Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Going back to the subject of NDEs, a skeptical comment I saw in a comments section of a certain YouTuber I recently criticised as of writing this in regards to NDEs, particularly the stuff Parnia was involved in around 2016: 

We clearly still use our ears even in deep sleep. Some people can recall things they hear in their sleep really well. In fact everyone hears things in their sleep. The only difference between people is how many people actually form memories of things they heard unconsciously and how well they are able to recall them.

All this is, is some people actually forming memories out of the things they heard even the conscious part of their brain is shut down. It tells us that the brain is perfectly capable of functioning and taking action independently of our consciousness.

The brain does not shut down 20-30s after the heart has stopped. If the brain did shut down it would be impossible to revive it. The brain just goes into emergency mode and shuts down all superfluous activity, including consciousness and focuses on trying to get the body working again. That means the recording of memories and sensations is simply down to the automatic functions of the brain actually recording events without any conscious interference, which is inconsistent with any notion of a soul disconnected from the brain. If the soul was truly disconnected then unconsciousness implies a temporarily severed connection and no processing of information should take place.

This was in response to some articles presumably about the AWARE study I think, with the last paragraph directly responding to a comment Sam Parnia made apparently. This comment was also made in 2016 so I don't know how well it has aged or how credible it is, but it is by someone who was apparently a fan of Novella (surprise, surprise) as he was a member of his forum. I don't know where this guy is sourcing this claim, but he did claim there was a study in 2013 suggesting a surge in brain activity during cardiac arrest that can be found here: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14432A 

Most of what I found about 'how long it takes for the brain to shut down' after cardiac arrest was always linked to Parnia's AWARE study in one form of another, so for the skeptic to claim he's being misleading is a very bold claim. He even had the nerve to say this is somehow evidence against the survival of consciousness, which doesn't make sense to me. I did find this Psychology Today post though that said this: 

Following cardiac arrest, irreversible human brain damage occurs within an estimated 10 minutes due to the lack of oxygen [4]. Within 20-40 seconds of oxygen deprivation, the brain becomes electrically inactive, and interneuronal activity stops.

I have seen this skeptical argument before for veridical NDEs that 'your ears are still working so they're probably just picking up stuff subconsciously'. I'm calling BS on his equivalency to the cardiac arrest patients Parnia study to sleeping people, because being unconscious is not the same thing as being asleep. The two terms shouldn't be conflated like that. 

What do y'all think?

I'd like to note that the OP of this comment also linked to an abstract published by Parnia and Fenwick in a resuscitation journal from several years ago I think, but the skeptic didn't address that publication, just the article...go figure :/  

I mean don't even bother with it. It's a youtube comment, means pretty much nothing, you aren't going to be able to convince anyone in the comments section of a skeptical video. Nor should you worry about what they've got to say.

We've got the evidence here, on hand. We know the reality of the situation, those comments up there simply aren't true. Brain surge is eliminated in people who get put under via drugs, hearing doesn't explain visual components of veridical NDEs, unconsciousness means a disconnection from body and soul? Gonna need a source on that - ect ect. So I think it's dumb, and a waste of time to even have to think about.

Also, this was an old comment from 2016? Then what are you even worrying about it for them. Old debunkings have been refuted and dismissed. Best skeptics have nowdays is "Well here's this idea of how it happens and maybe eventually we'll find out how it's just normal", which current researchers are making sure to press against with "That's all well and good but here's more and more evidence showing how that won't cut it.". Maybe look at more recent stuff, looking at shit like this is just unnecessary doubt.

True that this is a comment from 2016 likely basing itself on outdated research and speculation, but I've seen it reused in 2019 by a certain Arvin Ash. I made a post on another thread criticising him and his video on NDEs. For veridical NDEs that were mentioned in the comments, he said pretty much the exact same thing: 'your ears are still working and you still have consciousness'. 

I tried to find some sort of timeline on the actual stages of cardiac arrest in terms of what happens to your body, but I couldn't find anything, not even on Wikipedia. Everything I found was always linked to Sam Parnia in some way or just the symptoms, so I haven't been able to 'fact-check' this. Sam Parnia is the expert here of course, and anybody who knows how to research him will know that he's been skeptical before and isn't 'peddling' anything (yes, I have seen people use the 'but they're selling a book/product!' reasoning for Parnia). 

I checked the comment again and yeah, it's from Steven Novella's (or rather, his podcast's) forum it seems, and is the last time they mentioned NDEs, and did so very very briefly. It wouldn't be very scientific of them to be distorting the facts about cardiac arrest now, would it?

I mean don't even bother with it. It's a youtube comment, means pretty much nothing, you aren't going to be able to convince anyone in the comments section of a skeptical video. Nor should you worry about what they've got to say.

We've got the evidence here, on hand. We know the reality of the situation, those comments up there simply aren't true.

Indeed, you are correct, just wild assertions which are not factually correct. It's important to remember that not all sceptical comments are intended to add value or illuminate the subject. Many of them are like old superstitious nonsense. They may be dressed up in apparently scientific language, but they are still just superstition.

I can only recommend to go to a reliable up-to-date source rather than listen to old wives tales.

Even this article from 2013 is sufficiently recent to convey what is current and accurate:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wor...13075.html

A real-world example to demonstrate what Parnia says about cooling and resuscitation after prolonged cardiac arrest:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50681489
(No NDE recall here - but there was substantial memory loss, so that does not tell us anything).

Thought I'd post this criticism of the filter theory I found on a certain other forum a certain member of this one is a member of:

Unfortunately a faulty radio doesn't change folk music to jazz. You don't just channel some other person, as if tuned to a different station. You functionally change as a same person, your 'jazz' music becomes, 'folk', 'rap' or 'rock' (sticking with the analogy).

This is referring to the 'damaging the radio signal' aspect. Steve might be able to clarify, since he cropped up on this thread on the forum I'm referring to, claiming that the filter theory is based more on 'emotion' and 'ideology' than science. I am aware that the radio analogy is not foolproof and has some flaws.

(I'm referring to the InternationalSkeptics forum if you hadn't guessed, primarily to their long, excruciating thread on NDEs and insisting it's caused by oxygen deprivation, and that any NDEs than suggest otherwise are just anecdotes that can be dismissed because those who verified them 'might have misremembered').

Thought I'd post this criticism of the filter theory I found on a certain other forum a certain member of this one is a member of:

This is referring to the 'damaging the radio signal' aspect. Steve might be able to clarify, since he cropped up on this thread on the forum I'm referring to, claiming that the filter theory is based more on 'emotion' and 'ideology' than science. I am aware that the radio analogy is not foolproof and has some flaws.

(I'm referring to the InternationalSkeptics forum if you hadn't guessed, primarily to their long, excruciating thread on NDEs and insisting it's caused by oxygen deprivation, and that any NDEs than suggest otherwise are just anecdotes that can be dismissed because those who verified them 'might have misremembered').

I thought we covered this, but I really don't think this forum should be used as a place to engage in a back & forth with other forums.

And...well, it's an analogy. Nobody thinks the soul-body relation is exactly like a radio, and even Irreducible Mind has this very criticism of taking the analogy too far.

My suggestion is to buy the e-book version of Irreducible Mind, and search for "salt". I could give the argument in my words, but frankly I really dislike the idea that my words would be then be used on a forum I'm not a part of. If I cared that much about arguing with a bunch of increasingly irrelevant people who are part of a dying cult I'd join InternationSkeptics myself.

It isn't a recent argument Sci tbf, I'm citing an exchange one member had with Steve about it. And yes, I have heard you mention that salt-water analogy before. I don't plan on joining them anytime soon given it's a bit dead and I've seen the way they treat proponents. The amount of hypocrisy in their 'new argument that's pro NDEs' thread was baffling and I didn't understand the complete lack of self-awareness on display. Sometimes I wonder whether some people on forums actually read other people's comments and check what they've previously said before commenting. :/

A bit harsh labelling them a cult though wouldn't you say? There's certainly a hive-minded attitude I'll grant you, but that seems harsh. 

They didn't seem to be 'aware' (pun intended) of the fact that Parnia got a verdicial auditory hit from AWARE I, as they were confused when one of the proponents mentioned the fact that he's continuing. They couldn't understand why. Maybe if they'd read the full results...

I noticed a general dismissal of the works of Greyson and Sartori when they were correctly cited as well. I only saw one or two attempt to engage with them: they either dismissed it is anecdotal (again) or tried arguing around the points. For example, for NDEs under anaesthesia, the reasoning is that they happened 'before or after' and not during. But that's just speculation. 

I didn't know some of the skeptics here were former members of that forum (Paul, Steve, Arouet and Linda I all spotted). Suppose it's silly of me though to think they just popped into existence on Skeptiko and then this forum though, especially given how the JREF/IS forum seemed to be the oldest and largest of its kind. Alex had a discussion with them before. I didn't realise this was the JREF forum that has been mentioned here before until they referred to themselves as such.

Heres the nail in the coffin for me frankly summarising the questionable statements made there:

This is said despite the fact that the best study on "NDEs" the AWARE studies devised by Sam Parnia and carried out by him and later many other institutions, which tested reported NDEs by placing signs or numbers in normally invisible spots in hospitals (like at the top of a wardrobe), and asking people if they reported "NDEs" if they saw the signs and what did they say. There was not one single case reported in any of the studies which showed that any single patient had a verifiable "NDE" (i.e. they could reproduce the content of signs or recall the numbers).

Of course Parnia being a believer and not a proper scientist is desperately trying to spin this conclusive debunking of near death experiences as a confirmation. NDEs are false, they are pseudo-science and they don't happen. Anyone who tells you otherwise has either being taken in by a liar or is lying.

That comment was made in 2015, a year after the results started gaining attention IIRC. Anybody claiming that Parnia is a biased fraud and already a believer simply hasn't done much research on him outside of a few sensationalist articles that misquote him or cherry-pick what he says. I thought a skeptic would be able to recognise that but apparently not. 

They didn't seem to like it however when someone posted Sam Parnia's explanation of an auditory hit though, they just again implied he's a fraud hyping up his own work. 

I do hope they stop with this whole 'real scientist' crap as well. It's the same thing accused of Peter Fenwick. Because apparently having a medical background means you're not as qualified to talk about NDEs, which makes no sense at all.

I don't plan on joining them anytime soon given it's a bit dead and I've seen the way they treat proponents.

I was thinking about this more broadly recently.

From time to time  this forum is joined by some hardline sceptic, but they seldom last very long here.

It's probably to some extent true that we are as rough towards such members as proponents might find it on a sceptic forum. So the next question to be asked is this: is it simply a kind of symmetry, in each case a sort of cultish or cliquey social group rejecting the outsider? Certainly as a social phenomenon this does happen in all strata of society, and it would be difficult to argue that we are immune.

If that's the case, maybe we just have to accept it, and each  of us gravitate towards our natural habitat. And yet - this place is supposed to be different. We are supposed to be debating topics and considering the evidence, as well as various philosophical positions and arguments. A lot of what we consider is not nailed-down, there are possibilities for readjusting of viewpoints. In many cases it is more a matter of being open to data and ideas which may be tenuous. That I think is a valuable function. Not to leap feet-first into accepting everything which turns up, but not to reject it out-of-hand either.

For me personally, there is much which is just grounded in my own personal experience, and that is a starting point. But there is such a lot that seems to be unknown, things to explore, sometimes it seems as though collectively we know very little about this world or universe we inhabit, there is so much to find out. Curiosity is one of the things which drives me, or maybe did more so in the past.