MovieChat Forums > Proof (2015) Discussion > Something for the Skeptics (or Those Who...

Something for the Skeptics (or Those Who Really Want to Know More)


Here is a link for those who have been quick to post their skepticism, not to say hostility, about the legitimacy of NDEs and whether genuine scientific research in the field is ongoing - or even possible. It is also for those truly interested in learning more about current research. Please note the writer's credentials.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/

It's a long article but full of fascinating information.

If you can read all of this and still try to lump belief in an afterlife with a childish belief in fairies or cowardice in the face of personal oblivion, or if you keep insisting that smart people "know" there is no consciousness outside the brain, then it would seem to be your own mind that is closed to information beyond your current paradigm.

reply

NDE is a red herring. Near- is not the same as after-. That is what the multi-billionaire's mission statement is about: is there life after death? All this hoopla about coming back to life after death is irrelevant.

What is life in the beyond like when death is permanent?

Since we won't parade the mediums and psychics onto the stage, we have nothing.








______________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

reply

Sigh. What you seem oblivious to is the strong evidence for our perceptions not being limited to the brain. Once you can see that - did you read the article linked above with ANY real comprehension? - you realize that the NDE is just the tip of the iceberg.

Please scan the author's credentials again and ask yourself if your current scientific knowledge outweighs his.

reply

"NDE is just the tip of the iceberg."

You can hope and imagine the iceberg being there. Until the iceberg is presented, the tip may as well be flotsam.

Perfect analogy: for a long time, we thought there was no life in the ocean depths. No sunlight for the chloroblasts to convert into food. We finally got some peeks into the other side and find life amazing there.

James Cameron and others shouted out to the world who would 'listen'.

Your author hasn't seen the iceberg beneath the surface. He is still mucking around with what he thinks is the "tip of the iceberg".

All he needs are volunteers who promise to report back after they are dead and gone. That's the iceberg.












____________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

reply

I really don't know what your point is in the iceberg analogy except to say that there is much more out there than we know. I would agree with that. But you have yet to say what your own strict materialist philosophy has to offer when confronted with the evidence for such phenomena as people blind since birth being able to "see" and give accurate descriptions of physical objects and even people during NDEs. You won't look at the evidence; you only deny that it exists.



reply

NDE is NOT about life beyond death. It is about neurobiology.

The iceberg is the imaginary life beyond death. All you see is the tip of the iceberg. Since you and others have NOT presented the solid iceberg, I conclude your tip is just flotsam unrelated to life beyond death.

I have not denied the existence of NDE. You seem to argue otherwise.

The investigations into NDE is neuroscience. Nothing is settled and much is up to interpretation.

Bottom line: life beyond death has not been investigated. Seances, mediums and psychics have been debunked. Ghosts and haunted houses have been debunked. We have nothing of life beyond death. Quite hard to investigate nothing.

Let's not confuse NDE with life beyond death.














______________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

reply

But not nearly as much has been debunked as you seem to think it has. In fact, much has been validated. Mediums have been studied under controlled conditions with surprising results. Of course some are frauds, doing cold readings like carnival hucksters. But what of the ones that have been validated in the lab as producing solid information far beyond statistical probability? If you are unaware of this research, you should look it up rather than cling to denial based on your own bias.

The tip of the iceberg exists because the iceberg exists. The funny thing is that your comparison to James Cameron's undersea explorations makes the opposite point to what you intended. I would take from it that we should not just stick to old scientific beliefs but learn to keep searching because there might be a great deal more in the depths than we know.

By the way, composer James Horner died yesterday in a single plane crash. I am greatly saddened for all the potential music we have lost, not least the score for the next "Avatar" film. And for the people who loved him. But I do not think for a moment that HE has ceased to exist. In fact, he is now more "alive" than ever.

reply

Have you ever heard of the Million Dollar Challenge? Description from the JREF:

The James Randi Educational Foundation will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation. Such demonstration must take place under the rules and limitations described in this document. An applicant can be from or in any part of the world. Gender, race, and educational background are not factors for acceptance. Applicants must be at least 18 years of age and legally able to enter into binding agreements.


No studies have actually found psychics to be any more effective at making predictions than people trained to "read" people. No convincing evidence that anything supernatural was at work.

And, even if it is just that they were looking at the wrong psychics, if there are "real" psychics, why aren't they coming forward? Surely, anyone with real powers could easily past any honest test, right? So, what's stopping them?

And, it's not like a monetary reward would be something to worry about - even if you're uncomfortable taking the money for yourself, why not take the test, pass it, and donate the money to the charity of your choice? Not only does the charity benefit, but you've (1) proven both that you're not in it for the money and that you (2) almost certainly have real powers.

And, yet, nobody's passed it. Or any other scientifically rigorous test. And it's not for lack of trying.

reply

Of course I have heard of it. And I know exactly what it's worth in terms of honest scientific research. Which is to say, not much.

reply

I doubt if he has a million dollars. If he does, then it would need to be placed in escrow.

What are the test conditions? It is very easy to create test conditions that are unfavorable for a positive outcome.

Another problem is he wants 100% accuracy. Psychic results are not likely going to have 100% accuracy no more than a weather report does. There's a subtle nature to it as well as a spontaneous one that's not easily controlled. For instance, many premonitions just happen out of the blue.

There are real tests and studies going on by scientists with some interesting results. University of Virginia has a database on their website.

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/home-page

reply

It's not James Randi the individual, it's the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Who said anything about 100% accuracy? You just have to do better than you would by chance and have it be statistically significant.

Experiment with tasks that people can't learn to get better at. Like, say, you randomly flip a coin (in a different room where they can't see or hear it) and, via computer, they're signaled to guess the result. This eliminates the possibility that they figure out the answer by reading the experimenter, allows for testing of abilities that both do and don't see into the future, and has an easily comparable metric - regular people will only get it right 50% of the time.

If you could get it right even 60% or 70% of the time (over a large number of coin flips), that'd be statistically significant.

I don't know the specifics of how JREF conducts its test, but they have a very large page dedicated to it. Just search "Million Dollar Challenge" and you'll find it if you're actually interested.

reply

James Randi the individual = James Randi Educational Foundation

His "foundation" received $323,374 in contributions in 2013 (latest available tax return). He gave himself a $202,000 salary. His salary was approved by "the board" and the question regarding is there a conflict of interest is answered "yes".
President D.J. Grothe, president at the time, received $100,000. $417,181 total went to salaries and compensation. There were 5 employees. (30 volunteers).

2013 990 Tax Form:
http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?990_type=&fn=James+randi+educational+foundation&st=&zp=&ei=&fy=&action=Find

He has a strong financial bias to keep the skepticism scam going and I have read a number of his test results were inaccurately reported by him and/or the parameters of the test were questionable. That type of inaccuracy makes his tests inaccurate, biased and unscientific.

reply

lol, how far can you put your head up your anus? skepticism scam. lmao. fairy tales are not true. believing in something and clapping your hands doesn't make it true.

Who took my toast?

reply

What are the test conditions? It is very easy to create test conditions that are unfavorable for a positive outcome.


Standardized scientific tests, such as double-blind trials. As such, the testing methodology is fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment#Double-blind_trials
http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/234-the-definition-of-qdouble-blindq.html

reply

My point is he's not conducting unbiased tests. (Extremely long and detailed)
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/flim-flam-flummery-a-skepti.html

And he's so closed minded, he ignores proof that may exists.
http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/james-randi-a-conjurer-attempts-to-debunk-research-on-animals

I'm skeptical of him. I'd welcome real unbiased scientific tests.

reply

In fact, he is now more "alive" than ever.
The late Mr. Horner is, "in fact," unequivocally and irrefutably less "alive" than he ever was when he actually was alive.

His reputation and his work survive him, but he is dead, now and forever.

reply

lmao. good one.

Who took my toast?

reply

pretty hilarious. All mediums have been proven as frauds or mentally ill...every single one. The surprising results are how anyone can look at those results and conclude that anything was validated. Open your eyes if you can.

Who took my toast?

reply

Peggy,

Here is how science works: Facts are collected and a theory proposed. That theory must provide testable methods of verification.

There are no facts regarding what happens after death, as by definition it is impossible to get a report back from someone who is really dead.

There is data regarding what happens to the brain when anoxia sets it. The only thing that data proves is that the individual experiences any of a number of possible phenomena - the classical white light, the meeting friends and family, the floating about themselves, and the one that none of the woo merchants like to talk about - nothing. The latter is most probably the most often experienced, but you won't catch the woo-meisters talking about that.

Even given the "data", what kind of theory can be built upon this? Every brain is different, with different religious beliefs and such. How would you norm something like that? What sort of testable hypothesis could you come up with?

None, I should think. If you think so, then you would be the first.

reply

Sorry there is ZERO evidence for perceptions being not fully contained in the brain. After all, that is where ALL the cognitive abilities are. It's also where all memories are stored. How would a consciousness exist outside of its physical boundaries of how it thinks and is able to access knowledge and memory?

Hint. It can't. And there is NO evidence that supports that claim.

reply

I know, right?

Who took my toast?

reply

Sigh. A Salon article? My Sigh indicates I know more than you. Sigh.

Who took my toast?

reply

Here's a simple fact - hundreds of millions of people die every day. If there was any life after death or any real afterlife/NDE, it would be a LOT more common and we would see the results everywhere, not just some fringe websites and isolated cases.

It happens to everyone if its real, right?

reply

Your argument against the afterlife/NDE sounds like the same one used against the finding of Big Foot or finding that intelligent alien life forms have visited earth. Hmmmm....Just an observation. You may be on to something there.

reply

150,000 people die each day in the world - not hundreds of millions. Most won't have NDEs because they're not resuscitated. Most who are resuscitated don't remember or forget as one of the posters on this site had mentioned about her brother who had an NDE, told her about it, but later he forgot. My brother used to fool around with OBEs, and tell me about his experiences, but he can't remember most of it now.

For the record, 20% of Americans have said they have seen a ghost. That's a very large percentage. Personally, I know atheists and agnostics who have told me this and it confuses them because they really don't believe in ghosts.

It happens to everyone if its real, right?

It can, but that doesn't mean everyone remembers it. I know I dream, but most of the time I can't remember them.

reply

Here's a simple fact - hundreds of millions of people die every day.


I think you meant 1000s

It's about 150k per day approximately.

reply

Astonishingly, the entire Pam Reynolds incident was rather resolutely debunked. The chronology was wonderfully and meticulously recorded.
The article you provided said that at 8:40 AM, Pam popped out of her body. This was after anesthesia was given.
So, apparently she wasn't flatlining -- she was, at best, possibly sleeping -- and the anesthesia wasn't even supposed to make her entirely insensate (since it was required that she be able to respond to sounds).

So, she HEARD sounds in the same room that she was in before she was flatlined and that's impressive to you?

She was already familiar (before the operation) with how the hair would be cut AND the instruments.

Heck, she wasn't flatlined until LITERALLY hours later (after 11 AM!).

Now THIS is where perception would be impressive.

NOTHING happens at that point.

So, Peggy. Where PRECISELY is the impressive part?

reply

None of your comments are true.

and the anesthesia wasn't even supposed to make her entirely insensate (since it was required that she be able to respond to sounds).


Her heart was stopped and the blood drained from her head. Both her heart and brain patterns were flatlined. Nobody expected her to respond in this state.

She was already familiar (before the operation) with how the hair would be cut AND the instruments.


That's not true. The doctor who operated on her said the instruments were covered to avoid contamination so she never had a chance to see them.

So, she HEARD sounds in the same room that she was in before she was flatlined and that's impressive to you?


Her ears had monitors in them with a loud clicking so she shouldn't have heard anything. But it wasn't "sounds" she heard, but actual conversation during among the medical staff during her operation when there was a problem.

Her doctor was interviewed and he appears impressed. Nuff said.

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfIY4B3y1U

reply

The stuff she claims to have heard was all documented to have happened around 9:30-10 AM.

Her heart was 'drained' and she flatlined at well after 11 AM.

Her ears had speakers in them, not monitors, and you can still hear pretty well via conductive hearing.

reply

Robert F. Spetzler who performed the operation said they were "clicking modules" which were used to monitor her. The 2nd video has Dr Spetzler being interviewed and he says a patient cannot hear anything with them in the ears.

The article from the OP states when Pamela Reynolds flatlined ..."At this point, Pam’s out-of-body adventure transformed into a near-death experience (NDE)". In other words, you don't need to flatline in order to have an outer body experience. People do OBEs on purpose through meditation and other methods.

reply

Timeline, simplified :

7:15 AM, patient brought into operating room, minutes later given general anesthesia

## This is where she says she popped out of her body
Notice, she is in NO WAY near-death.

8:40 AM patient skull was opened
10:30 AM comment made about blood vessels
10:50 AM cardiac bypass tube inserted into femoral artery (leg)
temperature drops

## Notice that this is where her recollection STOPS

11:05 AM HEART STOPPED
This is where she flatlined!

Nothing from her account is from beyond 10:50 AM.

reply

The article says she popped out of her body at 8:40am and was observing the operating room.

At 8:40 a.m., the tray of surgical instruments was uncovered, and Robert Spetzler began cutting through Pam’s skull with a special surgical saw that produced a noise similar to a dental drill. At this moment, Pam later said, she felt herself “pop” out of her body and hover above it, watching as doctors worked on her body.


At 11:25 she was clinically dead and that's when she saw the bright white light and saw her deceased relatives.

At 11:25 a.m., the team tilted up the head of the operating table, turned off the bypass machine, and drained the blood from her body. Pamela Reynolds was clinically dead.

At this point, Pam’s out-of-body adventure transformed into a near-death experience (NDE): She recalls floating out of the operating room and traveling down a tunnel with a light. She saw deceased relatives and friends, including her long-dead grandmother, waiting at the end of this tunnel.


This article is from a book called Brain Wars which sounds intriguing. I just placed a hold on it.

reply

So, the evidence that she popped out of her body is to say precisely what a person that was in her exact position would have heard?

So the proof for the first incredible occurrence is already BEST fully explained by mundane explanations.

Next, we try to introduce another incredible occurrence -- and NDE... for which there's NO actual evidence.

So, we have an OOBE followed by an NDE. That's TWO items, each of which border on the far side of the absurd.

This is really a safely dismissed example. If you want any skeptic to evaluate this then provide SOMETHING that would actually have been impossible for her to know from the table -- like maybe a complication occurring in the operating or recovery or nursery directly above her (something just as specific).

reply

If evidence is so important then you would know that there is no evidence that neurons firing in the brain produces consciousness. No one has ever seen consciousness nor observed consciousness being created. There is no physical evidence.

reply

The problem is that when you actually look at the science, instead of specific anecdotes, it becomes clear that there is no one type of NDE, that the experience varies culturally. In other words, the only logical explanation is that NDEs, like so much of our experiences, is a product of our brains. There has been a lot of recent research regarding NDEs. So-called NDEs are not isolated to people who are near death, but are actually very common among jet pilots -- scientists believe therefore that what you are experiencing if you expereince a so-called NDE are random neurons firing in the brain as a consequence of oxygen deprivation (something which you can experience without actually ever being close to death.

The name itself, NDE, is not a scientific designation, because it implies something that is not actually part of the evidence, that it's an experience associated only with people who are 'near death'.

Furthermore, there's a whole class of NDEs where people say they have out-of-body experiences. Those have been thoroughly debunked. People who claim to have had OBEs (or out of body experiences) simply see things that are not there. They will report things that they remembered from before they were unconscious (such as the doctor's lunch umbella on a counter) that were not actually there at the time of the so-called OBE. The only logical conclusion is that OBE-class NDEs also are a product of our brains, and not of an 'astral body' or whatever you want to call it.

There IS actual SCIENTIFIC research on the subject. The problem is that some people simply choose to ignore it whenever it contradicts their own beliefs. Anecdotes are not the same thing as scientific evidence. And that's the problem that believers will never accept.

reply

There IS actual SCIENTIFIC research on the subject. The problem is that some people simply choose to ignore it whenever it contradicts their own beliefs. Anecdotes are not the same thing as scientific evidence. And that's the problem that believers will never accept.


Can you provide a link or links to this research?

Everyone else on this thread just seems to be quoting from blogs, which isn't research but opinion.

Peer reviewed science which has been published in a reputable journal would be great, so that we could move this argument forward rather than "I read on a blog" types of posts.

If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?

reply

The most comprehensive study was actually supposed to be SERIOUSLY objective and scientific. It was going to be installing 1000+ shelves (with images on them) so that any OOBE/NDE where the patient could see around, and SHOULD be able to see the shelf!

Well, here is the link : http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf

It's called the AWARE study (2014). Bottom line, ABSOLUTELY ZERO patients describing an NDE or OOBE was able to tell about the image on a shelf.

So after the study was done, they tried to rescue the nonsense and say "most have feelings of the same stuff" and so on.

reply

The brain is amazing at tricking you into believing that it is the sole source of Personality. Consciousness.

Dr. Freud really did discover something amazing, that there are individual parts of one's being. Being a scientist, he naturally concluded they all resided in the brain.

He might have reconsidered after this study:

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

I do believe that DNA includes data storage plus the known protein cookbook.

This may account for instinct and how animals can know the full range of courting rituals/nesting when they have never seen or met an adult. (Turkeys raised alone from egg. Done it myself lol)

There's still a huge chunk missing, like why twins are different personalities at birth. I know the gene regulatory system will end up making both different physically over time. (Have a look at Nature of Things: Two of a Kind)

The UK has collected mammoth amounts of controlled test data. The sample size is beyond what I ever thought could be part of an experiment)

Anyways, I hope people start acknowledging their True Selves and tell the lizard brain to go f'itself. Age of the Ego will soon pass



reply

people are still taking Freud seriously?

Who took my toast?

reply

dont waste your time.
the people that bash this kind of shows/movies are the same that see/accept superheroes, robots that transform into cars, etc... but religion!? Oh hell no! it isnt realllll.

http://trakt.tv/users/pedro

reply

yeah religion is real. just as real as superheroes, transformers, flying monkeys and real proof of NDE's being more than just brain spasms, etc.

Who took my toast?

reply

Ignore the anecdotes because -- honestly, they're collectively garbage. Unless you can validate the precise chronology of what happened, when and precisely when the account(s) were collected, then it's less than useless.

You want to demonstrate to skeptics or scientists that something might be there -- simple -- very simple actually. Demonstrate a SINGLE mechanism by which memories might be reliably transferred from an external source -- ie., from something other than our intrinsically hard-wired senses. OR, alternatively, demonstrate a single way sensory information IS coming back into the body, being stored in a compromised-function brain.

Don't show some lame proof-of-concept experiment where we can get eeg recordings or manually implant/delete/affect memories -- because this is clearly a non-physical interaction.

That's what actual PROOF will have to be.

reply

you make smart comment. no understand. NDE real. I say so. PROOF!

Who took my toast?

reply

[deleted]