To NDE or not to NDE (re-done)

To start out, my apologies here. I started a thread with the same intent and name as this one in the Extended Consciousness section of the forum, totally unaware that the member whose ideas I was challenging or hoping to start discussion over couldn't post in it. Whoops :
Originally Laird was just going to move the thread to one she could respond in, but I felt I needed to reword things and maybe add some more quotes to show exactly what I'm bringing up a little better. I'm definitely a guy who goes back and edits the hell out of his posts within the first five minutes of originally putting it up because I start backtracking usually on my wording or something. Grammar, etc. 

Anyways, to my point: I've been reading the Skeptiko forums and this one for well over a year now regularly, long before I ever actually got the idea I wanted to partake in the discussions. And although I'm not very convinced by the "skeptic" crowd, I am still very interested in their arguments. 

Even though most proponents here kind of seem to get sick of the same old approaches they claim some skeptics here resort to again and again, they do seem still willing in the face of it all to keep on discussing things with them. So I expect plenty of participation from them too in this, even though they may have already. I just haven't found where. 

Linda seems to be a pretty prominent poster here and has been since the mind-energy forum days. One argument I've seen recently pop up again, and I am intrigued by, is this constant assertion that there is a bias amongst certain researchers of NDEs and "mainstream" ones 

Outside the field of parapsychology, these experiences would be regarded as hallucinations ("a hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception"). However, my point was just that NDE researchers separate the collection of "vivid, substantial, and are perceived to be located in external objective space" experiences which people have in association with medical crises, into "hallucination" or "NDE" based on those questions. That is, it's an NDE if you meet Jesus, but a hallucination if you meet some business associates.

What I'm referring to are the investigation of these same experiences which have been undertaken by mainstream researchers, but without the "NDE selection process" which parapsychologists undertake. If NDEs were a unique experience were which different from the hallucinations, dreams and unreal experiences which are reported by people under the same kinds of medical conditions, then they would be noticeable to the researchers who look at the details of these experiences in terms of quality, vividness, themes, etc. Yet we don't find this in their reports. Instead, what parapsychologists would select out as "NDEs" seems to simply represent some of the themes which are found among the unreal experiences which are otherwise indistinguishable from NDEs.

Linda, you seem to always reference the same paper by Penny Sartori as being a study that is closer to a study design you'd favor using. Is this the only evidence you have of what you say above? As I see Sartori definitely not holding the same conclusions as you over it, or the same opinion of other researchers' study methods in NDE literature. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15267166

Anyways, to get to the bottom of what I'm asking of Linda, and once she clarifies her position and statements from the thread "a skeptic and a NDE proponent go to a magic show" from the Philosophy Discussion Forum I'd love to see others jump in too: 

Is the distinction between NDEs and 'ordinary' 'hallucinations' a somewhat arbitrary one as Linda alleges, and is there any scientific basis to this allegation as she claims there is? If so, what is that scientific basis, with reference to specific papers and the specific methods/findings in them?

Apparently I'm not the only one (Laird has already voiced his interest) here who would like to see these ideas challenged and discussed. I must say, it is one of the more original criticisms towards NDE literature from a skeptic online I've seen. Amongst the usual "ancedotes, fraud, wishful thinking" junk I've seen thrown up before I started frequenting here, and it deserves an audience. 

And to clarify, I do think the Greyson scale could be better, but to say it's created a bias and a noticeable problem with definition amongst proponents who investigate NDEs is pretty far out to me

To add, I personally find out of body NDEs, shared NDEs, etc to be more compelling and that we might as well can go in circles discussing the other characteristics of them that are purely subjective but the existence of objectively verified qualities to these experiences points there is more to at least some of the more mundane features too so it's relevant. 

Honestly, I think NDEs explain what hallucinations are rather then the other way around but that's for another thread

I'm not sure what you are asking me to clarify. 

The Greyson scale was developed by finding a minimal set of questions which IANDS members who had had an NDE would answer positively (http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Gre...69-375.pdf). It was not developed to distinguish between NDEs and hallucinations (or other kinds of "unreal" experiences). Nor was it developed to identify "NDEs" among an unselected population (people with experiences near death or during medical crises). However, it is now used on unselected populations in prospective studies to identify experiences which are called "NDEs". But left unanswered is the question of whether those experiences can be distinguished from "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences", and whether those "NDEs" are the same kinds of experiences which people report on IANDS.

I bring up Sartori because she provides transcripts of her interviews in her book, and she includes interviews from those she identifies as "NDEs" and those she identifies as "hallucinations". Reading these interviews dramatically altered my perception of "NDEs" and the research into them, and led me to look for the answers to the questions I mentioned above.

Linda

Linda >The Greyson scale was developed by finding a minimal set of questions which IANDS members who had had an NDE would answer positively.

It was nothing to do with whether or not the experiencer was a member of IANDS or whether or not they thought they would answer positively. The NDE scale was developed so that clinicians around the world could know whether or not they were studying the same thing. Ken Ring had a go at it, as did Margot Grey in England but Greyson's scale was the one that was adopted. A lot of people back then didn't even know that their experience was called an NDE or had been 'styled' as such.

Linda's got me on ignore which is fair enough as she (for me) is just about the most annoying person I've ever
encountered on a forum and consequently I have been less than polite in the past when trying to deal with her
 hobby, which is trying to sow doubt and muddy the waters in any subject which takes her fancy, NDE's being
one of her favourites because she doesn't like the idea of them.

The serious researchers who do the work (unlike Linda) know they are not hallucinations. That was sorted out 30 years ago and Linda herself knows they are not. But it's fun for her, she knows it winds people up and that's why she does it, in my opinion anyway.

Well I did reply this morning, but my post got deleted along with your post. I had written that there are severe problems with the Greyson NDE scale, and I think, how it is often inappropriately used by researchers. It's use produces only a self-certified sub-group of experients. That sub-group is biased in very particular ways from the overall pool of experiences available, and one needs to be very very careful when interpreting results provided from research using this sub-group. One needs to understand it's very severe limitations.

But for you, Max the Greyson scale is practically irrelevant as you believe that the OBE reports are the product of a different hypotheses, namely interlinked brains. As for the scale, it's not perfect, but what is ? Maybe Greyson will fine tune it, maybe not but I don't think it's of massive significance, personally.

I believe we're coming into the home straight with NDE's. Ten years and the debate will be over IMHO anyway.

Well I did reply this morning, but my post got deleted along with your post. I had written that there are severe problems with the Greyson NDE scale, and I think, how it is often inappropriately used by researchers. It's use produces only a self-certified sub-group of experients. That sub-group is biased in very particular ways from the overall pool of experiences available, and one needs to be very very careful when interpreting results provided from research using this sub-group. One needs to understand it's very severe limitations.

My bad Max, careless me but thanks for re posting!

I believe we're coming into the home straight with NDE's. Ten years and the debate will be over IMHO anyway.

I am one of the most positive folks you will find, about solving the science that leads to the phenomena observed.  Phenomenon that exhibit the fact that living things extract more far meaning from their environments (both inner and external) than physical signalling allows.

10 years is very, very optimistic

an hallucination is the mind projecting images that are not based on controlled inbound signals  - the mind is synthesizing from noise and not from meaningful signals.

a dream is the mind projecting images that are based on controlled inbound signals from the "subconscious"  - the mind is synthesizing from signals where short term memory is converted to long-term memory.  And these are meaningful signals, but not rationally processed.

an NDE is dream-like, in that experiencers judge the experience as highly meaningful. 

The key to me is to find out what is happening in dream-like states, in general, and be able to sort through how the meaning and logical actions are understood in information science.  

Dreaming appears essential biologically.  If it were material/chemical objects are causes, we know what to do to find them.  Yet, when information objects are the biological driver, the current state of science falls down.

The best work I can find is being done in G. Tononi's labs.  It is stuck right now; and needs a breakthrough for a 10 year resolution of mind and psi (imho).

I am one of the most positive folks you will find, about solving the science that leads to the phenomena observed.  Phenomenon that exhibit the fact that living things extract more far meaning from their environments (both inner and external) than physical signalling allows.

10 years is very, very optimistic

an hallucination is the mind projecting images that are not based on controlled inbound signals  - the mind is synthesizing from noise and not from meaningful signals.

a dream is the mind projecting images that are based on controlled inbound signals from the "subconscious"  - the mind is synthesizing from signals where short term memory is converted to long-term memory.  And these are meaningful signals, but not rationally processed.

an NDE is dream-like, in that experiencers judge the experience as highly meaningful. 

The key to me is to find out what is happening in dream-like states, in general, and be able to sort through how the meaning and logical actions are understood in information science.  

Dreaming appears essential biologically.  If it were material/chemical objects are causes, we know what to do to find them.  Yet, when information objects are the biological driver, the current state of science falls down.

The best work I can find is being done in G. Tononi's labs.  It is stuck right now; and needs a breakthrough for a 10 year resolution of mind and psi (imho).

Hi, Stephen

What I'm referring to is now that Parnia has tightened up the methodology, I believe that we will start to see the first "hits." (but I could be wrong of course)  

I don't know what you mean by NDE's are dreamlike. I would say just the opposite and that they are not normally meaningful, furthermore one cannot dream during cardiac arrest.