Reddit thread on what people who died and came back experienced

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme..._what_did/

Interesting Reddit thread with people giving stories of what themselves and their relatives experienced whilst clinically dead. Worth a read - thought the forum would appreciate!

[Laird]

Hey, Roberta! Long time no see - glad you've stopped by and hope you stick around!

From kittenpantzen's mom:

"I was just kind of watching the room while this doctor beat on my chest and kept yelling at me to 'breathe! God damn, you! Breathe!' So, finally I was like, 'Fucking fine. I'll breathe. Jesus.' And then the next thing I knew, I was in the recovery room. It was some bullshit."

Best one.

Much deeper in the thread there's some people debating about Sam Parnia and Penny Sartoris studies and the critiques are interesting. Generally speaking there's two camps, one camp that staes that because the tests  came up empty that therefore NDE's are hallucinations. Impliying that no further testing is neccessary or even desired.

The other camp says that they are more or less not surprised by the results because even in the case of a real OBE, the likelihood that a person would even notice the targets is practically zero. Citing that they're asking someone who's in severe trauma to notice and recall tiny environmental details. Also that there's no guarantee that someone would care to notice things like a troll doll even if they were out since they'd be more focued on other things like their family or body or whatever. Many citing that if it were them they likely wouldn't be paying attention to anything like that. And others who'd had some form of NDE confirming that what you see as imporatnt is very different, and that they would likely not have noticed any of these targets themselves.

This second group is interesting because unlike the first, they treat the phenomenon like something that is real and thus are looking for what issues might arise even given that assumption. And it generates far more productive and interesting critiscisms and suggestions. Stating that it might be better to prime people by telling them that there will be targets for them to look out for and such. I admit that I haven't read the papers myself, I don't really care for purely theoretical research because development seems like a better approach, so I don't know if priming or anything like that happened. But it was very interesting to see the split between those that flat out denied the possibility because a couple studies came back negative, confirming their beliefs, and those who were thinking of ways of redesigning the studies to maximize the possibility of a legitimate hit.

It really goes to show how irrational rationality and empricism are in real world application without a foundation of  attitude and emotional fortitude. To me it really goes to show why I say the purely sterile theoretical method of science just isn't as effective as the active development version where you start with the assumption that your end goal is even possible. All the people who supported that OBE's were possible were the ones generating actual logical suggestions to improve future studies, the rationalists just gave up.

Much deeper in the thread there's some people debating about Sam Parnia and Penny Sartoris studies and the critiques are interesting. Generally speaking there's two camps, one camp that staes that because the tests  came up empty that therefore NDE's are hallucinations. Impliying that no further testing is neccessary or even desired.

The trouble with this viewpoint is that it is resting upon an erroneous foundation. Both Sartori and Parnia as well as countless others have reported findings which demonstrate that whatever this is, it cannot be a hallucination, for the simple reason that there have in fact been veridical observations. The AWARE study reported at least one veridical observation. (There were others which Parnia has described but which don't appear in the formal reporting).

Hey, Roberta! Long time no see - glad you've stopped by and hope you stick around!

Thank you my friend, hope you are well .

As Mediocre correctly points out, many sceptics (pseudo in my opinion) state that Parnia's experiment failed ...no one saw the targets. Steven Novella is possibly the most culpable for this as he should know better.

As Typoz says, the experiment didn't fail, veridical information was obtained, just that no one had an OBE in an area with a board fitted. It's true that Sartori's patient 10 might have seen the author's (her's) target in her experiment, he (10) was high enough.

 His (10) description of the event was very accurate though and even though I've listened to Linda's desperate pleadings for it to be disregarded, it's a very remarkable OBE particularly that it was reported to the author within hours of it occurring (indeed the author was present when it occurred), something the sceptics always made a big fuss about, contamination wise.

When they got it of course, they still weren't happy and never will be (IMHO) whatever is presented to them.

What were the terms of the study that would define “success”?

What were the terms of the study that would define “success”?

There weren't any strict terms as far as I know, but the hypothesis that something leaves the body and observes from above couldn't be tested experimentally.

I think the Christopher Yerington report for instance (if it is honest and accurate) indicates that Parnia will eventually be successful. It's not the only one even from the thread on Quora.


Admin I'll delete this in a couple hours * edit : excerpt deleted