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]

which I have no problem with whatever. As I said in my original post, 'All we have are anecdotal accounts. Yes, NDEs undoubtedly happen, but When it comes to validation for evidence of an afterlife, there is nothing of any substance.' I await such validation with interest.

You claim that all we have are "anecdotal accounts" but that is false. That is why I emphasized the case that Dr. Sam Parnia was able to verify. In talking about that one case he stated this in his AWARE study:

Furthermore as hallucinations refer to experiences that do not correspond with objective reality, our findings do not suggest that VA in CA is likely to be hallucinatory or illusory since the recollections corresponded with actual verified events.

This is in the Discussion Section of the study. Dr. Parnia refers to the verified case and even argues for its validity in much of the Discussion Section.

You also acknowledged in one of your statements (quoted next) that one case was verified for accuracy which again is not an anecdote.

Actually I said that that this one case was the only case in which could be verified for accuracy, and went on to say that 'even this is suspect because of the looseness of the protocols, which Parnia, himself, accepted.'

So, let me explain:

Only 1 case out of 140 interviewed reported memories of events that Parnia described as verified. Some were actually given 2 interviews and this one case was given 3 interviews. Some of those interviews were given during hospitalization but more often after they were discharged, According to the Aware study report, the reasons for this were as follows:

Furthermore owing to the acuity and severity of the critical illness associated with CA, the time to interview for patients was invariably not exactly the same for every patient, which may have introduced biases (such as recall bias and confabulation) in the recollections.

So, there you have it. Parnia's report accepts that the protocols for interviewing were fairly, if understandably, loose(invariably not exactly the same for every patient) and it(the report) also accepts that it was entirely possible that biases of recall and confabulation might have been introduced bcause of this variance.

They were loose but to use some reverse skepticism (being skeptical of the skeptic) here, what I question is when the verified one case was interviewed. Sure, Dr. Parnia interviewed some people AFTER they were let go from the hospital but the confabulation and bias would be less likely for those interviewed WHILE still in the hospital. Besides that, Dr. Parnia was not just relying on the patient's interview but also corroborating their account with medical records and accounts from staff. When there's a cardiac arrest, the medical intervention for it is supposed to be documented in the patient's medical chart, like how many AED shocks the patient received, the drugs, the healthcare staff who assisted, etc.

Some might be disappointed that there is only one verified case, but that's in the context of there already being a small percentage who even experienced an NDE. In his study, only NINE people experienced an NDE. Only TWO of those 9 patients reported recalling their NDE plus details of their cardiac arrest (presumably details about what staff did during the cardiac arrest instead of just details about other worlds).

[TRANSPONDER]

That's an odd one. NDE studies involving placing perceptual objects above the bed. (actually that sounds like OOB rather than NDE which is not hovering above the body in the room, but seeing some remote scene). To do that it would require placing a perceptual object out of sight in anticipation of an OOB event occurring. How would they know?

I don't believe that the NDE and the out-of-body experience are distinct. 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. However, I think that the OOB can be part of an NDE, like if a near-death event starts off as an OOB and then progresses into some other unearthly world (i.e. Heaven).

Are we sure that 'studies' does not mean 'anecdotal claim'? Especially as a 'study' of an NDE sounds more like an OOB event. Perhaps a link to one or two of these Studies.

Luckily, I was able to find Dr. Sam Parnia's AWARE study for free. You can read it here: https://ifac.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/awa ... _study.pdf (it's a short read actually and it's free!). Dr. Sam Parnia used these perceptual targets that I talked about in my last post. Refer to pg. 1800, last paragraph, of the study.

I think part of the focus was on the OOBs because those can be objectively verifiable if the person was experiencing their environment (the room in the hospital, around their body, etc). No one reported seeing these images and Dr. Parnia a potential reason for that result in his study (pg. 1804):

the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.

CA= cardiac arrest
VA= visual awareness

That's a bit of a strawman You are saying they are not distinct - NDE's and OOB'[s are basically the same phenomenon. Sure, but that wasn't my point. OOB's are the scenarios where consciousness supposedly floats above the body and can spot stuff that should be out of sight. NDEs don't do that. They see something that is a scene remote from their surroundings.

Now you may link to the paper produced by Sam Parnia's carefully crafted AWARE acronyim (I am aware - anyone who disagrees is not) but we should also be aware of the over -enthusiasm for these studies in pushing a particular conclusion.

Wiki -Brain/mind hypotheses
Parnia and others have suggested that a mind that is mediated by, but not produced by, the brain, is a possible way to explain NDE.[5][28][29]

Science writer Mike McRae has noted "While Parnia's work contributes valuable data to understanding NDE as a cultural phenomenon, his speculations do indeed sit on the brink of pseudoscience."[30] Neurologist Michael O'Brien has written that "most people would not find it necessary to postulate such a separation between mind and brain to explain the events," and suggested that further research is likely to provide a physical explanation for near-death experiences.[5] Psychologist and lecturer Susan Blackmore appeared with Parnia and Peter Fenwick on a BBC documentary called "The Day I Died" and disagreed with their interpretations of NDEs, finding purely physical explanations to be more plausible.[5]

In a review article published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,[31] Parnia admits that the nature of consciousness is still uncharted territory for science. Two different major models have been postulated about the nature of consciousness:

one envisages the psyche/consciousness/mind (self) as the result of neuronal activity. So a causative relationship exists between cortical activity and consciousness.
the other instead considers that consciousness is separate from the brain and can influence brain activity independently of the brain.
Parnia explains that the observations that "the human mind, consciousness, or psyche (self) may continue to function when brain function has ceased during the early period after death" (such as during the AWARE study, but not only) points to the possibility that the second model may have to be taken into account.[31]

It is good that the research is being done, but we must beware of this rush to a conclusion without any real justification.

[TRANSPONDER]

Wiki on OBE's and NDE's
Only 9 per cent had experiences compatible with NDEs and 2 per cent exhibited full awareness compatible with OBEs with explicit recall of 'seeing' and 'hearing' events. One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest.[130] According to Caroline Watt "The one 'verifiable period of conscious awareness' that Parnia was able to report did not relate to this objective test. Rather, it was a patient giving a supposedly accurate report of events during his resuscitation. He didn't identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that's not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television."[131][132] However, it was impossible for him to describe any hidden targets, as there were none in the room where his OBE occurred, and the rest of his description was also very precise, including the description and later correct identification of a doctor who took part in his resuscitation.

I recall now that the proposed test of placing hidden objects in the room seems to have been confused with the subject hearing the sound of the defibrillator in the room, which isn't too miraculous.

I keep an ear open for any new results - we can be sure that persuasive results would swamp the headlines. But what we get is the same old dubious claims recycled with references to OOB propaganda material. Right from the start the enthusiasts (not to say believers) were trying to hustle us into taking anecdotal evidence (which is where we came in) as validated evidence for a particular conclusion.

Scientifically objective practice says that, by all means do the research, but don't rush to conclusions.

[William]

[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

[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

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.

I see no problem with my statement that it was verified for accuracy either. Accuracy is not necessarily a test of the validity of an OBE experience, and especially as there were admitted possibilities of confabulation and recall bias.

As I have already said, further and much more extensive and rigorous investigation is needed generally, but, as it stands today, there is nothing of real substance to suggest that NDEs point to the reality of an afterlife(which is what this particular debate is about).

[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.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]

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

What did I say about straw!

Raise your frequency. Watch your words! Don't add to what we write. Focus on what is actually written rather than building a misrepresentation around what has been written.

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

If that were the point, there would have been no requirement on your part to say they were basically the same thing.

The difference is that what is seen through the different experiences, is as AB already wrote and I have since quoted. Surely that is enough to make the straw stop?

Thus using 'hidden objects' claims to validate NDEs is a strawman.

If that was the case.

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.

In order for that to happen, those who claim to be able to OOBE voluntarily, and stay in this reality while doing so, could be tested extensively and the science done.

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.

That is a better way of saying it than tumbling around in the straw...

The thing about NDEs which share a cultural connection throughout the world, has it that there is one type of experience in which the apparently Discarnate Consciousness Experience [DCE rather than "Soul" so as not to confuse the science with religious terminology] is meeting with ancestors, apparent guides and teachers, religious and cultural icons and sometimes includes an incredible and hard to describe light, from which a conscious awareness radiates its words mind to mind - this one is often referred to as "GOD" and individual personalities undergoing the experience do not "like" the idea of ever being separated from this entity. The thought of going back to the previous experience - regardless of attachments - brings feelings of disappointment, while at the same time, making an indelible impression which germinates perpetual gratitude. allowing for the individual to accept having to return.

There is also the natural plant pathway which allows for the same types of experience. One should be able to say that it is this pathway which has similar outcomes, which could be most useful to the science as it confirms the experiences of those who do so through other means.

Between that devil and the deep blue sea, we cannot so easily hush up the Theist approach and refuse it permission to land by waving straw around, signaling resistance.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very confused. The point I made and the onlyn point I made is that OOB's and NDE's are not the same thing, which means the effect is quite different and hidden objects does not validate NDE's. Nor can you use OOB evidence to validate NDEs even if hidden objects had been tested, which doesn't seem to be the case. That these are supernatural claims (whether you give then a sciencey acronym or not - nobody is fooled) does not alter that to say hidden object test validate NDE's is well, invalid, if not actually a strawman argument,

I honestly could find no case that deserved attention in the rest of your post, but I think the thing of value is that there seems to be no apparent real basis for these hidden object tests that were used as scientific proof in the previous decades. The access to the background seems to show it was all overdrawn nothing.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #58]

Very confused.

You do seem to be, yes.

The point I made and the onlyn point I made is that OOB's and NDE's are not the same thing,

Which appears contrary to you writing that NDE's and OOB's are basically the same phenomenon.

[AgnosticBoy]

[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.