a set of experiences which they call NDEs based on their content, emotional qualities, and thematic elements. They describe their content and characteristics, and then assume that they can be distinguished from the  "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences" they discarded from their cohort, without testing whether this is so.   


That's my point. It's not that parapsychologists are performing research which investigates whether or not these experiences can be divided into "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences" or "something else", and that "something else" turns out to be NDEs. They are giving their opinion and making subjective, unsupported statements which assume this is so. While mainstream researchers who are actually investigating "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences", without the NDE-scale in mind, do not find a set of experiences which don't fit in with the rest, that look like NDEs instead.


Same here. Parapsychologists are not actually investigating whether or not there is brain activity, but rather relying on a series of unsupported assumptions. The closest it looked like we were going to get on this was Parnia's AWARE study, where they were going to measure cerebral oximetry in some of these cases. Mainstream researchers, who actually investigate whether brain activity is present during medical crises, find a variety of results. 


These are not references to researchers who feel that the phenomena aren't legitimate. These are references to research which looks at the same experiences which parapsychologists dismiss as "hallucinations" become they don't fit the NDE-scale. I think it is useful to discover what those experiences actually look like. I also think it is useful to discover what experiences from prospective studies which are identified as NDEs look like, because they aren't like the stories you read on NDERF.

Linda

I was referring to research on these phenomena, which means prospective cohort studies. There have been 6 prospective cohort studies by parapsychologists (http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...post238502) and dozens and dozens of them by mainstream researchers.

Can anyone help me to understand what this woman is talking about ?  Since when was Pim Van Lommel a parapsychologist ? What the hell is she talking about ? Does anyone know ?

"While mainstream researchers who are actually investigating "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences", without the NDE-scale in mind, do not find a set of experiences which don't fit in with the rest, that look like NDEs instead."

  ? ?        

(2017-12-22, 01:42 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I was referring to research on these phenomena, which means prospective cohort studies. There have been 6 prospective cohort studies by parapsychologists (http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...post238502) and dozens and dozens of them by mainstream researchers.

Can anyone help me to understand what this woman is talking about ?  Since when was Pim Van Lommel a parapsychologist ? What the hell is she talking about ? Does anyone know ?

"While mainstream researchers who are actually investigating "hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences", without the NDE-scale in mind, do not find a set of experiences which don't fit in with the rest, that look like NDEs instead."

  ? ?        

She's saying, in a long winded way peppered with academic sounding jargon, that mainstream scientists do not recognise the NDE as being separate from a class of mental phenomena generally regarded as hallucinatory and that the qualitative distinction is an invention of parapsychologists such as Greyson. Of course, as you rightly point out, people like van Lommel and others involved do not consider themselves parapsychologists and they are the ones with experience of interviewing patients after an NDE. It is also the assertion of ND experiencers themselves that there is a significant difference in vividness, cohesiveness and long-term impact.

It is sophistry. She does it all the time to undermine evidence she doesn't like. You know how long she maintained ridiculous arguments about the Pam Reynolds case. She will do the same here and you can shower these pages with as many links as you like, she will dismiss them all: it is not worth the effort.

(2017-12-22, 07:02 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]She's saying, in a long winded way, peppered with academic sounding jargon, that mainstream scientists do not recognise the NDE as being separate from a class of mental phenomena generally regarded as hallucinatory and that the qualitative distinction is an invention of parapsychologists such as Greyson. Of course, as you rightly point out, people like van Lommel and others involved do not consider themselves parapsychologists and they are the ones with experience of interviewing patients after an NDE. It is also the assertion of ND experiencers themselves that there is a significant difference in vividness, cohesiveness and long-term impact.

It is sophistry. She does it all the time to undermine evidence she doesn't like. You know how long she maintained ridiculous arguments about the Pam Reynolds case. She will do the same here and you can shower these pages with as many links as you like, she will dismiss them all: it is not worth the effort.

Thanks, Dave. I think some mainstream scientists do still regard NDE's as "hallucinations" but not all, not now. As for Bruce Greyson he's a psychiatrist (MD) (as you will know) and practices as such (as far as I understand) which is mainstream.

I don't see how Madam can legitimately label him as a parapsychologist (nothing wrong with that BTW) although he is a member of the parapsychological society. One of the things that greatly impressed Bruce Greyson was the ability of an objectively (usually) very brief experience (NDE) to bring about an enormous and lasting change in his patients, that he hadn't been able to achieve with years of psychiatric consultation.

And this woman wants to relegate that experience to the level, or even beneath the level
of an organic hallucination, such as seeing rats and spiders crawling up the wall or fish floating in the air. I agree with you totally about Linda. I sometimes wonder if she is actually raving mad.

(2017-12-22, 09:18 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how Madam can legitimately label him as a parapsychologist (nothing wrong with that BTW) although he is a member of the parapsychological society. One of the things that greatly impressed Bruce Greyson was the ability of an objectively (usually) very brief experience (NDE) to bring about an enormous and lasting change in his patients, that he hadn't been able to achieve with years of psychiatric consultation.

I think this gets overlooked - perhaps deliberately - when too much time is spent focussing on tiny details. The great transformational value of such experiences is why we should all - regardless of worldview - be taking NDEs seriously and making them part of the mainstream. To do otherwise would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(2017-12-23, 08:54 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I think this gets overlooked - perhaps deliberately - when too much time is spent focussing on tiny details. The great transformational value of such experiences is why we should all - regardless of worldview - be taking NDEs seriously and making them part of the mainstream. To do otherwise would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree that that's one of the reasons to study these experiences. That is often the reason the mainstream research is undertaken, as well - to look at the lasting impact of these unreal experiences (positive and negative).

Linda

(2017-12-23, 11:02 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]these unreal experiences

"'What is truth ?' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

(2017-12-23, 11:02 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that that's one of the reasons to study these experiences. That is often the reason the mainstream research is undertaken, as well - to look at the lasting impact of these unreal experiences (positive and negative).

Linda

And this is another favourite tactic: pretending to agree while maintaining the opposite argument. Someone noted this in another thread recently but it has been well known throughout her Skeptiko forum residency. It is all fake concurrence and, of course, condescending to boot. 

The real give-away is the continued promotion of "mainstream" as authoritative and legitimate thus inferring that any research she doesn't consider mainstream as somehow fanciful and unscientific (see here for another example). It is all a game; it is dishonest and it is the reason so many people refuse to engage with her. Her response is usually to cry victim as we have already seen here on this forum.

(2017-12-23, 06:42 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]And this is another favourite tactic: pretending to agree while maintaining the opposite argument. Someone noted this in another thread recently but it has been well known throughout her Skeptiko forum residency. It is all fake concurrence and, of course, condescending to boot. 

The real give-away is the continued promotion of "mainstream" as authoritative and legitimate thus inferring that any research she doesn't consider mainstream as somehow fanciful and unscientific (see here for another example). It is all a game; it is dishonest and it is the reason so many people refuse to engage with her. Her response is usually to cry victim as we have already seen here on this forum.

Exactly !  I like the easy moderation style of this forum but this woman is playing games and peddling bullsh#t. The moderators do a good job and will do what they see fit; I'm not for banning anyone just because of BS but if I was behind the scenes, I'd ask her to refrain from making stupid, inaccurate, provocative statements on a public forum.