A splendid video about evolution

I’m referring only to out-of-body experiences supported by objective facts corroborated by witnesses. I’d compare the lack of endorsement from the broader community of resuscitation experts to a “cold fusion” moment for these claims.

That doesn’t really make sense. 

Cold Fusion, in principle, is supposed to be a replicable technology. OOBEs occurring during NDEs are almost always not planned by the experiencer.

This is like saying a person shouldn’t believe in shooting stars until we can make their occurrence happen on command. A society that rejects the Materialist faith, and has common practices for achieving OOBEs, may one day be able to produce replicable tests. 

All that said, one simply can say they personally don’t accept Survival evidence has convinced them without silly claims like Parnia made up the OOBE with veridicial components to become a celebrity.

Alternatively, these NDE studies may have been so poorly designed and executed that they left substantial room for interviewer biases to influence the findings.

So AWARE is such a good study - despite the issues @Valmar noted - it can be used to dismiss NDEs, but Parnia himself can’t be trusted when he says that there was a veridical case that didn’t involve the stickers?

“The man who wants to beat a dog always finds his stick”
 

Alternatively, these NDE studies may have been so poorly designed and executed that they left substantial room for interviewer biases to influence the findings.

The point I was making was they had more/better subjects, because they recruited and interviewed patients faster than the AWARE studies, thus capturing the deeper experiences.

The point I was making was they had more/better subjects, because they recruited and interviewed patients faster than the AWARE studies, thus capturing the deeper experiences.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think this happens in real life. Most patients who die within the first week after the event never regain consciousness or become lucid enough to be interviewed.

One of the problems associated with AWARE type studies is this:

Assume for the moment that the mind does indeed separate from the body and float near the ceiling watching its former body being worked on.

If that is true, is it reasonable to expect it to observe irrelevant scraps of paper on top of cupboards. It is obvious that the test is biased as soon as you think about it.

David

One of the problems associated with AWARE type studies is this:

Assume for the moment that the mind does indeed separate from the body and float near the ceiling watching its former body being worked on.

If that is true, is it reasonable to expect it to observe irrelevant scraps of paper on top of cupboards. It is obvious that the test is biased as soon as you think about it.

David

The study should try and work either with people who've worked on having OOBEs or even people within shamanic and other traditions where there is a path of training in place for having OOBEs.

AWARE conflates two concerns - Survival and existence of OOBEs - and this itself will lead to tests of this sort being problematic. This is a concern I and others raised when AWARE was first proposed, and as expected it gave very inconclusive results.

Clearly Survival is not "battle tested" in the way QM is, and so we should first work to have greater confidence and means of replication for OOBEs in general before trying to establish whether NDEs genuinely say something clear about what the afterlife is like.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think this happens in real life. Most patients who die within the first week after the event never regain consciousness or become lucid enough to be interviewed.

I don't know if that is true, it's in any case moot. AWARE's methodology didn't enroll cardiac arrest subjects in the study unless they had recovered to discharge, most of the interviews were done by telephone between 3-12 months later. They lost so many potential subjects for the study due to the sluggish methodology, and massive delays.

Van Lommels 2001 study showed some correlation between depth of experience, and the length of time the patient was in cardiac arrest. We also find an inverse correlation between severity of cardiac arrest, and length of survival. The more severe the cardiac arrest, the faster they die after resuscitation (if they are even resuscitated). Penny got 8 OBE's enrolled and interviewed in her own, one-woman-study, in her own time, at just one hospital - although she almost had a nervous breakdown with the volume of work.

None of this helps us anyway... because there are zero medical-type NDE OBE studies measuring visual recall.

The study should try and work either with people who've worked on having OOBEs or even people within shamanic and other traditions where there is a path of training in place for having OOBEs.

AWARE conflates two concerns - Survival and existence of OOBEs - and this itself will lead to tests of this sort being problematic. This is a concern I and others raised when AWARE was first proposed, and as expected it gave very inconclusive results.

What AWARE intended to measure was awareness during resuscitation, and whether cardiac arrest patients were up on the ceiling. They were not measuring the visual accuracy of recalled NDE OBEs, a missed opportunity, then they made the same mistake again with the design of AWARE II.

If anyone was willing, and able to publically produce veridical OBE's at will under controlled conditions - we would already know about it.

If anyone was willing, and able to publically produce veridical OBE's at will under controlled conditions - we would already know about it.

This I'm not so sure of, as there do seem to be traditions where people at least claim to be able to produce OBEs with some reliability.

That said, one does wonder why someone like Bigelow doesn't just provide the necessary funding to settle the matter and find a reliable OBEr in these traditions.

[Laird]

@Laird I think you’re correct that this is what the authors are suggesting. However, biology and chemistry lie outside my comfort zone, so I’ll refrain from commenting on the technical details.

Likewise. I echoed David's "solved the problem" phrasing, but all I can really say is that they propose solutions to the problem. I, too, lack the expertise to evaluate them.

In any case, until someone reproduces life in the laboratory from basic elements, there remains room for supernatural interference as a necessary ingredient.

Yes, and given the evidence (discussed at length here on PQ and before that on Skeptiko) for a soul or some sort of spiritual/astral/etheric "body" which inhabits, and can separate from, the physical body, it does seem to me that supernatural design - at least of the interface between physical body and soul - is necessary.

That said, the theory of evolution, and plausible mechanisms for abiogenesis, seem to be on firmer ground than some PQ members make out, so...

I don’t dismiss that argument, but I’m not convinced it’s definitive, as David seems to be.

...I'm sympathetic to your sentiments here. It's all very difficult to make sense of.

Secondly, I’m uncomfortable with attempts to separate religion from “the Designer.” I would characterize any being whose powers aren’t constrained by our universe’s fundamental principles, like thermodynamics, as a god.

Ah, but can you not separate the generic concept of "a" god from the - equally generic - concept of "religion"?