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

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.

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.

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

these unreal experiences

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

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.

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.

There seems little doubt that many of the recalled experiences we discuss on here are real - that is the idea that experients are not deliberately fabricating the contents of the experience they are sharing with others. So you must be referring to something else when you describe such experiences as 'unreal'? Perhaps you are referring to the content of the experience, rather than the experience itself?

Yes, the researchers and subjects are referring to something else.  Not content. To distinguish them from memories of experiences during ordinary awake consciousness, or non-delusional experiences. For example, remembering that they saw the medical team during rounds, when they were awake, wouldn't be an "unreal" experience. But remembering it as "the medical team chanted and carried torches", or remembering the experience when they were in a deep coma, would be "unreal".  

Linda

Yes, the researchers and subjects are referring to something else.  Not content. To distinguish them from memories of experiences during ordinary awake consciousness, or non-delusional experiences. For example, remembering that they saw the medical team during rounds, when they were awake, wouldn't be an "unreal" experience. But remembering it as "the medical team chanted and carried torches", or remembering the experience when they were in a deep coma, would be "unreal".  

Perhaps it would be helpful to define what you mean by ‘unreal’. Rather than making statements such as ‘for example, X is unreal’. Giving examples rather than defining what you mean often leaves people guessing.