Misleading NDE articles?

What I have brought up before, regarding the recall of the veridical proof during the NDE, is that we have no real clue when this information arrives. If we include the known subjects of this forum, from precognition, RV, OOBE, and others, where future events are known, past events, and all sorts of other information that doesn't arrive in linear time...

Unless we can firmly show when the information arrives to the person, and in what manner, we are again assuming and guessing.

For many of us, who have experienced precognition that is verified and thus veridical, the actual point when these people got this information doesn't necessarily have to be when they were in a dead condition or having the lack of brain activity. That is the first false assumption that is a basic premise of this entire belief. It becomes a cult when we forget the rest of our knowledge and the known veridical data about how things of this nature happen, and when, because we abandon what we know about time and Psi phenomena.

This makes less sense than just accepting the immediacy with which the NDEr reports experiencing events while out-of-body ~ it appears to happen in real-time, without delay, so why complicate it by questioning that, when there is no reason to suspect that there is a delay?

But even Braude - one of the most ardent supporters of Living Agent / Super Psi theories - conceded the evidence ultimately tilts - however slightly in his view - toward Survival.

I made a thread going through that book - along with a few other cases beyond it - here.

Like Braude, I'm also not a fan of this type of categorization, or questioning whether some things need to be in a super Psi category to exist the way they do, and the obvious way they present, and are reported with veridical evidence, shows they do exist. So whether some scientists that have no Psi skills or talents want to create a category of definition called super Psi really doesn't interest me, and I don't accept these definitions at all. I think they are just finding ways to avoid the facts. They are likely using this to avoid actually having to experiment or test for Psi events like these, or perhaps it gives them something more to scoff at?

I'm not questioning some form of survival at all, at least for some people. I do question what people think survives, and for how long, and what actually happens. I think people want the ego to survive in some format that allows them to continue to be who they think they are. My response to that is usually Pffft! That would again be human beings trying to bend something to fit wishful thinking or belief.

I'm calling the hype a cult. They put Psi phenomena that happens when a person is close to death or dead, and is in some altered state, on a pedestal and try to use this to totally confirm a survival question. But we have these same Psi events happening without the death factor. We see this phenomena happen to others who are not dying, with veridical evidence as well. So, all we actually know is that someone had a Psi event during an altered state, and that they dropped into an altered state due to the death and dying processes.

Thinking that an OOBE is suddenly proof of life, while not pinpointing when the OOBE actually happened, is the mistake to me. Trying to shove the Psi phenomena into the death window and make it all fit is a problem, that is feeding a bias. We need much more information to avoid making assumptions.

If we don't know exactly when it happened, and when this information then entered the brain, we are simply making assumptions that fit what we want it to be.

With all these Mediums, and all this communication and visitation happening, much of which is hogwash, and much of which is likely reading memories of survivors that miss loved ones and not real contact, or grief induced phenomena, etc., the focus needs to be figuring out a better experiment that could confirm survival, and what actually survives, and where it survives to. Here I could point out how we totally ignore the multiple known ways of Psi information transfer, that have veridical evidence, like telepathy. They could be plucking data from the living person they are reading for, or from Akashic records, or from the deceased person. We have to leave these options on the table until they can be removed with proper testing and evidence. Not doing so again creates a bias belief system, and not a fact.

I believe it all becomes a cult when we blindly accept all the data and conclusions of people who have never experienced any Psi, but think they are somehow qualified to define and hypothesize the subject using criteria that other non-qualified people have introduced.

I'm not questioning some form of survival at all, at least for some people. I do question what people think survives, and for how long, and what actually happens. I think people want the ego to survive in some format that allows them to continue to be who they think they are. My response to that is usually Pffft! That would again be human beings trying to bend something to fit wishful thinking or belief.

I mean, there is evidence in the research of past-life memories that our past-life experiences do carry over from one life to the next, most in an unconscious form, albeit with a fresh ego in a fresh body, so that implies that our personalities are not of the ego. The ego is something that only has a purpose for incarnation into a physical form, so has no relevance when we die, yet our core personality remains.

I'm calling the hype a cult. They put Psi phenomena that happens when a person is close to death or dead, and is in some altered state, on a pedestal and try to use this to totally confirm a survival question. But we have these same Psi events happening without the death factor. We see this phenomena happen to others who are not dying, with veridical evidence as well. So, all we actually know is that someone had a Psi event during an altered state, and that they dropped into an altered state due to the death and dying processes.

None of this rules out that the overwhelming majority of the time, the experience granted by a near-death experience only happens in that state of observed clinical bodily death. Temporarily dead body, yet the mind survives. Even though some people can apparently experience a near-death experience state while still technically alive ~ it is a minority of cases, making those the oddities that need explaining. A hypothesis I have seen is that these cases involved severe psychological and physical shock such that they were entirely convinced they were dead, so their body and mind acted on that conviction.

Thinking that an OOBE is suddenly proof of life, while not pinpointing when the OOBE actually happened, is the mistake to me. Trying to shove the Psi phenomena into the death window and make it all fit is a problem, that is feeding a bias. We need much more information to avoid making assumptions.

But... you yourself are making assumptions here...? What reason do we have to interpret a out-of-body near-death experience as being anything other than what it was reported to be experienced as? It is all we have to go on. Near-death experiences are paranormal by definition ~ so nothing is being "shoved" anywhere.

If we don't know exactly when it happened, and when this information then entered the brain, we are simply making assumptions that fit what we want it to be.

Near-death experiences strongly suggest that information enters the mind and exists in the mind, not the brain, as a non-functioning brain does nothing at all. Nor have brains been demonstrated as being the source of storage or processing of memories or sensory information.

With all these Mediums, and all this communication and visitation happening, much of which is hogwash, and much of which is likely reading memories of survivors that miss loved ones and not real contact, or grief induced phenomena, etc., the focus needs to be figuring out a better experiment that could confirm survival, and what actually survives, and where it survives to. Here I could point out how we totally ignore the multiple known ways of Psi information transfer, that have veridical evidence, like telepathy. They could be plucking data from the living person they are reading for, or from Akashic records, or from the deceased person. We have to leave these options on the table until they can be removed with proper testing and evidence. Not doing so again creates a bias belief system, and not a fact.

Mediumship is "hogwash", yet you believe in something entirely unverified as the "Akashic records" which a majority of shamans, mediums and psychics have not experienced and so cannot corroborate?

That is more complicated than just accepting that there can be real memories of real events that happened to people in real past lives. 

Essentially, you are arguing for a form of super-psi, with all of the usual flaws.

I believe it all becomes a cult when we blindly accept all the data and conclusions of people who have never experienced any Psi, but think they are somehow qualified to define and hypothesize the subject using criteria that other non-qualified people have introduced.

Nobody is saying to "blindly accept" anything. Parapsychology takes the experiences people report and looks for the common patterns between them. That is perfectly fine as a methodology, though naturally limited in that it cannot tell us anything conclusive ~ but it can tell us something.

@Valmar , just so you know, you are on my ignore list, so I don't see what you wrote unless I select it.

Seeing the latest, I'm glad you are blocked from my feed.

Injecting false statements where you assume to insert what you think into my statement is an obvious reason I blocked you.

Mediumship is "hogwash", yet you believe in something entirely unverified as the "Akashic records" which a majority of shamans, mediums and psychics have not experienced and so cannot corroborate?

Since I would like to think you OBVIOUSLY didn't bother to read, or see what I wrote in context, you are now spinning it like a deranged political news station. So either your comprehension level is suffering, or you are simply being obnoxious on purpose. 

I said, With all these Mediums, and all this communication and visitation happening, much of which is hogwash, and much of which is likely reading memories of survivors that miss loved ones and not real contact...

What part of this scenario don't you accept? Are you assuming ALL mediums are upright moral and ethical people, and that some aren't just fakes or charlatans? Are you assuming that EVERY SINGLE Medium is only in contact with a dead person and that all of what they are presenting is accurate and true and comes from deceased people?

You can assume what you wish, but don't even try to spin what I say into something that stupid.

Don't ever again try to spin what I say and make it your agenda to make it look like I said or claimed things I never have.

Just stop with your childish antics already. You are ignored for a reason, and this just underlines what that is.

Don't ever again try to spin what I say and make it your agenda to make it look like I said or claimed things I never have.

Then perhaps you shouldn't produce so much spin of your own.

You cannot even see your own hypocrisy.