Reading “Proof of Spiritual Phenomena”

I’m not an eliminativ materialist as Paul Churchland. Without haven read all his arguments I think this position is illogical. Many of the great scientists of last century held far less extreme views like Bohr, Planck, Schrödinger, Eccles and so forth and accepted that consciousness could not be described by reductionism (I derive this position from various  quotes by these gentlemen. Planck and Eccles was obviously religious). But I believe materialism can be false without survival of the “self” being true. At the end of the day I mostly care about the “survival” question. 

I have Julie Beischel’s work and the Ganzfeld experiments on my to-do reading list. Especially the latter is obviously not an introductionary reading text (I would need to refresh my under graduate statistics first) and I don’t feel I have time for that right now. I do read what the forum member “Ersby” writes about the subject from time to time as he obviously has invested the time and effort to make an individual opinion about this material.

I’m not sure if we have spritual churches in my country (Denmark) but it’s a good suggestion. I recently considered contacting a professional medium, but I’m not convinced it would be money well spent.

Anyway I will finish the book by Mona Sobhani as the later chapters in the book seems to provide more of a neurological perspective to the whole thing which is what I was hoping for.

Well you don't really need to go into Julie's statistics - just think of it as a way of selecting the most powerful mediums and avoiding any cold readers etc. Contacting any medium would be a gamble, but I'd say if you protect your identity and be careful how you reply to her you are gambling between no result and obtaining interesting evidence of what you want (give or take assorted quibbles such as the idea that you are contacting the Akashic records - not the person you knew).

I'd be very surprised if neurology had much to say about this!

David

I'd be very surprised if neurology had much to say about this!

David

It’s highly relevant. I’m a strong proponent of the falsification principle by Karl Popper.

It’s highly relevant. I’m a strong proponent of the falsification principle by Karl Popper.

Nothing to do with Karl Popper, but NDE 'sceptic' Dr Daniel Kondziella hails from your part of the world, doesn't he. Regarding getting a reading from a medium, I did just that a few years ago. She plucked two names out of the air just for me (both deceased) that were exactly who I would have wanted to hear from. There is no way she could have known those two names. 

The odds of picking one name correctly are very long, are they not, but two, I would say it's almost astronomical. And she said it with such confidence, no fishing around and this was done down the phone. We were so astonished that my wife refused to believe it (she's a sceptic like you) (there were other names given that were spot on) and said she must have got the information off facebook. My wife doesn't do facebook and neither do I. 

There comes a point when scepticism reaches it's limits.

Nothing to do with Karl Popper, but NDE 'sceptic' Dr Daniel Kondziella hails from your part of the world, doesn't he. Regarding getting a reading from a medium, I did just that a few years ago. She plucked two names out of the air just for me (both deceased) that were exactly who I would have wanted to hear from. There is no way she could have known those two names. 

The odds of picking one name correctly are very long, are they not, but two, I would say it's almost astronomical. And she said it with such confidence, no fishing around and this was done down the phone. We were so astonished that my wife refused to believe it (she's a sceptic like you) (there were other names given that were spot on) and said she must have got the information off facebook. My wife doesn't do facebook and neither do I. 

There comes a point when scepticism reaches it's limits.

Coincidentally I just learned about Dr Daniel Kondziella a few days ago and only because I was googling another danish doctor (Tobias Kvist Stripp who may be open minded about NDEs). After speed reading Kondziella's published NDE research I didn't learn any new sceptical arguments I can torture you with.

Anyway thank you for sharing a personal experience. I rationally understand that the odds of picking two correct names out of the air is virtually zero. If I had the same personal experience I would instantly come to believe fully in at least in psi (and personal survival would become very much more likely).

Coincidentally I just learned about Dr Daniel Kondziella a few days ago and only because I was googling another danish doctor (Tobias Kvist Stripp who may be open minded about NDEs)

Daniel Kondziella is young, at the beginning of his career, relatively (he's about 40 or so) so he's not going to break from orthodoxy. Not a chance and I don't blame him, he'd lose his livelihood. 

If I had the same personal experience I would instantly come to believe fully in at least in psi (and personal survival would become very much more likely).

Would you though? I don't think anyone would necessarily expect you to, Sbu. Personally, I don't mind people remaining sceptical, all that bothers me is that they (sceptics) don't try to change the facts about the various important cases as some notorious ideologues have done.

It’s highly relevant. I’m a strong proponent of the falsification principle by Karl Popper.

Let me explain what I feel about neurology. Much of this research is performed of course by studying the brain's consumption of oxygen-rich blood, region by region, and followed over time as people perform various mental tasks.

Imagine that computers had not been invented or manufactured on Earth, but were discovered on the moon, or perhaps that they had been invented by a highly secret group who refused to reveal anything about how they work.

One way to study them would be to put tiny temperature detectors on each chip and run particular programs to follow the action inside the machine. Some sensors would be placed would be placed on the CPU chip (maybe several because it is quite large), and most would go on the memory chips. The rise in temperature would of course measure the power consumption of the chip moment by moment.

This would generate reams of output, and no doubt all sorts of subtleties would be observed and discussed, but how much understanding of how computers work would be revealed by this process?

A very few people with hydrocephalus, have virtually no brain left, and yet in rare cases the person lives life more or less normally:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarkab...-1.1026845

Think about it!

David

I looked up  Dr Tobias Stripp, and I was very impressed with his critique of Kondziella. Whilst doing that I came upon this interesting push back from Kondziella which I think (could be wrong) is verging on poor. What was even more interesting was to see the effect that contacting him about his pet theory had on him..I did contact him, politely but firmly lol. I highlighted what I consider to be incorrrect assumptions etc but just to add, he is an academic and I am not, so he would never be interested on what I had to say, which is fine by me. But he's still talking nonsense, which I will happily explain but I'm sure that most members of this forum will be able to work it out for themsleves.

 We thank Dr Stripp for his interest in our paper1 and for sharing his thoughts about it in a sophisticated and polite manner. We have received a great number of critical comments about this paper, most of which were sent privately to the authors and most of which were much less civilized, testifying to the fact that near-death experiences (NDEs) trigger a profound interest and that associating them with a biological and evolutionary purpose appears to evoke strong emotions in many people.

In response to Dr Stripp, we like to reiterate a few of the following thoughts laid out in our paper.
There are no data to indicate that the phenomenology of NDEs differs in situations that are (i) associated with a threat to life and impaired brain physiology such as a cardiac arrest; (ii) associated with a threat to life but unimpaired brain physiology such as a near-miss traffic accident and (iii) associated with non-life-threatening situations such as drug abuse or fainting. Indeed, as pointed out by K.R. Nelson in his Scientific Commentary2 on our paper, ‘the term “near-death” borders on misnomer since in half the instances of near-death, individuals are not in medical danger’.3
The data that do exist indicate that NDEs in all three circumstances referred above are phenomenologically similar.4–6 From the phenomenology of the experience, one cannot tell whether what happened was a cardiac arrest or abuse of ketamine. This similarity suggests that also the brain mechanisms behind these experiences are similar, if not identical.

This would make sense because it is a prerequisite for someone being able to report an NDE that during the actual experience they have had sufficiently preserved cerebral function and have survived without major brain damage. Without a functioning brain, how would it be possible to make an experience so rich in details, store it over many years, retrieve it easily and report on it in an eloquent manner many years later?
Rather than concluding that NDEs made during cardiac arrest are evidence for human consciousness being able to exist outside the brain, the most parsimonious conclusion would be that NDEs are made just prior to the loss of consciousness—and hence can be remembered with successful resuscitation.

We certainly agree with Dr Stripp (and we say so in our paper) that our study is not absolute proof of the hypothesis that thanatosis is the evolutionary origin of NDEs. We also acknowledge the fact that we may never know for certain whether NDEs have solely a biological meaning or indeed may hint to the existence of an after-life. However, Dr Stripp’s critique about our use of anecdotal evidence, being no different from the anecdotal evidence used by proponents for a transcendental meaning of NDEs, does not seem justified. We use anecdotal evidence for thanatosis and NDE occurring in humans under attack by lions and other large predators to support our argument that such experiences indeed can occur in these circumstances: this can hardly be denied, unless one presumes that these people were lying about their experiences. In contrast, proponents of a transcendental meaning of NDEs use anecdotes to support their hypothesis that NDEs are evidence for humans being able to make conscious experiences without a functioning brain. This argumentation is more far-fetched because, as pointed out earlier, the assumption that NDEs are being made just before consciousness is lost is more parsimonious.

It appears to us that many people with a special interest in NDEs seem not to recognize that these are conscious experiences based on cerebral phenomena (albeit interesting ones), just like other subjective neurological experiences such as migraine aura or time–space synaesthesia. This lack of neurological understanding appears unfortunate but may reflect our observation that neuroscientific expertise is often underrepresented in people with an interest in NDEs, including researchers (many of the most prominent being cardiologists7 or anaesthesiologists).8

On a lesser note, we agree with Dr Stripp that NDEs differ from what most people would think of as hallucinations, but NDEs do fulfil the criteria for hallucinations as laid out by the [i]Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5)[/i] of the American Psychiatric Association, i.e. hallucinations are ‘a sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ’. In the same vein, how to define the term ‘predator’ can be discussed but this semantics is of little relevance to the point we are making.

Far more interesting to us is Dr Stripp’s suggestion that reflecting critically on one’s own subjectivity and stance is important for every researcher. It goes without saying that we fully support this notion, but we are curious how can it be that of all the papers published in [i]Brain Communications[/i] it is exactly our NDE paper that triggers a comment about this very basic principle?
We have not investigated this matter, but we wonder whether this is because the spiritual values of many people interested in NDEs are at odds with an acceptance of the principles of evolution. Indeed, the conflict between proponents of an evolutionary model and those of a spiritual model is as old as Darwin’s theory itself.9 Again, we would like to refer to the Scientific Commentary of K.R. Nelson who gives Solomonic advice on how to reconcile these opposing views: ‘Here James offers counsel to persons whose near-death experience steadfastly transformed personal meaning and spirituality: “by their fruit ye shall know them, not by their roots”’.2

In conclusion, it appears to us that the field of NDE research is subject to a widely held belief that there is something fundamentally special, if not supra-natural, about NDEs, like the notion that conscious experiences can be made in the absence of a functioning brain. Although we cannot know what the future brings, we think that our hypothesis of thanatosis being the evolutionary origin of NDEs has a good chance to stand the test of time, just like so many other evolutionary hypotheses of behaviours and traits that have prevailed since Charles Darwin’s theory.10

...it appears to us that the field of NDE research is subject to a widely held belief that there is something fundamentally special, if not supra-natural, about NDEs, like the notion that conscious experiences can be made in the absence of a functioning brain. Although we cannot know what the future brings, [b]we think that our hypothesis of thanatosis being the evolutionary origin of NDEs has a good chance to stand the test of time...

Weird, I was reading Charlotte Martial's paper speculating on the evolutionary origin of the NDE as thanatosis last night. Sounded interesting on the surface, but reading the short paper, it seemed very very light on evidence. I thought it was so weak, that the paper actually undermines her argument. It's also one of those speculations that, you can't really test or disprove, and doesn't do anything to help us understand the more complex anomalous features of the NDE OBE. Martial has also revised Greyson's NDE scale, including changes to rate fear death experiences, calling it the NDE-C scale. She hails from Steven Laureys lab in Belgium, they seem to have a very limited and biased perspective on NDE/OBE phenomena.

I looked up  Dr Tobias Stripp, and I was very impressed with his critique of Kondziella. Whilst doing that I came upon this interesting push back from Kondziella which I think (could be wrong) is verging on poor. What was even more interesting was to see the effect that contacting him about his pet theory had on him..I did contact him, politely but firmly lol. I highlighted what I consider to be incorrrect assumptions etc but just to add, he is an academic and I am not, so he would never be interested on what I had to say, which is fine by me. But he's still talking nonsense, which I will happily explain but I'm sure that most members of this forum will be able to work it out for themsleves.

 We thank Dr Stripp for his interest in our paper1 and for sharing his thoughts about it in a sophisticated and polite manner. We have received a great number of critical comments about this paper, most of which were sent privately to the authors and most of which were much less civilized, testifying to the fact that near-death experiences (NDEs) trigger a profound interest and that associating them with a biological and evolutionary purpose appears to evoke strong emotions in many people.

In response to Dr Stripp, we like to reiterate a few of the following thoughts laid out in our paper.
There are no data to indicate that the phenomenology of NDEs differs in situations that are (i) associated with a threat to life and impaired brain physiology such as a cardiac arrest; (ii) associated with a threat to life but unimpaired brain physiology such as a near-miss traffic accident and (iii) associated with non-life-threatening situations such as drug abuse or fainting. Indeed, as pointed out by K.R. Nelson in his Scientific Commentary2 on our paper, ‘the term “near-death” borders on misnomer since in half the instances of near-death, individuals are not in medical danger’.3
The data that do exist indicate that NDEs in all three circumstances referred above are phenomenologically similar.4–6 From the phenomenology of the experience, one cannot tell whether what happened was a cardiac arrest or abuse of ketamine. This similarity suggests that also the brain mechanisms behind these experiences are similar, if not identical.

This would make sense because it is a prerequisite for someone being able to report an NDE that during the actual experience they have had sufficiently preserved cerebral function and have survived without major brain damage. Without a functioning brain, how would it be possible to make an experience so rich in details, store it over many years, retrieve it easily and report on it in an eloquent manner many years later?
Rather than concluding that NDEs made during cardiac arrest are evidence for human consciousness being able to exist outside the brain, the most parsimonious conclusion would be that NDEs are made just prior to the loss of consciousness—and hence can be remembered with successful resuscitation.

We certainly agree with Dr Stripp (and we say so in our paper) that our study is not absolute proof of the hypothesis that thanatosis is the evolutionary origin of NDEs. We also acknowledge the fact that we may never know for certain whether NDEs have solely a biological meaning or indeed may hint to the existence of an after-life. However, Dr Stripp’s critique about our use of anecdotal evidence, being no different from the anecdotal evidence used by proponents for a transcendental meaning of NDEs, does not seem justified. We use anecdotal evidence for thanatosis and NDE occurring in humans under attack by lions and other large predators to support our argument that such experiences indeed can occur in these circumstances: this can hardly be denied, unless one presumes that these people were lying about their experiences. In contrast, proponents of a transcendental meaning of NDEs use anecdotes to support their hypothesis that NDEs are evidence for humans being able to make conscious experiences without a functioning brain. This argumentation is more far-fetched because, as pointed out earlier, the assumption that NDEs are being made just before consciousness is lost is more parsimonious.

It appears to us that many people with a special interest in NDEs seem not to recognize that these are conscious experiences based on cerebral phenomena (albeit interesting ones), just like other subjective neurological experiences such as migraine aura or time–space synaesthesia. This lack of neurological understanding appears unfortunate but may reflect our observation that neuroscientific expertise is often underrepresented in people with an interest in NDEs, including researchers (many of the most prominent being cardiologists7 or anaesthesiologists).8

On a lesser note, we agree with Dr Stripp that NDEs differ from what most people would think of as hallucinations, but NDEs do fulfil the criteria for hallucinations as laid out by the [i]Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5)[/i] of the American Psychiatric Association, i.e. hallucinations are ‘a sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ’. In the same vein, how to define the term ‘predator’ can be discussed but this semantics is of little relevance to the point we are making.

Far more interesting to us is Dr Stripp’s suggestion that reflecting critically on one’s own subjectivity and stance is important for every researcher. It goes without saying that we fully support this notion, but we are curious how can it be that of all the papers published in [i]Brain Communications[/i] it is exactly our NDE paper that triggers a comment about this very basic principle?
We have not investigated this matter, but we wonder whether this is because the spiritual values of many people interested in NDEs are at odds with an acceptance of the principles of evolution. Indeed, the conflict between proponents of an evolutionary model and those of a spiritual model is as old as Darwin’s theory itself.9 Again, we would like to refer to the Scientific Commentary of K.R. Nelson who gives Solomonic advice on how to reconcile these opposing views: ‘Here James offers counsel to persons whose near-death experience steadfastly transformed personal meaning and spirituality: “by their fruit ye shall know them, not by their roots”’.2

In conclusion, it appears to us that the field of NDE research is subject to a widely held belief that there is something fundamentally special, if not supra-natural, about NDEs, like the notion that conscious experiences can be made in the absence of a functioning brain. Although we cannot know what the future brings, we think that our hypothesis of thanatosis being the evolutionary origin of NDEs has a good chance to stand the test of time, just like so many other evolutionary hypotheses of behaviours and traits that have prevailed since Charles Darwin’s theory.10

What a load of gibberish. "We do not know how but it's true"
Also I can tell he's done less research on it than prominent voices on the skeptic camp.

it seemed very very light on evidence. I thought it was so weak, that the paper actually undermines her argument.

I agree with you, Max. I thought it was very poor and un-believable. No matter where one comes from with respect to NDE's, I just don't see what evolutionary advantage of survival they bring. Lions don't stop eating you (when they're hungry) just because you lie still enjoying the NDE trip. 

and doesn't do anything to help us understand the more complex anomalous features of the NDE OBE

 
No it doesn't, again, I agree.

calling it the NDE-C scale.

Ah, I knew she was up to something but as it was in french, I missed it. Is that what it is. They will make themselves look very foolish if they start messing about with Greyson's NDE scale. That has stood the testing of some of the most critical and sceptical academics in the world. 

She hails from Steven Laureys lab in Belgium, they seem to have a very limited and biased perspective on NDE/OBE phenomena.

 
Yes and they don't always seem to do their work very carefully IMHO. Why not contact them with an email, Max, you are perfectly entitled to. You're very good at parsing data, although of course we disagree on it's interpretation.