NDE

[Sriram]

I think that here, Sriram, you are making a fallacious appeal to authority where, judged on the likes of the links in your OP, the authorities you cite aren't especially authoritative.

All of you make appeal to scientific authority all the time.  Why shouldn't I?  You are conveniently dismissing the work of certain doctors and researchers as questionable.

There are many like Dr.Raymond Moody and Dr.Sam Parnia  who are professional psychologists and doctors and who have studied NDE's and written about it.

[Gordon]

All of you make appeal to scientific authority all the time.  Why shouldn't I?  You are conveniently dismissing the work of certain doctors and researchers as questionable.

That would be because the examples cited in your OP are questionable

There are many like Dr.Raymond Moody and Dr.Sam Parnia  who are professional psychologists and doctors and who have studied NDE's and written about it.

Moody has been exposed, via criticisms of his 'work', as being a woo-merchant.

[jeremyp]

Yes....there is no evidence....

Thank you for the admission.

in the form that you want it!

The only qualifications I apply to evidence is that it is evidence of the phenomenon under investigation, not just somebody imagining the phenomenon and that it is not easily explainable by other means.

I think the are reasonable criteria. The only reason why you don't accept them is because, when applied to NDEs, the evidence goes up in a puff of smoke.

According to me, NDE's are the evidence for it....and it fits in with the traditional idea of an incorporeal soul.

That's just your confirmation bias.

How do you know what happens after death? You don't. How do you know NDEs happen while people are dead? You don't. How do you know NDEs are not just like dreams? You don't.

[jeremyp]

However, why many of you are unable the understand the concept of an incorporeal, 'alive and experiencing' entity that exits outside the body, is what is surprising. The idea is as old as the hills and I am sure your grandmothers (or mothers) will be able to explain the idea to you.

No. We all understand it. We just don't have any good reason to believe it exists and we are challenging your assertion that it does.

[Enki]

Sriram loves to bring up the subject of NDEs and OBEs from time to time. As always, he sees the existence of NDEs as some sort of evidence that consciousness is something which has an existence outside the brain, and that it points to some sort of afterlife. As always, he never provides new evidence that his pet theories are any more correct than previously. As always, I suggest, he never seriously considers alternative explanations.

Take his reference to Sam Parnia, for instance. He is quite correct in saying that Parnia sees these as after death experiences, What he doesn't tell you is that Parnia himself suggests that our definition of death has changed with the increasing medical understanding and technology at our disposal, and that he sees it as a process rather than an exact event. Parnia has also suggested that:

The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated.

A person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Moving from a conscious state to an unconscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flatlines
3) Moving from an unconscious state to a conscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.

This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only a phenomenon related to No 2.



My position on the idea that NDEs are not a function of the brain/mind is as follows:

1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays little or no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.

2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.

3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.

4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.


In response to these:

a) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.

b) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.

c) Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inclusive results. However this area, I believe, would benefit from more widespread and co-ordinated testing.

d) There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo, and in only one of 55 reports from India. I would accept, however, that this area would greatly benefit from further data.

So what about actual scientific tests to establish whether anyone having an OBE can actually see something which would be hidden from view unless the person was having a floating OBE. To my knowledge there have been at least 5 totally blind tests(no living person would know  the content of the visual target) from 1990 to 2006, all of them in  recognized hospitals. None have resulted in anything but negative data so far. Since then Sam Parnia has conducted such tests in his famous Aware 2 Study, again with negative results.
I think the most damning statement on this so important subject of veridical evidence  is contained in this email from 2006, by an eminent NDE researcher, Kenneth Ring, who was discussing this with Bruce Greyson:

There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests (experiencers) can, at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs.....but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class(as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses--I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few such cases at least by now?....

To sum up.
I agree that NDEs happen.
I would welcome further scientific research in this area.
I see no evidence that they are linked to the idea of an 'afterlife' or non-local consciousness.
I am very willing to adjust my position in the light of objective and extensive scientific research.

[ekim]

If you want a near death experience, take up philosophy. 

[Sriram]

Sriram loves to bring up the subject of NDEs and OBEs from time to time. As always, he sees the existence of NDEs as some sort of evidence that consciousness is something which has an existence outside the brain, and that it points to some sort of afterlife. As always, he never provides new evidence that his pet theories are any more correct than previously. As always, I suggest, he never seriously considers alternative explanations.

Take his reference to Sam Parnia, for instance. He is quite correct in saying that Parnia sees these as after death experiences, What he doesn't tell you is that Parnia himself suggests that our definition of death has changed with the increasing medical understanding and technology at our disposal, and that he sees it as a process rather than an exact event. Parnia has also suggested that:
A person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Moving from a conscious state to an unconscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flatlines
3) Moving from an unconscious state to a conscious state. During this state there is definite brain activity.

This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only a phenomenon related to No 2.



My position on the idea that NDEs are not a function of the brain/mind is as follows:

1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays little or no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.

2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.

3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.

4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.


In response to these:

a) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.

b) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.

c) Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inclusive results. However this area, I believe, would benefit from more widespread and co-ordinated testing.

d) There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo, and in only one of 55 reports from India. I would accept, however, that this area would greatly benefit from further data.

So what about actual scientific tests to establish whether anyone having an OBE can actually see something which would be hidden from view unless the person was having a floating OBE. To my knowledge there have been at least 5 totally blind tests(no living person would know  the content of the visual target) from 1990 to 2006, all of them in  recognized hospitals. None have resulted in anything but negative data so far. Since then Sam Parnia has conducted such tests in his famous Aware 2 Study, again with negative results.
I think the most damning statement on this so important subject of veridical evidence  is contained in this email from 2006, by an eminent NDE researcher, Kenneth Ring, who was discussing this with Bruce Greyson:


To sum up.
I agree that NDEs happen.
I would welcome further scientific research in this area.
I see no evidence that they are linked to the idea of an 'afterlife' or non-local consciousness.
I am very willing to adjust my position in the light of objective and extensive scientific research.

I agree with that. There is no clinching proof that these are after-life experiences....and there is little possibility that there will ever be any such proof...given the nature of the phenomenon.

As of now there is a strong possibility that NDE's are actual after-death experiences that offer us a window into the other world, that most people around the world accept as true anyway.

More and more researchers, as I have linked, also are starting to accept this as a strong possibility. That is all I am talking about.

[Gordon]

I agree with that. There is no clinching proof that these are after-life experiences....and there is little possibility that there will ever be any such proof...given the nature of the phenomenon.

Therefore, in the absence of any suitable method, 'after-life' is a meaningless term.

As of now there is a strong possibility that NDE's are actual after-death experiences that offer us a window into the other world, that most people around the world accept as true anyway.

There isn't, there being no credible evidence, and your 'most people' point is a straight up argumentum ad populum.

More and more researchers, as I have linked, also are starting to accept this as a strong possibility. That is all I am talking about.

The problem there is that what (and whom) you've cited, such as the links in the OP, aren't credible.

[Enki]

I agree with that. There is no clinching proof that these are after-life experiences....and there is little possibility that there will ever be any such proof...given the nature of the phenomenon.

As of now there is a strong possibility that NDE's are actual after-death experiences that offer us a window into the other world, that most people around the world accept as true anyway.

More and more researchers, as I have linked, also are starting to accept this as a strong possibility. That is all I am talking about.

I mentioned evidence, not proof, and, for me, the lack of evidence does not lead to the idea of a 'strong possibility' at all, only conjecture. The idea that most people consider NDEs as a 'window' into another world doesn't concern me in the slightest.

On the subject of the two researchers for which you have provided links in the opening post, let's look at them in more detail, shall we?

First, with his 9 Lines of evidence is Jeffrey Long. He isn't exactly a recent convert  is he? Right now, I have in front of me a book called "The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, a 30 year Investigation' open at a Chapter 6 which was written by Long, in collusion with two other researchers(Janice Miner Holden and Jason Maclurg) where they say much the same things as in your linked article. It was written in 2009.

Second, let's take Eben Alexander III, the writer of your second linked article. His first book on NDEs, 'Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife' was written in 2012 and based on his own personal NDE, experienced in 2008. Again, he's not that recent a convert, is he?
Incidentally Eben Alexander III has had a somewhat checkered medical career, reprimanded twice by the Virginia Board of Medicine, (once for altering his operative report), was forced to pay a fine to the medical Board and and had to complete ethics and professionalism training to maintain an unrestricted medical license in the state. That doesn't exactly boost my confidence in his intellectual honesty.

[Sriram]

Clutching at straws...!

[Sriram]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full

*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.

As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach

In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..

it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.

Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.

*************

[Gordon]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full

*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.

As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach

In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..

it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.

Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.

*************

All very nice I'm sure for those who view 'spirituality' as being something other than just the abstract thoughts and feelings produced in functioning neurology, and there seems to be nothing problematic about the conclusion that all this is physiological given there is no credible evidence that consciousness exists independently of a functioning brain or that feelings of 'spirituality' are intrinsically different from any other abstract feelings.

All I see here is a mix of wishful thinking, pseudoscience and the pervasive influence of tradition and/or cultural biases and, I have to say, a degree of gullibility.



   

[ekim]

All very nice I'm sure for those who view 'spirituality' as being something other than just the abstract thoughts and feelings produced in functioning neurology, and there seems to be nothing problematic about the conclusion that all this is physiological given there is no credible evidence that consciousness exists independently of a functioning brain or that feelings of 'spirituality' are intrinsically different from any other abstract feelings.

All I see here is a mix of wishful thinking, pseudoscience and the pervasive influence of tradition and/or cultural biases and, I have to say, a degree of gullibility.
 

There are others who don't view 'spirituality' that way.  Some see their 'spiritual' practice as a means of identifying with a consciousness free from thoughts and emotions no matter whether abstract, wishful or otherwise.  It is the inner' state' of being that is sought rather than scientific or pseudoscientific, neurological or physiological explanations.  Whether this 'conscious state' continues after the physical body ceases to function, I doubt if there is any scientific way of discovering this, but who knows.  A graveyard might be a good place to start.

[Sriram]

All very nice I'm sure for those who view 'spirituality' as being something other than just the abstract thoughts and feelings produced in functioning neurology, and there seems to be nothing problematic about the conclusion that all this is physiological given there is no credible evidence that consciousness exists independently of a functioning brain or that feelings of 'spirituality' are intrinsically different from any other abstract feelings.

All I see here is a mix of wishful thinking, pseudoscience and the pervasive influence of tradition and/or cultural biases and, I have to say, a degree of gullibility.



 

You are just rubbishing all views that are different from yours....and getting back to your comfort zone. 

Regardless of your 'old school' views, there is no doubt that NDE's are now gaining importance and more and more researchers are finding credence in the experiences related by the patients. That is as it should be.   

[Gordon]

You are just rubbishing all views that are different from yours....and getting back to your comfort zone. 

Regardless of your 'old school' views, there is no doubt that NDE's are now gaining importance and more and more researchers are finding credence in the experiences related by the patients. That is as it should be.   

If 'old school' means asking for credible evidence then I am happy to be guilty, and I'd also say that what some of these 'researchers' produce is highly suspect based on the links in your OP and the reputation of the likes of Raymond Moody.

[SusanDoris]

Gordon

Hear, hear, to all your posts above.

[Udayana]

...
Regardless of your 'old school' views, there is no doubt that NDE's are now gaining importance and more and more researchers are finding credence in the experiences related by the patients. That is as it should be.   

What do you think is important about it?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

It is amazing how anyone can think that a piece of flesh like the brain, that eventually rots, can by itself be responsible for all mental processes and can figure out what sort of imagery to create during death and so on.   For whom is it creating these images anyway...for itself?

The brain is clearly a hardware platform that is just a part of the total system which includes many other unknown and subtle factors.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

It is amazing how anyone can think that a piece of flesh like the brain, that eventually rots, can by itself be responsible for all mental processes and can figure out what sort of imagery to create during death and so on.   For whom is it creating these images anyway...for itself?

The brain is clearly a hardware platform that is just a part of the total system which includes many other unknown and subtle factors.

Cheers.

Sriram

Echoes of Mr Burns here.  No science, no rationale, no evidence, what really drives your thinking is nothing more substantial than incredulity. Incredulity that the most complex thing in the known universe, as they say, could in fact synthesise the sophisticated information flows that that we refer to as conscious experience.  It is a case of incredulity licensing woo that lacks the level of rigour and detail that is the hallmark of truthful objective enquiry.

[Gordon]

Hi everyone,

It is amazing how anyone can think that a piece of flesh like the brain, that eventually rots, can by itself be responsible for all mental processes and can figure out what sort of imagery to create during death and so on.   For whom is it creating these images anyway...for itself?

The brain is clearly a hardware platform that is just a part of the total system which includes many other unknown and subtle factors.

Cheers.

Sriram

The evidence to date suggests that all mental processes and mental experiences are due to biological processing in the brain and I've yet to see any credible evidence to the contrary, such as there being aspects of consciousness that are known to be external to our biology. 

That some of these processes and experiences can feel odd or unusual isn't in itself any great surprise: most of us have experienced this during dreams, some of us have experienced this via the effects of certain drugs and then there are the effects arising from illness and trauma, and the treatment of these, that impacts on neurological functioning and mental experiences, and then there are conditions such as synesthesia and certain forms of epilepsy that can produce such effects without there being any risk of imminent death.

No need for pseudoscience and woo.

 

[Sriram]

It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one. 

Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.

Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress. 

[Gordon]

It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one. 

A difference that is easy to establish, so not an issue.

Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.

Nobody claimed life was random, but your "introduce externally" is speculation without a suitable methodology, and reads as being personal incredulity.

Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.

Finding out anything requires some underlying methodology though, along with the discipline that arises from this, and it is more dysfunctional to consider that anything is possible without a reliable and valid way to investigate - since otherwise any old nonsense might be proposed as being possible.

[torridon]

It is not just about incredulity or pseudoscience or 'woo' as you call it. It is simply about knowing that there is a difference between a live brain (and body) and a dead one. 

Life cannot be just a random process. It has to be induced externally into the body....like electricity.

Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt. If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.

I don't claim life to be 'random', in fact, I would tend to favour the line of research that says it is inevitable, given thermodynamic and other law.

I am alive, but there was no sense in which life had to 'be induced' into me.  Rather, I am a continuation of the life of my parents.  Life is a process of self-replication, remember ?

[Enki]

Sriram,

To take the last two sentences of Post 70:

Finding out what it is requires incredulity and doubt.

Incredulity(the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something), by itself, doesn't get you very far at all. You simply shut off certain possibilities by being incredulous. Doubt, however, can be a very positive state if it allows you to consider different approaches and evaluate them according to evidence.

If we are cocksure about something to the exclusion of all other possibilities....it is dysfunctional and prevents progress.

Completely agreed. Why is it, then, that in Post 67  you illustrate  your incredulity in the first sentence and a cocksure approach in your last sentence. Surely it isn't a case of one rule for Sriram, and another rule for everyone else, is it?

Incidentally here are two pieces of very recent research which might shed some light on NDEs.

This one compares anecdotal experiences of NDE recollections with those from people who have taken certain drugs, especially ketamine and compares them linguistically.
Certain similarities were found. Interesting, but obviously not conclusive as the article makes clear.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-found-in-understanding-near-death-experiences/

The second one is a study which suggests that one in 10 people experience NDEs, and that NDEs are as common amongst those who were not in imminent danger of death as those that were.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/sh-oi1062519.php

Just thought I would throw these in, in the interests of a balanced approach.

[ippy]

If you want a near death experience, take up philosophy. 

Or listen to cricket or a golf commentary on the radio, golf just about  pips the cricket commentary but not by much.