NDE Multimedia Resource Thread

I always think that a public debate is more of a spectacle, like a boxing match or maybe a theatrical play. At the end, it is necessary to dig out the research and study it in depth - which is what you had been doing, step-by-step in an email exchange.

Well done for having the enthusiasm and knowledge of the cases to engage people like that.

Thanks, Typoz some don't reply and that's fine they're under no obligation to explain anything to me. 

On a rather different note, I've been trying to get to the bottom of why Parnia and his colleagues are referencing the "spikes"
to explain how their patients can have memories from their period of cardiac arrest (death). I didn't ask him, (Parnia), he doesn't respond anymore but I asked one of his spokespersons. No reply. Thanks for that.

I then asked if they intended to make the six RED's (the full testimonies) available to us. No, it can't be done was the answer because of confidentiality? So why can't they just leave out any personal details etc ? 

For what it's worth, I think Parnia is tying himself up in knots. He's using them (spikes) to provide a scientific mechanism to explain how his patients could actually theoretically have experience during cardiac arrest (disembodied consciousness is not a scientific proposition until he gets a hit).  But it doesn't make any sense and even contradicts his own previous data such as the case of Mr A who had his experience and memories right at the beginning of the cardiac arrest (as most of them do) not after thirty or forty minutes.

Thanks, Typoz some don't reply and that's fine they're under no obligation to explain anything to me. 

On a rather different note, I've been trying to get to the bottom of why Parnia and his colleagues are referencing the "spikes"
to explain how their patients can have memories from their period of cardiac arrest (death). I didn't ask him, (Parnia), he doesn't respond anymore but I asked one of his spokespersons. No reply. Thanks for that.

I then asked if they intended to make the six RED's (the full testimonies) available to us. No, it can't be done was the answer because of confidentiality? So why can't they just leave out any personal details etc ? 

For what it's worth, I think Parnia is tying himself up in knots. He's using them (spikes) to provide a scientific mechanism to explain how his patients could actually theoretically have experience during cardiac arrest (disembodied consciousness is not a scientific proposition until he gets a hit).  But it doesn't make any sense and even contradicts his own previous data such as the case of Mr A who had his experience and memories right at the beginning of the cardiac arrest (as most of them do) not after thirty or forty minutes.

Unfortunately this looks at least to me like the actions of a person who has been threatened with career ruin if he doesn't back off from his close to paranormal phenomena claims.

Unfortunately this looks at least to me like the actions of a person who has been threatened with career ruin if he doesn't back off from his close to paranormal phenomena claims.

It could well be so. Yet isn't that paper with it's references to other dimensions etc already a bit hard to digest for mainstream science? (I think it mentions that anyway, might be wrong). It certainly proposes two alternatives to the origins of consciousness, bottom up (the current one) or top down. I was astounded when I saw that, it's heresy.

Don't know if this is the right place for this article, if it's not (mods) feel free to reposition somewhere else. 

A truncated piece on Dr Michael Sabom, who we haven't seen for decades! He's now a religious retired doctor but his initial work was nevertheless meticulous and sceptics have never been able to debunk it.

Cardiologist Says Near-Death Experiences Are Not Afterlife (insider.com)

If you click on the consciousness link, you get another free article about Mark Gober who I beleive is some kind of scientific entrepreneur.

It could well be so. Yet isn't that paper with it's references to other dimensions etc already a bit hard to digest for mainstream science? (I think it mentions that anyway, might be wrong). It certainly proposes two alternatives to the origins of consciousness, bottom up (the current one) or top down. I was astounded when I saw that, it's heresy.

But this is just the medium grade heresy of considering consciousness as maybe not being a epiphenomenon of material interactions of nerve cells. To the fundamentalist materialist members of the church of scientism the heresy of even hinting at the real existence of the spirit, soul and the afterlife is an extremely heinous hanging offense or at least deeming of a severe punishment.

But this is just the medium grade heresy of considering consciousness as maybe not being a epiphenomenon of material interactions of nerve cells. To the fundamentalist materialist members of the church of scientism the heresy of even hinting at the real existence of the spirit, soul and the afterlife is an extremely heinous hanging offense or at least deeming of a severe punishment.

You have no idea how bad it is on r/consciousness right now on Reddit. Tons of people basically accusing any non physicalist of being “afraid of death” “religious” or “wanting an afterlife”.

A lot of non physicalist theories have nothing to do with religion or afterlife. It’s gotten so obnoxious and toxic on there it’s impossible to have any discussion.

You have no idea how bad it is on r/consciousness right now on Reddit. Tons of people basically accusing any non physicalist of being “afraid of death” “religious” or “wanting an afterlife”.

A lot of non physicalist theories have nothing to do with religion or afterlife. It’s gotten so obnoxious and toxic on there it’s impossible to have any discussion.

From time to time this forum has a visit from someone holding somewhat overwhelming views of that type. I tend to be disappointed not by anyone in particular but by the overall difficulty of finding common ground, some area where all are loosely agreed, within which it might be possible to poke and stretch at the boundaries.

It's unfortunate, from my perspective because these topics such as psi as well as the possibility of a non-material soul have an impact on how I perceive everyday life. Looking at near-death experiences definitely is not only about death and an afterlife. It is also very much about living, the present.

But this is just the medium grade heresy of considering consciousness as maybe not being a epiphenomenon of material interactions of nerve cells. To the fundamentalist materialist members of the church of scientism the heresy of even hinting at the real existence of the spirit, soul and the afterlife is an extremely heinous hanging offense or at least deeming of a severe punishment.

Yes, interestingly Islam seems to be acceptable to some in academia, don't know why that might get some special treatment ocassionally but I won't go there.

From time to time this forum has a visit from someone holding somewhat overwhelming views of that type. I tend to be disappointed not by anyone in particular but by the overall difficulty of finding common ground, some area where all are loosely agreed, within which it might be possible to poke and stretch at the boundaries.

It's unfortunate, from my perspective because these topics such as psi as well as the possibility of a non-material soul have an impact on how I perceive everyday life. Looking at near-death experiences definitely is not only about death and an afterlife. It is also very much about living, the present.

I don't lose any sleep over the fact that there are hordes of deluded members of the church of materialist scientism, or for that matter over the existence of hordes of other fundamentalists of various established religions. I may not really know what is ultimate truth, but I think I do know that certain things definitely aren't.

Yes, interestingly Islam seems to be acceptable to some in academia, don't know why that might get some special treatment ocassionally but I won't go there.

Yes, acceptable and even special treatment. Even though Islam (along with most other religions) is untenable according to the materialist scientism that rules Academia. I think this conflict or cognitive dissonance has to do with the success of the post modernist woke movement to establish a near tyranny in Academia, where social inequalities such as racial injustice, the evils of colonialism, sexism and LGBT rights take priority over philosophical and scientific issues. In fact, the woke practitioners tend to look down on scientists and philosophers and mathematicians with all of their hard-won knowledge as tools of the corrupt established order.