Do we really need a whole new science of consciousness?

[Dr B]

Related to a debate going on elsewhere around here ::) - some people (including some scientists and medics) are arguing that we now may be at the point which shows we need a new science of consciousness.

The argument goes that the current scientific model views consciousness as a brain-based phenomenon - that is; the mind is what the brain does. However, according to some, this may be incorrect and there may be aspects of consciosuness that cannot be couched in brain-based models.

Who is making this argument? Well, its being made by Fenwick and Parnia - two NDE researchers. The evidence? Well, there is none - it currently seems to be little more than a philosophical position - and one which actually violates a central tenet of logic.

Fenwick and Parnia basically say that there may be 'something in the middle' between the brain and mind. We are not told what this 'something' is, how it operates, what it does, or how we can look for it. Nor are we provided with any direct existing evidence for it now. They argue that although a damaged brain can impact on mental functioning - this does not mean that mental functioning is dependent on that brain region :cheesy: . Although it is difficult to really grasp the argument they are trying to make, one possibility is as follows:

It could mean that a more 'intermediate mind' is damaged - rather than higher-consciousness. according to some, Intermediate mind is what we use day-to-day - but when the brain is dead - we transend :cheesy: to a higher-level which will presumably be intact. Of course, we do not have access to this readily on a day to day basis. There are variations on this theme - but this seems to capture the essence of the idea (that a third variable could be involved).

The problem for me is, it assumes something to be true and then claims immediately that this 'something' cannot be tested (higher-consciousness) - which makes it non-falsifiable. Secondly, there is no evidence to support this position - and as such, there can be no reason to assume it to be true. Thirdly, it violates the principle of Occam's razor - by adding additional assumptions unecessarily. Fourthly, it tries to use the gaps in our knowledge as evidence for its position - a fallacy known as the argument to ignorance (gaps do not support either position). Based on these (and other) observations - I would say there is no need to argue for a new science of consciousness - as the current view seems capable and appropriate (though incomplete).

What do others here think?

[Cuddles]

We need a science of conciousness in the same way we need a science of ghosts and bigfoot. Unfortunately, complete lack of evidence has never stopped people pretending to work in new areas before.

[Dr B]

I take it you mean a new science of consciosuness (i.e. a supernatural one)...

Actually we do need a scientific explanation for ghostly experiences and OBEs and NDEs - but these explanations have nothing to do with what Parnia and Fenwick would have you believe. O0

[Dr B]

There is more from the stable of woo :cheesy:

The survivalist argument is claiming that the relationship between brain states and mental (mind) states is purely correlational. As such, it is not causal. From this, they claim that the direction of causality cannot be inferred and a viable alternative view can be suggested.

This alternative is that the brain states may reflect mind states (rather than the other way around). The crude metaphor is that the brain is a receiver and not a transmitter. The implication seems to be that 'mind' is proximal to brain - but not confined within it.

By this account, the reason brain damage impairs mental states is not because those brain regions are causally responsible, but because an intact mind cannot recruit the necessary brain regions to perform.

It is of course, totally nonsense for a host of reasons. I am writing an article on this as we speak, and I dont want to discuss all my ideas here - but there are some thoughts to consider: For example, neural events precede mental states - so there is a chain of direction - it is not the other way around. A causal account would need to show an association and correlation between factors involved in it - so correlations are support for, and not against causal accounts (though they are not themselves causal accounts). There is no positive evidence for the brain 'receiving' mind - and the whole idea tries to hide-out in what we do not yet know (absence of evidence).

If the mind can 'sense' the world without brain, why do we need a brain? How does the mind do this? Where is mind? What is doing the transmission and how would we measure this?

I am also confused as to why many illusions - based on the architecture of the visual brain - work in the mind. If the mind has its own apparatus for sensing the world - and that is the primary apparatus (the brain is secondary) why does mental experience (i.e., imagery etc) not induce as strong a response in the brain as real visual stimulation? In other words, if the brain is nothing more than a correlate of mind (as opposed to the other way around) why do patterns and levels of activity show the opposite relationship to what this predicts?

Of course, I can think of more woowoo to slip through these ideas here...but all of them involve untested and unecessary assumptions.

[Allo Allo]

Are you really wanting “discussion” – or is this just a vent hole?

I'm quite lost trying to understand your information - way above my head! So I'm glad it's in good hands!

I don’t think we need a new science of consciousness – aren’t we doing well enough with the one there is? New facts about the mind are being discovered with such speed that there are books/papers published that are already out-of-date before the pages have dried. So the science of consciousness is changing at astonishing speed. So lets just keep the old one - its a better challenge!


Science doesn't explain things that really DO need explaining – but it will. I just hope it’ll be before I snuff it – otherwise I’m going to have to re-incarnate out of curiosity! :cheesy:


Poor old Parnia and Fenwick aren’t the only ones doing research and trying to explain what is currently thought of as supernatural rubbish. There are many other pseudo scientists examining all sorts of mind stuff with (hopefully) proper scientific method. Maybe something will come out of it and they will be brought into the fold. Occams Razor isn't always the best tool for critical thinking in science – there are several examples of how it doesn’t work. It would be ridiculous to use it if it circumsized knowledge rather than clarified it!!


I suppose these ideas have been “updated” by now but this is an interesting interview with Susan Greenfield (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s498618.htm)

After reading it I realised that I already feel the internet is an extension of my brain.... !


M



:knitter: (Thanks!)

[Araneus]

Occams Razor isn't always the best tool for critical thinking in science – there are several examples of how it doesn’t work.

Like what?

[Ginger Rogers]

Isn't the brain just a biological computer, and the mind an abstract way of describing some of it's functions?

or something....

[Dr B]

Are you really wanting “discussion” – or is this just a vent hole?

I am fostering a discussion - I do not apologise if your beliefs are challenged. That is the purpose of this arena. I am not venting anything, a serious claim has been made (that current science is wrong) and I am challenging the basis of that claim. This is perfectly legitimate - its called science!



I'm quite lost trying to understand your information - way above my head! So I'm glad it's in good hands!


Then read up a little more. I dont think I have used technical language at any point. I agree it can be confusing - but that has more to do with the survivalists ot being clear on what their version of consciousness is rather than my discussion.



I don’t think we need a new science of consciousness – aren’t we doing well enough with the one there is?

I agree and yes. There are of course - explanatory gaps - but these do not warrant abandoning science.



New facts about the mind are being discovered with such speed that there are books/papers published that are already out-of-date before the pages have dried. So the science of consciousness is changing at astonishing speed. So lets just keep the old one - its a better challenge!


There are better reasons for keeping the current view - but I share your conclusion.




Science doesn't explain things that really DO need explaining – but it will. I just hope it’ll be before I snuff it – otherwise I’m going to have to re-incarnate out of curiosity! :cheesy:


Not true - it does - but you may not be aware of these explanations. There is a mass of information out there that requires shifting through (lots of it is tosh) - but this process will be rewarding.



Poor old Parnia and Fenwick aren’t the only ones doing research and trying to explain what is currently thought of as supernatural rubbish.

Why are they poor? No - they are not the ones doing 'research'. They are the ones promoting unfounded claims. As such, they generate the very confusion you are trying to avoid.



There are many other pseudo scientists examining all sorts of mind stuff with (hopefully) proper scientific method. Maybe something will come out of it and they will be brought into the fold.

Nop - pseudoscience can be legitimately ignored for what it is - nonsense. There is no reason to assume anything will come from it.


Occams Razor isn't always the best tool for critical thinking in science – there are several examples of how it doesn’t work. It would be ridiculous to use it if it circumsized knowledge rather than clarified it!!

Occams razor is a very good tool - and it is one the woos fall foul of all the time. Give examples of its shortcomings if you like. Actually, if you take the time to go back and read you will see that far many more reasons than occam's razor were given - so even if you were right on that point (which clearly you are not) you have all the other reasons to tackle as well.

Remember - nonsense is not knolwedge - it facilitates no understanding.



I suppose these ideas have been “updated” by now but this is an interesting interview with Susan Greenfield (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s498618.htm)


I find Greenfield out of her depth on matters of cognition - though thansk for the link.

[Dr B]

Isn't the brain just a biological computer, and the mind an abstract way of describing some of it's functions?

or something....


The computer metaphor is just that - a metaphor. It guides some thinking - but is, ultimately, incorrect.

[Allo Allo]

I do not apologise if your beliefs are challenged.
My beliefs aren't challenged - its the brain that is. :-[ I have read OP again.


but you may not be aware of these explanations.

Well I have been trying to find them - and have found many. I am not a scientist so I have to "believe" at a certain point.


Why are they poor? Only in the way you'd say "poor old thing" - sympathy for someone getting a battering ^-^


No - they are not the ones doing 'research'. They are the ones promoting unfounded claims. As such, they generate the very confusion you are trying to avoid. Don't you feel their area of "study" is a very difficult one? How do you experiment with death? Scientifically, how do you "replicate" any kind of experiment? It just seems impossible to me - impossible to provide "proof" occams razor making it unnecessary.You did say that they were no threat to science as it understands consciousness.


Nop - pseudoscience can be legitimately ignored for what it is - nonsense. There is no reason to assume anything will come from it. My error - I shouldn't have called legitimate scientists pseudoscientists - wrong term - sorry.


Actually, if you take the time to go back and read you will see that far many more reasons than occam's razor were given - so even if you were right on that point (which clearly you are not) you have all the other reasons to tackle as well. I went back and read again - a few questions came to me but I don't think I'm qualified to think them.


I find Greenfield out of her depth on matters of cognition - though thansk for the link. I read her again too - wasn't so impressed the second time - punctuation and gramatical errors annoyed me - but I did enjoy some ideas at the end of it.

What definition of consciousness do you work from - where does it lie? What is it's "matter"? Your ideas on that would be interesting. But simplified!

One last question - you have said a flatline EEG doesn't indicate death - what does then? I don't want my organs removed if I'm not DEAD! :-\

M

:knitter:

[Dr B]

Only in the way you'd say "poor old thing" - sympathy for someone getting a battering ^-^

To be fair - they are not getting a battering. Their claim is huge and, if true, profound. The problem is the quality of the evidence and reasoning is not there - and as such - cannot support the conclusion. The world would be a better place if so-called scientific people did not go around generating confusions from their own poor understandings of science and the brain. This is why i feel their arguments need addressing. Trust me - you will see more of this nonsense over the coming years - but its all seriously flawed. They take a philosophical position (and not a good one) and not a scientific one.



Don't you feel their area of "study" is a very difficult one?

I work on cognition, awareness and consciousness everyday - no need to claim a special status for it here. It requires careful honest thought and a sound methodology.



How do you experiment with death? Scientifically, how do you "replicate" any kind of experiment?

There is an argument that NDEs have nothing to do with death and that these people are far from death (in reality) - so there may be no need to experiment with it at all. However, G-LOC experiments for air force pilots, mountain climbers and military experiments on psychology under extreme ciurcumstances all provide valuable insights. As do drug studies, pathology, illness, disease, stimulation studies, sensory deprivation studies, carbon-monoxide therapy studies (from the 1950s) asphyxiation studies (using infaltable neck collars - yes these do exist :cheesy:) and people who merely beleived themselves to be near-death - but were not. Happy reading O0



It just seems impossible to me - impossible to provide "proof" occams razor making it unnecessary.You did say that they were no threat to science as it understands consciousness.

See above comments. Occams razor basically posits that there is no need to add assumptions unecessarily. In other words, if you cannot justify making an assumption (with evidence and reason) - then dont make it. The problem with Fenwick's idea is it starts out with a flawed premise (that experiences have occurred during flat EEG - this has never been shown to be the case), and then reasons fallaciously from that premise (unecessary assumptions / circular reasoning / absence of evidence)



I read her again too - wasn't so impressed the second time - punctuation and gramatical errors annoyed me - but I did enjoy some ideas at the end of it.

The problem with many of her comments and her programmes is that, like many other pop-scientists, they pass off other peoples ideas and findings as their own (maybe this is unintentional - but that's a judgement call). Or they propose the current accepted wisdom as being their suggestion. This makes them look more insightful than infact they are.



What definition of consciousness do you work from

That the mind is, what the brain does.



One last question - you have said a flatline EEG doesn't indicate death - what does then? I don't want my organs removed if I'm not DEAD! :-\


A flat EEG does not indicate brain death at all. You just need to look at some instances of coma and syncope to see that. Medics are still undecided on the definition of death - but I would not want to be on the operating table with Fenwick and Parnia in the room or you may find yourself being the worlds most premature organ donor ;D;D

Dont get me wrong, a flat EEG is not good - but it is far from near or complete brain death.

[Allo Allo]

There is an argument that NDEs have nothing to do with death and that these people are far from death (in reality) - so there may be no need to experiment with it at all. However, G-LOC experiments for air force pilots, mountain climbers and military experiments on psychology under extreme ciurcumstances all provide valuable insights. As do drug studies, pathology, illness, disease, stimulation studies, sensory deprivation studies, carbon-monoxide therapy studies (from the 1950s) asphyxiation studies (using infaltable neck collars - yes these do exist :cheesy:) and people who merely beleived themselves to be near-death - but were not. Happy reading O0
Yes - I have been reading all this! Very fascinating. But not about - was that "inflatable" neck collars?



That the mind is, what the brain does. Mind and "consiousness" is the same thing?




A flat EEG does not indicate brain death at all. You just need to look at some instances of coma and syncope to see that. Medics are still undecided on the definition of death - but I would not want to be on the operating table with Fenwick and Parnia in the room or you may find yourself being the worlds most premature organ donor ;D;D:-\


Dont get me wrong, a flat EEG is not good - but it is far from near or complete brain death. Any way of testing complete brain death?

M
:smoke: I've lost "granny" again - so this will have to do....

[Dr B]

Yes - I have been reading all this! Very fascinating. But not about - was that "inflatable" neck collars?

Mind and "consiousness" is the same thing?




No - you are not conscious of everything the mind is doing.




Any way of testing complete brain death?


Not directly. It's a judgement call (within reason).

[Admin]

The argument goes that the current scientific model views consciousness as a brain-based phenomenon - that is; the mind is what the brain does. However, according to some, this may be incorrect and there may be aspects of consciosuness that cannot be couched in brain-based models.

If we remove the afterlife hypothesis from the equation, is there any other scientific evidence or justifiable reason to postulate that the mind and the brain are two separate things?

To me, arguments for duality seem to serve no purpose other than to support the idea of an afterlife - and such arguments seem to be presented back to front: the afterlife is assumed and its existence is supported by our gaps of knowledge (Argument to Ignorance).

Remove the afterlife hypothesis and I can't see any reason to postulate that the mind is anything other than an emergent property of the brain.

[Dr B]

Quite right.

There is one issue relating to some form of 'difference' - but this does not necessitate the need for dualism.

It is unlikely that cognitive architectures are identical at higher levels to neural architectures with a one-on-one correspondence mapping. In other words some theorists argue that at the highest level, the stucture of the brain might not reveal insights for the stucture and function of the mind. This might well be true - but it is not a dualistic claim - it is one which ackowledges that the relationship between structure and function is highly complex.

Fodor uses this argument against connectionist approaches where he states that computational approaches fall down when trying to model high-level function (but work well for low-level function).

However, none of this has anything to do with dualism O0 (sorry for the ramble)

[Admin]

I've just found this video:

714AS39CQ_I

It's from the Penn & Teller Bullshit series. Not everyone's cup of tea, and it isn't science, but there are a couple of very pertinent points in it. O0

e.g. there are other circumstances in which NDEs can be induced in patients that has nothing to do with them being 'near death'. Pilots training in high-g centrifuges get the same experiences. The common factor being the restricted blood flow to the brain - nothing to do with being close to death.

Notice also that near the end we see people stating their belief in NDEs and that it's 'OK to be a skeptic' until you experience one yourself.

Well, no skeptic would argue that NDEs are not real. It's just the explanation for them that we may disagree on. Some people think they support the afterlife hypothesis, skeptics (mostly at least) would say that they are merely the experience the brain can produce when it's subject to diminished blood supply.

[Allo Allo]

I've just found this video:
Well, no skeptic would argue that NDEs are not real. It's just the explanation for them that we may disagree on. Some people think they support the afterlife hypothesis, skeptics (mostly at least) would say that they are merely the experience the brain can produce when it's subject to diminished blood supply.

Thanks John, I enjoyed this - and the same question comes back into my mind...I "wonder" why, when we know evolution just "is", and in many ways is inefficient and brutal, it just happens to be that when the brain loses blood, it produces a life ENRICHING experience. This makes me sceptical. Why is it always ENRICHING? Where are the people who have had ghastly hallucinations? Does anyone go to "hell" (so to speak). In the randomness of evolution it's "odd" to me that the thing we fear most, might prove to be a pleasant experience.....for everyone! Is evolution ever that "generous"?

M

[Jocky]

I "wonder" why, when we know evolution just "is", and in many ways is inefficient and brutal, it just happens to be that when the brain loses blood, it produces a life ENRICHING experience. This makes me sceptical. Why is it always ENRICHING? Where are the people who have had ghastly hallucinations? Does anyone go to "hell" (so to speak). In the randomness of evolution it's "odd" to me that the thing we fear most, might prove to be a pleasant experience.....for everyone! Is evolution ever that "generous"?

I have seen the whole of this episode of Bullshit (thanks to the good offices of Mongrel, who owns the whole thing on region 1 DVD O0 ) I seem to recall that it mentioned some reported NDEs (a minority, but some) which were hellish. I have also heard anecdotally of such things from other sources as well - but admittedly those sources were mainly Christians, who wanted to advance them as proof of the existence of Hell :scared:

[Admin]

I "wonder" why, when we know evolution just "is", and in many ways is inefficient and brutal, it just happens to be that when the brain loses blood, it produces a life ENRICHING experience.

I've thought about that too. It makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view as what we experience as we die has no effect on survival etc.

It may just be one of those things that happens for no particular reason but just happens to be a pleasant experience.

Of course if you assign a purpose to the experience being a pleasant one then you can start invoking arguments like it's a way of easing us from this world to the next; but such arguments are purely conjectural at this point.

If anything can be taken from it though, it's that the experience of dying (if experienced) is not an unpleasant one.

[Araneus]

If anything can be taken from it though, it's that the experience of dying (if experienced) is not an unpleasant one.

Dying itself is not the unpleasant part though -- it's all the stuff leading up to the dying that is the problem.

[Dr B]

It's from the Penn & Teller Bullshit series. Not everyone's cup of tea, and it isn't science, but there are a couple of very pertinent points in it. O0

e.g. there are other circumstances in which NDEs can be induced in patients that has nothing to do with them being 'near death'. Pilots training in high-g centrifuges get the same experiences. The common factor being the restricted blood flow to the brain - nothing to do with being close to death.

Notice also that near the end we see people stating their belief in NDEs and that it's 'OK to be a skeptic' until you experience one yourself.

Well, no skeptic would argue that NDEs are not real. It's just the explanation for them that we may disagree on. Some people think they support the afterlife hypothesis, skeptics (mostly at least) would say that they are merely the experience the brain can produce when it's subject to diminished blood supply.


Nice one O0 - i did mention the g-loc stuff (and other stuff) earlier O0 - which is an interesting form of evidence.

Yes - people do report negative NDEs - they are fewer in number but enough to warrant study. On the whole they get ignored - but they have been studies. Read Blackmores book "dying to live" for a dated, but excellent overview of NDE research.

[Allo Allo]

Dying itself is not the unpleasant part though -- it's all the stuff leading up to the dying that is the problem.

EXACTLY!

M

[Allo Allo]

I've thought about that too. It makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view as what we experience as we die has no effect on survival etc.

It may just be one of those things that happens for no particular reason but just happens to be a pleasant experience.

Of course if you assign a purpose to the experience being a pleasant one then you can start invoking arguments like it's a way of easing us from this world to the next; but such arguments are purely conjectural at this point.

If anything can be taken from it though, it's that the experience of dying (if experienced) is not an unpleasant one.

In evolution, "pleasant" drives (don't know if this is the right word) a species to "do" things - like procreate, eat, etc. The "oddness" of death being a pleasant experience intrigues me. If it is just an accident - then we are lucky!

Linked to this "oddness" is the capacity we have for "transcendent" experiences....:-\.....another accident? ??? Are our brains wired to have them - they do drive humans to explore - what? Are we evolving into "mind"?
I dunno, really, it's a puzzlement!

M

[Araneus]

The "oddness" of death being a pleasant experience intrigues me. If it is just an accident - then we are lucky!

Well, the concept of death is not all that unlike the concept of falling asleep -- just a little more permanent. With this in mind, it doesn't surprise me that the experiences could be similarly relaxing or pleasant.

[Cuddles]

Why is it always ENRICHING?

Who says it is? Define "enriching".

Just because NDEs as reported in wooish media are always life-changing spiritual experiences does not mean that is actually how they always are. Think of ghosts. Pretty much everyone has seen something that could be mistaken for a ghost, especially when half asleep. Most people just don't bother saying anything about it because it's really not all that interesting, while a small minority make a big noise about how ghosts must exist. As far as I know, NDEs are pretty much the same. Lot's of people experience them in lots of different situations, but the only ones that make a big fuss about it are the ones with wooish tendencies. This means that most people get a false impression of what they actually are because they only read about them in places that see them in one particular light.

[Allo Allo]

Who says it is? Define "enriching".

“Enrich” – augment, supplement,improve, develop, enhance, deepen


Just because NDEs as reported in wooish media are always life-changing spiritual experiences does not mean that is actually how they always are.

No - you are wrong - very serious un-wooish people report their own experiences - and often, it appears they ARE life-changing.Here is a link to one person’s “enriching” experience….Susan Blackmore (http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00075&ss=1)

This doesn't mean they are "woo-ish" - but they are "enriched". I would wonder how many people have NDE's that leave them emotionally traumatised and not enriched - but it seams that MOSTLY they are unforgettable and pleasant.

Here is a quote from Blackmore's book "... It is my contention that this "real thing" -- NDEs, mystical experiences and indeed everything encountered on the spiritual path -- are products of a brain and the universe of which it is a part. For there is nothing else."
Don't you think at the moment this is the best explanation we've got? It pleases me....I am only wondering if our capacity for such experiences influences our evolution in some way.


As far as I know, NDEs are pretty much the same.

I agree many people have these experiences – that is why they are so interesting but I think now, that NDE is an all encompassing term for other experiences like OBE's and drug induced NDE's and transcendent/god experiences - all kinds of mental states of various varieties. I am interested in those too - but questioned why in nearly all accounts of classic NDE’s they seem to enrich rather than devastate us.

M

[Araneus]

No - you are wrong - very serious un-wooish people report their own experiences - and often, it appears they ARE life-changing.Here is a link to one person’s “enriching” experience….Susan Blackmore (http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00075&ss=1)
Susan Blackmore hardly counts as "very serious un-wooish" -- she even admits in one of her books (a textbook on consciousness, I can't remember the name) that she used to be a believer in psychic powers until she witnessed the poor controls employed in a certain set of experiments.


I am interested in those too - but questioned why in nearly all accounts of classic NDE’s they seem to enrich rather than devastate us.That's exactly what Cuddles tried to address -- unless you can control for selection bias (i.e. how many of the people who have negative NDEs actually report them, compared to the number of positive reports), it is not possible to assess what proportion of actual NDEs are "enriching".

[Melanie]

Re NDEs as nasty experiences - I once filed a report with ASSAP about a young woman (referred to me by a medium, go figure) who had an NDE during an operation when she apparently came close to medical death.

Her experience featured a rainbow coloured tunnel, which was fine in itself, but which led to an enormous amphitheatre type of room, full of desperately sad and unhappy people, lots of wailing, darkness, and a feeling of abject terror. No way out could be seen.

On returning to consciousness this young woman was horrified by what she had experienced - mostly because she had been brought up since early childhood in the Spiritualist faith, and believed that death would lead to the archtypal sunlit green place full of loved ones.

She was left wondering what on earth she had done in her life to justify this near-death glimpse of the Hell she was clearly destined to go to after death.

If NDEs are experiences led by expectation, why did she not experience what she expected?

So, I do not believe that all NDEs are lovely enriching experiences at all - just that the nasty ones are seldom reported.

[Allo Allo]

Susan Blackmore hardly counts as "very serious un-wooish" --
True….she does say that she was once a believer - so I’ll cross her off my list then - are you saying she is “tainted” and we shouldn’t take her research seriously? Does this apply to Chillzero too? Or any other once believer? Or are you saying Blackmore described her experience when she WAS a believer??? So it's not valid anymore.

That's exactly what Cuddles tried to address -- unless you can control for selection bias (i.e. how many of the people who have negative NDEs actually report them, compared to the number of positive reports), it is not possible to assess what proportion of actual NDEs are "enriching".
Oh! OK

M

[Araneus]

True….she does say that she was once a believer - so I’ll cross her off my list then - are you saying she is “tainted” and we shouldn’t take her research seriously? Does this apply to Chillzero too? Or any other once believer? Or are you saying Blackmore described her experience when she WAS a believer??? So it's not valid anymore.

Who said anything about her research? Describing a single first-hand experience is not research, it is just describing an experience. Your "serious un-wooish" comment carried the implication that Blackmore was some kind of "skeptical authority" which should lend additional weight to her interpretation of the NDE; it is this last part which I question, not her credentials as a scientist.

[Allo Allo]

it is this last part which I question, not her credentials as a scientist.
Oh good! I would hate to cross her off my list! She's so colourful!!! ::)

[Cuddles]

That's exactly what Cuddles tried to address -- unless you can control for selection bias (i.e. how many of the people who have negative NDEs actually report them, compared to the number of positive reports), it is not possible to assess what proportion of actual NDEs are "enriching".

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant.


“Enrich” – augment, supplement,improve, develop, enhance, deepen

But what do you actually mean by this? How do you define whether your life is "enriched" by an experience? According to some philosophy every experience is enriching because it adds something you didn't have before, whether the experience is good or bad. That would make your statement completely meaningless.

Assuming you don't mean that, all you have done is provide synonyms, not actually defined anything. What exactly does it mean to "deepen" your life? In what way does almost dying "improve" your life? "Enrich" just doesn't mean anything unless you define what you actually mean. I assume you are using it in some vague spiritual sense, in which case you are self-evidently wrong. Many people do not believe in anything spiritual, if I experienced an NDE I would not feel "enriched" spiritually because I do not have a spirit. If you just mean NDEs are enjoyable experiences, so what? So is eating chocolate, but most people wouldn't describe that as "enriching".

[Allo Allo]

But what do you actually mean by this? How do you define whether your life is "enriched" by an experience? According to some philosophy every experience is enriching because it adds something you didn't have before, whether the experience is good or bad. That would make your statement completely meaningless.

Assuming you don't mean that, all you have done is provide synonyms, not actually defined anything. What exactly does it mean to "deepen" your life? In what way does almost dying "improve" your life? "Enrich" just doesn't mean anything unless you define what you actually mean. I assume you are using it in some vague spiritual sense, in which case you are self-evidently wrong. Many people do not believe in anything spiritual, if I experienced an NDE I would not feel "enriched" spiritually because I do not have a spirit. If you just mean NDEs are enjoyable experiences, so what? So is eating chocolate, but most people wouldn't describe that as "enriching".

I have not had an NDE so I cannot speak authoritavely. The reports I have read all say most people are deeply altered by an NDE. Their lives are changed for the better – “enriched” blah blah.

I had a terrible stroke when I was 36 that has left me semi-paralysed down my left side. I don’t believe the experience was in ANY WAY enriching! Not to me – or my family. It was shocking, cruel and horrible. So I do not agree with whatever philosophy you are talking about. However, being so close to death taught me one thing – Love your Life NOW. And that has been most enriching because I practise it every day.

I would define “enriched” as experiencing something which would feel “good” to me and make my life more enjoyable. Something, maybe, that titillates my curiosity, or gives me a feeling of “discovery” or a feeling of achievement.

I am not using it in ANY spiritual sense – just plain ordinary sense – and it doesn’t seem difficult enough to challenge me about.

Here’s my list of enriching things in my life – you will have your own…
(Not in any specific order)
Laughing
My dog
My husband (most of the time!)
My children (some of the time)
My friends (nearly all of the time)
Watching TV in slippers and dressing gown with nothing else to do
Finding the tomatoes have not pathetically dropped off the plants for no observable reason – this year at least.
Watching the birds feeding in my garden.
Finding hedgehog droppings in my garden.
Stroking a horse.
Sneezing, eating, farting, sleeping, smoking etc
Reading posts on UK Skeptics and other forums.
Getting het up about politics, the media, the Government, or the posts on the UK Skeptics Forum!!
My list is ENDLESS….

I think if you had an NDE it might affect you. You don’t have to think in any spiritual way about it. Even if you came out of it with the experience of how astonishing your mind is, or a new zest for living, or greater gentleness towards other people – or any kind of other psychological permutation that might add something to your life, it might be an “enriching” experience.

On the other hand – if you had a bad NDE, you might be changed for the worse!

I dunno – that’s all I can come up with at the moment.

M
Ps - I should have added eating chocolate to my list – DEFINITELY enriching!

[Corpse Cruncher]

Science needs to evolve and re-evaluates itself on a days to day basis. Where once things have been proven, now it may mean that is is dis-proven.

Science needs to own up for its mistakes and that is the crux of it all. This in-fighting in science needs addressing too.

[dalriada]

If there is a "new science" of consciousness, then there will need to be new academic journals of consciousness. The new consciousness scientists can then submit their research papers to these journals, have them reviewed by their peers in new consciousness science and get published relatively untroubled by the fear of critical review from the wider scientific community.

Genius.

If they get their skates on they could have this up and running by the time the next research assessment exercise rolls round.

::)

[Dr B]

The worrying thing is some of these woowoo's are publishing in medical (note - not scientific) journals.

van Lommel et al (2001) for example was published in The Lancet.

However, the mainstream remains unconvinced. 8)

[dalriada]

The worrying thing is some of these woowoo's are publishing in medical (note - not scientific) journals.

van Lommel et al (2001) for example was published in The Lancet.

However, the mainstream remains unconvinced. 8)

I hadn't seen that article. HowinthehelldidthatgetintotheLANCET???

This is my favourite bit:

"All patients had been clinically dead, which we established mainly by electrocardiogram records. All patients gave written informed consent. We obtained ethics committee approval. "

Still, as you point out, medical journal and the odd medic is occasionally prone to odd notions. The BMJ has been prone to printing pieces of very vague qualitative research in recent years but I think that's a combination of policy imperatives to "Hear patient voices", a wish to be seen as "progressive" with regard to research methodology and a general lack of training/ knowledge/experience about what makes good qualitative research.

It's not nearly as easy as I used to think it was.

Interesting the way, that the qualitatitive research approach has been recently seized upon by the Parapsychs...

I'm sure they have their reasons ;)

[Allo Allo]

Experiments (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9682520)

Experiments (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12531-outofbody-experiences-are-all-in-the-mind.html)

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQAc_Z2OfQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewscientist%2Ecom%2Fartic le%2Fdn12531%2Doutofbody%2Dexperiences%2Dare%2Dall %2Din%2Dthe%2Dmind%2Ehtml)

:smiley: O0 Interesting stuff! (I think)