Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

From someone I believe to lean in a skeptical direction, based on the conclusion ->

Despite parallels, there are profound differences between DMT and NDEs.

Scott A. McGreal MSc.





I'm sure someone can dig around and find cases that at least seem to cross over the chasm of differences.


But my point was not to show some great separation between psychedelic experiences and NDEs but rather that the brain contains a variety of substances that are part of its make up and so of course some changes will correlate with an NDE.

Singling out DMT as the chemical responsible is just one strategy in the skeptic playbook, but at least it is a strategy that leads back to work done by proponents of a sort - those who believe DMT is a gateway to some other place.

If skeptics want to promote DMT, the Simulation Hypothesis, or some other idea that pushes the public's boggle threshold that's better in the long run for the proponent side IMO. Even the Multiverse idea, as bad as it is scientifically speaking, has value in that sense.

Thanks for that link Sci. Interesting that someone commenting claims to have had two NDEs and isn't put off by the idea that it's just chemicals-but if that's true, then they're a definite minority. I haven't heard of anyone except that one guy claim to have had an NDE and yet still not be convinced of the reality of the experience (presumably). Then again, he may have been mistaken about his experience. Who knows...but I'll not overthink this. He isn't the first (seemingly/possibly) 'skeptical' person who has lied about their claimed NDE...

I found a handy article written by Steve Taylor about the very topic as well: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...es-and-dmt

Interesting how they were both released only a couple days apart. It's also bizarre that another writer in March 2019 tried to compare NDEs to certain kinds of acid trips, but the 'new research' wasn't all that new or impressive at all, merely going over old territory with the neurochemical explanations that have been refuted for years now, as Tim I noticed rightly pointed out in the comments. It's the same old cherry-picking of aspects of the experiences and starting from the position that there must be a naturalist explanation, ignoring the increasing number of veridical testimonials.

There is still though that wonderful article (if too short on the subject) made by another philosopher, Sharon Hewitt Rawlette, on veridical NDEs and other mysterious elements that we've mentioned on here before, even featuring a comment by Kimberly Clarke Sharpe.