Reply With QuoteBecause they've never asked them, I guess. Believers do a lot of 'not asking' when they really ought to!Originally Posted by 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?
Why is cheese?
Because they've never asked them, I guess. Believers do a lot of 'not asking' when they really ought to!
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.
Last edited by FarSideOfTheMoon; 30th January 2008 at 07:19 PM.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
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.
Last edited by Nudles; 30th January 2008 at 08:40 PM.
According to survivalist interpretations of the NDE - yes - that is what they argue. It is simply untrue of course.
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.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.
Note - I am talking about congentially blind and not just people who become blind over time.
Why is cheese?
Could you tell us more about it here for the purposes of discussion?
Why is cheese?
I guess not?
Why is cheese?
Some great questions here. There seems to be very little regarding what congentially blind people 'see' if anything. The best answer that I found was that CB individuals do not see while dreaming but instead they have auditory dreams. I wonder if the NDE study was being less than honest with their interpretation as not visual but auditory in nature then 'coloured' by a little creativity on the experimenters part.
If you're interested in NDEs there's an SF novel you might enjoy: Passage by Connie Willis.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
CB individuals do have imagery as they still experience a 3-dimensional world via their movement through it. They have a form of representing themselves, their bodies, and space and so all of these processes can still go wrong and lead to distortions, delusion and hallucination of the 'self'.
The true nature of these may differ from sighted people - but their existence is not only known by science, but actually predicted by most contemporary models in the area.
Why is cheese?
It's the leap to conclude "it must be paranormal" that seems to me to be an extrapolation a little too far.
mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so
Louis Pasteur
Quackcast is great. I listen to it often.
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.
Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic.
Lacks an explanation???? What does and in what way?
Why is cheese?
No - lacks an OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC explanation.
Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic.
I am still confused, i can think of a host of explanations, all scientific - but you would be correct in saying these are not obvious to the general public - however, they are not hard to find in the modern age.
Years ago when i was a young teenager interested in science, it was all books. No Interweb....yet i still found the relevant material after some effort. These days less effort is needed to find the most useful material but some still dont want to find it or ignore it when they do
Why is cheese?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks