Freethought & Rationalism Archive

emotional · 04-13-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse
It's hard for me to believe that a person blind from birth would be able to comprehend a visual experience even if they had one--do you have a source on this?

Yes:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html

http://www.seattleiands.org/stories/blind.htm

(apologies emotional, I accidentally edited your post when I meant to reply to it--Jesse)

enigma555 · 04-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Penn & Teller covered NDE's on last Friday's show. (I am addicted to Bullshit, yes I am)

The evidence they provided wasn't a silver bullet, but it was strong circumstantial evidence.

When a person is placed into a centrifuge to test the effects on the body of high (8+) g's, people black out due to loss of blood to the brain.

While in that state, 18% of the test subjects reported: looking at themselves, white lights at the end a tunnel, floating, etc.

Everything we experience is just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain. When we sleep, we sometimes have bizarre experiences in dreams. Why is it not possible that when exposed to severe stresses (extreme g forces or dying) that the brain wouldn't start misfiring?

eh · 04-13-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional

NDEs are widely documented. Among scientists who did research on NDEs are Moody (who pioneered the research in his 1975 book Life After Life), Ring, Rawlings, Sabom and K�bler-Ross.

Documentation does not equal evidence. No one denies NDE's happen, it is only the idea that these events are somehow seperate from activity in the brain that draws opposition.

Quote:

No, we have thousands accounts of the near-death experience, which all show common features. We also have cases of people, blind from birth, who could see the doctors operating on their bodies during the NDE.

The common features we have in NDE's are often the same common features found in religions. That a Muslim and Christian should have common elements in their experience is expected, since they already have common belief systems. Other similarities, such as the feeling of peace and the tunnel of light can be explain in physical terms of the brain.

However, there are still contradictions from the various experiences. A fundementalist sees a fundy version of heaven, and a new ager sees what he/she already believes. This supports the conclusion that those having the experience are just seeing what they already believe, and does not support the notion that these are real, objective afterlife experiences. I would expect the message from these people to be consistant before the afterlife hypothesis is to gain credibility. But we don't see that.

How do you possibly verify that a blind person actually experienced sight?

Quote:

I think this calls for a new theory. Without, I repeat, throwing all the naturalistic edifice out. A theory of an afterlife does not negate biological evolution, gravity, heliocentrism, quantum mechanics or anything else. Unfortunately most are trapped in an all-or-nothing view and can't see that there lies a middle road between total materialism and mediaeval demon theory.

Theories are needed to explain bodies of evidence. But there is no body of evidence supporting the afterlife that needs explaining.

Jesse · 04-13-2003, 11:52 AM

emotional:
Yes:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html

http://www.seattleiands.org/stories/blind.htm

Thanks. I guess the problem is is that there's no way to test firsthand accounts like this, no question you could ask that only a person who understood sight would be able to answer. One of them did mention suddenly having knowledge of advanced math and other subjects, but it seems like people who have experiences of access to great knowledge during NDEs are never able to remember any of it, although they are able to remember other aspects of the experience. I also noticed that both of these people saw Jesus as playing a significant role in their NDEs--assuming you're not a christian, what's your interpretation of that?

I found this page which gives a reference that might be relevant:

Quote:

Ring, Kenneth, Shurn Cooper, Charles Tart. Mindsight: Near-death and out-of-body experiences in the blind. William James Center for Consciousness Studies, 1999.

Documentation of nature of "seeing" the transcendent reality in near-death experiences among those blind since birth.

This page for the book says they interviewed 31 blind people who had NDEs, "including those blind since birth", and that the "great preponderance" of them had visual experiences. Visual experiences would not be surprising in people who had had sight though, and it doesn't say how many of these people were actually blind since birth. And from the book's amazon page, a review by someone who seems to believe NDEs are real but nevertheless points out some problems with the book:

Quote:

Not perfect, but excellent, March 24, 2000
Reviewer: A reader from Winslow, AZ This is required reading for anyone interested in NDEs. It succinctly covers an aspect of the phenomenon not covered elsewhere. There are, however, a couple of disconcerting aspects: First, the authors' Acknowledgement makes clear that they received funding and support from the Theophosist to whom the book is dedicated and that the results of their research are generally in harmony with the doctrines of Theosophy. This is not necessarily a problem, but it is noteworthy in light of Theosophy's checkered past (i.e., founder Madame Blavatsky and her cast of "Ascended Masters"). Second, there is a pasted-in disclaimer telling you to ignore the Author's Note and Appendix because the case presented therein is now believed to be a fraud. They included this case without personally investigating it. It is to their credit that they included the disclaimer, which had to be embarrassing. The rest of the book is excellent. The cases are presented and discussed in a very matter-of-fact manner, and the authors' speculation as to what the explanation may be is interesting and credible. The authors also seem to be quite candid about acknowledging weaknesses in the evidence. As with any anecdotal evidence, the weight you attach to it will depend on how much faith you have that (1) the experiencers are reporting their experiences honestly and accurately, and (2) the authors are honestly and accurately reporting what the experiencers said. I was left with a reasonably high level of confidence in regard to both (1) and (2), although I would liked to have known more about the medical and psychological histories of the experiencers. Overall, I would highly recommend this. (Oh, there is also a short but excellent Foreword by Charles Tart which should be required reading for debunkers in which he explains the difference between true science and "scientism" -- i.e., scientific-dogma-as-religion -- about as clearly as it could be explained.)

Also, this page, also by an NDE "believer", indicates that the "sight" was not quite like ordinary sight:

Quote:

Apparently, visual perception of the physical world can, at first, be both disorienting and disturbing to the blind. Vicki, for instance, had a hard time relating to it initially, as she had never experienced anything like it. Eventually, though, it became perfectly natural. But there is another important aspect here: the authors named the book Mindsight because the visual experience is not quite like seeing in the ordinary sense. Rather, it was described as a more tactile experience, as if seeing with the mind, rather than with the eyes. Brad described it as "feeling with the finger of his mind". He felt that he became aware of images in a way he did not really understand. This is interesting as visual impressions during the out-of-body experience should be expected to be different if these experiences indeed represent dislocated consciousness. After all, we are not seeing by normal means, whereby information on our retinas is conveyed to the sight centre of our brain and there constructed into an image. We see (if we see at all) with our minds, experiencing the physical world (and possibly a fraction of the afterlife) in a state of disembodied consciousness.

Nor is the use of "new" senses restricted to the blind as deaf people also report being able to hear during NDEs.5 Dr. Melvin Morse has interviewed dozens of deaf children and adults who report hearing "in their minds." Many of these deaf children have some rudimentary hearing and report that the "hearing" during the NDE is very different than ordinary hearing. Dr. Morse argues that "sight" in the blind and "hearing" in the deaf is only to be expected, as the near-death experience is mediated through the right temporal lobe, and all the "seeing" and "hearing" is done through remote viewing and telepathy. It is the right temporal lobe that makes sense of "ordinary" input (be it visual, auditory, tactile or through some other normally available sense), so why should it not make sense of "extraordinary" input in the same manner? One child Dr. Morse spoke with described it "sort of like floating out of his body, but sort of like walking into his mind."

Another explanation, though, would be that their experiences were something more like enhanced versions of things they already experience--getting a sense of objects' positions and shapes through touch, rudimentary hearing or sense of vibration--which would be consistent with the view that it's some kind of "hallucination" created by the brain.

emotional · 04-14-2003, 01:21 AM

OK, I get the idea. Since I can't seem to sway anyone here to my side, and since I risk losing my belief in life after death (which is all-important for me and I can't live peacefully without it), I'm pulling out of this discussion. Bye.

Go give NDEs any brain-based explanation you want. As for me, my mind is made up: NDEs are proof of life after death. Because I need to believe in life after death.

Jesse · 04-14-2003, 01:39 AM

Well, if you have a psychological need for a theory that will allow you to avoid death, there are at least a few that are more consistent with existing science than the idea of an immortal soul separate from the brain, like the quantum theory of immortality and Tipler's Omega Point theory.

Wounded King · 04-14-2003, 07:44 AM

I really loved James Randis annecdote about his out of body experience. I know that it is not exactly the same phenomenon, at least according to believers, but I thought it was not comletely irrelevant. The story is in the SKEPTIC magazine archive here . This doesnt even seem to be a true example of an OBE anyway, but it is an interesting comment on the nature of belief, the actual anecdote is about the 10th or 11th paragraph down.

ps418 · 04-14-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
OK, I get the idea. Since I can't seem to sway anyone here to my side, and since I risk losing my belief in life after death (which is all-important for me and I can't live peacefully without it), I'm pulling out of this discussion. Bye.

Go give NDEs any brain-based explanation you want. As for me, my mind is made up: NDEs are proof of life after death. Because I need to believe in life after death.

The sheer honesty of that statement is jaw-dropping. I'm impressed.

Patrick

ps418 · 04-14-2003, 08:05 AM

Before I look up the reference, let me point out: there was a famous anecdote of NDE blind-sight which appeared in one of the famous NDE books. In her book, Dyig to Live, Susan Blakemore recounts how she wrote to the author of the book (Tart, Moody, Ring, one of those guys), asking for more info, and how that author admitted to her (and to another enquiring researcher) that the individual did not exist, but was a fictional composite. I'll have to find the reference when I get home later.

Patrick

Wounded King · 04-14-2003, 08:29 AM

I think it is actually Dr. Susan Blackmore, rather than Blakemore. I read her autobiographical 'In search of the light' at uni, it was very interesting. Im not so sure about her recent work on memetics though, Im still not convinced those things are anything other than a metaphor.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2003, 11:30 AM	#12
enigma555 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 282	Penn & Teller covered NDE's on last Friday's show. (I am addicted to Bullshit, yes I am) The evidence they provided wasn't a silver bullet, but it was strong circumstantial evidence. When a person is placed into a centrifuge to test the effects on the body of high (8+) g's, people black out due to loss of blood to the brain. While in that state, 18% of the test subjects reported: looking at themselves, white lights at the end a tunnel, floating, etc. Everything we experience is just chemical and electrical impulses in the brain. When we sleep, we sometimes have bizarre experiences in dreams. Why is it not possible that when exposed to severe stresses (extreme g forces or dying) that the brain wouldn't start misfiring?

04-14-2003, 01:21 AM	#15
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	OK, I get the idea. Since I can't seem to sway anyone here to my side, and since I risk losing my belief in life after death (which is all-important for me and I can't live peacefully without it), I'm pulling out of this discussion. Bye. Go give NDEs any brain-based explanation you want. As for me, my mind is made up: NDEs are proof of life after death. Because I need to believe in life after death.

04-14-2003, 01:39 AM	#16
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Well, if you have a psychological need for a theory that will allow you to avoid death, there are at least a few that are more consistent with existing science than the idea of an immortal soul separate from the brain, like the quantum theory of immortality and Tipler's Omega Point theory.

04-14-2003, 07:44 AM	#17
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	I really loved James Randis annecdote about his out of body experience. I know that it is not exactly the same phenomenon, at least according to believers, but I thought it was not comletely irrelevant. The story is in the SKEPTIC magazine archive here . This doesnt even seem to be a true example of an OBE anyway, but it is an interesting comment on the nature of belief, the actual anecdote is about the 10th or 11th paragraph down.

04-14-2003, 08:05 AM	#19
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Before I look up the reference, let me point out: there was a famous anecdote of NDE blind-sight which appeared in one of the famous NDE books. In her book, Dyig to Live, Susan Blakemore recounts how she wrote to the author of the book (Tart, Moody, Ring, one of those guys), asking for more info, and how that author admitted to her (and to another enquiring researcher) that the individual did not exist, but was a fictional composite. I'll have to find the reference when I get home later. Patrick

04-14-2003, 08:29 AM	#20
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	I think it is actually Dr. Susan Blackmore, rather than Blakemore. I read her autobiographical 'In search of the light' at uni, it was very interesting. Im not so sure about her recent work on memetics though, Im still not convinced those things are anything other than a metaphor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.