Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Near death, (maybe) explained?

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#11

Post by pazimzadeh »

This explains absolutely nothing, and provides no evidence against the materialist view of the mind.

>

Maybe a NDE brings out what's in your subconscious mind, and she saw the shoe on her way to her hospital room at some point.

"As pointed out by renowned NDE researcher Sam Parnia, some individuals have reported an NDE when they had not been terminally ill and so would have had normal levels of oxygen in their brains."

So those weren't really near-death, were they? Here's what Sam Parnia thinks about NDE's: http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experie....

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#12

Post by kposehn »

incongruity wrote: post #9
kposehn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said maybe as I was not sure of the validity of the conclusions - people here on HN are typically pretty good at cutting through the content to find whether or not it is even close to accurate or useful.

What, exactly, does the article conclude, in your opinion? (I'm genuinely asking) The strongest formulation I can come up with is: "NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness." However, nowhere in the article does the article's author offer a single/summary explanation of NDEs/OB…

At the moment, all it does is provide some talking points.

I'm not really swayed either way, as I don't have sufficient data to make a good conclusion (and I need to do further research into it). I'm actually enjoying some of the comments here as they're providing good insight.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#13

Post by vbo »

kstenerud wrote: post #5

Unfortunately, the author is heavily biased in favor of the soul/spirit explanation, as can be seen by the sudden change of tone when he starts talking about "Materialistic" scientists.

I stopped reading when I got to that term, thinking "what's a materialis... oh, right, it's a REAL scientist". Other than that, a fascinating article, I might finish reading it now.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#14

Post by paged90 »

It should be noted that the Pam Reynold case, the portions for which she had the out of body experience (OBE), she was technically not clinically dead. Additionally, following entering the light we have no way of knowing what time-frame this occurred in; how do we know this occurred when she was recorded as having no brain activity.

I find myself flopping between the two camps in a Devil's advocate manner - the evidence really isn't strong on either side. There seems to be many questions raised by NDE's, but seeing as we don't even have a firm grasp on what consciousness is, or where it comes from, to suddenly say "NDE's prove an afterlife, we can maintain consciousness when we're dead" is a very tenuous claim.

Until we can say "This is consciousness, this is where it comes from, this is what we believe to be the main contributors" to make a leap of this magnitude concerning a topic we know little about is simply irresponsible.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#15

Post by kposehn »

paged90 wrote: post #14

It should be noted that the Pam Reynold case, the portions for which she had the out of body experience (OBE), she was technically not clinically dead. Additionally, following entering the light we have no way of knowing what time-frame this occurred in; how do we know this occurred when she was recorded as having no brain activity. I find myself flopping between the two camps in a Devil's advocate manner - the evide…

Agreed - we need to fight against the (quite human) desire to believe regardless of evidence.

There's enough questions posed at this point that we cannot draw conclusions, so I guess we have to be patient and piece it together over time.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#16

Post by tgflynn »

paged90 wrote: post #14

It should be noted that the Pam Reynold case, the portions for which she had the out of body experience (OBE), she was technically not clinically dead. Additionally, following entering the light we have no way of knowing what time-frame this occurred in; how do we know this occurred when she was recorded as having no brain activity. I find myself flopping between the two camps in a Devil's advocate manner - the evide…

You would think that if there were something real here more evidence of "verifiable" NDE experiences would have become available. Instead articles like this are still rehashing cases from 10 or 15 years ago.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#17

Post by WalterSear »

kposehn wrote: post #12
incongruity wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, does the article conclude, in your opinion? (I'm genuinely asking) The strongest formulation I can come up with is: "NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness." However, nowhere in the article does the article's author offer a single/summary explanation of NDEs/OB…

At the moment, all it does is provide some talking points. I'm not really swayed either way, as I don't have sufficient data to make a good conclusion (and I need to do further research into it). I'm actually enjoying some of the comments here as they're providing good insight.

The hand waving swayed me.

If someone insists on speaking with no tangible data, presenting conclusions that clash with occam's razor, then I will be less likely to listen to them going forward.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#18

Post by paged90 »

tgflynn wrote: post #16
paged90 wrote: post #14

It should be noted that the Pam Reynold case, the portions for which she had the out of body experience (OBE), she was technically not clinically dead. Additionally, following entering the light we have no way of knowing what time-frame this occurred in; how do we know this occurred when she was recorded as having no brain activity. I find myself flopping between the two camps in a Devil's advocate manner - the evide…

You would think that if there were something real here more evidence of "verifiable" NDE experiences would have become available. Instead articles like this are still rehashing cases from 10 or 15 years ago.

It could be that due to the inherent lack of ability to perform this in a controlled manner it is not being looked at. I can't imagine there's a line of people waiting to be put in a near-death situation for an experience you have ~16% (?) of having, with the risk being death or brain damage.

Even if you could find volunteers, I'd like to see an institute willing to take on the impending lawsuit should something ever go wrong.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#19

Post by tfm »

WalterSear wrote: post #17
kposehn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment, all it does is provide some talking points. I'm not really swayed either way, as I don't have sufficient data to make a good conclusion (and I need to do further research into it). I'm actually enjoying some of the comments here as they're providing good insight.

The hand waving swayed me. If someone insists on speaking with no tangible data, presenting conclusions that clash with occam's razor, then I will be less likely to listen to them going forward.

It's a genuinely interesting read, even if it does lean on the Astonishing Particular Items Of Proof trope more than a little heavily, but the moment it got to the words "in my opinion, the answer is ..." my eyes glazeth over and skim mode began.

Once an author has weighed in with their personal interpretation, the only refutations available will be ad hominem. "I'm not calling you a liar, but I can't think of a way to end this sentence."

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#20

Post by gruseom »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #11

This explains absolutely nothing, and provides no evidence against the materialist view of the mind. > Maybe a NDE brings out what's in your subconscious mind, and she saw the shoe on her way to her hospital room at some point. "As pointed out by renowned NDE researcher Sam Parnia, some individuals have reported an NDE when they had not been terminally ill and so would have had normal levels of oxygen in their brains…

Maybe [...] she saw the shoe on her way to her hospital room at some point.

Maybe she floated her way into the hospital room? That's what would follow from the text you quoted.

Your response seems like a good example of how we make up just-so stories to rationalize what we want to believe. First the emotions decide, then the brain comes up with reasons.

I don't know if the provocative case studies in the article are as true as the author implies, but whether they're true or not is quite irrelevant to what most people, including most people called scientists, will say about it.

Post reply on HN