Discussion split from: NDE Multimedia Resource Thread

But in the end, afterwards, we just have an ordinary person going about her life, which is where I lose interest.

I haven’t watched it to the end either. I feel much the same as you do about such videos. 

I suppose a relevant question would be “Was the NDE part believable to you?” For me, it was.

Easy to say. How does one proceed from "what we know in any circumstances" to "make the best choice"?
For example, try to rationally evaluate some measure of "bestness"? What would constitute a measurement we could use? Or guess. Or toss a coin. Or follow some instinct?

Isn’t it what we try to do all the time? Do we really make decisions without regard to the circumstances in which we make them? Sometimes the decisions is so trivial we perhaps don’t realise we’ve made a decision perhaps. 

As far as the “best ness” of decision is concerned surely we attempt to do that too, especially when make important decisions, but they’re always subject to what we know, or can predict, or think we can predict based on experience. 

Maybe I’m the odd one out but I don’t make decisions based on coin tosses, even when I’m  shopping lol - I have a purpose based on what I know and what I need. 

Instinct is an interesting word - most of my own decision making is based on experience. If it’s an area I don’t have any experience of, and the consequences seem to me to be potentially significant, I either consult someone with experience or proceed cautiously (usually). Sometimes I decide to do nothing. I don’t think that’s unusual is it?

I laughed this off yesterday as just a grumpy comment, but on reflection, could it not rather easily be something written by Stephen Fry, Brian Cox or Alice Roberts about the majority of topics this forum is all about. The same contempt is there, the same certainty is there. 

What’s the difference? 

Tim, are you saying that you doubt that Jane Thompson actually had the experience?

My interest is in the NDE experience itself, I may well agree with Tim that we don’t know exactly what “the light of God” is, but the difference between Tim and I seems to be that I’m open to it being something real. In fact if it isn’t real, the ‘thing’ that makes NDE experiences ‘mind blowing’ for many can be thrown out the window! I remain open to the idea that an NDEr might well be able to retain this loving light and indeed transmit it across large distances, whatever their motives may be. 

The truth is I don’t know Jane Thompson personally, the same way I don’t know 99.9% of the people in such videos personally. So I basically listen to them all with an open mind, some I really vibe with, some I don’t. But I’d be surprised if I ever have shown the same contempt for anyone making such a video as Tim has here. And it is maybe not her personally that Tim is showing contempt for, it may be her ideas, or both, in fact that is how it appears to me. “What exactly is ‘the light of God?’” Where is the difference between proponents and skeptics if property like Tim sometimes display the same narrow mindedness. 

Maybe I am too open minded? I have my limits though, but on reaching them I hope that I just let them fizzle out, like a sparkler at the end of its short life. 

It’s a tricky thing to do Tim, calling out one lady because of her actions and beliefs, but accepting others who tell similar stories. It makes the skeptics job a lot easier imo.

Maybe where we part company on this kind of thing is in the difference between what a person experiences and the interpretation or spin they put on it?

I haven’t watched it to the end either. I feel much the same as you do about such videos. 

I suppose a relevant question would be “Was the NDE part believable to you?” For me, it was.

Yes, I think so. At least it didn't make me uneasy or sound alarm bells.

That is no guarantee of anything of course - in other circumstances there are often things which may seem different after we start to look more closely at them. But closer scrutiny is no guarantee either, for example if we begin to stare at individual words too closely they can start to look like a bundle of letters and the spelling looks wrong, its sound becomes a noise, often the world can appear absurd when we stare too long

Maybe where we part company on this kind of thing is in the difference between what a person experiences and the interpretation or spin they put on it?

I like to think (in other words it is probably not true  ) that I accept that nearly everything is subjective for individuals. It doesn’t really matter what ‘spin’ we might interpret it as. It’s all spin! Some closer to truth, some not so close. What matters to me, is asking what kind of person do I really feel/think they are? If they believe what they do is helping both themselves and others i would not be too critical of them.

It becomes more difficult to withhold my emotions ( should I?) if I think/feel that they are deliberately harming others. Many people think that Hitler was in this category. On the face of it, I might agree, however, if we are to think of the deeper (maybe spiritual)possibilities, there may be things we haven’t  begun to consider. After all, they do say that God acts in mysterious ways. 

That’s why I try to keep an open mind, even about controversial topics like Israel, which I’ve some interest in. Should we really expect a child growing up under the influence of Israeli parents, friends, propaganda etc, to see things the way I might? Of course not. So I am left to ponder this type of thing.

I laughed this off yesterday as just a grumpy comment, but on reflection, could it not rather easily be something written by Stephen Fry, Brian Cox or Alice Roberts about the majority of topics this forum is all about. The same contempt is there, the same certainty is there. 

What’s the difference? 

Tim, are you saying that you doubt that Jane Thompson actually had the experience?

My interest is in the NDE experience itself, I may well agree with Tim that we don’t know exactly what “the light of God” is, but the difference between Tim and I seems to be that I’m open to it being something real. In fact if it isn’t real, the ‘thing’ that makes NDE experiences ‘mind blowing’ for many can be thrown out the window! I remain open to the idea that an NDEr might well be able to retain this loving light and indeed transmit it across large distances, whatever their motives may be. 

The truth is I don’t know Jane Thompson personally, the same way I don’t know 99.9% of the people in such videos personally. So I basically listen to them all with an open mind, some I really vibe with, some I don’t. But I’d be surprised if I ever have shown the same contempt for anyone making such a video as Tim has here. And it is maybe not her personally that Tim is showing contempt for, it may be her ideas, or both, in fact that is how it appears to me. “What exactly is ‘the light of God?’” Where is the difference between proponents and skeptics if property like Tim sometimes display the same narrow mindedness. 

Maybe I am too open minded? I have my limits though, but on reaching them I hope that I just let them fizzle out, like a sparkler at the end of its short life. 

It’s a tricky thing to do Tim, calling out one lady because of her actions and beliefs, but accepting others who tell similar stories. It makes the skeptics job a lot easier imo.

I laughed this off yesterday as just a grumpy comment, but on reflection, could it not rather easily be something written by Stephen Fry, Brian Cox or Alice Roberts about the majority of topics this forum is all about. The same contempt is there, the same certainty is there

The contempt was there not for her NDE but for her 'business' of claiming to be able to download the light of God to the mobile phones and computers of the gullible. If you can't see a problem with that, Stan then it's you that's got the problem, sadly.  

Tim, are you saying that you doubt that Jane Thompson actually had the experience?

I don't whether she had the experience. She probably did but has she provided any evidence for it ?

So I basically listen to them all with an open mind, some I really vibe with, some I don’t. But I’d be surprised if I ever have shown the same contempt for anyone making such a video as Tim has here.

I didn't express contempt for the video, Stan. I said that her 'business' was contemptible nonsense and in my opinion, it is. 

“What exactly is ‘the light of God?’” Where is the difference between proponents and skeptics if property like Tim sometimes display the same narrow mindedness. 

Nothing to do with being narrowminded. But If you think that rejecting her claim to be able to channel "God" through a mobile phone makes someone narrow minded, then I'll take my chances.    

It’s a tricky thing to do Tim, calling out one lady because of her actions and beliefs, but accepting others who tell similar stories. It makes the skeptics job a lot easier imo.

Patronising, Stan. And you're suggesting that because I accept the testimony (based on evidence) of some people who've had NDE's, I should just accept anyone's claim that they had one ? What kind of logic is that?

The contempt was there not for her NDE but for her 'business' of claiming to be able to download the light of God to the mobile phones and computers of the gullible. If you can't see a problem with that, Stan then it's you that's got the problem, sadly.  

I get that you’re a bit/very miffed, and you have taken swipes at me in return. It is a bit disappointing, but understandable. 

You chose not to respond directly to my point about you sounding just like any of the three well known sceptics I mentioned. Is my point not valid? 

I wonder if Jane Thompson would feel hurt/anger by reading about the contempt you admit you feel for some of her actions, no matter how you try to spin it? You’re right, I don’t have a problem with what she’s doing, you assume that the people she makes a living from are ‘gullible’- where is your evidence that is the case? You assume that she’s potentially harming NDE research, where is your evidence for that? I think you see yourself as a ‘defender of science’ when it comes to NDE research, and don’t like it when people like Jane do things you don’t approve of. I see the same type of spin in your post that I often do when I read hit pieces on proponents. You didn’t like it when I posted ‘hellish NDE’ videos. Why is that? Why are they not acceptable ? Like the well known researcher Peter Fenwick, you don’t seem to like the idea. So I guess we should just ignore any evidence we don’t like? 

BTW I'll delete this post as I have no wish to embarrass her at all. I do think this kind of psycho-twaddle has the potential to do a great deal of damage to serious NDE research, though. 

I know that you won’t like me saying this, but I think it has to be said. In my opinion, one person’s “psycho-twaddle” is another’s “serious NDE research”, it’s only our differing opinions on things seem to be the main difference. 

And btw, you post similar videos up here, your latest one with the Dutch lady for example, you may like them and deem them worthy, but then you ask of this lady...

She probably did but has she provided any evidence for it ?

When is there ever ‘good’ evidence in such videos? Very rarely I would suggest, even when there is, it is argued about endlessly! 

Is it a case that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’? It appears so, she has been picked out because you have made your mind up that her case is not worthy. The point I am trying to make is that most of us seem to believe her NDE story, but you don’t approve of what she’s done after that. I am saying if we believe her NDE story, we can’t pick and choose what we like and don’t like. Many NDErs go down a non-standard path after their experience, that’s a fact. It may well be the case that she totally believes what you choose to call ‘psycho twaddle’. 

Is it not simply the case that you don’t really believe her story? There’s nothing wrong with that imo. I just feel like you’re trying to ‘pitch a tent in her ear while looking her in the eyes’ to use an Irish saying.

Basically, I feel I might be being conned but I don't have any evidence other than my instinct.

Tim, I don’t feel any different about you today as I did a week ago, when we were sharing a joke about you being ‘grumpy’. Take offence if you must, I’ll be here when you’re ready. 

I get that you’re a bit/very miffed, and you have taken swipes at me in return. It is a bit disappointing, but understandable. 

Actually in my first posts there were no swipes at you. You began the swiping Stan, lets have it right.

You chose not to respond directly to my point about you sounding just like any of the three well known sceptics I mentioned. Is my point not valid? 

No, it's not valid because they are hard line sceptics who think NDE's are nothing but the delusions and fantasies of a dying brain. You might have gathered by now that I think the opposite. A total false equivalence. 

I wonder if Jane Thompson would feel hurt/anger by reading about the contempt you admit you feel for some of her actions, no matter how you try to spin it? You’re right, I don’t have a problem with what she’s doing, you assume that the people she makes a living from are ‘gullible’- where is your evidence that is the case? 

Contempt for some of her actions ? You mean her claim that she can download the "white light of God" to a mobile phone for $29 ? And you don't see a problem with that ? Do elves, gnomes and fairies get a free pass in your consensus ? I assume you don't think it's possible that Boris Johnson is a shape changing lizard ?  

I think you see yourself as a ‘defender of science’ when it comes to NDE research, and don’t like it when people like Jane do things you don’t approve of. I see the same type of spin in your post that I often do when I read hit pieces on proponents. You didn’t like it when I posted ‘hellish NDE’ videos. Why is that? Why are they not acceptable ? Like the well known researcher Peter Fenwick, you don’t seem to like the idea. So I guess we should just ignore any evidence we don’t like? 

I don't see myself as a defender of anything. This is a forum and I'm entitled to express an opinion like anyone else. You may not like it and that's fine. If we don't apply some modicum of reason to what we accept and what we reject, then we may as well just assert that the moon is made of green cheese. I mean downloading the white light of God to a mobile phone and you think that's all tickity boo ? 

You as a former airline pilot (kudos from me BTW) trained in using instruments developed by scientific principles and you are now prepared to believe the good Lord can be conjured into a drop box, and sold for $29 ?  

As for hellish videos, I've already explained more than once that I'm not interested in the transcendental elements of NDE's but you seem to develop amnesia every few months when it's row time again 

And btw, you post similar videos up here, your latest one with the Dutch lady for example, you may like them and deem them worthy, but then you ask of this lady...

I would have assumed that you were capable of deducing that the Dutch lady's NDE was quite obviously authentic. She was admitted for a cardiac catheterisation and her heart stopped during the procedure which is quite common. It seems highly unlikely to me that she is a fantasist or perpetrating a hoax.
 
Jane's NDE may be authentic, I didn't say it wasn't, I said I was sceptical (summary)    

Is it a case that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’? It appears so, she has been picked out because you have made your mind up that her case is not worthy.

Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I will download you into my phone. 
 
Is it not simply the case that you don’t really believe her story? There’s nothing wrong with that imo. I just feel like you’re trying to ‘pitch a tent in her ear while looking her in the eyes’ to use an Irish saying.

I'm afraid I've never heard that one. 

Tim, I don’t feel any different about you today as I did a week ago, when we were sharing a joke about you being ‘grumpy’. Take offence if you must, I’ll be here when you’re ready.

Yes, you may have noticed I can take a joke. Quite happily willing to be tagged as grumpy if you and anyone else designate it so. Am I grumpy ? I don't think I am anymore than anyone else. As to taking offence, I'll take offence if and when I like, Stan and I don't need counselling, thanks.   

I would have assumed that you were capable of deducing that the Dutch lady's NDE was quite obviously authentic. She was admitted for a cardiac catheterisation and her heart stopped during the procedure which is quite common. It seems highly unlikely to me that she is a fantasist or perpetrating a hoax.
 

This, I think, sums up some of my frustrations with you on this...

You think that the woman in the video you posted NDE was ‘quite obviously authentic’ while you deem Jane’s may not have been. What actual evidence do you have for that statement?  Then you go on to ridicule her way of making a living, which is the reason that I think makes you doubt her ‘authenticity’ in the first place. 

Your evidence for making such judgements is scant to say the least, yet you are prepared to dismiss Jane and embrace the Dutch lady. 

I think my own evidence in my case against you in ‘defence’ of Jane Thompson is quite strong. You say that you’re “not interested” in transcendental elements of NDEs, to me that simply means you’re prepared to dismiss a very important part of the evidence. I think it’s important that all the evidence is considered, not just bits you have an interest in! Such is the nature of man, that’s all I’m saying. Have a go at something I’ve written, there’s plenty ammunition! 

Fwiw it was only a joke about you ‘being grumpy’. After all it was you that first suggested it in a light hearted way, I really don’t see you as any ‘grumpier’ than me or indeed anyone else.

You think that the woman in the video you posted NDE was ‘quite obviously authentic’ while you deem Jane’s may not have been. What actual evidence do you have for that statement?  Then you go on to ridicule her way of making a living, which is the reason that I think makes you doubt her ‘authenticity’ in the first place. 

Your evidence for making such judgements is scant to say the least, yet you are prepared to dismiss Jane and embrace the Dutch lady. 

Yes, the woman's NDE that I posted was quite obviously authentic. Why ? Because she's provided details (which make sense) of her hospital course and what went wrong. And it's relatively mundane and consistent with many others that I've read caused by this procedure. Therefore based on that, I'm prepared to accept what she's telling me.  It's possible of course that she's merely inventing it but that would be highly unlikely given that she's presented herself on video and anyone who knew her, husband and friends would find out pretty smartly. "Oh there's my wife describing an NDE she never had!" 
 
The testimony you posted doesn't sound right to me. She uses terms like "the tunnel ride" as if it exactly followed her expectations. She seems to me like someone who knew the narrative already, talking casually about already "going out of her body" as if that's just a normal thing to be expected etc in the early stages. Most people would be expressing great surprise about such an occurrence.  

There's just something a bit too artificial for me but that doesn't mean I'm right.