Experimental evidence that NDEs are lucid dreams

SeraphimR

Posts: 6,649

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:36AM, mountain_man wrote:

Mar 18, 2012 -- 11:32PM, SeraphimR wrote:
...Non-REM dreams,....

You just proved your claim wrong.

If NDE's are lucid dreams, then they REM dreams, hence REM should be observed during NDE's

What is so hard to understand about that?

It seems a lot easier then setting up a brain scan.

The whole "experiment" is ludicrous. Lucid dreamers can dream anything they want.

But if it makes you feel better to believe that NDE's are non-REM lucid dreams, go for it.

Better to explain away a phenomenon with a claim that falls flat on its face on the slightest examination than to understand it, I suppose.

Sex is the mysticism of materialism and the only possible religion in a materialistic society.

Blü

Posts: 21,176

Seraphim

I too have some uncertainty as to the probative value of trained dreamers. Still, it appears they dream appropriate dreams and when they do, the parts of the brain that light up can be identified and are seen to be informative. So it's not self-evidently nonsense, but I think it's fair to call for further corroboration.

However, if the argument is whether NDEs are evidence of an actual afterlife, then that question already has an answer - we have not the slightest reason to think so.

mountain_man

Posts: 34,187

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:53AM, SeraphimR wrote:
If NDE's are lucid dreams, then they REM dreams, hence REM should be observed during NDE's

That was not included in your original claim.

What is so hard to understand about that?

That's why I'm asking you to explain. I saw nowhere that said an NDE, or lucid dream, had to occur during REM sleep.

It seems a lot easier then setting up a brain scan.

The whole "experiment" is ludicrous. Lucid dreamers can dream anything they want.

Duh. That was the point.

But if it makes you feel better to believe that NDE's are non-REM lucid dreams, go for it.

It seems to bother you far more than it does me. Why?

Better to explain away a phenomenon with a claim that falls flat on its face on the slightest examination than to understand it, I suppose.

Explaining how it could happen is a way to understand. Tossing out any explanation they don't want to hear as a way to protect a cherished, emotionally held, belief is the worst way to understand anything. One thing we know about NDEs and OBEs is that they are nothing more than something going on in the brain/mind. They are not some "soul" or whatever leaving the body and flying around.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.

SeraphimR

Posts: 6,649

Mar 19, 2012 -- 7:37AM, Blü wrote:

Seraphim

I too have some uncertainty as to the probative value of trained dreamers. Still, it appears they dream appropriate dreams and when they do, the parts of the brain that light up can be identified and are seen to be informative. So it's not self-evidently nonsense, but I think it's fair to call for further corroboration.

However, if the argument is whether NDEs are evidence of an actual afterlife, then that question already has an answer - we have not the slightest reason to think so.

And I am suggesting that merely detecting REM during NDE's is both cheaper and more practical than setting up brain scans on a patient who is in danger of dying. I have also heard that during at least some NDEs there is no measurable brain function.

I searched NDE REM but found no mention that REM occurs duing NDE. I did find that one scientific term for "lucid dream" is "REM intrustion", btw. It seems an obvious question to ask.

I would like to think that at least some atheists are not so easily fobbed off with such a superficial explanation of NDEs, or anything else for that matter.

Sex is the mysticism of materialism and the only possible religion in a materialistic society.

JCarlin

Posts: 4,798

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:46PM, SeraphimR wrote:
I would like to think that at least some atheists are not so easily fobbed off with such a superficial explanation of NDEs, or anything else for that matter.

You should realize that most atheists have organized their lives around the apparant fact that there is no God to mediate an afterlife, and no other credible evidence for an afterlife, so it makes no sense and is a waste of valuable time to consider tenuous evidence that is better explained by the normal reaction of the brain to extreme stress.

It would seem that believers would be better off simply having faith and letting non-believers alone, than trying to whistle past the graveyard, grasping at straws for proof.

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.

mountain_man

Posts: 34,187

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:46PM, SeraphimR wrote:
...I would like to think that at least some atheists are not so easily fobbed off with such a superficial explanation of NDEs, or anything else for that matter.

No one has "fobbed off" anything. What is not being accepted are the claims made that NDEs or OBEs are anything special or "supernatural." They're just dreams.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.

Ken

Posts: 33,861

Researchers aren't even considering experiences of the afterlife as possible explanations for NDEs. They're not considering diabolical possession as a possible explanation for epilepsy either. They can't afford to waste their time with dead hypotheses.

Blü

Posts: 21,176

Aka_me

at what point is a person dead?

When all body systems have irreversibly ceased, you're dead. Whether you're dead earlier than that is arguable, but when you satisfy that test, you're dead indeed.

But unless you're talking about death by bomb or the like, we have no way of identifying with entire confidence a precise point in time of death. (Cessation of breathing is a standby often met.)

And we still make mistakes about irreversible, too.

Marcion

Posts: 2,883

Mar 16, 2012 -- 3:48PM, Eudaimonist wrote:

news.yahoo.com/near-death-experiences-lu...

eudaimonia,

Mark

You call that experimental evidence?

Marcion

Posts: 2,883

Mar 23, 2012 -- 2:21AM, Blü wrote:

Aka_me

at what point is a person dead?

When all body systems have irreversibly ceased, you're dead. Whether you're dead earlier than that is arguable, but when you satisfy that test, you're dead indeed.

But unless you're talking about death by bomb or the like, we have no way of identifying with entire confidence a precise point in time of death. (Cessation of breathing is a standby often met.)

And we still make mistakes about irreversible, too.

A man in England revived after 13 days of being pronounced dead. I believe this is the longest period on record.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot