Nde's

[LadyFeline]

Right your source isn't credible

And no source he could quote would be "credible" in your eyes, because you don't believe in NDEs, anyway. It'd be like trying to convince a literalist Christian of evolution by citing textbooks.

[KT45]

The given analogy is a stretch, but the account given by the child as summarized in the NBC10 article so highly improbable that it would be foolish to dismiss it so easily. A much more thorough and likely scenario would have to be given in order it properly dismiss it. Otherwise, you are throwing out opportunities for good research.

The article doesn't go into detail. It says a girl was in water for 19 min and then gave a nice "blow by blow" account of what happen. I see a drowning and a medical procedure to fix it. There aren't that many procedures to do in this scenario. Most likely is CPR (after they first took her out of the water), a breath tube of some sorts. There is too much conjecture in this article and it isn't good enough to show NDEs are really. Even you have to admit that it's not very descriptive and leaves a lot of holes and unanswered questions. This could have been done to make the account seem more special than it does.

 

If you were truly interested in the subject, you would also help research it (and not just one side of it).

Sigh....Mr.XC who was the first one to even mention the www.near-death.com website? I studied the subject tremendously. I'm not the type to quickly dismiss information that I haven't studied. I've also said that I'm skeptical about the subject matter so I haven't fully dismissed it yet. I fact I might believe in it more than you realize. But as we discussed before I'm here to learn how debate. At the moment I'm hoping you don't bring out a "particular" NDE account that I know I couldn't defend. But of course, for debate purposes I'm not telling what it is

 

What the child knew during the procedure still needs a good explication. Saying she saw it before on TV is insufficient.

I gave more examples than just saying she saw it on tv. I had CPR classes as a child when I did swim class. It was required and we had to practice. We also had little practices in health class.

 

Another experiment to do would be to give the child a medical procedure of similar complexity to watch on TV.

This experiment would only be beneficial if it was proven that the child did in fact describe a complex medical procedure

 

 

 

Right your source isn't credible

And no source he could quote would be "credible" in your eyes, because you don't believe in NDEs, anyway. It'd be like trying to convince a literalist Christian of evolution by citing textbooks.

Umm.. I'm skeptical about NDEs. I don't dismiss them totally. He source is a television, I'd be glad if he did cite a textbook. Again I might believe it more than you think.

[Guest Mr. XC]

The given analogy is a stretch, but the account given by the child as summarized in the NBC10 article so highly improbable that it would be foolish to dismiss it so easily. A much more thorough and likely scenario would have to be given in order it properly dismiss it. Otherwise, you are throwing out opportunities for good research.

The article doesn't go into detail. It says a girl was in water for 19 min and then gave a nice "blow by blow" account of what happen. I see a drowning and a medical procedure to fix it. There aren't that many procedures to do in this scenario. Most likely is CPR (after they first took her out of the water), a breath tube of some sorts. There is too much conjecture in this article and it isn't good enough to show NDEs are really. Even you have to admit that it's not very descriptive and leaves a lot of holes and unanswered questions. This could have been done to make the account seem more special than it does.

Yes, it is not very descriptive. I would love to see more detail. I do not really see as much conjecture as you do. I see a summary of the event. Assuming the summary is true, I would say it is highly probable that NDEs are real. I am trying to argue with the summary. But you are trying to argue against the summary based on lack of detail. I say the summary, while taken into account its author, is sufficient to warrant not dismissing NDEs. An article such as the one we read was never meant to be a through investigation of NDEs. It is what it is, a summary of events.

If you were truly interested in the subject, you would also help research it (and not just one side of it).

Sigh....Mr.XC who was the first one to even mention the www.near-death.com website? I studied the subject tremendously. I'm not the type to quickly dismiss information that I haven't studied. I've also said that I'm skeptical about the subject matter so I haven't fully dismissed it yet. I fact I might believe in it more than you realize. But as we discussed before I'm here to learn how debate. At the moment I'm hoping you don't bring out a "particular" NDE account that I know I couldn't defend. But of course, for debate purposes I'm not telling what it is

Yes, I did judge a little harshly there. Sorry about that. Anyway, that was an easy link to find. Also, you sound like you are trying to dismiss it, and I am trying to defend the position that the natural, scientific explications are not probable enough to properly dismiss it. I am not trying to say that this particular NDE was real, but defending the position that we cannot dismiss it. It belongs in the probably true pile, not the totally false or totally true piles.

 

For reference, some people dislike it when you defend positions that are not your own. It makes it difficult and confusing to argue with a person who changes their position or does not know much about it. I am usually fine with it, and I think you are doing a good job with it so far (as far as sticking to a single position).

What the child knew during the procedure still needs a good explication. Saying she saw it before on TV is insufficient.

I gave more examples than just saying she saw it on tv. I had CPR classes as a child when I did swim class. It was required and we had to practice. We also had little practices in health class.

CPR classes yes; resuscitation classes probably not. You can do CPR on your own, but the procedure the the girl went through was done with equipment that you would never have access to on your own. What would be the point of teaching a 6-year-old about that equipment or procedures surrounding the usage of that equipment? Personally, I still think that this argument is weak.

Another experiment to do would be to give the child a medical procedure of similar complexity to watch on TV.

This experiment would only be beneficial if it was proven that the child did in fact describe a complex medical procedure

It impressed the doctor, who was formally a skeptic. I doubt he would be impressed by the description of a CPR procedure.

[KT45]

Yes, it is not very descriptive. I would love to see more detail. I do not really see as much conjecture as you do.

The article says that the girl was resuscitated. You conjecture a complex one and I conjecture a one not so complex. The other conjecture I made is that birds I view description would be easy to do. You conjectured it to be difficult. We have both made conjectures.

 

Assuming the summary is true, I would say it is highly probable that NDEs are real.

I am to suspect that you never took both a highly skeptical look while observing NDEs. It seems like you have always leaned toward them being true. Am I correct? You have to forgive me, I spent my whole life believing what others feed to me. I believe it is important to take a skeptical look into an supernatural event to test if they are real or not.

 

I am trying to argue with the summary. But you are trying to argue against the summary based on lack of detail.

The account says that he had a girl that was underwater that claimed she had an out of body expirenece when she came to. I agree she claimed that. The account says the girl gave a blow by blow the her resuscitation. I agree she did this. the account claimed she drew a picture of an unborn baby with a big heart and that the baby was born with a disease. I agree with this.

 

I say the summary, while taken into account its author, is sufficient to warrant not dismissing NDEs.

I say the summary, while taken into account its author, is not sufficient to warrent accepting NDEs.

 

An article such as the one we read was never meant to be a through investigation of NDEs. It is what it is, a summary of events.

Sounds like it's time for a new account. I can find one for you. But it's probably not in your best interest since I'll just find another one that is easily dismissed.

 

Also, you sound like you are trying to dismiss it,

I am

It belongs in the probably true pile, not the totally false or totally true piles.

That's an opinion

 

For reference, some people dislike it when you defend positions that are not your own. It makes it difficult and confusing to argue with a person who changes their position or does not know much about it. I am usually fine with it, and I think you are doing a good job with it so far (as far as sticking to a single position).

The positsion is mine though, well at least closer to mine. I'm more in the neutral that leans more towards that it's not true. Also it's not like I changed my postition in the middle of the argument, throughout the post I've been trying to prove it false.

 

CPR classes yes; resuscitation classes probably not. You can do CPR on your own, but the procedure the the girl went through was done with equipment that you would never have access to on your own.

CPR=cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Not to offend your intellect but if she did take CPR classes then she would have taken a type of resuscitation class. I personally feel that until I find a source that says it that it used medical equipment I won't believe it.

 

It impressed the doctor, who was formally a skeptic. I doubt he would be impressed by the description of a CPR procedure.

Okay lets go back to the article. What was the doctor impressed by? One account about a boy who went claim to have had an out of body expirence. One account of a girl who had an out of body expierence. One account of a girl who gave a medical procedure after death that was to his description blow by blow. One account where a girl did an act that led to another prediction (unborn brothers disease). With all these accounts, I think it is probable for him to change from skeptic to believer even if the little girl only gave a CPR procedure immediately after death. If I saved a little girl from drowning and did CPR to her and the first thing she talked about was being outside her body and then describing CPR procedure after such a tramatic expierence then I'd initally be surprised too.

[KT45]

These are the questions that I feel need to be answered that make me skeptical to NDEs in general. Can someone explain this to me

Wikipedia Source

A well-known scientific hypothesis that attempts to explain NDEs was originally suggested by Dr. Karl Jansen (1995;1997) and deals with accounts of the side-effects of the drug Ketamine. Ketamine was used as an anesthetic on U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War; but its use was abandoned and never spread to civilian use because the soldiers complained about sensations of floating above their body and seeing bright lights. Further experiments by numerous researchers verified that intravenous injections of ketamine could reproduce all of the commonly cited features of an NDE; including a sense that the experience is "real" and that one is actually dead, separation from the body, visions of loved ones, and transcendent mystical experiences.......

 

Critics of Jansen's hypothesis point out that although some aspects of the experience may be similar, not all NDEs exactly fit the ketamine experience; and that while it might be possible to chemically simulate the experience, this does not refute the possibility that spontaneous NDEs have a spiritual component.

Why can't Jansen's hypothesis be used to refute the possibilty that spontaneous NDEs have a spirtual component?

 

If we can't use expirements that are similar to NDEs to test to see if they are real, how are we supposed to test if they are real or not? Or is it just a matter of faith?

 

Explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

[euphgeek]

Right your source isn't credible

I never said it was.

My analogy is not equating looking up info to being accused of murder. My analogy is about a person looking for information to prosecute himself which is similar to what your asking me to do. You want me to find information so I can make myself look bad. Who even does that? Again I find no reason look for an account that you thought you heard on a tv show.

Your mistake is you see this as some sort of attack on what you believe. I could really care less about what you believe. If you're really open-minded and want more information, you can do a search yourself, but you want me to prove my case beyond the shadow of a doubt, and you'll probably keep moving the goalposts like most skeptics do.

I did talk about the patient guessing. That post didn't matter because she didn't necessarily have to guess if she knew CPR. This talk about medical equipment isn't verifiable because you have no source to back it up. And about the "her own resuscitation" the article doesn't say that it's unique so I have no reason to believe that it was. So what else hasn't been addressed?

Everything. You ignored the whole thing and dismissed it just because you don't want to believe that NDEs are a possibility.

good job setting up a straw man. The doctor included with the account that the little girl drew a picture of a unborn brother with a big heart. The brother was born with a birth defect and he put the two together. It was a combination of things that led him to this position. For me seeing a little girl draw a picture of baby with a big heart wouldn't prove anything since most little girls draw big hearts on family memeber pictures. Also he had two different accounts (not just the one of a drowning girl) of near death expierences in the article that led him to believe NDEs might be possible. Both to me seem suspect.

She also said her unborn brother would have problems. I found that on the following website written by the doctor:

http://www.melvinmorse.com/images.htm

where in the article did it say she repeated the exact conversations. Please give me a real account so I can see if this is realistic or not.

Sorry, I can't find an exact blow-by-blow account. The best I can do is the URL above which leaves out many details.

[chohan]

The tunnel, the Light, the past life evaluation. Someone mentioned it earlier, usually the identity of the light-being is based on the individual's belief system... christians accept it as christ, hindus as krishna, muslims as mohammed, etc.

 

Of all the accounts I've read over the years (hundreds easily), I found this one the most interesting mainly because instead of just going with the flow, this bloke basically says... "Whoa! Stop... identification please. Wtf is really happening here?"

 

Imho, it seems to lean toward the higher-self/over-soul/holistic/portions-of-the-whole outlook.

 

Mellen-Thomas Benedict's NDE

 

For a really wild ride, try this. But it's not an nde:

 

Sowantha - A Mystical Journey

 

 

cheers,

cho

[euphgeek]

These are the questions that I feel need to be answered that make me skeptical to NDEs in general. Can someone explain this to me

Wikipedia Source

A well-known scientific hypothesis that attempts to explain NDEs was originally suggested by Dr. Karl Jansen (1995;1997) and deals with accounts of the side-effects of the drug Ketamine. Ketamine was used as an anesthetic on U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War; but its use was abandoned and never spread to civilian use because the soldiers complained about sensations of floating above their body and seeing bright lights. Further experiments by numerous researchers verified that intravenous injections of ketamine could reproduce all of the commonly cited features of an NDE; including a sense that the experience is "real" and that one is actually dead, separation from the body, visions of loved ones, and transcendent mystical experiences.......

 

Critics of Jansen's hypothesis point out that although some aspects of the experience may be similar, not all NDEs exactly fit the ketamine experience; and that while it might be possible to chemically simulate the experience, this does not refute the possibility that spontaneous NDEs have a spiritual component.

Why can't Jansen's hypothesis be used to refute the possibilty that spontaneous NDEs have a spirtual component?

Because to do that, you'd have to prove that every single person who ever had an NDE had ketamine or a ketamine-like substance in their body at the time, and that it was definitely the cause. Also, you'd have to explain why everyone seems to have the same basic hallucination. Most hallucinogens have different effects on different people.

If we can't use expirements that are similar to NDEs to test to see if they are real, how are we supposed to test if they are real or not? Or is it just a matter of faith?

No one's saying you can't use them, they're just pointing out potential problems with the experiments.

Explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

For the same reason that not everyone who drinks milk has the same reaction as those with lactose intolerance.

[KT45]

Your mistake is you see this as some sort of attack on what you believe. I could really care less about what you believe. If you're really open-minded and want more information, you can do a search yourself, but you want me to prove my case beyond the shadow of a doubt, and you'll probably keep moving the goalposts like most skeptics do.

Just debating. I don't care if I'm wrong. I've admitted defeat before on this site so no goalpost moving for me

 

I did talk about the patient guessing. That post didn't matter because she didn't necessarily have to guess if she knew CPR. This talk about medical equipment isn't verifiable because you have no source to back it up. And about the "her own resuscitation" the article doesn't say that it's unique so I have no reason to believe that it was. So what else hasn't been addressed?

Everything. You ignored the whole thing and dismissed it just because you don't want to believe that NDEs are a possibility.

I addressed all points brought up and what I feel to be possible explaination for everything presented. I don't care if NDEs are possible or not

 

good job setting up a straw man. The doctor included with the account that the little girl drew a picture of a unborn brother with a big heart. The brother was born with a birth defect and he put the two together. It was a combination of things that led him to this position. For me seeing a little girl draw a picture of baby with a big heart wouldn't prove anything since most little girls draw big hearts on family memeber pictures. Also he had two different accounts (not just the one of a drowning girl) of near death expierences in the article that led him to believe NDEs might be possible. Both to me seem suspect.

She also said her unborn brother would have problems. I found that on the following website written by the doctor:

http://www.melvinmorse.com/images.htm

Thanks for finding the source for me. Here is an quote from the same site. It talks about the drawing she made.

Please note that my partner Dr. Christopher is demonstrating perfect technique in this picture. His arms are partially flexed, his fingers are locked together, and he has nice positioning on her chest. He gets an "A" for resuscitation, based on this picture.

It was CPR. So that makes my hypothesis even more valid. Anybody who was had to take even a minor course in CPR would be able to know the hand positions.

 

I'm just showing it probable that NDEs are explainable. Nothing more nothing less. I never said that I don't believe in them. There is one account that is too hard too refute but I choose not to present it because I want to practice debating. Plain and simple. Remember I've studied this and believed this whole heartly just like christianity. I just question the information I'm given now.

[KT45]

Explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

For the same reason that not everyone who drinks milk has the same reaction as those with lactose intolerance.

Okay I'll play. People who drink milk and have no reaction have bodies that accept the chemicals in milk. People lactose intolerant reject milk because their bodies reject the chemicals in the milk. You said that the reason why some people would have out of body expierences and some would not is comparable to why some people would be lactose and tolerant and some would not. So people who don't have out of body expierences don't have them because there body rejects letting there spirit leave there body? The comparison doesn't match up. So again explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

 

Because to do that, you'd have to prove that every single person who ever had an NDE had ketamine or a ketamine-like substance in their body at the time,

Why?

 

Also, you'd have to explain why everyone seems to have the same basic hallucination. Most hallucinogens have different effects on different people.

What is the same basic hallucination that most NDE people expierence. I'll go back the the near-death.com site and see if they all follow the same basic hallucination. When I read it they all seem different. I'll also check to see if Ketamine produces similar or dissimilar hallcinations.

 

No one's saying you can't use them, they're just pointing out potential problems with the experiments.

What other alternative test can be done other than resimulating the expierence under controlled conditions?

[Guest Mr. XC]

Assuming the summary is true, I would say it is highly probable that NDEs are real.

I am to suspect that you never took both a highly skeptical look while observing NDEs. It seems like you have always leaned toward them being true. Am I correct? You have to forgive me, I spent my whole life believing what others feed to me. I believe it is important to take a skeptical look into an supernatural event to test if they are real or not.

This is only like the third time that I have debated NDEs on this very website. So yes, I do have some previous influence. But I am careful about the information that I accept although I do use some odd sources every now and then when they are highly accessible, but they certainty are not the foundation for my beliefs.

 

CPR classes yes; resuscitation classes probably not. You can do CPR on your own, but the procedure the the girl went through was done with equipment that you would never have access to on your own.

If I remember correctly, she described medical instruments being used on her that she could not have possibly seen before (if it's the same one I'm thinking of). She even knew which doctor had put a tube down her throat.

CPR=cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Not to offend your intellect but if she did take CPR classes then she would have taken a type of resuscitation class. I personally feel that until I find a source that says it that it used medical equipment I won't believe it.

Did your CPR class involve sticking a tube down someone's throat? I would like to know what "medical instruments" are used in a CPR besides the technique, which if I remember correctly, CRP proper does not rely on any "medical instruments" besides a person. Would the girl had been shown that in her theoretical CPR class? I am guilty of trusting euphgeek's description here (quoted above), which included detail not included in the article.

 

Yes, CPR is resuscitation, but I was unsure what kind of resuscitation was used on this girl. Is it okay for me to use generic words when detail is lacking?

 

It impressed the doctor, who was formally a skeptic. I doubt he would be impressed by the description of a CPR procedure.

Okay lets go back to the article. What was the doctor impressed by? One account about a boy who went claim to have had an out of body expirence. One account of a girl who had an out of body expierence. One account of a girl who gave a medical procedure after death that was to his description blow by blow. One account where a girl did an act that led to another prediction (unborn brothers disease). With all these accounts, I think it is probable for him to change from skeptic to believer even if the little girl only gave a CPR procedure immediately after death. If I saved a little girl from drowning and did CPR to her and the first thing she talked about was being outside her body and then describing CPR procedure after such a tramatic expierence then I'd initally be surprised too.

Yes, and I would assume that the Dr. has more experience with NDEs than you do. Therefor, whose judgment should I accept? The Dr.'s or yours?

[Guest Mr. XC]

These are the questions that I feel need to be answered that make me skeptical to NDEs in general. Can someone explain this to me

Wikipedia Source

A well-known scientific hypothesis that attempts to explain NDEs was originally suggested by Dr. Karl Jansen (1995;1997) and deals with accounts of the side-effects of the drug Ketamine. Ketamine was used as an anesthetic on U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War; but its use was abandoned and never spread to civilian use because the soldiers complained about sensations of floating above their body and seeing bright lights. Further experiments by numerous researchers verified that intravenous injections of ketamine could reproduce all of the commonly cited features of an NDE; including a sense that the experience is "real" and that one is actually dead, separation from the body, visions of loved ones, and transcendent mystical experiences.......

 

Critics of Jansen's hypothesis point out that although some aspects of the experience may be similar, not all NDEs exactly fit the ketamine experience; and that while it might be possible to chemically simulate the experience, this does not refute the possibility that spontaneous NDEs have a spiritual component.

Why can't Jansen's hypothesis be used to refute the possibilty that spontaneous NDEs have a spirtual component?

 

If we can't use expirements that are similar to NDEs to test to see if they are real, how are we supposed to test if they are real or not? Or is it just a matter of faith?

 

Explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

See http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/201/1/162

These changes would have a profound narcotic effect on the electrical activity of nerve fibers and nerve endings in the brain during ketamine anesthesia.

And http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/pap...ripts/_962.html

The fourth site is the PCP binding site. This site's predominant agonists are Phencyclidine and Ketamine, although more potent agonists such as MK-801 have also been found. Ketamine, when bound to the PCP site, has the effect of blocking the NMDA receptor channel. Studies seem to show that the blocking action Ketamine also requires the binding of the primary agonist glutamate. In other words, Ketamine's effect on the PCP site is 'use dependent'. Current knowledge indicates that when a glutamate binds to the receptor, a conformation change in the receptor protein allows the Ketamine (or PCP) to move to block the ion channel (Monaghan 1989).

In other words, Ketamine seriously fucks up the brain. From a spiritual point of view, preventing the brain from functioning would cause the soul of the person to disconnect from the physical world and experience a reality of that soul's making (if it so chooses). So since a spiritual exclamation exists, and there is no highly probable theory behind why knocking out the brain's functions would cause an "enlightened state," you can hardly use Ketamine to refute the spiritual component.

 

Until we simulate the operation of a brain in a computer program, we are going to have to take the exact operation of the brain on faith.

[Guest Mr. XC]

I'm just showing it probable that NDEs are explainable. Nothing more nothing less.

Yes, you can come up with all sorts of exclamations. A better word would be theory, because even though you can explain it, does not mean that it is been confirmed to actually work as you explain. I care more about the theory's that explain the vast majority of NDE's, including the one that you would have trouble debating with. We have only debated one NDE so far, and that one has little detail to work with.

 

I think we have worn down the example of the 6-year-old and have failed to come up with a solid conclusion. Which is acceptable; There does not need to be a conclusion when you do not have solid evidence. Just because a theory exists which relies on only natural components, does not mean that it is correct or even applicable to this situation.

[euphgeek]

Thanks for finding the source for me. Here is an quote from the same site. It talks about the drawing she made.

Please note that my partner Dr. Christopher is demonstrating perfect technique in this picture. His arms are partially flexed, his fingers are locked together, and he has nice positioning on her chest. He gets an "A" for resuscitation, based on this picture.

It was CPR. So that makes my hypothesis even more valid. Anybody who was had to take even a minor course in CPR would be able to know the hand positions.

I also said that the site left out many details. The people resuscitating her were doctors, not lifeguards. She had been under water for 19 minutes, which would call for techniques far beyond CPR. Plus, as I pointed out, the doctor wouldn't risk his reputation for a simple CPR description.

 

Besides, the article doesn't say anything about her taking any CPR classes.

I'm just showing it probable that NDEs are explainable. Nothing more nothing less. I never said that I don't believe in them. There is one account that is too hard too refute but I choose not to present it because I want to practice debating. Plain and simple. Remember I've studied this and believed this whole heartly just like christianity. I just question the information I'm given now.

That's perfectly fine. But I find your arguments singularly unconvincing, because you seem to focus on certain aspects of the story while ignoring details like the ones I gave above.

Okay I'll play. People who drink milk and have no reaction have bodies that accept the chemicals in milk. People lactose intolerant reject milk because their bodies reject the chemicals in the milk. You said that the reason why some people would have out of body expierences and some would not is comparable to why some people would be lactose and tolerant and some would not. So people who don't have out of body expierences don't have them because there body rejects letting there spirit leave there body? The comparison doesn't match up. So again explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

No, just that they react differently to being near death than others.

Why?

Because you'd be trying to prove a negative, that NDEs don't exist.

What is the same basic hallucination that most NDE people expierence.

You know, the tunnel, the bright light, the family members, the bird's-eye view of the room. Granted, they aren't all like that, but most of them seem to have one or more of these factors.

What other alternative test can be done other than resimulating the expierence under controlled conditions?

Good question. I don't see anything wrong with trying to resimulate the experience under controlled conditions. It's just that when someone finds something (like ketamine) that produces some of the aspects of an NDE, skeptics start using that as the answer to all NDEs, while ignoring the problems with it.

[KT45]

Did your CPR class involve sticking a tube down someone's throat? I would like to know what "medical instruments" are used in a CPR besides the technique, which if I remember correctly, CRP proper does not rely on any "medical instruments" besides a person. Would the girl had been shown that in her theoretical CPR class? I am guilty of trusting euphgeek's description here (quoted above), which included detail not included in the article.

This is the link that euphgeek gave me. http://www.melvinmorse.com/images.htm . Please go there. That detailed description that she gave was merely showing the doctor placed his hands in the right position for while doing CPR. There was no medical instruments mentioned in either article so any other assuptions are not vaild.

 

Yes, and I would assume that the Dr. has more experience with NDEs than you do. Therefor, whose judgment should I accept? The Dr.'s or yours?

I'm just judging evidence presented to me. I don't want anyone to accept my judgements

 

 

Explain why not everyone who comes close to death has an out of body expierence? Do they not contain spirits that allow them to leave there bodies?

 

See http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/201/1/162

that article doesn't answer the question. It only talks about the drug

 

Until we simulate the operation of a brain in a computer program, we are going to have to take the exact operation of the brain on faith.

I believe that in the end, this whole matter is based on faith

 

 

I'm just showing it probable that NDEs are explainable. Nothing more nothing less.

Yes, you can come up with all sorts of exclamations. A better word would be theory, because even though you can explain it, does not mean that it is been confirmed to actually work as you explain. I care more about the theory's that explain the vast majority of NDE's, including the one that you would have trouble debating with. We have only debated one NDE so far, and that one has little detail to work with.

Question: do you just want a discussion or a debate? If you see no point in debating then I'll just post the other NDE I be done with it. Otherwise lets head to the Arena.

 

I think we have worn down the example of the 6-year-old and have failed to come up with a solid conclusion. Which is acceptable; There does not need to be a conclusion when you do not have solid evidence. Just because a theory exists which relies on only natural components, does not mean that it is correct or even applicable to this situation.

I would like to bring back up this article http://www.melvinmorse.com/images.htm It supports my position a little more. But we can go on to a different article if you wish

[KT45]

I also said that the site left out many details. The people resuscitating her were doctors, not lifeguards. She had been under water for 19 minutes, which would call for techniques far beyond CPR. Plus, as I pointed out, the doctor wouldn't risk his reputation for a simple CPR description.

We can only go off of those two sites information and not the info you think it left out

 

Besides, the article doesn't say anything about her taking any CPR classes.

The only information about the procedure given in both articles was about the hand position during CPR. So really the only thing she would have to have done was to look at one of those sheet with pictures describing CPR.

 

That's perfectly fine. But I find your arguments singularly unconvincing, because you seem to focus on certain aspects of the story while ignoring details like the ones I gave above.

That's fine if you think my arguments are unconvincing, I'm just practicing anyway. I haven't ignored details and I talked about the one you gave above. Present details you've felt I have ignored.

 

Why?

Because you'd be trying to prove a negative, that NDEs don't exist.

That's why you can't use examples with drugs in comparison with real NDEs. If both produce the same results I don't see the big deal.

 

What is the same basic hallucination that most NDE people expierence.

You know, the tunnel, the bright light, the family members, the bird's-eye view of the room. Granted, they aren't all like that, but most of them seem to have one or more of these factors.

So as long as people who use drugs experience one or more of these factors they can be used to examine NDEs right?

 

What other alternative test can be done other than resimulating the expierence under controlled conditions?

Good question. I don't see anything wrong with trying to resimulate the experience under controlled conditions. It's just that when someone finds something (like ketamine) that produces some of the aspects of an NDE, skeptics start using that as the answer to all NDEs, while ignoring the problems with it.

What about using the other thing that simulates G-Forces that cause basically the same expierence. Can't they use that? Might be better than drugging people up

[Guest Mr. XC]

I also said that the site left out many details. The people resuscitating her were doctors, not lifeguards. She had been under water for 19 minutes, which would call for techniques far beyond CPR. Plus, as I pointed out, the doctor wouldn't risk his reputation for a simple CPR description.

We can only go off of those two sites information and not the info you think it left out

 

Besides, the article doesn't say anything about her taking any CPR classes.

The only information about the procedure given in both articles was about the hand position during CPR. So really the only thing she would have to have done was to look at one of those sheet with pictures describing CPR.

If you want to stick to the article, then you still need to address the fact that she had been under water for 19 minutes. Do you claim that simple CPR saved this girl's life? I doubt that it is a safe assumption to say yes.

 

You can assume that anything that is not written in the articles did not happen for the sake of this discussion, but I think that is a bit foolish. Of course those articles do not describe every detail. I think it is reasonable to infer that certain things happened by other details in the article. For example, if someone was underwater for 19 minutes, CPR is not going to get all of the water out of their lungs. But you would assume that somehow it magically all came out because the article did not detail how the water got out. This is why I do not like formal debates. The structure around them leads to silly arguments such as CPR effectively removes a massive amount of water from the lungs. This is why I believe euphgeek's account of a tube being stuck down her throat. They are in a hospital, they have machines designed for increasing the success of this particular resuscitation by assisting with the removal of water from the lungs or the state that the person is in after being full of water, assisting breathing, monitoring vital signs, and other tasks. Why would they not use at least one of those?

That's why you can't use examples with drugs in comparison with real NDEs. If both produce the same results I don't see the big deal.

Saying that this drug induces a similar experience of x does not explain the experience. The experience remains just as mysterious unless you detail how the mind operates under that drug. We have theories and experiments, but neither prove what is actually going on to produce the experience that the person reports.

 

What about using the other thing that simulates G-Forces that cause basically the same expierence. Can't they use that? Might be better than drugging people up

They could use it to perform additional research, but I still think we are a long ways off from being able to describe the operation of the mind.

Question: do you just want a discussion or a debate? If you see no point in debating then I'll just post the other NDE I be done with it. Otherwise lets head to the Arena.

There is one account that is too hard too refute but I choose not to present it because I want to practice debating.

This discussion seems like an informal debate. You said it yourself that you wanted to practice debating, and I think we have been. I am going on vacation soon for a couple of weeks, so if you want my participation (I would not be offended if you do not want to wait), we should wrap this one up and revisit another NDE in about three weeks or so. Formal debates are kind of awkward to me because they restrict the discussion to a specific instance and any further exploration (which can be required to properly research something) could be prohibited. I do not have time for a one-on-one formal debate anyway. Maybe two teams of debaters. I do not remember seeing that done before on this website.

[KT45]

I'd like to go out of my way and apologize to everyone on this thread. Looking back I feel it was inappropriate to try and have a debate in a area that is clearly for discussion. Trying to debate in the "Rant and Replies" section shouldn't have happened. If anyone still wants to debate on the subject matter then I will be glad to do so in the Arena, if not I would like to present information that leads me to believe that NDEs are possible. I didn't present it before because I wanted to practice debating and winning was my goal. I think I may have come across as if I was trying to make everyone change there beliefs when I was really challenging myself. Anyway I would again like to apologize particularly to Mr.XC and euphgeek. I'll be more careful in the future. As far as debating in the "rants and replies" section I will stop and will contribute more positive data into the discussion if no one wants to debate in the arena. I see no use in beating this dead horse.

 

Anyways, to euphgeek and Mr.XC, do you regard NDEs as fact? If you don't regard them as fact or if you are on the fence on the subject then what information is keeping you from believing it is fact or better yet what makes you slightly skeptical?

If you do regard it as fact did you have a NDE or a supernatural event that happened to you or a loved one?

 

If you want to stick to the article, then you still need to address the fact that she had been under water for 19 minutes. Do you claim that simple CPR saved this girl's life? I doubt that it is a safe assumption to say yes.

Well the other article said this

I resuscitated this young girl after she nearly drowned in a swimming pool. She had no heartbeat for nineteen minutes.

The other article said this

"She was what you would call clinically dead," explained Morse. "She was under water for 19 minutes."

They don't really agree with each other. I like the no heartbeat for nineteen minutes better than underwater for 19 minutes but both are possible. I just hope the parents of the child didn't sit there and say "well she has been in the underwater since 1:00 and it's exactly 1:19 so well should jump in now to save her". Also 19 minutes seems like a weird number. If she was underwater that long I would use words like approximately. Most doctors time the amount of time the patient is in the hospital so I see the heart stopping as more probable. If she was underwater for 19 minutes then I doubt she drowned in a pool. Maybe see was in an ocean and her leg got caught and she was underwater or maybe she fell in a well or something. Either way it feels like I'm a christian again trying to show the differnt Judas accounts are the same

 

Saying that this drug induces a similar experience of x does not explain the experience. The experience remains just as mysterious unless you detail how the mind operates under that drug. We have theories and experiments, but neither prove what is actually going on to produce the experience that the person reports.

I'll give you that

 

What about using the other thing that simulates G-Forces that cause basically the same expierence. Can't they use that? Might be better than drugging people up

They could use it to perform additional research, but I still think we are a long ways off from being able to describe the operation of the mind.

Do you think it is possible that the mind does think it is dying during these exercises (drugs and G-force machine)?

[Asimov]

Right your source isn't credible

And no source he could quote would be "credible" in your eyes, because you don't believe in NDEs, anyway. It'd be like trying to convince a literalist Christian of evolution by citing textbooks.

 

Or convincing you that Jesus exists by citing the Bible?

[Bobo]

 

 

Because to do that, you'd have to prove that every single person who ever had an NDE had ketamine or a ketamine-like substance in their body at the time, and that it was definitely the cause. Also, you'd have to explain why everyone seems to have the same basic hallucination. Most hallucinogens have different effects on different people.

 

 

(This is pandora.)

You make a good point, but it's not entirely correct. It would be nice to know what endogenous substance induces these experiences, and indeed we don't know what those substances are yet. But proving all that would be useless because we already have a hunch... in order for a drug to have an effect, it has to act on receptors that already exist for a specific function... and we have identified which receptors are involved with most of the psychedelics and dissociatives.

 

A drug cannot induce anything that we are not already predisposed to experiencing. This is a basic tenet of pharmacology.

 

I think the issue is more complex than a ketamine-alone (or any other drug) hypothesis... obviously the experience is much more complex than a single receptor in a single portion of the brain.

 

For me, the question is not if it's biologically based, but if these experiences are expressions of a reality that our brain is perceiving at some symbolic level, or if the experience is merely due to brain chemistry. Which came first, the chicken or the egg... the experience or the biological manifestation of the experience?

[euphgeek]

Anyways, to euphgeek and Mr.XC, do you regard NDEs as fact? If you don't regard them as fact or if you are on the fence on the subject then what information is keeping you from believing it is fact or better yet what makes you slightly skeptical?

If you do regard it as fact did you have a NDE or a supernatural event that happened to you or a loved one?

I don't necessarily regard them as "fact," but the arguments for seem to make more sense to me and be more logical than the arguments against. I would call myself a skeptic of NDEs and the "supernatural," but not in the way most people think of a skeptic. I try to keep a watchful eye out for trickery and deception, and if something doesn't seem right to me I question it until I'm satisfied one way or the other.

 

 

Because to do that, you'd have to prove that every single person who ever had an NDE had ketamine or a ketamine-like substance in their body at the time, and that it was definitely the cause. Also, you'd have to explain why everyone seems to have the same basic hallucination. Most hallucinogens have different effects on different people.

 

 

(This is pandora.)

You make a good point, but it's not entirely correct. It would be nice to know what endogenous substance induces these experiences, and indeed we don't know what those substances are yet. But proving all that would be useless because we already have a hunch... in order for a drug to have an effect, it has to act on receptors that already exist for a specific function... and we have identified which receptors are involved with most of the psychedelics and dissociatives.

 

A drug cannot induce anything that we are not already predisposed to experiencing. This is a basic tenet of pharmacology.

 

I think the issue is more complex than a ketamine-alone (or any other drug) hypothesis... obviously the experience is much more complex than a single receptor in a single portion of the brain.

 

For me, the question is not if it's biologically based, but if these experiences are expressions of a reality that our brain is perceiving at some symbolic level, or if the experience is merely due to brain chemistry. Which came first, the chicken or the egg... the experience or the biological manifestation of the experience?

Interesting. Thanks for correcting me on that.

[KT45]

I still want to know exactly what this is

[pandora]

 

Interesting. Thanks for correcting me on that.

 

No prob. I think pharmacology is fascinating. I'm the geek now, eh?

 

I still want to know exactly what this is

 

You know, I've asked this before... and I think it's like the Unanswerable Question or something... a kind of inside joke.

[euphgeek]

 

Interesting. Thanks for correcting me on that.

 

No prob. I think pharmacology is fascinating. I'm the geek now, eh?

Indeed.

I still want to know exactly what this is

 

You know, I've asked this before... and I think it's like the Unanswerable Question or something... a kind of inside joke.

You know, I always thought it had something to do with the Trinity, since it has three sides and three flagella.

[euphgeek]

A thought just occurred to me...maybe it's supposed to be God's sperm?