near-death experiences - Are they evidence of an afterlife??

[amortalman]

Debate Question: Do you believe that near-death experiences are evidence of immaterial "souls" surviving death?

Near-death experiences came to the forefront with the publication of Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon by Dr. Raymond A. Moody Jr. in 1975. Since then, hundreds of books have been written on the subject, and thousands of testimonies have been researched and published. I was particularly impressed with the book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife by Dr. Eben Alexander.

I would like to hear the views of Christians, atheists, and anyone who has read enough about NDEs (or has had one) to have an informed opinion. Thank you.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

NDE's and OOB'[s are basically the same phenomenon.

They have similar crossovers, [the body is exited by the consciousness] but this does not signify that they are "basically the same."

the experiences are different, as AB pointed out.

AB: The OOB usually involves experiencing things in this world except you're at a different vantage point (i.e. out of your body), whereas the NDE involves experiences of other worlds and occurs during a near-death event. [Source]

So no - not 'basically the same' as the expression is lazy strawman stuff.

eta:
Raise your frequency

Oh I get that - they are all relating to supernatural claims about a human soul or whatever.

We are all on the same page so far.

But the point was that an out of body experience could involve seeing hidden objects and an NDE does not.

My point was that OOBs (I refer to them as OBEs, at times) and NDEs are not completely distinct. The out-of-body experience (OBE) can be part of an NDE. You referred to NDEs as remote viewing but that is speculation. Even the apostle Paul is an agnostic about his experience of Heaven. He wasn't sure if he was in or out of the body.

Thus using 'hidden objects' claims to validate NDEs is a strawman. There's also the point that the claims about OOB subjects were seeing hidden objects looked more like an observation that if that happened, that would be good evidence, but I couldn't see that it actually had happened. I have read many claims in the past that some hidden object was seen, but I'm not sure that this claim isn't overdone, at least. Just as it looked to me - from the start of this whole NDE business - that the NDEs were being claimed as evidence for a soul and heaven (iof not actually a god) before the phenomenon was even understood.

I mean technically, being able to have a conscious experience during a near-death episode, whether it be an experience involving Heaven or just an OBE where you remain around your body, is still remarkable. In my view, that should also be called an NDE since the experience occurs near-death.

Honestly, the classical NDE may be too loaded of a concept. Are we really going to dismiss or ignore the OBE part just because it didn't also involve experiencing Heaven, a bright light, or some chronological order of events? Of course not! The main point is that consciousness persists at a time when it should not be working.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53]

Meanwhile, the expert organization is pretty univocal on afterlife. They say it exists!

IANDS: https://iands.org/, wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... th_Studies.

[Goat]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

NDE's and OOB'[s are basically the same phenomenon.

They have similar crossovers, [the body is exited by the consciousness] but this does not signify that they are "basically the same."

the experiences are different, as AB pointed out.

AB: The OOB usually involves experiencing things in this world except you're at a different vantage point (i.e. out of your body), whereas the NDE involves experiences of other worlds and occurs during a near-death event. [Source]

So no - not 'basically the same' as the expression is lazy strawman stuff.

eta:
Raise your frequency

Oh I get that - they are all relating to supernatural claims about a human soul or whatever. But the point was that an out of body experience could involve seeing hidden objects and an NDE does not. Thus using 'hidden objects' claims to validate NDEs is a strawman. There's also the point that the claims about OOB subjects were seeing hidden objects looked more like an observation that if that happened, that would be good evidence, but I couldn't see that it actually had happened. I have read many claims in the past that some hidden object was seen, but I'm not sure that this claim isn't overdone, at least. Just as it looked to me - from the start of this whole NDE business - that the NDEs were being claimed as evidence for a soul and heaven (iof not actually a god) before the phenomenon was even understood.

In Austria, there was an experiment in an operating room where they had writing on the top of some shelves to see if ANY of the patients that flatlined on the operating table and were brought back who experience NDE's could tell them what the words said. While a number could remember what was said in the operating room at that time, not one of them could say what the writings on the shelves said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/patients ... -1.2793068

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

NDE's and OOB'[s are basically the same phenomenon.

They have similar crossovers, [the body is exited by the consciousness] but this does not signify that they are "basically the same."

the experiences are different, as AB pointed out.

AB: The OOB usually involves experiencing things in this world except you're at a different vantage point (i.e. out of your body), whereas the NDE involves experiences of other worlds and occurs during a near-death event. [Source]

So no - not 'basically the same' as the expression is lazy strawman stuff.

eta:
Raise your frequency

Oh I get that - they are all relating to supernatural claims about a human soul or whatever. But the point was that an out of body experience could involve seeing hidden objects and an NDE does not. Thus using 'hidden objects' claims to validate NDEs is a strawman. There's also the point that the claims about OOB subjects were seeing hidden objects looked more like an observation that if that happened, that would be good evidence, but I couldn't see that it actually had happened. I have read many claims in the past that some hidden object was seen, but I'm not sure that this claim isn't overdone, at least. Just as it looked to me - from the start of this whole NDE business - that the NDEs were being claimed as evidence for a soul and heaven (iof not actually a god) before the phenomenon was even understood.

In Austria, there was an experiment in an operating room where they had writing on the top of some shelves to see if ANY of the patients that flatlined on the operating table and were brought back who experience NDE's could tell them what the words said. While a number could remember what was said in the operating room at that time, not one of them could say what the writings on the shelves said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/patients ... -1.2793068

Interesting. some 'seeing and hearing' what was going on while they were Out is not too hard to explain. Easier than someone seeing hidden objects for instanc e - if that had actually occurred other than Parnia's suggestion that it would be a good test to have.

Now, I have to make it clear that I am not in principle opposed to these things being real. A disembodied mind (aka 'soul' is not something I have to dogmatically push away but something I have not been convinced of despite the frantic (and, it seems overdrawn or even misreported) pushing of this OOB/NDE argument, apparently, or so I suspect, in the mistaken idea that this proves a soul, heaven God and some religion or other.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53]

Meanwhile, the expert organization is pretty univocal on afterlife. They say it exists!

IANDS: https://iands.org/, wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... th_Studies.

So we have an international assiciation for studying this stuff. Splendid. What case have they been able to make other than what we have seen posted here so far - faith claims and misinformation?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

NDE's and OOB'[s are basically the same phenomenon.

They have similar crossovers, [the body is exited by the consciousness] but this does not signify that they are "basically the same."

the experiences are different, as AB pointed out.

AB: The OOB usually involves experiencing things in this world except you're at a different vantage point (i.e. out of your body), whereas the NDE involves experiences of other worlds and occurs during a near-death event. [Source]

So no - not 'basically the same' as the expression is lazy strawman stuff.

eta:
Raise your frequency

Oh I get that - they are all relating to supernatural claims about a human soul or whatever.

We are all on the same page so far.

But the point was that an out of body experience could involve seeing hidden objects and an NDE does not.

My point was that OOBs (I refer to them as OBEs, at times) and NDEs are not completely distinct. The out-of-body experience (OBE) can be part of an NDE. You referred to NDEs as remote viewing but that is speculation. Even the apostle Paul is an agnostic about his experience of Heaven. He wasn't sure if he was in or out of the body.

Thus using 'hidden objects' claims to validate NDEs is a strawman. There's also the point that the claims about OOB subjects were seeing hidden objects looked more like an observation that if that happened, that would be good evidence, but I couldn't see that it actually had happened. I have read many claims in the past that some hidden object was seen, but I'm not sure that this claim isn't overdone, at least. Just as it looked to me - from the start of this whole NDE business - that the NDEs were being claimed as evidence for a soul and heaven (iof not actually a god) before the phenomenon was even understood.

I mean technically, being able to have a conscious experience during a near-death episode, whether it be an experience involving Heaven or just an OBE where you remain around your body, is still remarkable. In my view, that should also be called an NDE since the experience occurs near-death.

Honestly, the classical NDE may be too loaded of a concept. Are we really going to dismiss or ignore the OBE part just because it didn't also involve experiencing Heaven, a bright light, or some chronological order of events? Of course not! The main point is that consciousness persists at a time when it should not be working.

I absolutely got your point - the phenomenon are related. And I am dismissing and ignoring nothing. I looked at these (related) claims when they were being waved about as evidence for a soul, Heaven God and Religion (pick your own) and I have looked again. The evidence is not clear evidence of anything so gfar as I can see from the case presented and it doesn't look so good that the OOB claim of sighting hidden objects (which seems to have been mispresented) was used to validate NDE's.

[blackstart]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #51]

As regards my comment that all we have are anecdotal accounts, I hold to that as, even the one case that you refer to, is still anecdotal.

There is no reason that a published case history by a trained observer cannot be called anecdotal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I still maintain your claim is false. Let's start with what your own source states:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.

The evidence that Dr. Parnia has for his verified case involves objective data (medical records), independent accounts (not just the subject's account), etc. That's certainly a lot more than just "personal" observation.

It may well lead to further investigation using more rigorous study, especially as the protocols were accepted as loose and that confabulation could not be ruled out. That is one reason why anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of evidence.

When there's corroborating objective evidence available, then the point about confabulation and bias is irrelevant. The evidence can be used to falsify or corroborate the patient's experience. The confabulation and bias would apply to those points where the interview was done after the patient was discharged from the hospital and when there's no evidence to back up what the patient claims.

For instance, I can claim I saw a UFO. I record it or someone else records it. I never report it for a month and then someone comes asking me questions about it. Sure, a months time may lead to me forgetting or even distorting some details, but my account can be checked against the objective evidence. The only aspects of my claim that should be called "verified" (just as Dr. Parnia refers to a patient's experience as VERIFIED), are those that are backed by verifiable evidence. It doesn't matter if a month or two passed by, just as long as there is objective evidence to back my claims, then you can weed out the bias and/or confabulations.

I think you need to read further into the Wiki article you quoted, especially the section which deals with anecdotal evidence in a scientific context, where it says:

Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence by a trained observer (a doctor) is called a case report, and is subjected to formal peer review. Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, researchers may sometimes regard it as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question. For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of drug side-effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

Also, don't forget the collation of this data was done over a series of three interviews, the first was in hospital and between 3 days and 4 weeks, the second and third were between 3 months and a year and were conducted by telephone. Given the looseness of the time periods, as the Aware report accepts, the possibility of confabulation and recall bias cannot be rejected.

So, I'm afraid we shall just have to agree to disagree on exactly what anecdotal evidence involves.

[AgnosticBoy]

The evidence that Dr. Parnia has for his verified case involves objective data (medical records), independent accounts (not just the subject's account), etc. That's certainly a lot more than just "personal" observation.

I think you need to read further into the Wiki article you quoted, especially the section which deals with anecdotal evidence in a scientific context, where it says:

Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence by a trained observer (a doctor) is called a case report, and is subjected to formal peer review. Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, researchers may sometimes regard it as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question. For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of drug side-effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."

The part I'm looking for is what is considered anecdotal evidence. Sure, the article states that anecdotal evidence can be part of information, but what type of information is included in this category? The only type of information that's specified in your quotation is "anecdotal reports". That's it! NO mention of objective data which Dr. Parnia relied on for the case that he refers to as being "verified".

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

Again, what is considered anecdotal evidence? Refer to my previous response in this post.

Also, don't forget the collation of this data was done over a series of three interviews, the first was in hospital and between 3 days and 4 weeks, the second and third were between 3 months and a year and were conducted by telephone. Given the looseness of the time periods, as the Aware report accepts, the possibility of confabulation and recall bias cannot be rejected.

Dr. Parnia did not say that all of his interviews were subject to confabulations or bias. He only brought that up in the context of the time that it took to interview the patients. Logically-speaking, we can presume that he was referring to confabulations and recall bias being a factor for those patients that it took a long time to interview them.

But again, this is all a moot point if you have evidence that you can use to corroborate the patient's account. In one case, at least, Dr. Sam Parnia has that objective evidence.

So, I'm afraid we shall just have to agree to disagree on exactly what anecdotal evidence involves.

Or we can settle it with logic and evidence. Show me where in your article (although I'd prefer something better than WIKI), where anecdotal evidence involves objective data. As I pointed out already, your article clearly says that anecdotal evidence is based on "personal observation" or "anecdotal reports".

[AgnosticBoy]

Continuing from my last post... Here's more relevant information from your article blackstart...

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
- "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[7]
- "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"[8]
- "evidence that comes from an individual experience. This may be the experience of a person with an illness or the experience of a practitioner based on one or more patients outside a formal research study."[9]
- "the report of an experience by one or more persons that is not objectively documented or an experience or outcome that occurred outside of a controlled environment"[10]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal ... ic_context

If you noticed, there is NOTHING here about objective data being used. If Dr. Parnia relied on the patient's account alone, then that would be anecdotal. But once he brings in objective data, then it goes beyond anecdotes. That's why he used the term "verified".

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you are supposing that anecdotal data is itself objective. NDE experiences are by their nature anecdotal. The fact that people have them is objective but that is not evidence that the experiences described are real.

Now with OOb's or OBE's, this is also anecdotal, though the experience itself is generally credited, though it is disputed whether the consciousness does leave the body or whether it only feels as though it does. That's where these claims of hidden objects being seen during the OOB experience comes in as a test.

But from what i read, this was something that was suggested as a handy test, rather than such a test being conducted, plus some incidental tests are reported as not spotting hidden objects or data that they should have seen.

Clearly, this is all 'anecdotal' as far as evidence supporting the reality of the experiences goes and, pending clarification of these conflicting claims, it cannot be regarded as valid evidence on way or the other.

[AgnosticBoy]

I think you are supposing that anecdotal data is itself objective.

I've consistently made the case that anecdotal data is not objective. The very last line in my last post reflects that:
"If Dr. Parnia relied on the patient's account alone, then that would be anecdotal. But once he brings in objective data, then it goes beyond anecdotes."

NDE experiences are by their nature anecdotal. The fact that people have them is objective but that is not evidence that the experiences described are real.

Agreed! You bring up an important distinction. NDEs are subjective in the sense that it's an experience that only the subject has. But it can be shown to be real if there's evidence to corroborate or verify the experience. For instance, the OBE is a personal experience. If the patient is able to see the images on the shelves while out-of-body and report it accurately, then that would be evidence to verify that the OBE was real.