Talk:Near-death experience/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Near-death experience. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Computers

"Purely mathematical research involving artificial neural nets has demonstrated that the volume secretion of neurotransmitters such as adrenaline during near-death trauma induces hallucination [7]. Then, as simulated cell apoptosis progresses, neural nets perform pattern completion upon their own internal damage, at first generating the equivalent of life review, and thereafter producing ever more creative, fantasy-like experience before fading to black.[8] Due to the accelerated progression of both true and false memories with cascading neural damage, we may expect dying neurobiology to experience time-dilation and a subjective feel of forever".

Utter nonsense added to the lead by Perky28. His source is this weird paper [1], Virtual input” phenomena within the death of a simple pattern associator by S. L. Thaler. This paper does not mention NDE's. It is off-topic to being adding it to an article on near-death experiences. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thaler's 2016 paper that Perky28 added to the lead does not mention NDE's either [2]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

These mathematical studies couldn't be more relevant to this article, and yes, they have been published in the Journal of Near-Death Experience, as well as being discussed in the press (e.g., Scientific American). The PubMed article does discuss the hallucination accompanying a traumatized brain and is therefore extremely relevant. ...There, without any profanity, unlike the style of the Skeptic Brit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perky28 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I also found the addition of this material to be UNDUE; several of the refs were also primary sources, and the content described what was in the primary source. This is not how we build articles in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What in your opinion is UNDUE? I guess anything outside your ideology conveniently fits that definition. Besides, several secondary references have been included (e.g., Yam, Ricciardiello, Young-Mason). So, throw the baby out with the bathwater, book burning at midnight, and don't forget your torch! COI, I don't see any COI? This is wanton vandalism!!!Perky28 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do reply on your talk page, which is here: User talk:Perky28. I'll be happy to further discuss content once the discussion there is resolved. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, it seems that your editing privilege has been revoked on several occasions. Could it be that you are vandalizing articles based upon your own particular world view? Wikipedia should not be based upon bullying.Perky28 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, Wikipedia frowns upon Railroading (POV Railroading).Perky28 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I do look forward to your reply at your talk page. If you don't intend to reply there, please let me know, as there are other ways to resolve this, that we can use. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

about this... this is content added only to the lead, and per WP:LEAD, the lead just summarizes the body. The refs here are also poor. We use medical hypotheses for just about nothing, and the Sci Am thing is not the kind of ref we look for. It remains unclear if content about this should be in the article at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog - I see four references in the very first paragraph of the lead WP:LEAD, so what's the beef? Regarding the references, SciAm is mentioned in another place in this article and I would totally trust peer-reviewed papers published by Elsevier. Nothing personal, but you seem to have a prejudice against some respected publications, yet Wikipedia doesn't maintain a list of "taboo" journals.Perky28 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally the way we determine if something is DUE or UNDUE, is looking to see how much they are discussed in high quality reliable sources about the topic. I am unaware of many high quality sources about NDE generally that discuss this in the context of whether computers/AI can experience it or are useful to model it -- most of them don't. This is why I am unsure if discussion of this is DUE in this article. Because Wikipedia is open anybody, this part of the NPOV is very important to keep in mind.... we get people who are enthusiastic about things who want to give great emphasis to X, that reflects their enthusiasm rather than the actual place of the idea in the field, and it is exactly because of that the NPOV policy, with its notions of DUE and UNDUE, evolved. does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

→No, it doesn't make sense and your use of the term "high quality" to denigrate reputable publishers is harsh, if not utterly wrong. With all DUE respect, your removal of all mentions of this pioneering work shows prejudice, especially in light of valid secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals and a book! I honestly have to ask if you have a COI and whether your enthusiasm against Thaler has motivated your draconian editing.Perky28 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen L. Thaler is a physicist not a neuroscientist, he has done some good research in nuclear and laser physics but his research on consciousness is fringe at best. I see no evidence his research has been accepted by the scientific community at large. He has a few fringe papers and several published in academic journals that have hardly been picked up or commented on by anyone else. His ideas on NDEs remain virtually unknown. As for the material you added to Wikipedia, this is spam you added to Rationalwiki [3] so this is copyrighted material from another website. You have been editing Rationalwiki in the past under the username "Perky" to promote Thaler's research and it appears nobody over there picked up on this. It is not acceptable to be copying material from Rationalwiki to Wikipedia articles, this is copyvio.

But, biology is built upon physics and many physicists toil therein. He's a polymath, through and through and used to enduring the inherent turf wars between disciplines. I think he brings fresh insight in understanding NDEs, supplying the bottom-up details, in contrast to the medical community's, "well, this correlates with that, explaining everything! ..And the idea of a copyright violation is naive. Perky28 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC). not Perky!

PS - Who says his physics research was good? This could be another one of your faulty conclusions based on little or no analysis.Perky28 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As for one of Thaler's papers you link to:

"In the near term, only a few will appreciate the societal relevance of this highly technical creed. That is because its core concept, the fundamental neural architecture taught by U.S. patent 5,659,666, is not what one intuitively thinks of as human. Considerable computational acumen is required to comprehend its common lineage with the human spirit. However, once understood, it will be recognized as consciousness itself, the permeating force of the universe, and the key to sustaining the future of any civilization willing to embrace it for what it really is: the master idea that by its very definition yields answers to the foremost questions mankind has posed over the millennia." [4] Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is tinfoil hat crackpottery. Please do not pretend to us this is sound scientific research. It does not belong on an article about NDE's. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Brit Skeptic, the quote makes perfect sense to me! Besides, WF2010 is not a scientific forum. Its the World Future Society, where highly technical concepts are explained from a layman's perspective, with a sprinkling of optimism and hope. Besides, you haven't quoted the content of this article related to NDEs. BTW, Bruce Grayson invited Thaler's submissions to his NDE journal three times in the 90s, so his contributions, now eradicated from this article, must be worth something.Perky28 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is difficult to discuss, as you are not discussing these per the policies and guidelines. Please focus on discussing content that we can use based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Above you mentioned a US patent; patents are not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia per WP:SPS (they are a canonical example of SPS) Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, fair enough about the patents, but I see three references to Journal of Near-Death Studies in the article as it stands:

59. Carr, Daniel (1982). "Pathophysiology of Stress-Induced Limbic Lobe Dysfunction: A Hypothesis Relevant to Near-Death Experiences". Anabiosis: The Journal of Near-Death Studies. 2: 75–89.

60. Morse, M. L; Venecia, D; Milstein, J. (1989). "Near-death experiences: A neurophysiological explanatory model". Journal of Near-Death Studies. 8: 45–53.

61. Saavedra-Aguilar, J.C.; Gómez-Jeria, Juan S. (1989). "A Neurobiological Model for Near-Death Experiences". Journal of Near-Death Studies. 7 (4): 205–222. doi:10.1007/bf01074007.

Thaler has three peer-reviewed papers in this same journal that were invited by no less than Bruce Grayson. Don't these count?-

1. Thaler, S. L., Death of a gedanken creature, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 13(3), Spring 1995.

2. Thaler, S. L., The death dream and near-death darwinism, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 15(1), Fall 1996.

3. Thaler, S. L., The emerging intelligence and its critical look at us, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 17(21), 1998.

Also, a Scientific American article is referenced in the current WP article, written by one of the magazine's staff reporters, Charles Choi, "Peace of mind: nde now found to have a scientific explanation."

I would think that the Thaler reference,

Yam, P., "Daisy, Daisy" Do computers have near-death experience, Scientific American, May 1993,

is on par with Choi's article. Yam did connect the artificial neural network's death with that of the brain. So, it's not computers that are dying, but the neural simulations that are running on them.

Perky28 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And then what about the rebuttal to Thaler: Gunn, S., Can Artificial Intelligence Have a Near-Death Experience? A Critical Look at the Ultimate Text, March 1998 Journal of Near-Death Studies 17(1), DOI10.1023/A:1022938101875? In all fairness, this paper should also be mentioned.Perky28 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Also missing is an important reference to Jeanine Young-Mason's "Patient's Voice, Experiences of Illness." She is a Distinguished Professor from the University of Massachusetts, publishing with F. A. Davis. From what I can tell, WP has not challenged her reputation or that of her publisher. I would think this to be a reliable secondary source, that BTW references two of Thaler's now missing scientific papers dealing with death simulations in neural nets.Perky28 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

here are the refs you are citing

Thaler, SL (1995). "Death of a gedanken creature" (PDF). Journal of Near-Death Studies. 13 (3). doi:10.17514/JNDS-1995-13-3-p149-166.
Thaler, SL (1996). "The death dream and near-death Darwinism" (PDF). Journal of Near-Death Studies. 15 (1). doi:10.17514/JNDS-1996-15-1-p25-40.
Gunn, SC (1998). "Guest Editorial: Can artificial intelligence have a near-death experience? A critical look at the ultimate text" (PDF). Journal of Near-Death Studies. 17 (1). doi:10.17514/JNDS-1998-17-1-p5-19.
Thaler, SL (1998). "Editorial response: The emerging intelligence and its critical look at us" (PDF). Journal of Near-Death Studies. 17 (1). doi:10.17514/JNDS-1998-17-1-p21-29.
Yam, Philip (1993). ""Daisy, Daisy"". Scientific American. 268 (5): 32–33. JSTOR 24941474.
Gordon, David (2015). "Chapter 9: Reconceptions". In Young-Mason, Jeanine (ed.). The Patient's Voice Experiences of Illness. F.A. Davis. p. 81. ISBN 9780803644717.

I think that is all of them? 1-4 are primary sources and are not valuable. #5 is a hm! news piece about the early work. #6 is an autobiographical narrative where somebody who had an NDE talks about Thalers' work a bit.

None of these sources are the kind of thing we look for. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, these are not all the references I am citing. See Dispute resolution noticeboard.

No, number 3 is a secondary source. Note the fusion of other sources:

Barthes, R. (1988). The death of the author. In D. Lodge (Ed.), Modern criticism and theory (pp. 166-171). New York, NY: Longman. Bloomfield, B. P. (1987). The culture of artificial intelligence. In B. P. Bloomfield (Ed.), The question of artificial intelligence (pp. 59-105). London, England: Croom Helm. Crevier, D. (1993). Al: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. New York, NY: Basic Books. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: Univer sity of Minnesota Press. Dennett, D. C. (1979). Artificial intelligence as philosophy and psychology. In M. Ringle (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives in artificial intelligence (pp. 57-80). Brighton, Eng land: Harvester. 18 SUSAN C. GUNN Ernst, J. (1992). Computer poetry: An act of disinterested communication. New Liter ary History, 23, 451-465. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th anni versary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books (Original work published 1983). Hedberg, S. (1995). Where's AI hiding? Al Expert, 10(4), 17-20. Kristeva, K. (1984). The semiotic and the symbolic. In Revolution in poetic language (pp. 21-30). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Kristeva, J. (1988). The ethics of linguistics. In D. Lodge (Ed.), Modern criticism and theory (pp. 223-239). New York, NY: Longman. Lebowitz, M. (1984). Creating characters in a story-telling universe. Poetics, 3, 171 194. Lund, D. H. (1985). Death and consciousness. New York, NY: Ballantine. Lyotard, J.-F. (1991). The inhuman: Reflections on time (G. Bennington and R. Bowlby, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Newell, K. B. (1983). Pattern, concrete and computer poetry: The poem as object in itself. Bucknell Review, 27, 159-173. Ringle, M. (1979). Philosophy and artificial intelligence. In M. Ringle (Ed.), Philo sophical perspectives in artificial intelligence (pp. 1-22). Brighton, England: Har vester. Rothfork, J. (1984). The ghost in the machine: Stanislaw Lem's mortal engines. Liberal and Fine Arts Review 4(1), 1-18. Ryan, M.-L. (1991). Possible worlds, artificial intelligence, and narrative theory. Bloom ington, IN: Indiana University Press. Samet, J., and Schank, R. (1984). Coherence and connectivity. Linguistics and Phi losophy, 7(1), 57-82. Saussure, F. (1988). The object of study. In D. Lodge (Ed.), Modern criticism and theory (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Longman. Schank, R. C. (1979). Natural language, philosophy, and artificial intelligence. In M. Ringle (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives in artificial intelligence (pp. 196-224). Brighton, England: Harvester. Thaler, S. L. (1995). Death of a gedanken creature. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 13, 149-166. Waldrop, M. M. (1987). Man-made minds. New York, NY: Walker. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calcu lation. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Wood, M. McG. (1988). Signification and simulation: Barthes' response to Turing. Para graph, 11, 210-226.

No, reference 5 appeared in the magazine, with the same theme appearing in 1995. What you are looking at is an archival copy.

No, reference 6 is definitely a secondary source.

Perky28 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no way in hell that I or any other WP editor is going to wade through that linkless morass (Although a quick review shows they are all very old). You are shooting yourself in the foot by shoveling garbage at the volunteer community that way - trying to force what you want instead of trying to learn how WP works. Many conflicted/advocacy editors behave this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no WP:OLD policy. Sometimes old is better. Nevertheless, the link-less morass proves this is a secondary source since it is an integration of many works. Besides, I don't think you took note of all these references, or for that matter, read the article. Also, please keep the conversation civil.Perky28 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Many conflicted/advocacy editors behave this way" - Speculation, not fact.Perky28 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No this is based very much on your behavior. You are aware that everyone can see every edit you make, right? There is no question that you are pretty much here in WP to advocate for Thaler's work. It is unclear why. But regardless this behavior is what we call not here to build an encyclopedia and is generally violating the WP:PROMO policy. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

actually i see now that you literally copied the reference list from Gunn's editorial. What a complete waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise you would be claiming I've fabricated the fusion of primary sources in this secondary work. So, here it is.Perky28 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

None of thie is helpful. We'll just let the DRN play out.Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this discussion has been extremely helpful! Perky28 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the definition straight from WP's policies: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Yam, Gunn, and Young-Mason, for instance, are all carrying out such processes using the primary source, Thaler's timeless, peer-reviewed work. Perky28 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Priceless. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's how WP works! ;-) Perky28 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well said, perky!! There's an agenda here on jytdog's part. The goal is to wipe Thaler from this site based upon his/her prejudice. There is no willingness to compromise, allowing at least some refs to stay. It all must go, or else! I agree with perky that professionals in the field have already passed judgment on Thaler's work, either publishing it (primary sources) or commenting on it (secondary sources). - Im tempted to ask if jytty is somehow connected with Pim and/or his publisher? (There, I said it!) Me helen (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References added by Skeptic from Britain

Hello Skeptic from Britain I am struggling to find reference [5] - I mean the link is wrong.

Also the book Paranormal Borderlands of Science dates back to 1981. A lot has happened since then. Are we sure we want to keep it? I did a search for James Alcock in PubMed [6] none of the indexed articles have anything to do with the subject being discussed here (near death experiences, neuroscience etc..). The author being cited is not involved in this field of research (unlike guys like Olaf Blanke, Chris French etc..)

Can't we find a better source? Your thoughts Jytdog?

Best Josezetabal (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Josezetabal you have added fringe sources to this article which are not on pubmed, for example Greyson, Bruce (2014). "Chapter 12: Near-Death Experiences". In Cardeña, Etzel; Lynn, Steven Jay; Krippner, Stanley. - This is a crank book edited by psychic believer Stanley Krippner and Etzel Cardeña a parapsychologist. The paper by Chris French "Near-death experiences and the brain", is a decent paper. I am not sure why you would want it removed. James Alcock is a Professor of Psychology. You seem to be saying that every source on the article needs to be by a neuroscientist, well that is just stupid. Not all academics who have written on this subject are neuroscientists. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Skeptic from Britain thanks for your prompt answer and sorry for my late reply. I struggle to understand why your tone is so aggressive.

a) Why don't you correct link [7] becase it leads nowhere (it is wrong)? You say "I am not sure why you would want it removed." You have not read my request. I asked you to correct the link. That is all. Otherwise I myself have often cited Prof French so there is no intention of removing it unless you do not correct the link.

b) regarding James Alcock I did not find a single journal publication by this person about near death experiences. Also the book is 45 years old. It has only been cited 39 times in google scholar [8] despite being around for so long. A lot has happened since then in this field of research. Nothing against him a psychologist. I am just saying to find a better more recent source. Skeptical for sure, but more solid.

Bruce Greyson (author of chapter 12 of the book I cited) has been author/co-author of more than 40 publications [9] about near death experiences. The book has been cited 455 times in google scholar [10]. The book is published by the "American Psychological Association". And finally Bruce Greyson seems quite objective when he says "Although this is a small sample, the failure of purported out-of-body experiencers, to describe the hidden targets, raises questions about the accuracy of the anecdotal reports described above"

Best Josezetabal (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Josezetabal, NDE research used to be a field of paranormal research. In recent years this has shifted to a legitimate neuroscientific interest. The paranormal interest in NDEs has faded out by most researchers apart from a few older parapsychologists like Greyson or Raymond Moody.

Bruce Greyson does have many publications but is he objective? He is a believer in psychic powers and a member of the Parapsychological Association. Greyson, Moody et al are not interested in actually conducting neuroscientific research into NDE's, they are proponents of the paranormal, "soul", or "transcendental hypothesis" (this is no different than intelligent design, trying to sound scientific). They frequently reject any natural explanation for NDEs. The transcendental hypothesis basically says consciousness is not produced in the brain and some kind of soul leaves the body during OBEs or NDEs into a different dimension. It is a lovely idea and I am sure most of us including myself would want it to be true but there is no scientific evidence to support it. It does not produce testable predictions. It is like a God of the gaps argument. Greyson was the co-author of the paranormal book Irreducible Mind, it has been described as making a "soul of the gaps" argument. It is pure pseudoscience. I personally do not find Greyson, Moody or his ilk reliable. As Dr. Jason J Braithwaite & Hayley Dewe MSc report in their paper "The paranormalist view has neither changed nor been endowed with evidential support over the same time period. This view still clings to the same faith-based reasoning and claims it did decades ago ... in essence, this is tantamount to no progress at all." [11] Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As for the French paper. Yes the link is dead. For some reason French has moved a bunch of files on his website. I will have to investigate if the paper is online anywhere else. I have it saved on my computer. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am generally confused about your edits. It seems you want skeptical primary sources removed as this edit reveals [12], which doesn't make much sense. All of the sources you have added are primary. For example you added a section on "Limits of neurochemical models" which cites only Sam Parnia's primary papers. You seem to be a fan-boy for paranormalists such as Greyson, Moody and Parnia. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Science writer Mike McRae has noted "While Parnia's work contributes valuable data to understanding NDE as a cultural phenomenon, his speculations do indeed sit on the brink of pseudoscience." [13] Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Skeptic from Britain thank-you for your long answer. I respect what you are saying. But some of the things you mention do not correspond to reality:

I am generally confused about your edits. It seems you want skeptical primary >sources removed as this edit reveals [20]

ANSWER I removed it because it was primary source irrespective of its skeptic/non-skeptic nature – no other reason

“All of the sources you have added are primary. For example you added a >section on "Limits of neurochemical models" which cites only Sam Parnia's primary papers.”

ANSWER All Parnia’s sources are review articles. So what you say is wrong

“You seem to be a fan-boy for paranormalists such as Greyson, Moody and >Parnia.”

ANSWER Here are some of the edits I made where I added only sources that you would call skeptical : [14], [15], [16] – regarding the last edit, I have used French 2005 article multiple times. It is a very good article

“Science writer Mike McRae has noted "While Parnia's work contributes valuable data to understanding NDE as a cultural phenomenon, his speculations do indeed sit on the brink of pseudoscience." [21] “

ANSWER I only used secondary sources in line with WP:MEDRS (see above answer)

I corrected the link to the book by the Nova Science Publishers chapter written by French - but if you could find the link to the pdf that would be better and also an interesting read

Regarding the other reference you added - it is a weak old source - can't you find a more recent skeptical source by someone who has published in the field? Best Josezetabal (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I have no interest in engaging you any longer, you are happy to add primary sources of Greyson or Parnia all over the article because they suit your paranormal POV but you remove primary neuroscientific skeptical papers. You are stealthfully trying to push pseudoscience on the article. You mention Parnia or Greyson because they support the paranormal interpretation of the NDE, you have removed neuroscientific and skeptical sources from the article. As far as I can see you have actually ruined this article. Every neuroscientific or psychological theory of the NDE now has a "limitations" section you have added which links to Greyson or Parnia. The article looks stupid with these sub-sections, this is NPOV, we do not have to give equal weight to fringe theories. You are even fringe pushing in the lead. Happy editing though, I will not waste anymore of my time on this. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is plague by materialists. Unfortunately neither side has solid proof and this topic will be argued to the end of time until hidden targets show they are real or hallucinations. Funny how the materialists are quick to insert the latest development from neuroscience yet still haven't taken time to revise the changed due date of parnia's aware 2 https://twitter.com/SamParniaMDPhD/status/836604580414771204, easily the most important topic concerning NDEs right now. I wasn't alive at the time QM was being developed, but I can sure bet the classical deterministic crowd attacked it nonstop until they died and a new generation accepting QM took their place, hell even the mighty Einstein dismissed it (science advance one funeral at a time indeed). Money is tight (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit by Edward321

Hello Edward321 you reverted to previous version and noted that "(rv to better version)". Can you explain why you think previous is a better version? Best Josezetabal (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Near-death studies overlap

The subject matter of this article seems to have way too much overlap with Near-death studies. What can be done about this?? RobP (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

James Alcock

Hello Rp2006 according to WP:MEDRS "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" need to be used. Now James Alcock has not published anything on the subject. Do a research in Pubmed and you will be able to see it for yourself.

Besides Wikipedia requires to use up to date evidence as per WP:MEDDATE and the book is super old

Best Josezetabal (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

reverted edit by 82.132.226.248

Hello 82.132.226.248 you reverted to previous version and wrote "(very bad fringe pushing ...)". I would appreciate more explanations as to why and how my edit was fringe pushing. Thank-you in advance Best Josezetabal (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

On the validity of adding the citation relating to the order of events in NDE's

Hello, 5 days ago User:DagosNavy added a information to the article relating to the sequence of events in near death experiences citing a 2017 news article which was reverted by User:Jytdog an hour later since they found the citation of popular media coverage of primary sources on Wikipedia as against norms. Today, I became aware of the change made by DagosNavy through an email as I am watching the Near-death experience page. I agreed with Jytdog's revision and decided I could improve the article by adding back DagosNavy's edit while replacing the citation with a citation of the primary source, which I used Apoc2400's DOI Wikipedia refrence generator to create. 21 minutes later User:Alexbrn undid my edit with the note "Rv. junk source" using Twinkle. I am unsure what the meaning of "junk source" is in this context, my citation was of an original paper published in what recently became the most cited journal in Psychology according to Cornel's annual Journal Citation Reports[17]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor's Apprentice (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your source was a journal published by Frontiers Media. These are not generally considered reliable (aka "junk"). Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying, it is greatly appreciated! I'll try to avoid them in the future. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesus had a Near-Death Experience

I added... The most famous example of a NDE was Jesus' Crucifixion which he miraculously survived. 2601:580:10D:A722:BDD4:5ACC:D85A:B64F (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We'd need a secondary reliable source (WP:RS) which discusses this as an NDE. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 04:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Fringe edits from Josezetabal

"Removed Augustine's blog" for more reliable sources is another example. One could replace online material with print material from the same author, or replace this author with other authors making the same point. Instead Josezetabal rewrote the Cultural Influences section to remove any mention of cultural differences between NDEs and instead claim that they're similar between cultures. If there is dispute about this, disputants only both sides should be equally represented, rather than one side being deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Near-death_experience&oldid=825242918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:D3:BC78:2501:7E57:E32B (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed Josezetabal has been deleting sources that give the NDE a natural neuroscientific explanation, and this is quietly been going on for a while. He has deleted various academic or scientific sources because he claims they are not on PubMed. Just because a source is not a paper listed on PubMed does not mean it should be deleted.

This source Towards a Neuro-scientific Explanation of Near-death Experiences by Vanhaudenhuyse, was removed by Josezetabal. His reason "Vanhaudenhuyse et al. 2009 does not exist in Pubmed - also reference 56 is a Book of Intensive Care Medicine and Vanhaudenhuyse is not one of the co-authors. So all references are wrong" [18]. I just linked to the Vanhaudenhuyse source. He was co-author. I do not usually edit on this wiki and I do not want to engage in an edit war, but there appears to be some deception going on here. Reliable sources have been deleted. Rebecca Bird (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree! One only needs to look at who has disappeared and who has survived the edits to identify the culprits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perky28 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion: Josezetabal just deleted a valid source (a book) because it was "a very old publication (45 ys old) and he has not published any scientific articles on the subject". They are basically framing this in such a way that the fringe viewpoint needs to be DISPROVED by science, else it cannot be critiqued. I reverted. RobP (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Hello Rp2006 I have deleted the "Vanhaudenhuyse et al. 2009" by mistake - so my fault, I should have apologized. But a I was sincere. I even wrote to the editor to identify the link - they took 2 months to respond.

Regarding the accusation of "fringe" ... that is simply untrue. I have used every review article to basically write the same thing : there is no data or robust data. All models unfortunately lack data or lack robust data. Skeptics and non skeptic authors agree on this.

Finally, regarding James Alcock - he has not published anything on the subject. Other than a chapter in an old book. How can we call him an expert? This is against MEDRS. Though we can use other great authors like French for instance whom I have used massively throughout the article (and he is a skeptic 100%) best Josezetabal (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the same user is doing the same thing on Out-of-body experience. RobP (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Hello Rp2006 - I will analyze the sources used - according to MEDRS criteria - on the talk page (of the out of body exp page) to show respect for the work you and other editors did on that page and to start a fruitful discussion. Have a great day. - best Josezetabal (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned about Josezetabal's edits, this user if you see their latest attempt to up-date the lead has a fringe agenda to push by attacking neuroscientific theories of the NDE. This appears to be on-going for months. 82.132.241.55 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@82.132.241.55: Hello 82.132.241.55 - none of the models presented by skeptics or less-skeptics have data backing them up. The experts agree on this. For instance Blanke says in his article that his model remains speculative due to the lack of data. This needs to be said in the lead of the article.

We also need to say there are multiple models and mention them, pointing out there is no solid data. Neuroscience is not the accepted or validated theory in the field of NDEs. I have read every single review article out there. I challenge you to find a consensus on a final denfinitive model. I would be curious to know in which ways writing this, is fringe pushing Best Josezetabal (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Neuroscience is not the accepted or validated theory in the field of NDEs — Neuroscience is the only valid scientific venue to study and explain such mind phenomena (this does not mean that there are completely satisfying explanations yet, of course). —Paleo Neonate – 15:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding (but not directly related to this discussion): the topic is indeed a difficult one, but I have the impression that this article has a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue, where hypotheses are presented like if they were equally valid (or equally uninformed) opinions... —Paleo Neonate – 15:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion (Near-death studies into Near-death experience)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Discussion was open for 8 months with only one reply to not merge. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 11:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A merge has been proposed. —Paleo Neonate – 01:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello PaleoNeonate and thank-you for your proposal. The "Near-death studies" page is closely related to the International Association for Near-death Studies (IANDS) and the Journal of Near-Death Studies. Hence different from the Near-death experiences page I would vote against the merge Best --Josezetabal (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phenomenon Near-Death Experience is already completely explained

The Phenomenon NDE is already completely explained since more than a decade: In a NDE we can perceive as a conscious experience how a single stimulus(thought)is processed by the brain. With Google-search KINSEHER NDERF DENKEN_NTE a PDF with the complete explanation model is available as a free-read in German language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:d4:724:ab20:19f8:16cf:aa90:d5e5 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Better definition

Hello. I think this article is much better than its lead. The definition as it stands is too broad. "a personal experience associated with death or impending death" is a definition that applies to literally every single person who ever dies or comes close to dying. When NDE is used, it is used to mean a significant and purportedly spiritual event as recalled by the experiencer. This will eliminate the equally imprecise sentences that follow about "when positive" and "when negative" which failure to achieve NPOV about whether or not NDE's are a thing or not. Since the rest of the article seems pretty good, I'm assuming this has come up before, so I'm broaching the topic here before I be bold. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal experiences range from the mundane to the life-transforming, this includes emotions, religious experiences like satori, those from psychosis and delirium, from dreams, from sleep paralysis, from near death experiences, those with the help of psychotropic/entheogen, etc... My impression is that with this terminology we at the same time avoid a lot of speculation that could otherwise be in the first sentence. —Paleo Neonate – 23:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not having been more specific: I don't object to calling it a profound personal experience. —Paleo Neonate – 23:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Kenneth Ring argues that attempted suicides do not lead more often to unpleasant NDEs than unintended near-death situations"

I've read and reread this, and still can't unpack all the negatives and qualifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.130.224.186 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Made a change. It should be clear now. RobP (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Animals

I think it would be interesting to clarify in a new chapter or anywhere in the article about non-human Animals, weather they’ve been seen by individuals during the person’s near death experiences through research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:6E0B:2B00:5458:BA3B:7FF2:1D94 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: Chart with incorrectly copied statements?

Within section “Characteristics” and subsection “Clinical circumstances” a chart labelled “ Bruce Greyson's Composition of Final NDE Scale” has column titled “Weighted Response” which appears to have incorrect information for what the responses are. Perhaps one was copied across all rows in error. The content matches fine for the first row, and possibly also other rows, but does not seem to go properly with all rows. It seems to need adjustment to correctly place the original weighted responses in each row instead of duplicating the same one for each row. 208.83.173.144 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Statements in chart were incorrectly copied, now should be displaying correctly based on the section’s referenced pdf.

Uh...

Right next to section 2.3's header, there's a somewhat eerie picture of a tunnel with light at the end of it just strangely captioned "Entering darkness, seeing the light"

Not only does this not have proper punctuation, but it doesn't fit with the article. I guess, yeah, it fits in that it is a tunnel with a light at the end of it, but it makes no attempt to explain itself in the caption, it just sits there, menacingly, like some B-rate SCP article. Is there some good reason for this picture to be here that I'm just not seeing? 2601:584:4500:6C40:4C83:8EC:F9C1:5884 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Several chapters in Moody´s book ´Life after life´ represent the development of the physical senses since the 5th month of foetus-age: ´Feelings of Peace and Quiet´(= touch sense experiences - but acoustic+optical senses do not work now) > ´The Noise´ ( = acoustic sense is working now) > ´The dark Tunnel´(= the development of the optical sense is recalled/reactivated in a very high speed; parallel acoustic eperiencs are reported because the acoustic sense is working too) > ´The being of light´ (Light perception change from dim to brilliant) (= light perception bevore/dim and after birth/brilliant). The NDE describe that the light-perception in a tunnel-experience is at the beginning only a small spot and increase then it´s size in a very high speed: This does mean, all pictures in this NDE-article which show a tunnel with a small-light-spot at the end are wrong! When the experiences about the development of the optical senses are recalled in a very high speed (like the single fotos of a cinema-film), then the optical illusion is perceived - to move in a tunnel towards a light of increasing size. But this ´movement´ is only an illusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:5F17:C802:55D:D21E:8C1B:9B0E (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not bibles, and Weasel words are needed when apt

If one comes away from this article with the impression that the gates to heaven have been glimpsed by "researchers" then this article is not suitable for the encyclopedia. Per WP:FRINGE

Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)