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

[Laird]

In your mini-essay

Is that really the extent of your engagement with it? I take it then that you have no defence against the point that by your own standard, COVID-19 was, at its outbreak, merely a "myth", and would never have been recognised as real had you been the responsible authority.

I don't think you convincingly managed to explain three critical problems that expose the fundamental weakness of the veridical NDE hypothesis.

That's because I'd already dealt with the first one, and you hadn't yet presented the other two.

First, why do veridical cases systematically disappear when we raise the evidentiary bar from anecdotal reports to rigorous investigation?

You have by now acknowledged in response to @Smaw that the premise of this question is false. As @InterestedinPsi notes, (s)he had already pointed this out to you earlier, and, even earlier, I had too, albeit somewhat less explicitly (new editing notes coloured green; non-coloured notes were in the original):

Argument #4: Veridical NDEs never occur in controlled studies with proper experimental protocols. [...]

[...] It doesn't help that th[is] premise [...] happens to be false.

[...I]n the original AWARE study, "[...two] patients [...] [underwent veridical NDEs] [...]" (AWARE NDE Study (Psi Encyclopedia article), editing notes my own).

Third time lucky, huh?

Second, why are veridical NDE rates declining rather than increasing over time?

I don't expect that they are. You haven't presented any convincing evidence to that effect.

You claim that most of the '112 "spectacular" cases' in The Self Does Not Die 'are decades old'. Given that there were 104 cases in the first edition, and 128 in the second, and thus that either way, your "112" figure is incorrect, it's probably not surprising with this numerical "fluidity" that you don't substantiate your claim numerically. I'm not motivated to fact-check it myself. In any case, even if it is correct, there are other explanations than a decline in rates of actual veridical NDEs over time.

Third, you completely disregard the inconvenient reality that the "brain flatlines within a couple of seconds" myth might actually be more complex than NDE proponents admit.

I think @InterestedinPsi addressed this and your subsequent misleading claims adequately, and I don't have anything to add.

I do though think that it's worth noting your final claims...

veridical NDEs exhibit all the hallmarks of culturally constructed phenomena rather than genuine paranormal events. The evidence doesn't support the extraordinary claims - it supports the far more parsimonious explanation that these cases are the product of confirmation bias, post-hoc retrofitting, and the telephone game effect of repeated storytelling within believing communities.

...in the light of the second question - which you ignored - in my initial response to you:

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

The answer, clearly, is "No". A potentially sound argument would have to take into account the careful investigation that has gone into these cases, often involving medical professionals as corroborating witnesses, and explain how and why those investigations have failed, and consistently so. Hand-waving, vague, rhetorical allusions to "cultural constructions", "confirmation bias, post-hoc retrofitting, and the telephone game effect" just don't cut it.

[Laird]

Prof. Janice Miner Holden has reviewed the evidence for veridical perception during NDEs. Her chapter about this is in The handbook of near-death experiences: Thirty years of investigation. Her review does not seem to be freely available, but it is possible to read some of it through GoogleBooks.

This is a helpful review even with the odd missing page. It seems to have been published before both AWARE studies, so it doesn't include those, but its tabulation of the other prospective controlled studies anyway emphasises the point that there just haven't been any veridical NDEs in a location in any of these studies in which the target could have been seen.

[Laird]

That of course leads into the question of whether or not these veridical NDEs are legitimate, whether the information they report is accurate, but I think that's separate to whether or not they do exist.

No, it's really not separate. I think you're confused. A veridical NDE is by definition one in which the reported information is accurate.

That confusion, repeated in your later post...

Like I said in my other comment, there's always the question of whether or not these instances provide accurate information

...and quoted in a third, is the only reason I didn't "like" those three otherwise very "likeable" posts.

[Laird]

One other quick response:

@Smaw I stand corrected - my claims are exaggerated and the veridical NDE hypothesis warrants further investigation to validate the accuracy of the perceived information.

Kudos on acknowledging that you were wrong, but you don't go nearly far enough. As I've pointed out to @Smaw, acknowledging that veridical NDEs exist entails (by definition) acknowledging that the perceived information is accurate, and veridical NDEs certainly do exist. Further investigation is welcome, but not necessary to establish that fact.

But it's certainly not a common occurrence as was the initial claim in this debate.

You're either misremembering or deliberately misrepresenting the initial claim in this debate. Anybody can refer back to the original post in this (split out) thread to see that you quoted me as saying simply that veridical NDEs are evidence that conscious subjects can exist (and accurately perceive) independently of their biological bodies. I said nothing at all about their frequency, let alone that they are "a common occurrence".

The claim that I set up as the actual debate topic in splitting out this thread is your (reckless) response: that veridical NDEs are a "myth", i.e., that their frequency is zero.

You're shifting the goalposts, probably because you've lost that debate.

The claim that I set up as the actual debate topic in splitting out this thread is your (reckless) response: that veridical NDEs are a "myth", i.e., that their frequency is zero.

You're shifting the goalposts, probably because you've lost that debate.

I think it has been lost in the heat of the debate that the original claim was:

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.

I acknowledge that evidence for a frequency of approximately 0.1% of claims of veridical perception (not verified - discounting the less evidential auditory perceptions ‘hits’ ) in methodical settings has been presented in this thread. Nevertheless, it has been beneficial to get the facts laid out, as I debate in an environment dominated by unsubstantiated claims like the one below. There should be some reading between the lines for the believer camp aswell I believe.

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-d...9#pid62269

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

[Laird]

I think it has been lost in the heat of the debate that the original claim was:

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 on earth are you talking about?

Firstly, that hadn't been lost at all: I had pointed out that that was the claim on which the debate was based in the very post to which you're responding.

Secondly, in the post to which I was responding, you had asserted that "the initial claim in this debate" was that veridical NDEs are "a common occurrence". You're contradicting your own assertion, and implicitly acknowledging that it was wrong, which was my main point (the other being your shifting of the goalposts).

I acknowledge that evidence for a frequency of approximately 0.1% of claims of veridical perception

Again, what on earth are you talking about? 0.1 percent of what? What is your choice of denominator, and why? How, in any case, did you calculate this rate?

(not verified - discounting the less evidential auditory perceptions ‘hits’ ) in methodical settings has been presented in this thread.

False. I referenced the first AWARE study, in which two potentially veridical NDEs occurred that involved visual perceptions, one of which was verified as veridical (the other was unable to be verified due to the patient's declining health making a follow-up interview impossible). You misrepresented this study in this respect.

Nevertheless, it has been beneficial to get the facts laid out, as I debate in an environment dominated by unsubstantiated claims like the one below. There should be some reading between the lines for the believer camp aswell I believe.

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-d...9#pid62269

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

David there is using both a different denominator and numerator to you: he is referencing the rate of what Professor Janice Holden refers to as "material" NDEs, particularly those in which the NDEr perceives their own resuscitation process - which might or might not have been verified as veridical - versus overall NDEs. In the book she coauthored/edited which @Nemo referenced earlier, Professor Holden cites (page 200) a systematic study by Sabom (with prospective sampling but retrospective interviews) which found that 32 of 71 NDErs experienced "material" NDEs in which "portions of their own resuscitation" were seen. That's a rate of almost exactly 45%, which seems pretty well to substantiate David's claim that they are "almost routine".

In any case, speaking of unsubstantiated claims, how about these, many of which are not just unsubstantiated but demonstrably false?

• In "the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide [...] no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them" and "veridical cases systematically disappear when we raise the evidentiary bar from anecdotal reports to rigorous investigation".
  
• The dates of cases in The Self Does Not Die show that "veridical NDE rates [are] declining rather than increasing over time".
  
• "[T]he “the brain flatlines within seconds” myth has been dispelled".
  
• "AWARE I studied 2060 cardiac arrest patients across 15 hospitals with 1000 visual targets, yielding zero confirmed cases of veridical visual perception".
  
• "Psi research fails th[e] basic test [of reproducible effects that maintain consistent direction across independent studies] spectacularly."
  
• "After 70+ years of claims, believers have produced exactly zero alien artifacts that can survive basic scientific scrutiny."
  
• "[T]hese "alien crashes" always seem to happen near top-secret military installations during the height of experimental aircraft development."
  
• "The most dramatic accounts [of crashed UFOs] invariably emerge decades after the alleged events".
  
• "Any civilization capable of interstellar travel wouldn't crash with the frequency that UFO enthusiasts claim."
  

Again, what on earth are you talking about? 0.1 percent of what? What is your choice of denominator, and why? How, in any case, did you calculate this rate?

Obviously the number of verified 'hits' under the highest standard, which is double-blinded targets, is zero. So let's go with the more loose definition of a 'verified' hit, which is by some verbal agreement of accounts and let's even include the audit hits even though I have been speaking about the 'visual hits' in the discussion previously. These are the prospective studies I could find:
• Pim Van Lommel – Lancet 2001: 15 out of 344 interviewed had an OBE but zero mention of anyone being able to detail any veridical information, so I will count this one as 0.
• AWARE 1: 140 interviewed – 1 'verified' OBE
• AWARE 2: 28 interviewed – zero verified OBEs
• Penny Sartori et al.: I couldn't find the article – I will count 1 OBE
• Parnia & Fenwick 2001: 63 interviewed – zero verified OBEs
• Anne-Françoise Rousseau et al.: 126 interviewed – zero verified OBEs
Denominator = 344 + 140 + 28 + 63 + 126 = 701
Verified OBE frequency: 2 / 701 = 0.28%
Sure I underestimated the number of 'verified' OBEs a little bit. Satisfied?

False. I referenced the first AWARE study, in which two potentially veridical NDEs occurred that involved visual perceptions, one of which was verified as veridical (the other was unable to be verified due to the patient's declining health making a follow-up interview impossible). You misrepresented this study in this respect.

I'm sorry to be the one to break your illusions, but I have consistently spoken about the highest standard of evidence here, you know, stuff not open for interpretations and bias. There were zero hits. The hidden target was not described.

In any case, speaking of unsubstantiated claims, how about these, many of which are not just unsubstantiated but demonstrably false?


Laird
In "the countless cardiac arrests that occur in hospitals worldwide [...] no veridical elements emerge, despite researchers actively looking for them" and "veridical cases systematically disappear when we raise the evidentiary bar from anecdotal reports to rigorous investigation".

Show me the evidence.

[T]he “the brain flatlines within seconds” myth has been dispelled".

https://awareofaware.co/2023/01/16/aware...-analysis/ – in particular: "Near-normal EEG patterns were observed throughout CPR, however, their relative frequency declined over time, especially after 50 minutes of CPR."

AWARE I studied 2060 cardiac arrest patients across 15 hospitals with 1000 visual targets, yielding zero confirmed cases of veridical visual perception".

Exactly – there were zero hits. If you disagree, please let me know which of the targets were observed: was it apple or banana, or what do you think?

"Psi research fails th[e] basic test [of reproducible effects that maintain consistent direction across independent studies] spectacularly."

Apparently you ignored looking into the superior-powered reproduction of the "feeling the future" study which provided overwhelming evidence for the "not feeling the future" phenomenon.

Obviously the number of verified 'hits' under the highest standard, which is double-blinded targets, is zero.

Hardly surprising, as there have been zero studies measuring the visual accuracy of recalled NDE OBE's.

Hardly surprising, as there have been zero studies measuring the visual accuracy of recalled NDE OBE's.

Our target population is patients experiencing cardiac arrest in hospital [in the emergency department or hospital wards] or out of hospital [in whom resuscitation efforts are ongoing at ED arrival]. Emergency Department or Research staff will be alerted to cardiac arrest and will attend with portable brain oxygen monitoring devices and a tablet which will display visual images upwards above the patient as resuscitation is taking place.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-impr.../aware-ii/

Zero hits

Our target population is patients experiencing cardiac arrest in hospital [in the emergency department or hospital wards] or out of hospital [in whom resuscitation efforts are ongoing at ED arrival]. Emergency Department or Research staff will be alerted to cardiac arrest and will attend with portable brain oxygen monitoring devices and a tablet which will display visual images upwards above the patient as resuscitation is taking place.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-impr.../aware-ii/

Zero hits

Sort of irrelevant when there are many confirmed cases: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...experience