NDEs - brain or non-brain products

Let me be clear, I still think that the vast majority of NDEs effects support some sort of surivival. Like Pam Reynolds, loyd rudy's patient, dentures man and many other cases are pretty clear that the people having the experience were pretty much dead. Clinical death, at least. But after consciosness trascends what happens? Is it afterlife like a heaven of sorts or something else shaped by our own mind? Is light always gonna be there, and in what shape? If our afterlife is based on our disembodied mind projections we could meet captain marvel there after all ?

If you are asking about the topic of 'afterlife' as opposed to the rather narrower topic of NDEs, then I'd suggest you need a broader basis on which to do so. One of the areas to consider is that of reincarnation. One might suggest that this ties in very closely with the 'life-review' part of many NDE accounts.

There are other areas of research, but I'm not particularly going to suggest anything, there is a lot of material which seems to be filtered and re-interpreted by the time it reaches us here, so the degree to which one might trust in its reliability is very much an individual, personal matter.

Oh no it hasn't evaporated, just still looking for evidence and to get things straight. In fact, I don't know how frequent reporting fictional characters is and if these events are reliable. I heard this is mentioned on a Penny Sartori book, but she is believer so maybe it's an incredibly rare phenomenon.

Penny Sartori "is a believer"? Does that mean you think she is credulous and blindly promoting her faith regardless of the facts?

If you follow her story from the beginning, you would find she is a sceptic who thinks the whole subject is a complete load of nonsense. Her opinion clearly shifted, but not because "she is a believer", but because she is a researcher.

Penny Sartori "is a believer"? Does that mean you think she is credulous and blindly promoting her faith regardless of the facts?

If you follow her story from the beginning, you would find she is a sceptic who thinks the whole subject is a complete load of nonsense. Her opinion clearly shifted, but not because "she is a believer", but because she is a researcher.

Yes that's what I meant sorry if it wasn't clear, she is a believer in sense that although se has seen some weird NDEs the majority of them made her shift her ideas, and that is good because it shows how valuable NDEs are.

Yes that's what I meant sorry if it wasn't clear, she is a believer in sense that although se has seen some weird NDEs the majority of them made her shift her ideas, and that is good because it shows how valuable NDEs are.

Just hypothetically (for arguments sake) what if sceptical neurologist Kevin Nelson had conducted the 5 year prospective study at Morriston hospital. Let's assume that the subsequent collected data would have been approximately the same.

What would he have done with the report from patient 10, for instance, I wonder.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_Healing

Surely as an honest investigator, he couldn't deny such an event ? So why did he ignore it (that case and her study) just because someone else conducted the  study and witnessed that event ? There seems to be a definite double standard from sceptics.

They don't want to conduct any prospective studies themselves but they don't accept the conclusions of the researchers that do.

Just hypothetically (for arguments sake) what if sceptical neurologist Kevin Nelson had conducted the 5 year prospective study at Morriston hospital. Let's assume that the subsequent collected data would have been approximately the same.

What would he have done with the report from patient 10, for instance, I wonder.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_Healing

Surely as an honest investigator, he couldn't deny such an event ? So why did he ignore it (that case and her study) just because someone else conducted the  study and witnessed that event ? There seems to be a definite double standard from sceptics.

They don't want to conduct any prospective studies themselves but they don't accept the conclusions of the researchers that do.

Hard skeptics will deny any value of OBE perception claiming  that those are memories created after waking up, or a some form of retrocognition. Until they get a totally accurate and verified sighting of an out of view object they will not even consider OBEs as real, and even then they would probably come up with some weird explaination or they'll say that it was either fraud or the hospital staff told the patient about the pictures.

Hard skeptics will deny any value of OBE perception claiming  that those are memories created after waking up, or a some form of retrocognition. Until they get a totally accurate and verified sighting of an out of view object they will not even consider OBEs as real, and even then they would probably come up with some weird explaination or they'll say that it was either fraud or the hospital staff told the patient about the pictures.

Okay, I tend to agree about hard line sceptics, but just to reiterate, if Nelson had conducted that study and witnessed Patient 10's accurate account (during a comatose period), assuming that he was honest enough to publish it, how would he square that with his theory of half open eyes and REM intrusion ?

No need to answer of course, he couldn't and that's why people like Nelson will never conduct a prospective study of their own. I suspect he wouldn't want to be put in the position of finding something he doesn't really want to find (seriously)

Okay, I tend to agree about hard line sceptics, but just to reiterate, if Nelson had conducted that study and witnessed Patient 10's accurate account (during a comatose period), assuming that he was honest enough to publish it, how would he square that with his theory of half open eyes and REM intrusion ?

No need to answer of course, he couldn't and that's why people like Nelson will never conduct a prospective study of their own. I suspect he wouldn't want to be put in the position of finding something he doesn't really want to find (seriously)

Probably, yes. Studies raise questions and they don't really want to question anything. They are sure their theories are right, no need to test them in the field. They'll just hand wave everything away with some excuse, one time anoxia, another time REM sleep or false memories, maybe hospital staff leaking out informations. It's not a very scinetific approach.

Hard skeptics will deny any value of OBE perception claiming  that those are memories created after waking up, or a some form of retrocognition. Until they get a totally accurate and verified sighting of an out of view object they will not even consider OBEs as real, and even then they would probably come up with some weird explaination or they'll say that it was either fraud or the hospital staff told the patient about the pictures.

That's the way to separate truth from non truth.

That's the way to separate truth from non truth.

I don't get what you mean. You think that denying any value of of verified OBEs a priori is the way to the truth?

I don't get what you mean. You think that denying any value of of verified OBEs a priori is the way to the truth?

I'm not questioning the personal importance the obe has for some. What skeptics question is the one and only rightful conclusion that something left the body. There are no hard supportive facts for that. What you think of as truth is best described as personal truth which is never to be confused with factually universal truths, such as water is wet, dry ice is cold, some germs cause human disease... .