Commentary thread for tim's "NDE's" thread

It sounds like you're suggesting that he had the right to have his choice respected and to not be forced to do something he didn't want to do. Right?

It's more like, if they were okay forcing him back, surely they would be okay if someone else forced them to go somewhere they didn't want to either. I mean, they arleady did it to him without provocation so it's not like they could complain without being total hypocrites.

[Laird]

It's more like, if they were okay forcing him back, surely they would be okay if someone else forced them to go somewhere they didn't want to either. I mean, they arleady did it to him without provocation so it's not like they could complain without being total hypocrites.

That sounds like fairly good (and common) reasoning for an objective basis to moral principles.

And now for something completely different .....

John Cleese sitting next to Bruce Greyson. I feel there's definitely something Pythonesque about that. Or maybe not.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/...0efd5.html

http://ideastations.org/radio/news/monty...fter-death

I agree that’s a capability. I think we’d probably agree that Laws are what grant, create or remove rights, whether they are fair or not. So in a sense rights do exist as a product of laws which are ultimately backed up with some sort authority, which usually includes at least the potential for force or compulsion of some kind don’t they? But I can see that they don’t necessarily exist outside that kind of framework. Or have I misunderstood?

I’d certainly agree that laws don’t seem to be consistent across our world. Although perhaps certain basic concepts of what people have a right or entitlement to expect are generally enshrined in international and human rights law, even if they aren’t followed everywhere.

I can also see why a person or any living thing may be forced, against their will, to accept a course of action (though I’d also say it is to be avoided if at all possible). The motive seems to be to be the measure of it and the person acting must have the capability as you say.

Whether someone has the right to do it is determined by the Law isn’t it? That law may of course vary from place and I’d agree that capability doesn’t imply right. For example if a person has the capability to enter my house without permission I have a right to ask them to leave, or force them to leave if I have the capability don’t I? I would be acting within the law. The law creates the right for me to own my house, control who enters it and to use reasonable measures to enforce that right (but it isn’t unconditional). If I act outside the law there may be consequences as I may have infringed that person’s rights eg to life. So I’m not sure I get this “rights don’t exist” angle.

Thinking of the situations we’re discussing though I wonder if there is some authority by which the two acts are carried out. The first one, appears to have been carried out with good motives - ie it was necessary and the person would not comply. Sometimes other people do know what’s best for us. Although it would have been better to gain agreement, perhaps there was some urgency that meant it had to be forced upon them. In other words perhaps it was for their own good and they were either not in the right frame of mind to make the decision or not in possession of sufficient information. I don’t know how the person felt when reflecting on it later.

In your own situation it sounds different - did you get a chance to ask them why they thought they had the right to do it? Is it possible you were somewhere you had no right to be according to some Law you were not aware of?  Or were you simply unlucky and strayed into the wrong company (in which case perhaps they broke some law and may face the consequences).

I find the subject very interesting and can’t say I have an answer.

I'm not going to cover all the legal stuff because this reply has taken long enough for me to get to as it is but it looks like we more or less agree on all of it anyways.

I've tried a few times to write a reply to your question and failed because the whole situation is really complex and I don't even know where to start with it. What I can say is that I don't know 100% what peoples reasons are but I've cobbled together a few likely reasons. Also I realized that the people that I've talked to probably weren't the ones actually shoving me back in my body. It's entirely likely the two groups have nothing to do with each other to the degree of being openly hostile, making it more complicated. The only thing I can say as far as reasons go is that they didn't like me and saw me being here as better for them than the alternative. That much seems obvious to me. But any specifics would just be guesses.

As far as the debates and other reasons I'm not going to try going into the entire story in this one reply so here's the short, grossly oversimplified version. Basically, there was a group of people who claimed that they were attempting to teach humanity to be more independent as individuals via manipulating the world to become as authoritarian as possible so that people would eventually learn that "the only way to win is not to play." Their claimed methods were to be to a combination of subtle psychic manipulation over long periods of time and influence if not outright co-opting or control of at least part of the reincarnation cycle. I had many, many issues with this and had just as many debates about it. They didn't react very well to that.

At some point it got violent, it's really hard to pick a specific flashpoint of when this all happened, but it snowballed into a multifaction conflict sometime in 2010 which nearly physically killed me multiple times. It resolved, or at least slowed to almost nothing, sometime in, I believe, 2012. Although the length of this whole thing might've gone back as far as 2008 depending what events you include and could arguably be said to be continuing to this day. But the peak was 2010-2011  as far as I'm concerned.

This is why I get so uppity about people getting told they need to go back and, especially, reincarnation cases where people are told that it's their "obligation to go live a good life" or similar. Because it very much corroborates what I went through.

This is a very well made French documentary featuring veridical NDE/STE reports along with commentary from various medical experts, doctors, psychiatrists etc.

First get the subtitles up and then go to auto-translate into English. It's not a perfect translation but most of it comes up pretty well. Or that's the impression I got.

Malf, if you're going to watch it, you'll need a whole box of doggy chocs   it is rather long. Well worth a look, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2s7dbvChA

Most certainly it is well worth a look. But, it is necessary to switch on the auto-translate.

As regards the people in this documentary, the most important is anesthesiologist dr Jean Jacque Charbonnier, who is the complete opposite of his colleague but arch-denialist Gerarld Woerlee. In contrast to the latter, Charbonnier is sincerely certain of an independent consciousness which survives physical death. He has written several books about it.
It is a pity that the French NDE researchers do not often publish in English.

Smithy

Most certainly it is well worth a look. But, it is necessary to switch on the auto-translate.

As regards the people in this documentary, the most important is anesthesiologist dr Jean Jacque Charbonnier, who is the complete opposite of his colleague but arch-denialist Gerarld Woerlee. In contrast to the latter, Charbonnier is sincerely certain of an independent consciousness which survives physical death. He has written several books about it.
It is a pity that the French NDE researchers do not often publish in English.

Smithy

Yes, Smithy and it was interesting to hear Dr Woerlee's thoughts on Charbonier (a couple of years or so back). As I recall, he was not impressed with Charbonier's 30 years experience as he (Gerry)  had 37 !

"It has been almost seven years now but the experience is as fresh as it was then.  Personally, at this stage in my life I am sceptical of an afterlife in general.  I think we probably go back to nothingness after we die - but this is the scientist in me.  But between that NDE and the fact I can believe the universe is self-directing and self-healing I have to say that my belief of nothingness after death may be flawed. 

But I am not convinced (that there is an afterlife). The NDE I had is the only thing I can look to that could convince me of another plane of existence.  The NDE was very real.  I was in surgery for over ten hours.  Thee nurses would tell my wife they and the doctors were doing their best to replace my aorta.  My body was chilled (to 18 degrees C) and I (body, heart & lungs) was on the cardio pulmonary-bypass pump.

I never thought much about trying to make a point or argue one way or another about what happens when we die. I believe I left this world.  Then I got re-stuck back into my body.  I know what happened but am not sure what to make of it.  It was really interesting though.  As for the operating room that was a second phase - one where I'd left the fantasy world I write about above.  The operating room experience was more cold and sterile - I explained it before.  I knew I was going to go back into my body."

I asked this question in another thread that Tim mentioned this case in, but how on Earth could you not be sure you will continue on after death when you've had a experience like Kevin's? As he seems to be on a fence about. 

In my opinion here's a guy who is willing to accept what he saw in his NDE, but he doesn't seem totally aware of the mass literature on survival indictive evidence, or parapsychology in general. As he quite literally says his own experience seems to be all he's aware of and it is all he can answer the question "do you feel there is an afterlife?" off of. 

I feel some people are left to find their enlightenment after the experience, rather then come back completely understanding. Such as Kevin, who saw enough to make him adamant that he left his body, and there is some self correcting like karma to the flow of the universe. 
Yet he has struggled with completely embracing the ideology because it's beyond his or our understanding and teaching. 

I get that vibe a lot from NDErs that ah ha moments aren't meant to always happen quickly.

I asked this question in another thread that Tim mentioned this case in, but how on Earth could you not be sure you will continue on after death when you've had a experience like Kevin's? As he seems to be on a fence about. 

In my opinion here's a guy who is willing to accept what he saw in his NDE, but he doesn't seem totally aware of the mass literature on survival indictive evidence, or parapsychology in general. As he quite literally says his own experience seems to be all he's aware of and it is all he can answer the question "do you feel there is an afterlife?" off of. 

I feel some people are left to find their enlightenment after the experience, rather then come back completely understanding. Such as Kevin, who saw enough to make him adamant that he left his body, and there is some self correcting like karma to the flow of the universe. 
Yet he has struggled with completely embracing the ideology because it's beyond his or our understanding and teaching. 

I get that vibe a lot from NDErs that ah ha moments aren't meant to always happen quickly.

It's a good question, Desperado. If you can have conscious awareness during a period when your brain is totally non functional, then it could hardly be anything else (IMHO). Kevin's body temperature for this operation was 18 degrees C. This is the apparent protocol (of the operation) because of where the problem is (aorta). It's not the same as a normal heart operation where the heart is stopped but circulation is continued to the brain and other organs via the heart lung machine.

This operation on the ascending aorta (I'm not an expert BTW just what I've picked up) means that blood flow to the brain has to be stopped. And in order to protect the brain cells, cooling is utilised and the head is actually packed in ice.

Kevin is adamant that he was floating around that operating room when his chest was open and believes he saw them cutting and sewing in the Dacron graft which is used to repair this problem (apparently).

However, sceptics will simply say that he has retrospectively confabulated his experience to fill in the blanks of what he couldn't possibly have been aware of. Unless Kevin can recall some specific event that took place when all his vital functions had ceased (that he couldn't have known about) then we can't prove that he actually did see them cutting and sewing inside his open chest.

Personally I accept Kevin's testimony. I have no reason not to. I don't buy retrospective confabulation as a an explanation for veridical OBE's, there's too many verifiable cases now.

[Ninshub]

[To eliminate confusion after moving this post to the commentary thread, the interview post of tim's to which Ian refers below is this one --Laird]

Damn, tim, that was good enough to be a Psience Quest Interview.