From: kimbawlionATaolDOTcom@127.0.0.1   
      
   On 26 May 2004 10:18:18 GMT, epochii@aol.com (Epoch II) wrote:   
      
   >>This discussion does not address the issue of whether there is life after   
   >>death, but does argue that NDE's are not evidence for life after death.   
   >   
   >Many people who have had near death experiences would disagree. But, that's   
   >beside the point. Since anecdotal information is worthless in a world of drug   
   >induced hallucinations, right?   
      
   This is the logical way to debunk this article--if you can get people who   
   are not predisposed to think logically to read that far. Basically, the   
   original argument was, 'we created something that resembles and NDE, so   
   therefore that must be all there is to an NDE'.   
      
   It is to Jansen's great credit that he realized this soon after writing the   
   first article. The dogma of science can be blinding.   
      
   >The anecdotal evidence would be dismissed because it is not   
   >scientific, and therefore considered invalid.   
      
   I would put the word scientific in quotation marks there, since the   
   scientific method can be applied to anecdotal evidence and it can be useful   
   in research. Usually it's when the anecdotal evidence doesn't support the   
   desired conclusion that it's labeled not "scientific".   
      
   >>Within a scientific paradigm, it is not possible that "the spirit rises out   
   >>of the body leaving the brain behind, but somehow still incorporating   
   >>neuronal functions such as sight, hearing, and proprioception"   
   >   
   >This is silly, it indicates the subject matter is possibly beyond the   
   >comprehension of the author. Neuronal functions would obviously matter very   
   >little if we are dealing with an alternate dimension with which an entirely   
   >different set of physics exist, the likes of which we cannot even begin to   
   >understand.   
      
   I think they would be understandable if we could abandon erroneous ideas   
   like, the brain is the source of the mind, or the eye is the source of   
   sight.   
      
   OK, the eye is an organ designed to receive and focus light from external   
   sources. But the eye has no effect on the external sources. It's silly to   
   suppose that there is no other way for the mind to acquire a visual image   
   of something.   
      
   >>To believe that this is possible, we must leave the realm of science   
   >>and adopt a wholly different paradigm.   
   >   
   >And this is scary, isn't it?   
      
   Yes, it undoubtedly is for some people.   
      
   >>The intravenous administration of 50 - 100 mg of ketamine can reproduce all   
   >>of the features which have commonly been associated with NDE's.   
   >   
   > To a muddled, lesser extent. I'm not going to try and refute the author   
   >because I've not conducted any experiments with administering Ketamine on   
   >patients. But even a fool would notice the dramatic difference in story and   
   >impact between a drug user and a near death experiencer, not to say the events   
   >are not similar. It still does not provide any sort of proof that the   
   spiritual   
   >notion of the NDE is false, because that would mean bypassing the empirical   
   >results obtained from autoscopy and OBE states, as well as the profound impact   
   >of the NDE itself.   
      
   This is probably the most significant point, and the one most likely to be   
   dismissed by those unwilling to change their paradigms, because it is   
   "merely" anecdotal.   
      
   >>The NDE's and ketamine experiences were clearly the same type of altered   
   >>state of consciousness.   
   >   
   >Interesting, what if this 'altered state' can be triggered by the brain?   
      
   I have no doubt that it can. You mentioned similarities to out-of-body   
   experiences. Other aspects, such as meeting the spirit of a loved one you   
   didn't know was dead, are experienced by some and considered "psychic"   
   experiences.   
      
   I have a hypothesis in progress that this "altered state" is actually a   
   more functional state that we have been trained--brainwashed if you   
   will--to avoid. Denial is a powerful thing.   
      
   >I'll once again use the comparison to dreams, they obviously only exist in the   
   >subjective mind no matter how convincing they may seem.   
      
   I have to disagree with you on that one. There are dreams and there are   
   dreams. Obviously some have no meaning, but that can't be said for all of   
   them. Part of the problem with our society is that we are trained to   
   dismiss all of them as "just dreams".   
      
   Just as in the question you were answering:   
   >>If we are to consider that ketamine opens the door to alternative spaces   
   >>which 'really exist', then what arguments shall we use to reassure a   
   >>hallucinating, paranoid schizophrenic ?   
   I can't help but read that as a dismissal of anything that doesn't fit into   
   the author's definition of reality. Talk to people experienced in exorcism   
   and such about "hearing voices".   
      
   >>Much has been made of the apparent mystery surrounding the occasional   
   >>ability of cardiac arrest survivors to describe the resuscitation in detail   
   >>(Sabom, 1982). It is worth noting that ketamine can permit sufficient   
   >>sensory input to allow accounts of procedures during which the patient   
   >>appeared wholly unconscious   
      
   Appearing unconscious is nowhere near the same thing as flatlining. An   
   incredibly bad analogy on the part of the author.   
      
   >>The depersonalisation theory proposes that the NDE is an adaptive mechanism   
   >>of the personality which alerts one   
   >>to the threat of death while potentially   
   >>overwhelming emotion is held at bay, allowing the reality to be integrated   
   >>without panic   
   >   
   >The depersonalization theory, as with all the other theories, neglects to   
   >mention a single validated psychic or extrasensory occurrence, many of which   
   >have been documented. Instead, these theories explore only the selective   
   >elements of the NDE.   
      
   It also ignores the principles on which it's based. To call it an "adaptive   
   mechanism" when there is absolutely no survival advantage to it, is just   
   plain illogical.   
      
   >>3. A state dependent reactivation of birth memories   
   >   
   >>This theory explains the movement through tunnels towards 'the light' as a   
   >>memory of being born.NMDA receptor blockade could certainly be the underlying   
   >>mechanism for the release of extremely primitive memories not normally   
   available to   
   >>consciousness.   
   >   
   > Another sketchy theory, which I find laughable, since the author provides no   
   >sufficient evidence, it's downright silly to believe that the tunnel and light   
   >universally reported is an old memory of coming from the womb and being guided   
   >by a doctors lamp. Why do no near death experiencers report seeing masked men   
   >pulling them out of a wet cave?   
      
   You're right, plus the physical sensations of being born would not be   
   anything like what's reported of "moving towards the light". This was   
   another example of a poorly thought out argument in the service of an   
   invalid dogma.   
      
   >As a conclusion, I'd like to say that there are obvious differences between   
   >chemical induced visions which tend to be chaotic, and the profound,   
   structured   
   >experiences which are so easily produced from being near death, continual   
   study   
   >of the mind and altered states of consciousness from Ketamine will not reduce   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)