More near-death nonsense

[Dr B]

I am writing some more articles on NDEs and what cognitive neuroscience has to say about them (though dealing with different issues across the papers).

I am still amazed at the poor standard of reasoning and science coming from the survivalist faction.

Here is one for you (common to the field): NDEs are reported by people who are congentially blind. Thus, (their reasoning goes), it cannot be imagination / imagery - it must be paranormal! Therefore, this is supposed to be strong evidence against a psychological / brain-science - driven explanation for NDEs.

Do me a favour. Did anyone spot the hidden assumption (I will be writing about this soon)? Basically, why do survivalists think that cogentially blind people don't have a form of graphical imagery?

[Mulder]

Basically, why do survivalists think that cogentially blind people don't have a form of graphical imagery?

Because they've never asked them, I guess. Believers do a lot of 'not asking' when they really ought to!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Blind people don't have an imagination?

Edit: Screw that, just read the last sentence of your post again. Something to do with fact that not all blind people have NDEs or non-blind people have NDEs.

[Nudles]

I listened to a podcast recently on the subject of NDE. It was very informative and opened my thinking to things I had not considered before.

I tried to find you a direct link to the episode, but there seems to be a problem with the site.

Here is the feed to start subscribing to the podcast, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might bring new depth to your paper.

http://rss.mac.com/mcrislip/iWeb/Qua...dcasts/rss.xml

The episode is "QuackCast 23. NDE’s. They all had change in their pockets."

If you are not familiar with podcasts, you may need to download a program that can download it for you. Pasting that link directly into your browser may not work (as it does not for me).


*Edit* Tried using a different net browser, got that direct link. Here it is;[LINK] I would still recommend subscribing to the podcast as it is very informative. It deals with other stuff, such as what causes and the misconceptions people have about "the cold",vitamin C etc.

[Dr B]

I listened to a podcast recently on the subject of NDE. It was very informative and opened my thinking to things I had not considered before.

I tried to find you a direct link to the episode, but there seems to be a problem with the site.

Here is the feed to start subscribing to the podcast, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might bring new depth to your paper.

http://rss.mac.com/mcrislip/iWeb/Qua...dcasts/rss.xml

The episode is "QuackCast 23. NDE’s. They all had change in their pockets."

If you are not familiar with podcasts, you may need to download a program that can download it for you. Pasting that link directly into your browser may not work (as it does not for me).


*Edit* Tried using a different net browser, got that direct link. Here it is;[LINK] I would still recommend subscribing to the podcast as it is very informative. It deals with other stuff, such as what causes and the misconceptions people have about "the cold",vitamin C etc.

Could you tell us more about it here for the purposes of discussion?

[Dr B]

I guess not?

[StoneQuarry]

I listened to a podcast recently on the subject of NDE. It was very informative and opened my thinking to things I had not considered before.

I tried to find you a direct link to the episode, but there seems to be a problem with the site.

Here is the feed to start subscribing to the podcast, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might bring new depth to your paper.

http://rss.mac.com/mcrislip/iWeb/Qua...dcasts/rss.xml

The episode is "QuackCast 23. NDE’s. They all had change in their pockets."

If you are not familiar with podcasts, you may need to download a program that can download it for you. Pasting that link directly into your browser may not work (as it does not for me).


*Edit* Tried using a different net browser, got that direct link. Here it is;[LINK] I would still recommend subscribing to the podcast as it is very informative. It deals with other stuff, such as what causes and the misconceptions people have about "the cold",vitamin C etc.

Quackcast is great. I listen to it often.

It's the leap to conclude "it must be paranormal" that seems to me to be an extrapolation a little too far.

Well paranormal is defined as experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation. This somewhat qualifies I guess. At least currently it cannot be explained. I don't like the word 'paranormal' being thrown around all willy-nilly. Matter of fact I hate the term and all it stands for. This may be a rare accuracy.

[Dr B]

Well paranormal is defined as experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation. This somewhat qualifies I guess. At least currently it cannot be explained. I don't like the word 'paranormal' being thrown around all willy-nilly. Matter of fact I hate the term and all it stands for. This may be a rare accuracy.

Lacks an explanation???? What does and in what way?

[Dr B]

Blind people don't have an imagination?

According to survivalist interpretations of the NDE - yes - that is what they argue. It is simply untrue of course.

Screw that, just read the last sentence of your post again. Something to do with fact that not all blind people have NDEs or non-blind people have NDEs.

The survivalists assume that if you can show congentially blind people can have NDEs then this means it cannot be hallucination or psychological - as they have no visual knowledge of the world built up through their visual sense. Therefore, it must be a paranormal perception working via 'mind' and not brain.

Note - I am talking about congentially blind and not just people who become blind over time.

[Graham Lappin]

The survivalists assume that if you can show congentially blind people can have NDEs then this means it cannot be hallucination or psychological - as they have no visual knowledge of the world built up through their visual sense. Therefore, it must be a paranormal perception working via 'mind' and not brain.

It's the leap to conclude "it must be paranormal" that seems to me to be an extrapolation a little too far.

[Porterhood]

I am writing some more articles on NDEs and what cognitive neuroscience has to say about them (though dealing with different issues across the papers).

I am still amazed at the poor standard of reasoning and science coming from the survivalist faction.

Here is one for you (common to the field): NDEs are reported by people who are congentially blind. Thus, (their reasoning goes), it cannot be imagination / imagery - it must be paranormal! Therefore, this is supposed to be strong evidence against a psychological / brain-science - driven explanation for NDEs.

Do me a favour. Did anyone spot the hidden assumption (I will be writing about this soon)? Basically, why do survivalists think that cogentially blind people don't have a form of graphical imagery?

NDE's are a most "interesting" subject, Dr B. I take a different position to you, but I see that's OK. The Skeppies on this forum don't mind a Woo-Woo like me dropping by.

I've been lurking on this thread for some time and I see other Woo's have already challenged your Skepperistic position here. I can't find the post, but at the beginging of an exchange with one of us you asked him not to use the word "dimension". That's fine; I wasn't planning on using it anyway. However I must ask in return that you kindly refrain from using the words: "onus", "parsimony", "preponderence", nor would you utter the phrases: "That old chestnut again!" or "Please try to read my posts more carefully". Of course if you think I'm not reading your posts carefully then you have a right to challenge me on it, but could you please paraphrase.

Thanks.

[skbuncks]

NDE's are a most "interesting" subject, Dr B. I take a different position to you, but I see that's OK. The Skeppies on this forum don't mind a Woo-Woo like me dropping by.

I've been lurking on this thread for some time and I see other Woo's have already challenged your Skepperistic position here. I can't find the post, but at the beginging of an exchange with one of us you asked him not to use the word "dimension". That's fine; I wasn't planning on using it anyway. However I must ask in return that you kindly refrain from using the words: "onus", "parsimony", "preponderence", nor would you utter the phrases: "That old chestnut again!" or "Please try to read my posts more carefully". Of course if you think I'm not reading your posts carefully then you have a right to challenge me on it, but could you please paraphrase.

Thanks.

I'm am unsure of which post(s) you are referring too, and in all honesty I cannot be bothered to review 10 pages of posts to find them. I will therefore make an assumption in the following:
The use of 'dimension' is perfectly acceptable when its meaning is clearly defined. For example the three spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension commonly encountered in everyday life. When it is used by, shall we say 'those of a spiritual bent', it is less clearly so and thus serves no purpose other than to obfuscate.
Words such as onus, parsimony, and preponderance have clear meanings and as such can be used wherever they are an aid to communication.

skb

[Dr B]

NDE's are a most "interesting" subject, Dr B. I take a different position to you, but I see that's OK. The Skeppies on this forum don't mind a Woo-Woo like me dropping by.

I've been lurking on this thread for some time and I see other Woo's have already challenged your Skepperistic position here. I can't find the post, but at the beginging of an exchange with one of us you asked him not to use the word "dimension". That's fine; I wasn't planning on using it anyway. However I must ask in return that you kindly refrain from using the words: "onus", "parsimony", "preponderence", nor would you utter the phrases: "That old chestnut again!" or "Please try to read my posts more carefully". Of course if you think I'm not reading your posts carefully then you have a right to challenge me on it, but could you please paraphrase.

Thanks.

I am equally miffed by this nonsense (not sure where i said all this - but dont let facts get in the way). Listen, i have seen some comments which are supposed to be apparent 'rebuttals' - but they are nothing of the sort. They fail to read and consider the arguments actually posed and as woo's always do, they duck the real issues and try and hide out in their own confusion.

All I can see is circular nonsense based on a non-falsifiable notion of dualism that hides out in the gaps in knowledge - this is not, in anyway, a rebuttal to a scientific argument. If you set out assuming to be true, that which you seek to show is true, you just end up going around in circles.

Trust the survivalists to totally misunderstand an article directed at clearing up their confusions. Without their confusion....what would they have???

[Harryprice]

Talking of confirming assumptions, here's something to consider. There is no reason to think that early man would not have experienced OOBEs, NDEs, sleep paralysis and so on. It would be easy to see such bizarre experiences, which research suggests are caused by the brain, could have affected the development of religions. The idea of a soul, for instance, being independent of a physical body could easily have arisen from OOBEs. Similarly, an afterlife involving a journey to heaven could have arisen from NDEs. If this is true it would be a circular argument to say that such experiences confirm religious ideas when they might actually have been their original cause.

[Dr B]

Hi Mulder

I've been making these arguments for years, on this forum, on others, at conferences, presentations etc, - so I certainly concur....

I think you also need an element of irrational thought (fallacies of causal reasoning etc) to arrive at some of the most striking early beliefs (i.e., crops failing etc) - but you can see how all this comes together and explains a great deal