How do I get an NDE thread on the main page?
With NDE Sam26 gone (maybe they're an ex-copper in the US) there's no longer a NDE pusher present.
So I was thinking I could start an NDE thread, but I don't want it to be cast out to the nether regions of the lounge...
How do I get a NDE thread onto the main page? I'm not sure if it's considered a philosophical area.
So I was thinking I could start an NDE thread, but I don't want it to be cast out to the nether regions of the lounge...
How do I get a NDE thread onto the main page? I'm not sure if it's considered a philosophical area.
Comments (62)
By writing a good opening post. The topic can be approached philosophically, but even purely psychological, neurological, or anthropological approaches are fine too. I'd be less sympathetic to a discussion in which people actually took these studies to be evidence of an afterlife.
Would you be averse to people taking these studies to not be evidence of an afterlife?
Does it necessarily have to be about souls?
Why?
Let's say there is a continent called SomewhereLand which many have traveled to, but none have returned from, equaling a state of pure ignorance for those who have not yet made that trip. Upon what basis should we exclude any speculation about SomewhereLand? How does one evaluate such speculation based on exactly no information?
All speculation on any topic with no information could be excluded, that would be intellectually consistent. But then we have to say goodbye to all God and anti-God threads too, and probably a long list of other topics as well. As example, science could continue for many thousands of more years at an ever accelerating pace. If true, that means we currently know close to nothing in comparison to what can be known. So stop talking?
A related issue to NDE is the drug DMT, which reportedly takes some users through a death like experience. Not saying this proves anything, but I don't see the case for dismissing it out of hand. If we were to dismiss all drug driven experiences then we'd be required to include caffeine too, and there goes the entire forum down the drain.
Then how do we know many have travelled to it?
Quoting Hippyhead
That we have absolutely no information on which to base speculation - "I think it's made entirely of pink blancmange", "Really? I think it's the intestines of giant space alien" ... What a fascinating conversation.
Good point, we know only they have left the realm we know. And we don't even really know that.
Quoting Isaac
Imho, it can easily be a fascinating conversation, just never a conclusive one. As example, many DMT users report what they feel to be death like experiences, which they are then able to return from and report on. Conclusive? Surely not. Interesting? Sure, why not?
I would agree that anyone on any side who adamantly claims to have certain knowledge can quickly become tiresome.
Really and truly no kidding not trying to start a war with management, but how about this?
Instead of the mods standing back and passing judgement on everyone else's posts, instead of saying this is no good and that is no good....
How about a mods only section where the mods model the kind of writing and behavior which represent their goals for the forum?
Yes, this would put pressure on the mods to deliver above average content. But that is what is required if the mods are to have credibility when they pass judgement on the content of others.
Should I use yours above as my example template? Brief, dismissive, dodgy, devoid of actual content or reasoning?
Please take another look at my posts in the thread above, and yours too. While my points are obviously entirely debatable, the effort invested far exceeds that which you have shared with us.
Physician, heal thyself.
I'm definitely not mad at anyone, just weary of being lectured by those who can't keep up, or won't bother to keep up, and then proclaim themselves leaders. Sorry, el-bunko.
I think that a near death experiences
is a very good idea because it is clear topic for debate, central to the whole mind and body problem, but it needs to be written as a clear philosophical question, specifying the core issues and scope of the topic. I would even like to have a go at posing it in such a way but at the moment the question seems to be more about whether it would go on the front page because someone wrote one in the past.
I don't want to chip in at this point but would like to see you spell out a question more clearly. I would love to do it but firstly, I feel you might feel I am stealing your topic but I do have a strong and genuine interest in this area of philosophy.
Maybe this is stretching the topic too far, but there are all kinds of related experiences which can be examined. Just being a senior citizen is kind of a "near death experience" in that it becomes increasingly difficult to remain in the safe little bubble of delusional denial. I know we have some members who are over 80, so perhaps they could speak to this.
As another example, me butting heads with mods could also perhaps be described as a near death experience. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happens in a real NDE experience. There's the tunnel, and the light, and when you get to end of the tunnel, WHAMMO!, Saint Peter bans your ass!!! Or, if you've not really been all that bad, you are confined to Lounge purgatory until you see the error of your ways. Oh dear, this is the kind of post that can happen if you were raised Catholic...
The greatest strategy never invented. I bequeath to you, my dear lord :brow:
I really was hoping that you were going to write a serious discussion on the philosophy near death experiences, so I might be tempted to do so because I do think it has a lot of scope.
I saw Hippyhead' s point and I think he has worthy points but am inclined to think they are more metaphorical than a serious consideration of the distinct altered states of consciousness associated with clinical death.
So, at the moment I am rather disappointed that the main page discussion of near death experiences is failing to offer what its title promised.
Not making any demands here, but it might be interesting if in some limited number of cases the original poster had mod control over the thread they started, making one person responsible for whatever happens.
To some extent I see what you are saying. That is why I am waiting to see what happens. The only problem is that the originator of the thread, as far as I see never actually put forward any philosophy propositions and the last couple of comments he made were like mere text banter and nothing more.
I would put forward ideas about the philosophers of near death experiences but think any serious discussion would be lost amidst pointless banter.
I believe that rather than be given an overriding power to moderate the originator of the thread should be given respect. That is why I will not write my own thread at this stage because I wish to wait and allow him to respond and write an actual philosophical argument, because at the moment no actual philosophcal propositions or arguments as such has been put forward so far.
If I do begin my own thread I will try and frame it slightly differently but as a philosophy question and I realise that others may wish mine to be demoted to purgatory and his to reign supreme on the front page.
1. Epistemological questions: Do those who accept NDEs as evidence of life after death have a valid epistemological basis? That is, have I used the same criteria to conclude the existence of life after death as I do the existence of other events in the world? If I haven't, then is that good enough reason to reject that NDEs prove the existence of life after death?
2. Metaphysical questions: Are NDEs scientifically explainable phenomenon? If they are, then why are we discussing an interesting, yet philosophically irrelevant, medical phenomenon in a philosophy forum? If NDEs are not a scientifically explainable phenomenon,, then what is their import? Does the existence of NDEs implicate there being disembodied souls that exist post-death and therefore possibly provide empirical evidence for Cartesian minds or general support for substance dualism?
It just seems like somehow you've got to tie this interesting phenomenon back into a philosophical question, and unless you can do that, you might as well be asking questions about any unusual medical condition.
As to the epistemological question, the below is a professional philosopher's take, not as it relates specifically to NDEs, but as to reincarnation. The question is the same though, and that is whether the physical evidence we've gathered offers sufficient basis for the conclusion of life after death. This professor thinks so. I don't find him overly convincing, but he at least sets up a philosophical question.
I hear ya brother. One solution is a blog, a site where you control the conversation. But then you'd have to build your own audience from scratch, kind of a lot of work. In that case you'd probably wind up spending hours crafting an intelligent post, which would be consumed by maybe 3 readers.
In anthropology, there are questions like: are NDEs universal across cultures? What role have NDEs played in the formation of supernatural beliefs and in the historical formation or maintenance of religious belief systems? What can the psychology of NDEs tell us about the relationship between culture and ways of describing and conceiving of consciousness?
Anyway, probably my main point is that there's been a lot of work on NDEs by various kinds of academics, and a discussion would be better off engaging with it to fend off unmoored speculation.
Aren't all opinions about death, mine included, unmoored speculation?
I don't think that scientifically explainable phenomena are philosophically irrelevant. There's a reason we have a category for "Interesting Stuff" that includes social sciences. It's partly because issues in these areas can be discussed philosophically.
It appears you would want a NDE thread to represent your own views, and you are the forum owner, and so have the final word. I'm cool with that, no problem.
But intellectually, why does one view of such an unknown realm automatically have more value than another? If that is what you're saying.
Best I can tell (not used DMT myself) the experiences revolve around ego death more than physical death, but then ego death is why we're worried about physical death.
PS: If all drug inspired experiences are to be discredited, then posted submitted while high on caffeine should be included.
Right, that's where I got the impression I did.
Quoting jamalrob
Well, ok, but isn't that your bias? Research=good, experience=meritless?
If that is your bias, I'm not arguing against it so much as wondering why it couldn't be part of such a conversation, instead of the boundaries of such a conversation.
I am not saying that what I write will be wonderful but I will have a go and I don't think it would need a whole blog or a whole life time's worth, although it might be a worthwhile life spent. But I will wait and try and reframe the question differently because I don't want to block the creative pathway of the original inventor of the post. In the meantime others, including yourself, can dive in and may come up with some brilliant insights and analysis.
This current post may have all sorts of exciting twists and turns. And in wishing to make a contribution rather than a mere criticism of its early beginnings I would mainly just ask whether the near death journeys should be taken at face value for what they appear to represent or as something else?
I'm not worried about that. If it's bias, I think it's one that's shared by philosophers and intellectuals in general. Of course, this can be questioned; or as you put it, can "be part of such a conversation, instead of the boundaries of such a conversation." But that's a conversation about the relative roles of personal experience versus familiarity with the literature, rather than about NDEs as such. Of course, nothing is stopping you from stunning people into awed silence with your insights in any thread you want. :cool:
We can believe the testimony, but suspend judgement on the interpretation, I would think.
Yes, those who have, generally speaking, no experience with the phenomena in question. Which is not to say they are therefore wrong in their views. I'd like to hear from them. Just not only them.
Quoting jamalrob
It's relevant in this thread, which is not really about NDEs, but forum policy. Again, I'm not all wound up about this, just desperately making a pathetic attempt to stun someone, anyone, in to silence. Like that could ever happen. :-)
I'm questioning the degree to which judgment has been suspended.
Are you stunned yet? :-)
Apart from chemical imbalances I think that the layers of consciousness may also be involved. I am interested in the mythic depths of consciousness including the writings of Stranislav Grof about life in the womb, and more importantly, the ideas on dream imagery and archetypes arising from Carl Jung's ideas.
Of course the near encounter with death is a truly archetypal event.
Here we get in to definitions and word games, but my understanding is that these experiences are classified as death by the medical community. Emergency room doctors are highly educated specialists and deal with life and death on a regular basis. So while I wouldn't claim they should automatically have the final word on how to define NDE, if we are to concern ourselves with experts, that's who they are.
I think these folks are the site owners:
By John Martin Fischer - a professor of philosophy.
Your references are useful and I may try to read them if I can at some point.
I think the subject has probably a very extensive body of literature from many perspectives and certainly while I am writing on my phone I feel very limited but I certainly see my own remarks as mere reflections based on previous reading.
One remarkable by John R Searle in his book The Mystery of Consciousness is that 'the simulation of mental states is no more a mental state than the simulation of an explosion is an explosion is in itself an explosion.' I think that this point is pertinent because there is a danger of the near death experiences being viewed in a literal way. Of course I am not wishing to undermine the value of the experiences for individuals. They often have seem of profound and transformative value for the individuals but based on my reading of Jung I would see them as symbolic primarily.
Edward F Bruner in his discussion of the creative persona has pointed to the creation of experience of light in connection with interaction between the left and brain hemispheres. I think the reason why this is importance of possible neurology involved in possible brain processes.
While having a limited knowledge of neuroscience the reason for pointing to this is that it does seem central to the experience of near death survivors is light, although some accounts include dead relatives which suggests that the experiences is more than a creation of light imagery.
This leads back to the possibility of placing the experiences in the level of deep dream states at least. Of course, as mediators are aware breath has a profound impact upon higher states of consciousness. Perhaps this involves the trigger of alpha and theta states of consciousness.
One thing I will also say, before closing for now, is that it is interesting that the tunnel of light features in those who return from death, suggesting possible heavenly journeys but not of any descending to hellish regions. But of course, the history of visionaries, including William Blake, and many others, especially those diagnosed as schizophrenic, have known infernal as well as heavenly regions, which could lead to the need to frame the near death experiences within the context of the larger picture of visionary and other altered states of consciousness.
Yes, technically, playing Russian roulette is an NDE, or holding your breath for a couple of minutes.
I am a bit disappointed that you have not engaged in any discussion about the philosophy of near death experiences when it appeared that you wished to do so.
All you appeared to say was that you miss someone called Sam who was special and wrote on the topic. Unfortunately, I was not on the forum when he was writing and it is likely that other new forum members have not come into contact with his ideas.
I do believe that there are probably many new members who could give worthwhile ideas but you have not even given a starting point. I offered a bare sketch of some basic ideas before just before the exchange between Hippyhead and Tim Wood. I am sorry if this does not in anyway live up to the standard you would expect but I do think you need to be a bit more forthcoming.
I want to help your thread stay top of the charts, even though I think its title may not even tempt some to open it at all. I just would like to know a bit more about your thoughts or even why you think that it is the subject matter of philosophy. I think that it is but I am not sure that everyone does, from a couple of responses so far.
Surely this is the only mark to which people have any authority on the issue (and I include forum bigwigs such as @jamalrob and @Hanover in this).
At least you are honest about it. I have not died but probably take an interest because I have had out of body experiences and probably my interest began from that really. I will wait and see if people add more to the thread in the next few days and may create one on out of body experiences next week.
So, we may again on another thread, and I do like the picture and your pen name. For the time being I am not taking a pen name, because life is too surreal at the moment anyway, but if I do this at any point I might become Dr Dream.
Do you mean that nobody can have expertise in or knowledge of NDEs unless they have had one? That's a bit severe. Imagine applying that standard to psychology and psychiatry in general. It would mean that only schizophrenics could speak with authority on schizophrenia. But in fact, it's often precisely those who are not relying on their personal experience who contribute to our knowledge.
Perhaps those doctors, who bring them back, like to think highly of themselves.
Indeed.
Quoting jamalrob
Yes, but knowledge only applies to the external/outward world.
I am not sure that knowledge applies to the external world alone because there is so much which can be gained about inner reality within the work of great writers, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.
I think that both people who have subjective experiences and those who stand back objectively have important contributions. In the case of schizophrenia, both the ideas of the psychiatrist and the patients offer valid insights. The dialogue between the two perspectives can be extremely interesting.
In the case of the near death experiences some of those who have them are too immersed to see them at face value. Others can go to the other extreme and dismiss them as psychotic fantasies and the task of the philosopher is to juggle these views and possibly come to a different conclusion altogether.
As you have enough interest to have created the post perhaps all you need to is to think ask is whether you believe that the experiences are real or not?
Agreed. It would seem to be the polar opposite of the severity you seem to be proposing (if I understand it) that we should focus on those examining the phenomena from the outside while largely dismissing those reporting from within the experience.
This may be an overstatement of your perspective, corrections welcomed.
I think that you are going to a ridiculous extreme in suggesting that we should be 'largely dismissing" the accounts of those who have the near death experiences because these stories are the raw material for discussion.
Getting back to the analogy of psychiatry and schizophrenia, you could ask if psychiatrists should stop listening to patients? Should the patients be sedated into silence.?
What you are saying about near death experiences does denote them into the purgatory of being labelled as delusions. Surely this is not a logic of philosophy but more an attitude, not backed up by sound and coherent argument.
You offered some references but did not appear to have engaged with the material in question. You offered a video of a psychiatrist arguing against them but to do so was no more evidence than offering a video of a person claiming to have had a near death experience. There are many psychiatrists with many opinions. Also, I have worked alongside psychiatrists and would not elevate them as having supreme monopoly on truth.
I am not wishing to dismiss your dismissal of near death experiences, but I do think that you need to explore arguments in a deeper way.
I have just seen thalt I made an error. It was two other writers and not you who included videos.
So I apologise for that.
Actually, I do believe that putting videos by others as evidence and this is ultimate evidence and I question why they think that because someone has recorded something on video makes it anymore valid than anything we say...( You never know students might start quoting us as evidence because it is a recognised website, although names like Hippyhead might look odd in a list of essay references.)
But my point that you need to develop a solid argument if you want to dismiss the experience of near death accounts still holds, because so far I am not convinced of the logic of your views.
And in conclusion, I will say that I am not against the 'expert" opinions of psychiatrists but wish to question the experts.