NDE Research - Changes You'd Want to See

That wasn't what I was posting about.. you're conflating my posts with Max's.

What were you posting about then ?

What were you posting about then ?

The idea was that if transmission theory was true and was electromagnetic in nature then putting a living thing in a sufficiently shielded environment could cut it off from the transmission which may cause the organism to change or die. 

It's highly speculative but could make an interesting experiment.

The idea was that if transmission theory was true and was electromagnetic in nature then putting a living thing in a sufficiently shielded environment could cut it off from the transmission which may cause the organism to change or die. 

It's highly speculative but could make an interesting experiment.

Oh I see, thanks ! Personally I doubt that consciousness (if that is what is being transmitted) is within the electromagnetic spectrum. It seems to have far too many strange properties but maybe we will find out (eventually?) who knows.

 "a volunteer group of NDErs who've had sufficiently deep experiences could try DMT, ketamine, and whatever other substances have been proposed,"

Will, I know you're probably new to all this but the vast majority of people who have had a deep NDE would not be the slightest bit interested in participating in such a venture. They don't have any doubts about what they experienced and they don't need to go there. But of course it might be better if you heard that from someone who's had one, not me.

The aim of such a comparison would not be to disabuse anyone of their convictions about their own experiences.

Another suggestion: Direct experience comparisons. As I said in the first post, descriptions of DMT experiences don't bear a whole lot of resemblance to classic NDEs in the details, but some drug experiences do report similar phenomena; the sense of being one with the universe, or of a change in the perception of time, at least, have come up. If you could get permission (and proper safety standards), then a volunteer group of NDErs who've had sufficiently deep experiences could try DMT, ketamine, and whatever other substances have been proposed, and report on how that experience matches up with their NDE. If a majority report that they were similar or identical, then you could follow up on that; if a majority report that they weren't alike, then that's further grounds to rule out a chemical component.

Generally speaking, for a direct comparison, the two groups should be the same except for the characteristic of interest. Otherwise, any reported differences could be for reasons unrelated to the characteristic of interest.

In this case, one group which undergoes two different interventions/experiences, represents two groups. The first group is a highly selected group with respect to "NDE" - out of the millions/billions of people who have had auditory/visual experiences associated with medical crises, a self-selected handful who had a particular kind of experience. The second group is an unselected group with respect to DMT experiences - all auditory/visual experiences associated with a DMT experience.

The other major problem is blinding. It would be impossible to blind the participants as to the source of the experience, which introduces a very strong bias.

You won't be able to draw valid conclusions about whether these experiences are different based on that study design. 

Both groups would need to be selected in the same way. For example, take a much, much larger group of people who have had a "deep NDE" and have them use DMT. Then, only those subjects whose experience fits the description of a "deep NDE" are examined (the subject must be kept blind as to the purpose of the study). Reports on both experiences are compared using judges who are blind to the source of the experience. Technically, the selection process isn't identical, since the original subjects will have been self-selected, but at least it's getting closer to a reasonably rigorous design.

Linda

The aim of such a comparison would not be to disabuse anyone of their convictions about their own experiences.

Sure, Will but I wasn't meaning that. I think you would be very hard pressed to persuade someone who has had a near death experience, particularly a deep one, to take part in such an exercise. Why ? Because they're not the slightest bit interested in trying to persuade the perpetual naysayers of the reality of what they experienced.

They know where they've been and they know it wasn't the result of some quirk of the brain. I spoke many times with a guy in America who took part in a documentary on NDE's. A certain sceptical doctor (who I won't name) provided the obligatory brain based "explanation". All the NDErs without exception regarded this doctor's views as laughable and worthy of contempt.

Sure, Will but I wasn't meaning that. I think you would be very hard pressed to persuade someone who has had a near death experience, particularly a deep one, to take part in such an exercise. Why ? Because they're not the slightest bit interested in trying to persuade the perpetual naysayers of the reality of what they experienced.

They know where they've been and they know it wasn't the result of some quirk of the brain. I spoke many times with a guy in America who took part in a documentary on NDE's. A certain sceptical doctor (who I won't name) provided the obligatory brain based "explanation". All the NDErs without exception regarded this doctor's views as laughable and worthy of contempt.

That's fair enough. My own instincts (I would think) would be to try and help people who've never had such an experience gain some knowledge or perspective on it. NDErs who went from hardcore materialists to a more spiritual bent, or work as practicing scientists, might be of the same mind; find enough volunteers, and the necessary permissions, and I still think this would be a worthwhile study.

Generally speaking, for a direct comparison, the two groups should be the same except for the characteristic of interest. Otherwise, any reported differences could be for reasons unrelated to the characteristic of interest.

In this case, one group which undergoes two different interventions/experiences, represents two groups. The first group is a highly selected group with respect to "NDE" - out of the millions/billions of people who have had auditory/visual experiences associated with medical crises, a self-selected handful who had a particular kind of experience. The second group is an unselected group with respect to DMT experiences - all auditory/visual experiences associated with a DMT experience.

The other major problem is blinding. It would be impossible to blind the participants as to the source of the experience, which introduces a very strong bias.

You won't be able to draw valid conclusions about whether these experiences are different based on that study design. 

Both groups would need to be selected in the same way. For example, take a much, much larger group of people who have had a "deep NDE" and have them use DMT. Then, only those subjects whose experience fits the description of a "deep NDE" are examined (the subject must be kept blind as to the purpose of the study). Reports on both experiences are compared using judges who are blind to the source of the experience. Technically, the selection process isn't identical, since the original subjects will have been self-selected, but at least it's getting closer to a reasonably rigorous design.

Linda

What would a control group made up of people who've used DMT tell you except that they had another DMT trip?

NDErs who try DMT could report on both experiences according to an identical questionnaire assessed by blind judges, that's fair enough, but you'd have to word it to avoid an existing problem - experiences that seem to match up based on bullet points but differ substantially when you get a full description.

NDErs who went from hardcore materialists to a more spiritual bent, or work as practicing scientists

It never makes any difference, Will. Numerous former sceptics have had NDE's and changed their minds but as soon as they do, the sceptics who haven't had the experience sneer at them and treat them as turncoats and pariahs.

The vast majority that refer to themselves as sceptics are either completely ignorant of the evidence or they are ideological deniers. Some of them post on here and they are pleasant enough characters but based on what they offer as explanations for many veridical NDE's, it simply makes them intellectually dishonest. Stupid explanations when they're not stupid. They just refuse to budge.

What would a control group made up of people who've used DMT tell you except that they had another DMT trip?

I was referring to your suggestion - have a group of people who have had a deep NDE, use DMT and report on their experiences. The same people would be in both “groups”, but there would be two different groups of experiences - NDEs unrelated to DMT, and DMT experiences which are similar to deep NDEs.

NDErs who try DMT could report on both experiences according to an identical questionnaire assessed by blind judges, that's fair enough, but you'd have to word it to avoid an existing problem - experiences that seem to match up based on bullet points but differ substantially when you get a full description.

Yes, exactly. Both experiences would be presented as full descriptions in narrative form (like Sartori provided in her appendices). As you mention, it isn’t until you read the full descriptions that you get a sense of these experiences.

Linda