Study on Near Death Experiences

[manol]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

See, this may be part of the problem.

What did the study conclude?

This study points to lucidity as a consequence of brain function at death - measured through electrocortical biomarkers.

The primary researcher for the study (Parnia) has also found the same surge in electrocortical biomarkers in patients with severe dementia, providing them with lucid periods when near death. His research is aimed at showing that surges in the brain can trigger lucidity even in what is considered to be largely nonfunctional brains. This is a neuro-physicial finding. He has a new on-going study related to these findings -

A further comment -

But this has nothing to do with the notion of an NDE as defined by this study. And we run into the problem where these accounts aren't particularly trustworthy as accurate accounts of some internal experience. These accounts are presented in specific ways to generate a specific response in their target audience. These are not the sorts of accounts that this study deals with - and to try and say that these accounts that you mention here are typical of the survey results is misleading at best.

It sure comes across this way.

The entire basis of this research is about how to further refine our understanding of the way that brains work - it is not about evaluating some sort of mystical NDE as an experience external to the brain. Because of this, this finding in the research is also fascinating:

  This is a clear suggestion that sedation might be helpful in extended resuscitation efforts to reduce the impact of these experiences. I don't think that the research paper is as friendly to your point of view as you think it is ...

What I mean by this is that you are focusing in on the things that you believe support your point of view - without looking at the evidence as a whole. And I am not sure you have spent a lot of time with the original research. You mention "but was in a condition that might be described as short-term hibernation." Yet, this idea comes not from the research but from the summary. There is nothing like this in the research paper (which doesn't discuss the idea of hibernation at all). You don't reference a single one of the 6 interviews that came out of the study that were considered transcendental in some way. Instead, you keep referring back to your well known examples - as if this is going to be reflective of what you read in the study. It doesn't work this way.

 This is what I am referring to in terms of selection bias. You want to accept just the evidence that supports your point of view - and you don't want to discuss anything that might conflict with that point of view. The research isn't something to read, it is just supposed to be seen as evidence by its existence.

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such depth.  You've given me a lot to think about, and obviously I need to read the paper itself instead of the summary.