NDEs and DMT

It seems to be an uncritical acceptance of the "NDE=DMT" line. (Well, it is the BBC.)

I think there would be more interest in answering or commenting on the article, if you didn't get the feeling these researchers are pretty close minded from the comments they give. 

Calling the opinions of the researchers who disagree with you "bullshit" and "pseudoscience" without backing it up is pretty telling. And yes, uncritical.

It's all largely irrelevant anyway. The only crucial work in this field is in brains that aren't working, as we all (mostly) know. For anyone that wants to know about DMT and the brain, then I would personally recommend this.

 http://www.organiclab.narod.ru/books/DMT...lecule.pdf

It's all largely irrelevant anyway. The only crucial work in this field is in brains that aren't working, as we all (mostly) know.

Just to clarify, do you mean you think the only evidence that's really relevant relates to veridical experiences of events that happened while the brain was not working?

Just to clarify, do you mean you think the only evidence that's really relevant relates to veridical experiences of events that happened while the brain was not working?

Yes, of course. That is the really important question...is consciousness produced by the brain or is it a separate entity ?

These "sideshows" (studies such as the one referenced above) are merely the (quite understandable) push back from mainstream science to the enormous threat posed by the phenomenon of NDE's. The idea that there could be a separate consciousness is anathema to these institutions. You cannot even entertain such a wild notion, hence they have to keep looking for something brain based.

You know this, Chris.

You know this, Chris.

I wouldn't have asked if I'd known it.

I wouldn't have asked if I'd known it.

Do you mean to tell me a guy of your ability/intellect hasn't got the drift of what the big question is ? My oldest friend is a professor of psychology in the UK. If he were to give any credence whatsoever to the fact (and it is a fact) that people's minds can operate without their brains, he would lose everything.

Do you mean to tell me a guy of your ability/intellect hasn't got the drift of what the big question is ? My oldest friend is a professor of psychology in the UK. If he were to give any credence whatsoever to the fact (and it is a fact) that people's minds can operate without their brains, he would lose everything.

I mean that it wasn't clear to me what you meant by "work ... in brains that aren't working". That was why I asked you to confirm whether you meant what I thought you meant.

I mean that it wasn't clear to me what you meant by "work ... in brains that aren't working". That was why I asked you to confirm whether you meant what I thought you meant.

No, your initial question made if quite clear that you knew what I meant by a brain not working 

Chris asked > Just to clarify, do you mean you think the only evidence that's really relevant relates to veridical experiences of events that happened while the brain was not working?

Your question was asking me if the only relevant evidence (in your words) …. crucial work  (in my words)  was relating to veridical reports that happened when the brain wasn't working.  

Answer, yes. 

It obviously was clear to you what my first statement meant because your initial question was adequate. You do have a tendency, Chris, to dig holes for yourself (I'm not perfect either)  for no reason. There's no real issue here so why not move on ?

No, your initial question made if quite clear that you knew what I meant by a brain not working 

Chris asked > Just to clarify, do you mean you think the only evidence that's really relevant relates to veridical experiences of events that happened while the brain was not working?

Your question was asking me if the only relevant evidence (in your words) …. crucial work  (in my words)  was relating to veridical reports that happened when the brain wasn't working.  

Answer, yes. 

It obviously was clear to you what my first statement meant because your initial question was adequate. You do have a tendency, Chris, to dig holes for yourself (I'm not perfect either)  for no reason. There's no real issue here so why not move on ?

As I said, I asked you to confirm whether you meant what I thought you meant. The answer was yes.

There's certainly no issue here as far as I'm concerned, and no need for further discussion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...experience

Does DMT Model the Near-Death Experience?

Despite parallels, there are profound differences between DMT and NDEs.

The authors of a recent study (Timmermann et al., 2018) argue that what people experience under the influence of DMT provides a model of what people undergo during near-death experiences. Although there are broad similarities between the two, there are also major differences that the authors do not address. DMT experiences and NDEs may overlap because they share certain common features associated with altered states of consciousness. However, claiming that DMT models near-death experiences greatly exaggerates their similarities and overlooks what makes each distinctive.