scoobysnack Wrote:Quote:Thanks for the welcome by the way! Sure I agree it's good to be skeptical. I tend to research both sides of all arguments, and trust me I know the arguments against NDEs like the dying brain theory etc. I would also say that although we are an advanced species, we know a lot more now than we did 500 years ago, and will form different conclusions in science and physics 500 years from now.
The thing with NDEs is if you study them in mass, you would form a different conclusion than reading a few, at least from the perspective of the NDE. A common theme and message that comes back is the experience will be different for everyone, just as the experience here is different for everyone, and the beings that people meet give answers to the questions. One answer is that they provide you with the experience that you need, whether you need to meet your deceased relitives for comfort, or need time alone in the void for contemplation before moving on. That's one reason for the tunnel for example. Those in the tunnel are rushing towards the light, others go immediately into the earthbound realm and find themselves outside of their body wondering what's going on, and eventually moving into the void. I'll explain it further as we move on.
You're welcome for the welcome. Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.
The null hypothesis for NDEs is that they are brain events. Differences in people's experiences aren't the way to defeat the null hypothesis. Commonalities where they shouldn't exist would be the line to follow. Or success with the various methods used to test if NDE reports of being outside the body are supported. For example, whether the NDE 'experiencer' can identify something that can be seen only from above the patient looking down, as commonly reported. No joy on that one yet.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.