NDE Research - Changes You'd Want to See

I've had the same idea. If transmission theory is true and is an electromagnetic phenomenon then it is plausible that one of the possibilities for putting rodents in sufficiently shielded containers could result in their demise. A result that should otherwise be unexplainable through other means than a form of soul hypothesis.

A number of people have suggested something akin to a transmission theory, though it is more usually termed a filter theory. Certainly there is not support for electromagnetism in this area, its properties are well-understood and don't exhibit the required properties, such as independence of time, space, distance or material obstructions. Electromagnetic phenomena are limited by or dependent on all of these, hence not applicable.

I’ve no problem with your suggestions. But I do think these hospital studies are too difficult. I also think that AWARE II’s lack of hits on hidden visual targets will - unfortunately - pretty much kill off hospital studies of this type.

So I’d be looking at all sorts of future laboratory studies that test with light, electric & magnetic shielding, and comparing results with tests that are not magnetically shielded. Controlling for magnetic fields, electrical fields and light in experiments is going to become crucial.

Max said > But I do think these hospital studies are too difficult.

Why do you say that ? There's been six now, all successfully carried out. Pim Van Lommel's study (the gold standard) was certainly difficult but successfully carried out. Parnia's attempt to replicate it was successfully carried out. True, no one saw the target's (Parnia's additional objective)  but no one had an out of body experience in a research area.

Max said > I also think that AWARE II’s lack of hits on hidden visual targets will - unfortunately - pretty much kill off hospital studies of this type.

Interesting Max, do you have access to the data/results of this study ? I'd be really grateful for any tidbits you can throw my way. 

Max said >  So I’d be looking at all sorts of future laboratory studies that test with light, electric & magnetic shielding, and comparing results with tests that are not magnetically shielded. Controlling for magnetic fields, electrical fields and light in experiments is going to become crucial.

Ah yes, a free ride for your baby. Good science, that. I realise you've got a lot of time and energy invested in this (theory), Max but unfortunately there are so many reasons why it's a non starter, even in theory, I honestly believe you'd be wiser using your abilities in some other direction.

What you've tried to do is to hijack the steady but tentative results of NDE research for your own purposes, which is popular with some materialist sceptics on here who deplore/scoff at the notion of separate mind.

Personally, as we all know, we do possess a mind, and as that mind is non material, I don't see why it's such a massive leap to think it might continue to function when the material brain surrounding it has stopped. This is what the patients report after all. Why should we not listen to them ?

I've had the same idea. If transmission theory is true and is an electromagnetic phenomenon then it is plausible that one of the possibilities for putting rodents in sufficiently shielded containers could result in their demise. A result that should otherwise be unexplainable through other means than a form of soul hypothesis.

Do you have any data on near death experiences related by rats ?

We could rerun Borjigin’s dying rodent studies, but with one group of rodents shielded in mumetal light-tight boxes.

Apart from more of "torturing" them, until a rat actually reports a near death experience, such a rerun would achieve nothing but the same blips, which are just as likely to be a result of calcium release, than a meaningful spurt of consciousness, never mind a profound near death experience.

It's not clear to me if by "NDE" you're referring to the classic Western NDE, or the broader body of experiences that can happen at the point of death.

The classic western NDE. 

The "NDE"is a highly select sample drawn from a much, much larger pool of experiences which happen not just at the point of death but during other medical crises. NDE researchers like Sartori hand wave those other experiences away as "hallucinations" and don't really take them into consideration. On the other hand, conventional researchers look at the broader body of experiences, which will include the experiences parapsychologists label NDE's, but don't distinguish them as different from the rest of the experiences (other than by thematic content).

If Parnia could document that the closer you are to death, the more likely the broader body of experiences corresponds to the classic NDEs you find on IANDS, that would be very helpful 

Linda

Borjigin’s blips contain a lot of very interesting data, they are so much more than blips.

There is not one shred of evidence that the measurements represent anything more than an artefact and that will remain the case until rats can talk.

That she’s willing to state that this activity strongly resembles visual processing, and further state that it appears the rodents could be experiencing a powerful visual experience, should be something that open minded people interested in NDE/OBE’s applaud.

Willing to state ? Yeah right   A materialist researcher dependent on funding from materialist academia to which the real research on NDE's has proved about as welcome as a dead rodent ! Don't make me laugh, Max.

Max_B said >but it’s the best hard research we currently have into the NDE’s potentially objective nature,
  
BS, Max ! I'm not having that ! That's a ridiculous statement.  You're trying to tell me that you would place one controversial study on rodents above hundreds/thousands of papers, dozens of retrospective studies and six prospective studies on the actual source of near death experiences, human beings ? 

Max_B said >Dismissing her research is rather silly in my view.

 Really ? But dismissing over 40 years of research into the study of the experience from the subjects that actually report them (human beings) is not silly ?

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert...ing-brain/

“Finally, we should be extremely cautious before drawing any conclusions about human near-death experiences: it is one thing to measure brain activity in rats during cardiac arrest, and quite another to relate that to human experience.”

The classic western NDE. 

The "NDE"is a highly select sample drawn from a much, much larger pool of experiences which happen not just at the point of death but during other medical crises. NDE researchers like Sartori hand wave those other experiences away as "hallucinations" and don't really take them into consideration. On the other hand, conventional researchers look at the broader body of experiences, which will include the experiences parapsychologists label NDE's, but don't distinguish them as different from the rest of the experiences (other than by thematic content).

If Parnia could document that the closer you are to death, the more likely the broader body of experiences corresponds to the classic NDEs you find on IANDS, that would be very helpful 

Linda

For anyone not familiar with Linda, she appears to be back on her (lifelong) mission to try and discredit NDE's and the research around them. She doesn't publish anything of her own but makes it her business to throw out as much misinformation about NDE's and criticism of the researchers and their work as she can.