Debate: That veridical NDEs are a myth [split: A splendid video about evolution]

The answer to that question is clearly, "Yes, they do". For example, veridical NDEs during periods in which the brain is shut down due to lack of blood flow (typically due to cardiac arrest) constitute evidence for the specific metaphysical claim that conscious subjects can exist (and accurately perceive) independently of their biological bodies. There are others.

Ah, the myth of veridical NDEs makes its predictable entrance. Yes, if this were a reliably reproducible phenomenon, I'd absolutely call it empirical evidence. But let's talk numbers: we're dealing with roughly a hundred anecdotal reports collected over decades, most documented secondhand, none under controlled conditions.
This isn't evidence - it's the plural of anecdote. Compare this to the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide where no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them. We have a tiny handful of cherry-picked cases where details might have been perceived impossibly, mixed in with an ocean of cases where they clearly weren't.
The telling part is that NDE researchers have been promising controlled studies of veridical perception for decades, yet somehow these remarkable abilities never seem to manifest when proper experimental protocols are in place. Funny how that works.

Ah, the myth of veridical NDEs makes its predictable entrance. Yes, if this were a reliably reproducible phenomenon, I'd absolutely call it empirical evidence. But let's talk numbers: we're dealing with roughly a hundred anecdotal reports collected over decades, most documented secondhand, none under controlled conditions.

What sort of controlled conditions would you like to see?

This isn't evidence - it's the plural of anecdote. Compare this to the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide where no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them. We have a tiny handful of cherry-picked cases where details might have been perceived impossibly, mixed in with an ocean of cases where they clearly weren't.
The telling part is that NDE researchers have been promising controlled studies of veridical perception for decades, yet somehow these remarkable abilities never seem to manifest when proper experimental protocols are in place. Funny how that works.

As I have pointed out before, one way to invalidate evidence of this sort is to impose extreme tests, which then are mostly unattainable. Thus for example it is almost routine that people who have NDE's while they are being resuscitated observe that process from above, and can hear what is going on - they can report on all sorts of one-off events that take place at this time. This has been countered by claiming that some neurons in the brain might still be firing, and therefore these patients might be able to see, hear, and remember events while they are in cardiac arrest!

This claim is already absurd. I mean sometimes when I have had a dental procedure performed on me, I have wondered how much of the activity I could describe in the room, even though I was totally conscious. I mean sometimes one has to resort to some common sense.

David

Ah, the myth of veridical NDEs makes its predictable entrance. Yes, if this were a reliably reproducible phenomenon, I'd absolutely call it empirical evidence. But let's talk numbers: we're dealing with roughly a hundred anecdotal reports collected over decades, most documented secondhand, none under controlled conditions.

A hundred? This has to be a deliberate dismissal of understating the numbers ~ we have on order of many thousands at this point, if not tens of thousands.

An NDE can be veridical outside of your mythical "controlled conditions" ~ the NDEr simply has to have knowledge that they normally couldn't have had in their state. And every veridical NDE does have such knowledge. This includes knowledge of people who are deceased, knowledge of people that you had never know prior, but could later confirm.

NDEs cannot be reliably done in "controlled conditions" because they can never be predicted. So you are raising the bar far, far too high ~ deliberately, because you clearly a priori dismiss them.

This isn't evidence - it's the plural of anecdote. Compare this to the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide where no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them. We have a tiny handful of cherry-picked cases where details might have been perceived impossibly, mixed in with an ocean of cases where they clearly weren't.

This is an outright lie ~ you certainly know better at this point. So many veridical cases also occur outside of hospital settings. The reason they're so hard to find is because they don't happen to everyone ~ only about 10% of those who go through clinical death and are later revived report them. Why? No-one knows. You cannot reproduce such states reliably, and ethical concerns are a major point, too. No NDE researcher would ever consider violating such boundaries.

The telling part is that NDE researchers have been promising controlled studies of veridical perception for decades, yet somehow these remarkable abilities never seem to manifest when proper experimental protocols are in place. Funny how that works.

What "proper experimental protocols" are you even talking about? Something designed by Materialists who already don't believe in them, and need to ideologically dismiss them to keep their ideology appearing airtight?

Are the protocols used by NDE researchers simply not good enough for you???

Conveniently, you never reference this case: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic..._Reynolds_

Meanwhile, you continue feigning that you believe in the paranormal, only to reveal your true face in comments like this.

Might be why you have me on ignore ~ you don't fool me anymore.

Thus for example it is almost routine that people who have NDE's while they are being resuscitated observe that process from above,….

But here's the problem - this is not established fact. The supposed veridical OBEs during cardiac arrest rely heavily on retrospective self-reports collected long after the event.
When you examine prospective studies with rigorous methodology like AWARE I and II - with medical documentation confirming cardiac arrest and systematic data collection - the results are strikingly different. AWARE I studied 2060 cardiac arrest patients across 15 hospitals with 1000 visual targets, yielding zero confirmed cases of veridical visual perception Near-Death Experiences AWARE II produced one case of verified auditory perception but again zero visual cases Near-Experiences.
The contrast between anecdotal accounts and controlled studies is stark and should give us pause about accepting extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

We now know that during cardiac arrest, brain activity can be retained at a certain level. So earlier claims from certain persons within the NDE industry about the brain completely flatlining within seconds are also false.

The latter being a great example of empirical evidence sought under logical positivisme.

But here's the problem - this is not established fact. The supposed veridical OBEs during cardiac arrest rely heavily on retrospective self-reports collected long after the event.
When you examine prospective studies with rigorous methodology like AWARE I and II - with medical documentation confirming cardiac arrest and systematic data collection - the results are strikingly different. AWARE I studied 2060 cardiac arrest patients across 15 hospitals with 1000 visual targets, yielding zero confirmed cases of veridical visual perception Near-Death Experiences AWARE II produced one case of verified auditory perception but again zero visual cases Near-Experiences.
The contrast between anecdotal accounts and controlled studies is stark and should give us pause about accepting extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

We now know that during cardiac arrest, brain activity can be retained at a certain level. So earlier claims from certain persons within the NDE industry about the brain completely flatlining within seconds are also false.

The latter being a great example of empirical evidence sought under logical positivisme.

I suppose you are talking about residual brain waves. Do you think that is sufficient reason to scrap  the information from NDE's during cardiac arrest?

I do know that people have tested patients' knowledge of the resuscitation procedure, and those claiming to have watched the process from an NDE produce far more accurate information than those that just guess what happened. But of course, that is just a statistical association.....

I give up!

David

Ah, the myth of veridical NDEs makes its predictable entrance. Yes, if this were a reliably reproducible phenomenon, I'd absolutely call it empirical evidence. But let's talk numbers: we're dealing with roughly a hundred anecdotal reports collected over decades, most documented secondhand, none under controlled conditions.
This isn't evidence - it's the plural of anecdote. Compare this to the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide where no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them. We have a tiny handful of cherry-picked cases where details might have been perceived impossibly, mixed in with an ocean of cases where they clearly weren't.
The telling part is that NDE researchers have been promising controlled studies of veridical perception for decades, yet somehow these remarkable abilities never seem to manifest when proper experimental protocols are in place. Funny how that works.

To date, there have been zero studies measuring the visual accuracy of the recalled NDE OBE. Researchers either use hidden secret visual targets (Parnia, Sartori), or they don't bother using targets (Blanke).

All my research shows that more generally people very occasionally recall experiences which are not their own. Which appears to be the mere tip of an iceberg, where all Experience is emergent from some shared mathematical structure.

All my research shows that more generally people very occasionally recall experiences which are not their own. Which appears to be the mere tip of an iceberg, where all Experience is emergent from some shared mathematical structure.

I don’t believe mathematical structures exist independently of human thought. Rather, mathematics is a precise and rigorous system of communicating ideas built from a small set of foundational axioms. Poetry, for instance, can also communicate meaning, but mathematics uniquely minimizes ambiguity. Plato, of course, saw things differently with his theory of Forms, but that’s another discussion.

I don’t believe mathematical structures exist independently of human thought.

And I agree

Poetry, for instance, can also communicate meaning, but mathematics uniquely minimizes ambiguity. Plato, of course, saw things differently with his theory of Forms, but that’s another discussion.

Poetry is an interesting example, but maybe instrumental music - particularly classical music - is the best hint that mathematics may minimise ambiguity at the expense of leaving the user blind to a whole slew of meaning.

Music can of course be 'understood' in terms of an elaborate pattern of varying sound frequencies, but why exactly do these have the effect that they do have? It is perhaps a little like simple organic chemicals like dimethyl triptamine (DMT) that operate on the brain. Who is to say whether the brain is best poring over a set of mathematical  formulae, or being turned on by music, DMT, or indeed sex?

When it comes to issues like life after death (hinted at by NDEs) or any of the realms touched on above, logical positivism seems utterly irrelevant.

Shock horror - maybe it is better not to minimise ambiguity.

David

[Laird]

Ah, the myth of veridical NDEs makes its predictable entrance.

OK, here we have a claim, which, in splitting out posts into this new thread, I've construed as a debate topic:

That veridical NDEs are a myth, i.e., non-existent.

Let's see how our first debater goes making the affirmative case:

Yes, if this were a reliably reproducible phenomenon, I'd absolutely call it empirical evidence. But let's talk numbers: we're dealing with roughly a hundred anecdotal reports collected over decades, most documented secondhand, none under controlled conditions.
This isn't evidence - it's the plural of anecdote. Compare this to the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide where no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them. We have a tiny handful of cherry-picked cases where details might have been perceived impossibly, mixed in with an ocean of cases where they clearly weren't.
The telling part is that NDE researchers have been promising controlled studies of veridical perception for decades, yet somehow these remarkable abilities never seem to manifest when proper experimental protocols are in place. Funny how that works.

Oh dear.

We're unfortunately going to have to construe this as a set of arguments, because as slung mud, it slides right off, leaving veridical NDEs very much still existent.

So, let's take them one by one, semi-arbitrarily ordered:

Argument #1: Cases of veridical NDEs are relatively rare. Therefore, they are non-existent.

I think we can charitably call this an "interesting" inference.

Argument #2: The best and most evidential veridical NDE cases are selected ("cherry-picked") for compendiums of the best and most evidential veridical NDE cases. Therefore, veridical NDEs are non-existent.

Credit at least for sticking with the inferential theme of "interesting", but have you considered cherry-picking your arguments better?

Argument #3: Witness testimony, especially when documented secondhand, but always when not obtained under controlled conditions, is necessarily false, even when corroborated. The existence of veridical NDEs is based entirely on witness testimony not obtained under controlled conditions. Therefore, veridical NDEs do not exist.

Let's hope you never have to defend yourself in court, my friend, because I think you just screwed yourself out of one of the best ways of proving your innocence.

Argument #4: Veridical NDEs never occur in controlled studies with proper experimental protocols. Therefore, the case reports under uncontrolled conditions are false, and veridical NDEs do not exist.

I see a premise and a conclusion. I see no intervening logic to connect them. It doesn't help that the premise also happens to be false.

It's also curious that if we take the premise that argument #1 relies on to be true, then we wouldn't expect there to be many if any veridical NDEs in the very limited controlled studies that have been conducted so far.

Undermining My Own Argument Award: granted. 🏆

Argument #5: None of the controlled experiments into veridical NDEs with hidden targets has so far resulted in a hit. Therefore, the case reports under uncontrolled conditions are false, and veridical NDEs do not exist.

You like your disconnected premises and conclusions, don't you?

In any case, there is a good reason why the premise being true has nothing to do with veridical NDEs being non-existent: there was little to no opportunity in practice for the targets to be seen during the experiments conducted so far. For example, in the original AWARE study, "as many as 78% of the cardiac arrests recorded in the study happened in rooms that were not so equipped [i.e., with hidden target images on high shelves]. While the [only two] patients who [underwent veridical NDEs] might have been in a position to observe the image on the upper side of the shelf – fulfilling the study’s aims – neither could have done so, since there was none." (AWARE NDE Study (Psi Encyclopedia article), editing notes my own).

Argument #6: Veridical NDEs would only exist if they were reliably reproducible. Veridical NDEs are not reliably reproducible. Therefore, veridical NDEs do not exist.

The first premise is obviously false. The second is highly likely to be false: we very probably could reliably reproduce veridical NDEs, it would just be highly unethical to do so.

About the best we can say about this argument is that it is formally valid despite its unsoundness.

Overall:

What a train wreck.

I'm curious to know a couple of things:

Firstly, are you at all embarrassed to publicly present (or at least imply) such pathetically specious arguments?

Secondly, can you even conceive of what a potentially sound argument against the existing evidence would look like?