A materialist and an NDE proponent go to a stage magic show together

I don't really understand that. I get it that you're not saying the experience is deliberately fabricated.

However, you've said '...researchers and subjects are referring to something else...' and '...Not [the] Content...'.

But the example you have given uses the content of the experience?

Ah, okay. I misunderstood you then.

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. 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.

Really hate to rise this thread back up again, but I wanted to respond to this. Your commitment to the notion that NDEs and hallucinations is astonishing. Go read accounts by people who have used drugs that alter conscious states and had hallucinations etc, and have also had NDEs. They make it abundantly clear that the experiences differ markedly. "I'm sorry, but this is incorrect." Honestly I can't help but laugh at that. You go ahead and think that, Linda. If you honestly have read up on this stuff and that's what you've taken away, there's no reason to debate it. Call it a stereotype all you want, but that isn't it at all; it's just actually listening to NDE experiencers since they, you know, actually had an NDE.

Lol at subjective and unsupported. Have you actually done the research you claim to have? Discussing issues with you is such a ridiculous waste of time because you're so utterly disingenuous in your responses. Think what you want, Linda. I'm done wasting my time attempting to have discussions with you. You just have basically said that everything the parapsychologists do is based on unsupported, baseless assumptions a priori. So we're back to the whole, parapsychologists who think NDEs are anything other than completely reductive productions of the brain are wrong and make bad assumptions, but those who agree with you, the almighty Linda, are the ones who are genuine and don't make unfounded assumptions, start off with genuine intentions and no serious biases, and are conducting the most valuable research yielding the results that we ought to pay the most attention to. I mean, you're like a caricature of a person in these conversations. Your lack of genuineness is so thinly veiled, yet you keep it up like you're really trying. It just blows my mind, honestly.

Dante, I apologize. I did not mean to touch a nerve, and am distressed to find I have done so.

Linda

Given that the materialist believes that the stuff we observe around us consists almost entirely of empty space, and the minuscule bits that could be reasonably called "stuff" don't actually have properties of "stuffness" until we look at them, and that stuff which doesn't actually exist has all kinds of lasting effects, I'm not sure that "what you see is what you get" really describes their perspective. And it seems like proponents adopt this perspective, when experiences which feel real are presumed to represent actual experiences, if the experience is spiritual or otherworldly in nature.

I wonder, are you referring to the tendency of proponents to see agency behind the scenes, while skeptics tend not to?

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a3b4/58...8d2b47.pdf

Linda

Not to dig this up, but what on Earth does that link prove? You know how damn vague "believer" and "skeptic" is in a study like this? I don't and many people here don't deny for a second there are people who chuck up everything to ghosts and so on in cases that don't call for it. The whole thing about being prone to seeing faces in designs is no damning point either. It's if they immideatly think it's a ghost a priori that is the problem. We all don't deny there are "pseudo-proponents" (opposite of pseudo skeptic) who just mindlessly blame everything on the paranormal. 

It's an insult to everyone here who tries to weigh the evidence of the paranormal matters we discuss to say they are all must be suffering some "cognitive problem" if they come out thinking it's at least likely it is something actually paranormal. Flat out. 

And looking over the study, it's pretty trivial to say the least.

The researchers used the score on the Paranormal Belief Scale by Tobacyk (https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/cgi/view...20scale%22), which is one in common use by parapsychologists, to form groups ("skeptics" and "believers") based on the median score. They also looked at whether there was a relationship between the score on the scale (without grouping) and the performance on the task.

ETA: I brought this up because I was puzzled by Hjorton's characterization of the materialist as:

"The materialist observes the world around them. It seems to them that it is all there is."

I was wondering what he meant by that - if it's not all that it seems to be, is it because 'non-materialists' see agency where 'materialists' do not (ignoring the question of whether there is or is not agency in the first place)?

ETA II:

I intended no insult. I'm not making a judgement about variation in seeing agency. A slightly higher propensity to do so could be found to be cognitively advantageous, for example.

Linda

Not to dig this up, but what on Earth does that link prove? You know how damn vague "believer" and "skeptic" is in a study like this? I don't and many people here don't deny for a second there are people who chuck up everything to ghosts and so on in cases that don't call for it. The whole thing about being prone to seeing faces in designs is no damning point either. It's if they immideatly think it's a ghost a priori that is the problem. We all don't deny there are "pseudo-proponents" (opposite of pseudo skeptic) who just mindlessly blame everything on the paranormal. 

It's an insult to everyone here who tries to weigh the evidence of the paranormal matters we discuss to say they are all must be suffering some "cognitive problem" if they come out thinking it's at least likely it is something actually paranormal. Flat out. 

And looking over the study, it's pretty trivial to say the least.

Is it an insult? Have you notice overall members find ways to keep to the certainty the paranormal is real no matter what?

Is it an insult? Have you notice overall members find ways to keep to the certainty the paranormal is real no matter what?

I guess it's just an opinion, but honestly no, Steve. How about your comment, is it not an insult in a way towards them if thinking the paper has any relevance towards them doesn't? 

No matter if you think it's true or not in your opinion, it is insinuating to think that all proponents here are constantly pulling sly tactics to make sure that the paranormal is never out of the question?

I've seen their reasoning to say the same back to you, Steve, but I'm not hostile towards you as a result

To be fair to Steve - in a large chunk of the forum, you are not allowed to discuss doubts with respect to extended consciousness, which doesn't really give the impression that proponents are interested in questioning these beliefs.

Linda

To be fair to Steve - in a large chunk of the forum, you are not allowed to discuss doubts with respect to extended consciousness, which doesn't really give the impression that proponents are interested in questioning these beliefs.

Linda

And yet there is little action over in most of those forums, and the Skeptic Vs Proponent one and other lightly moderated ones are much more frequented and posted in by proponents, skeptics, and whoever else. So there is still a very prevalent want for discussion, with people of opposing sides. 

Over 2,000 posts in the S vs P forum alone, which is more then all the posts in the moderated forums together. I just think of the moderated portion as the same as the Skeptiko mod thread ability, but done in a easier way. Once again, my opinion.

To be fair to Steve - in a large chunk of the forum, you are not allowed to discuss doubts with respect to extended consciousness, which doesn't really give the impression that proponents are interested in questioning these beliefs.

There's no prohibition on discussing "doubts". The prohibition is very specific:
"However, when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum, and when the intent is strictly to "debunk", that type of post should be reserved for the Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions sub-forum"
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-fo...re-posting