Near death, explained

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/

In 1991, Atlanta-based singer and songwriter Pam Reynolds felt extremely dizzy, lost her ability to speak, and had difficulty moving her body. A CAT scan showed that she had a giant artery aneurysm—a grossly swollen blood vessel in the wall of her basilar artery, close to the brain stem. If it burst, which could happen at any moment, it would kill her. But the standard surgery to drain and repair it might kill her too.

With no other options, Pam turned to a last, desperate measure offered by neurosurgeon Robert Spetzler at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. Spetzler was a specialist and pioneer in hypothermic cardiac arrest—a daring surgical procedure nicknamed “Operation Standstill.” Spetzler would bring Pam’s body down to a temperature so low that she was essentially dead. Her brain would not function, but it would be able to survive longer without oxygen at this temperature. The low temperature would also soften the swollen blood vessels, allowing them to be operated on with less risk of bursting. When the procedure was complete, the surgical team would bring her back to a normal temperature before irreversible damage set in.

Essentially, Pam agreed to die in order to save her life—and in the process had what is perhaps the most famous case of independent corroboration of out of body experience (OBE) perceptions on record. This case is especially important because cardiologist Michael Sabom was able to obtain verification from medical personnel regarding crucial details of the surgical intervention that Pam reported. Here’s what happened.

Pam was brought into the operating room at 7:15 a.m., she was given general anesthesia, and she quickly lost conscious awareness. At this point, Spetzler and his team of more than 20 physicians, nurses, and technicians went to work. They lubricated Pam’s eyes to prevent drying, and taped them shut. They attached EEG electrodes to monitor the electrical activity of her cerebral cortex. They inserted small, molded speakers into her ears and secured them with gauze and tape. The speakers would emit repeated 100-decibel clicks—approximately the noise produced by a speeding express train—eliminating outside sounds and measuring the activity of her brainstem.

[cbayer]

1. Fascinating! I skimmed but put this aside for a more careful reading later.

Thanks for sharing.

[Little Star]

2. Incredible. Good Read. k&r

[dballance]

3. Very Interesting

I am an atheist and don't buy into the God thing.

I do find it very interesting that so many unrelated people have such similar NDE stories. I am willing to yield to the circumstantial evidence and say there might actually be something else out there. I will not go so far as to say it is a God like the God of the Bible or Yahweh from Muslim texts. I will always still maintain those are man-made myths. If you want to bust me for calling them myths then let's talk about the Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses they believed in just fervently as so many Christians believe in their religion today.

[cbayer]

9. The similarity of experiences in NDE are intriguing, I agree.

I think there is probably some neurological processes that can explain much of it, but does it explain all of it?

Whether one believes in god or not seems irrelevant, as I think one can believe in a spirit or soul without necessarily bringing a deity into it.

[kiri]

30. hynogogic and hypnopompic experiences

NDE's are almost surely related to hynogogic and hypnopompic experiences, which are fairly common as people fall asleep, or sometimes when waking up. Sleep involves a certain kind of brain shut down. Most people do not know about sleep paralysis. The hypno- experiences are "altered brain states" as the brain copes with shutting down the usual flood of sensory input.

It is also well-known now that states of feeling awe, 'the presence of another', usually attributed to a god, can be created by stimulating certain parts of the brain.
Our brains are quite good at fooling us in many ways, via optical illusions, auditory illusions, confirmation bias, distorted memories, false attributions (as to cause and effect), poor estimates of probability, dreams, and many other ways.

NDE and OBE have to fit into this overall understanding.

BTW, nearly all "alien abduction" tales are due to these near-sleep and near-awakening experiences.

[cbayer]

35. Good points.

I am familiar with these states, as they have to be ruled out when evaluating someone that might be psychotic. But, in my experience, there are few similarities when people describe these states. That's what seems to make it different.

Certainly, I think there could be a very reasonable neuropsychiatric explanation having to do with stimulation (or lack thereof) of very specific parts of the brain.

We shall see ( or not).

[southernyankeebelle]

28. You may be right but wouldn't it be great if it really was true. I know it would give me a happy

feeling.

[eqfan592]

4. Interesting read, but a couple of flaws.

The most glaring one, and it is one I've seen repeated when discussing this subject, is this:

These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies.

The problem is that we can't actually be certain people are experiencing these NDE's and OBE's while their hearts are stopped and there is no brain activity. Even in the Pam Reynolds case we can't be certain she didn't have her experience during the last moments her brain was still active. As for the details she was able to bring up, do we know for a fact she never saw the tools they were going to use prior to the surgery? Also, she likely met the team that would be working on her, and had a good idea of what was going to be done during the surgery, so her experiences (such as hearing the voice of the woman) could have resulted from her own concerns of the surgery that just so happened to occur in reality.

Also, how can those who believe that OBE's are a real phenomena with the persons consciousness leaving the body explain OBE's where the person does not see or hear something that is real?

These are questions that must be answered before we begin jumping to the conclusions that the author of that article clearly means for us readers to jump to.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Scientific studies of nde have not

Been kind to claims of oobe. In fact, quite the opposite.

[djean111]

6. As a person who had an NDE,

I am amazed at all the scientific endeavor devoted to proving or disproving it.
May as well try and scientifically prove a religious god-of-yer-choice exists, in my opinion.
I do know that, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, I could not be less interested in whether others believe it happens.
Why the fuss by people who don't believe it happens?
I do object to comments (over at Salon) that equate NDE experiences with "supernatural".
My experience was intensely real to me, and to say it was supernatural makes no sense whatsoever.

[Silent3]

8. I don't think there's any significant dispute over whether NDEs happen or not

It's over the interpretation of what exactly these experiences are and how they could happen.

Why the fuss by people who don't believe it happens?

Apart from the repeated mischaracterization about there being much debate over whether or not NDEs happen, the "fuss" over what they mean seems very understandable to me.

May as well try and scientifically prove a religious god-of-yer-choice exists, in my opinion.

Does this mean that you think gods should be accepted as real without proof because the seem to be beyond proof? Or that you just don't care, and you can't imagine why everyone else doesn't share your disinterest?

[djean111]

11. I just don't care to prove or disprove gods.

I do get your point about whether the NDEs happen; I suppose the debate is over what they mean.

[cbayer]

10. Was your experience similar or different from the experiences described by others?

I am intrigued by both.

[djean111]

15. Similar.

Glowing light, welcomed by people who knew me, regretfully told I must go back, I have a job to do.
Did not seem religious in any way, shape or form. Lovely, but not religious.
I would not characterize it as an OOBE, though - I think NDEs and OOBEs get sort of lumped together.
I wasn't wafting around, checking windowsills or anything.

[cbayer]

22. That's what I most often read about and agree that it is much different than an OOBE.

I recently saw a great movie on this called Resurrection (with Ellen Burstyn, Sam Shepard) and that's exactly how they portrayed it as well.

Again, I think the similarities described are really intriguing.

[Silent3]

7. Explained where?

The article describes and recounts NDEs, it tries to dismiss "materialist" explanations for them... but it explains nothing.

[AlbertCat]

65. The article describes and recounts NDEs, it tries to dismiss "materialist"

A perfect description of the article.

[felix_numinous]

12. I just watched an excellent documentary on NDE

Last edited Sun Apr 22, 2012, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

on Netflix --it's called 'Afterlife', and I thought it was pretty good.

Here is a list of NDE videos and authors:
http://www.near-death.com/documentaries.html

[Silent3]

14. No bias or agenda on that web site...

...nosiree!

[felix_numinous]

27. Here is another resource

there are tons of information, and researching is like mining for jewels--you have to practice your own level of discernment.

http://www.nderf.org/

[Silent3]

31. Yet another site oriented toward believers...

...complete with the same kind of puffy cloud motif.

Do you grasp the idea of critical examination of evidence? As opposed to feel-good "let's all share our uplifting experiences!"?

[Speck Tater]

13. Woo woo. Pooh pooh.

(mumble mumble)... magical thinking...(hand waving)... modern science...(mumble mumble)... Occam's razor...(blah blah)... James Randi...(mumble mumble)...superstition...(rant rant)...laws of physics...(vague generalities) ... Therefore this can't possibly be true.

(This post presented as a community service to save all the "skeptics" the trouble of posting. I'm pretty sure I covered all their bases.)

[djean111]

18. Bwah! Thank you.

[mr blur]

19. No, you left a couple out.

But keep thinking, you'll get there.

[Silent3]

20. You can't even get your satire right

"Therefore this can't possibly be true."

That's your interpretation of what it means when people don't take this stuff at face value. Besides, what makes easy credulity about such matters a comparably noble thing?

Hint: this has nothing to do with being "open to the possibilities"? It's about lending any great credence to some people's favorite picks from among many possibilities.

[eqfan592]

23. Big +1 here! (nt)

[Speck Tater]

24. You're right!

I left one out:

...(mumble mumble)...Unlike we scientifically enlightened beings, you mere mortals have misinterpreted the evidence...(mumble mumble)...

Hint: it's not the strength of any single piece of evidence, but the ubiquity and overwhelming pervasiveness of corroborating evidence from separate observers, and from many other unrelated fields. Given all the evidence through recorded history for the existence of something like a separable "soul", then Occam's razor should suggest that the existence of the soul is possibly the single simplest explanation for such things as NDEs, past life recall, ghosts and hauntings, etc. etc. Of course one can choose to ignore all that evidence as well. But that's not so much applying Occam's razor to the problem as it is dabbing Occam's shaving cream in your eyes to avoid looking at the problem.

[Silent3]

29. Some things are ubiquitous...

...because the same misunderstandings, mental processes, emotional biases, etc., are ubiquitous. I can't comment on specifics if you don't name specific things you think add up to positive evidence for a "soul". I've heard plenty of supposed evidence before, and I am unimpressed.

Some alleged evidence, like some of these supposedly remarkable accounts of NDEs, don't hold up under closer inspection.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html
http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf

These kinds of things don't gain weight by piling up more of the same. When you're selling an item at a loss you can't make up for the loss by selling in volume. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

...then Occam's razor should suggest that the existence of the soul is possibly the single simplest explanation for such things as NDEs...

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem: entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

That's a better understanding of Occam's Razor that the common "simplest explanation is usually the best". We might not know anywhere near all there is to know about the human mind, but there's nothing that we do know -- that holds up to scrunity -- that demands any "entity" beyond the physical brain to be explained. The "soul" in an extra "entity" which the available evidence does not require.

Besides, there are a whole lot more complications which follow by positing the existence of a "soul" which make that idea far from simple.

[Speck Tater]

38. Some day, when each of us, in our turn, and at our own time,...

dies, we will either find out the truth of the matter, ... or else we won't.

I for one am willing to wait and see, ... or not.

[eqfan592]

52. On this point you are correct.

We will indeed see the truth one way or another when that time comes.

[AlbertCat]

63. .(mumble mumble)...Unlike we scientifically enlightened beings, you mere mortals have misinterpreted

Ahhhh... the "You think you know everything" card.

No mumbling there!

[tama]

71. See post 64 nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. Perfect!

[Silent3]

53. So critical analysis strikes you like this?

[font color=gray size=-2]Edit: Replaced image URL with one that won't expire.[/font]

[trotsky]

54. Why are you attacking and denigrating people?

What purpose does that serve? It is hard to tolerate your intolerance of a different viewpoint.

[Speck Tater]

55. I thought I was attacking and denigrating IDEAS.

Like the idea that there is only one way to know the world: science.

I don't accept that idea. I see it as too narrow, and it turns a blind eye to things that are not convenient subjects of reductionism.

You have a long tradition here of making a very strong case for the value of science. In those things we are in complete agreement. You are right. Science is a powerful tool. My education was scientific and I spent my career working as an engineer. I respect science and the scientific method. I really do.

What I don't respect is the attitude "...and that's all there is." (It's hard to take seriously restrictions which "forbid" the existence of things I know to be true.)

[trotsky]

56. As I have learned in this forum, there is no such distinction.

If you attack and denigrate ideas, you are attacking the people who hold them. That is intolerant and unacceptable.

On a side note, has there been someone who actually said "...and that's all there is" (or similar)? Seems to me the reactions of the people you are targeting with your hate speech are more along the lines of "actually, there is no reason why we should conclude a mind-body duality from this data."

[Speck Tater]

58. Fair enough. (I think "hate speech" is a little over the top.)

you say: "actually, there is no reason why we should conclude a mind-body duality from this data." which implies a philosophical (or more correctly, metaphysical) choice as well. That quote should include the disclaimer "and we have chosen to make this decision based on the assumption that logic and the scientific method applies in these cases."

Of course anyone familiar with QM will have to try to reconcile "classical logic" with "quantum logic". (start with VonNeumann and Birkoff's 1936 paper The Logic of Quantum Mechanics) What seems like self-evident logic to we macroscopic creatures isn't so self-evident at the quantum level, so who's to say that "pure logic" (whatever that could possibly mean in the quantum era) is the best epistemological tool we have? In fact, that's a rather extraordinary claim! But that assumption is unstated, yet implicit in your quote.

And just as Riemann showed when he proposed alternatives to Euclid's assumptions, starting from a different, but equally valid set of assumptions can bring us to a radically different set of conclusions. The problem I have with naive materialism is that it leaves it's arbitrary assumptions unstated, and usually acts as if those assumptions are facts. In truth, many naive materialists don't even realize that they are basing their entire philosophical edifice on unstated, and unprovable metaphysical assumptions.

Put simply, we are unlikely to ever agree because your geometry is Euclidean and mine is Riemannian (or vice versa. It's a flexible metaphor, so choose whichever version of yourself you prefer.) Our fundamental axioms (unproven assumptions) are different, and you believe your axioms to be true and self-evident while I believe that my own axioms are true and self-evident. And since we start with different axioms, of course we arrive at different conclusions. And since we both believe our own set of axioms to be the only possible set, we will never change our axioms. So there you have it. Eternal impasse.

[trotsky]

59. It's not my term - I saw it used for another post that criticized beliefs.

I have learned a lot from this group on how to stifle different opinions.

[tama]

67. Has that lesson

teached you how not to stifle different opinions?

[AlbertCat]

64. Quantum Mechanics...

..... refers ONLY to the characteristics of sub-atomic particles.

Depak....is that you?

[tama]

68. How do you feel

about being wrong? Do you wish your opinions/beliefs corrected e.g. in light of scientific knowledge, or left alone so that you don't feel like losing face or sumfink like that?

[eqfan592]

76. I hate to say it tama, but those in glass houses should really avoid throwing stones. (nt)

[Speck Tater]

72. Well alrighty then.

I'm so glad you were able to define the boundary Schoedinger was unable to pinpoint. It's such a comfort to know that quantum effects do not exist on the macroscopic level.

Oh, but what about this article from Physics World back in 2003? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/sep/03/entanglement-goes-macroscopic

Macroscopic entanglement is a fact of life. And don't forget that the very computer you are reading this on depends on quantum tunneling for it's very existence. Check this too: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090427224525data_trunc_sys.shtml or just Google Macroscopic Quantum

You see, here's the thing. Science depends on divide and conquer. The world must be partitioned into artificial pigeon holes in order for science to work. What we call "simplifying assumptions" are made constantly by scientists. Without those simplifying assumptions science could not even be done. One of those simplifying assumptions is "Quantum effects don't matter at the macroscopic scale." Of course that's nonsense, and no physicist in his right mind really means for that to be taken as the literal truth. It is a simplifying assumption that makes it possible to say "For practical purposes we can ignore quantum effects when we compute the orbits of the planets or the trajectories of falling bricks."

This does NOT mean that the wave function of the solar system does not exist, or that it has "no" effect. That is the naive science groupie's version of the state of affairs. The entire solar system, the entire Milky Way galaxy, the entire universe, has a quantum wave function. And that wave function appears to be more than just an abstraction: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all.ars

There are two problems connected with the common perception of QM. The first is that "QM explains paranormal phenomena." This is utter nonsense! It does no such thing. (And crackpots like Depak would serve us better by keeping their mouths shut.) The second is that "quantum weirdness doesn't really matter in the real world." This is also utter nonsense. To quote somebody whose name I don't recall just off hand: "The universe is stranger than we know, and possibly stranger than we can know."

So while I appreciate your effort to "debunk" reality, and your effort to associate me with charlatans like Depak, the problem is that while you have avoided the one extreme of dogma, you've let yourself be hoodwinked by the opposite extreme.

[tama]

79. Zeilinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger
has been called "worlds most renowned experimentalist" and his groundbreaking work should be mentioned in connection to macroscopic quantum phenomena.

And as for "paranormal", the word means phenomena that falsify materialistic explanations which are considered "normal" (and often even normative) by materialists. Quantum (and post quantum) explanations are called "woo" by materialists because they don't exclude "paranormal" phenomena.

[Speck Tater]

80. Thank you.

As for "paranormal", I have personally had enough paranormal experiences to take them very seriously. I just don't think QM "explains" anything about them, unlike a lot of "new age" authors who throw around bits and pieces of QM and pretend they know what they're talking about.

As an idealist myself I think we are more likely to find the explanation for QM in consciousness rather than the other way around. After all, if what we think of as "physical" is, at its base, a construct of mind, then QM is also a construct of mind. What makes the most sense to me is that consciousness is all that is "real", and everything else is an epiphenomenon of consciousness. Which is why I believe that the materialists have it completely backwards!

[tama]

81. Giving science a chance

Hameroff-Penrose, Bohm-Sarfatti-Stapp, Pitkänen, etc. study and theorize relation of physics and mental phenomena from the non-materialist point of view which is not hostile to what so many people and other sentient beings experience.

Philosophically instead of either-or division to idealism and materialism, IMHO more sound approach to the mind-body problem is monistic aspectual difference instead of reduction either way or dualism. Both "it from bit and bit from it", mind and body being interplay of aspectual differences of deeper underlying unity.

[AlbertCat]

83. quantum effects do not exist on the macroscopic

I was referring to "quantum mechanics"

Quantum mechanics (QM - also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena where the action is on the order of the Planck constant.

That's the definition from Wiki

also from Wiki:
under UNSOLVED problems in physics

In the correspondence limit of quantum mechanics: Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the "superposition of states" and "wavefunction collapse", give rise to the reality we perceive?

[Speck Tater]

84. Oh, well if Wikipedia says so...

I guess that settles it.

[AlbertCat]

85. Could you stop laughing long enough....

.... to explain what's wrong with the definition from Wiki? We all know, even stupid me!, that Wiki isn't the do all and end all of info. But please list the errors in the definition they give.


Like Richard Dawkins said about the Wiki entry on evolution.... It's amazingly correct for such a site.

Meanwhile:

from American Heritage Dictionary:

quantum mechanics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Quantum theory, especially the quantum theory of the structure and behavior of atoms and molecules.


from Collins English Dictionary - complete and unabridged:

quantum mechanics
n
(Physics / Atomic Physics) (functioning as singular) the branch of mechanics, based on the quantum theory used for interpreting the of elementary particles and atoms, which do not obey Newtonian mechanics


from American Heritage Science Dictionary:

quantum mechanics
A fundamental theory of matter and energy that explains facts that previous physical theories were unable to account for, in particular the fact that energy is absorbed and released in small, discrete quantities (quanta), and that all matter displays both wavelike and particlelike properties, especially when viewed at atomic and subatomic scales. Quantum mechanics suggests that the behavior of matter and energy is inherently probabilistic and that the effect of the observer on the physical system being observed must be understood as a part of that system. Also called quantum physics, quantum theory. Compare classical physics. See also probability wavequantumuncertainty principlewave-particle duality


How about this from the entry "quantum mechanics" from McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Physics:

Correspondence principle
Since classical mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory accurately describe macroscopic phenomena, quantum mechanics must have a classical limit in which it is equivalent to the older classical theories. Although there is no rigorous proof of this principle for arbitrarily complicated quantum-mechanical systems, its validity is well established by numerous illustrations.

[Speck Tater]

86. Google "macroscopic quantum effects"

Science is not about "reality", it's about a simplified, stripped-down version of reality. When you apply simplifying assumptions, which all science does, all the time, for the sake of making "good enough" approximations, that's fine. Just don't mistake the model for the reality it models. Quantum effects influence the universe at all scales.

In most cases you can disregard quantum effects at the macroscopic level, just as in most cases you can pretend that pi is exactly 3.1415926535. That's close enough to compute the circumference of the earth to the nearest 1/300th of an inch. Which is fine. But that's not the real value of pi. It's a simplifying assumption.

From the wikipedia article on QM: "Quantum coherence is not typically evident at macroscopic scales - although an exception to this rule can occur at extremely low temperatures (i.e. approaching absolute zero), when quantum behavior can manifest itself on more macroscopic scales"

Notice that they use the phrase "not typically evident" and not the phrase "non-existent". This is a simplifying assumption. When I taught a freshman class in the philosophy of science back in the early 70's one of the hardest things for some of my students was to break the habit of conflating the model with the thing modeled. As Korzybski famously said "The map is not the territory." An abstraction of a thing is not the thing itself. Science deals in abstractions of reality, not in reality; in maps of the territory, not in the territory. And every time we introduce another simplifying assumption (like "quantum effects don't matter at this level&quot we introduce another layer of error and inaccuracy in the model.

So don't forget those all-important weasel words: for practical purposes quantum effect are not noticeable at macroscopic scales in most cases.

[AlbertCat]

87. So....

...what's wrong with the Wiki definition, I asked.

[Silent3]

57. It's not a matter of "that's all there is"...

...but a matter of there being no way to reasonably distinguish between the essentially infinite possibilities for all that we don't know.

But I suspect you will continue to characterize scientifically-minded skeptics as saying "that's all there is!" no matter what I say. You value that straw man too much.

[tama]

69. Not just a straw man

but also a quote and/or direct implication of many of the materialistic belief system. Thus spoketh e.g. Dawkins.

[Silent3]

75. Provide said quote with sufficient context...

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

...so that it's clear we're not dealing with a simple matter of economical wording, not merely a matter of Dawkins or anyone else failing to always attach endless caveats to every utterance just to make sure hypothetical other possibilities are paid lip service in each and every single breath, lest overly sensitive people with persecution complexes and authority issues feel that they are being oppressed.

[eqfan592]

77. The quote is in reference to the idea of conciousness returning to a body whos brain has decayed.

And I believe the quote was indeed simply a matter of economical wording, but it did nevertheless trigger a lengthy yet generally amiable discussion between myself and tama.

[tama]

78. Thanks n/t

[Starboard Tack]

73. Maybe you guys would be happier with a new group to play in.

"Skeptics and Naysayers" comes to mind or "Party Poopers" maybe. Or would it be too boring to just rag on each other. Not much fun really unless you can dump on people who actually enjoy life outside the science lab.

[trotsky]

82. Now why are you attacking and denigrating?

Name-calling to boot. And you have the audacity to claim others are dumping on people. Amazing.

[mr blur]

16. Luckily, the lady had never read anything about what to expect from a NDE beforehand.

Oh, wait...

[djean111]

21. FWIW

I was only 17 and had never heard of an NDE, I was all alone at home when it happened (a very very long time ago, before the internet and whatnot), and was just amazed. It was years before I described it to anyone and found out about NDEs.

[Auntie Bush]

32. Can you please tell us what happened? nt

[djean111]

41. Can you send me a message I can reply to?

I don't have enough posts to initiate one. I am mostly a lurker.

[Auntie Bush]

62. I really don't understand what you want me to do. Sorry

[kentauros]

66. I think djean111 wants you to send a PM

as their post-count is too low to initiate one

[cosmicaug]

17. Maria's NDE

With regards to Maria's NDE, the following may shed some light:
http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf

[Speck Tater]

26. Summary: "Somebody is lying because...

...if the evidence suggests we might be wrong then somebody MUST be lying about the evidence, because we can't possibly be wrong."

[eqfan592]

42. Actually no, but nice try tho. :) (nt)

[cosmicaug]

48. Eyewitness testimony

Not really. Once you realize the Kimberly Clark account was not publicly reported until seven years after the fact with no evidence that she ever took contemporary notes it simply becomes a lot less impressive.

No one is talking about anyone lying. Memories change. They are not reliable and the more time passes since the event being recalled the less reliable the memory is likely to be. This is why you have to be very careful with eyewitness testimony in general.

It's like when you ask people to recall what they saw when they witnessed a magic trick being performed. Very often they give accounts of seeing things which they could not have seen (because they did not happen). These people are not lying. They simply have been deceived by the way out minds work such that they reconstructed a (false) reality after the fact and incorporated it into their memory of the event.

[cosmicaug]

49. No lies here

Let's put it this way. Everything could have happened exactly in the way Kimberly Clark claims María described it happened. However, we cannot conclude this based on this account. The problem is that if this is one of the most convincing NDE accounts out there it means that NDE accounts really don't have much going for them.

[FarCenter]

51. This experimental approach cited in the pdf should be pursued more widely

One attempt to gather objective evidence of this sort, rather than the usual anecdotal, after-the-fact accounts, has been initiated by the British psychiatrist, Peter Fenwick (personal communication). He has had messages placed on ledges, above eye level, in the operating theaters of the hospital where he works. If a surgical patient should have an NDE/OBE, then his or her free-floating mind shold be able to read the otherwise inaccessible message and recall it upon re-awakening. As yet, no one has been able to provide this kind of objective evidence, which would admittedly create serious problems for the materialist view of mind.

Preferably this should be done with an LCD display so that the message or picture could change from operation to operation without any of the operating room staff knowing what was displayed for any given operation, i.e. double blind.

[1monster]

25. Thank you for posting. This is fascinating. I've been interested ever since

Raymond Moody came out with LIFE AFTER LIFE.

[Auntie Bush]

43. I've been interested since 2000 when I lost my son...then believe I got many messages from him.

I searched for many years to try to believe and get proof. I was an atheist before this experience and then became a believer...now that I'm not receiving any massages anymore I've reverted almost back...well now I'm an agnostic with hope. I'm always looking for something to make me a real believer...so I'm grateful for this post and will be checking out those type of books again. Thanks.

[1monster]

50. Two books for you:

First, WE DON'T DIE, George Anderson's Conversations with the Other Side by Joel Martin and Patricia Romanowski

Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=WE+DON%27T+DIE&_sacat=267

Barnes and Noble: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/we-dont-die-joel-martin/1100376989?ean=9780425184998

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_19?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=we+don%27t+die+george+anderson%27s+conversations+with+the+other+side&sprefix=We+Don%27t+Die+George%2Caps%2C288

I have purchased about a dozen copies of this book in the past for those who have lost loved ones and all have been comforted by it. (There is a sequel which is just as good called WE ARE NOT ALONE)

The other book is MANY LIVES, MANY MASTERS

Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Many+Lives%2C+Many+Masters&_sacat=267&_odkw=WE+DON%27T+DIE&_osacat=267&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313

Barnes and Nobel: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/many-lives-many-masters-brian-l-weiss/1100321361?ean=9780671657864

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Many+Lives%2C+Many+Masters

This book will give you food for thought about the nature of life and after life.

I am so sorry for your loss. I have found that death does not bother me since I've read these books. It is simply another stage of life.

[Auntie Bush]

61. Thanks, 1monster. That was a lot of work and I appreciate it.

I read a lot of books on the subject the first year...but haven't lately. Need to start reading again. One too easily drifts back to thinking there is no after life. I have to keep rejuvenating my thoughts. Oh, I did read many Lives, Many Masters.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Too bad intentionally putting people, especially blind people, in situations which may

cause a NDE or OBE is very unethical.

Maybe surgery rooms should have a safe with a secret, common object in it, and the doctors can say, "Hey, if you happen to leave your body, make sure to look in the safe and see what is in there."

[felix_numinous]

34. For people who are terminally ill

like myself, this is an especially and interesting important subject. Continuation of consciousness is not woo woo, it is very real to people who have experienced a separation from their bodies--their reports completely line up with actual events.

Most people who report NDEs do not include ANY religious experience. It is just consciousness separated from the physical form. Simple, and not woo woo.

If these accounts are someday proven in an official approved laboratory--it would do absolutely NO HARM to anyone, but in fact would BENEFIT humankind!! People are reporting that LOVE IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, and to me this is what the world needs more of, not ridiculing each other, being snarky and mean.

[cbayer]

36. +1. Thanks for saying this.

[deucemagnet]

37. Fighter pilots training in cetrifuges experience OBEs and NDEs.

This phenomenon can be reproduced under controlled conditions without endangering the life of the subject. Interesting stuff. I saw a documentary on it, but I can't find it. Here's a short NPR piece, though.

[Silent3]

39. Spin one of those fast enough...

...and your mind will splatter against the back wall, but that's not a preferred way to have an out-of-body experience.

[moobu2]

40. They're glossing over important details in the Pam Reynolds case that do not support their theory.

This is easily explained I think. In the very next paragraph from the article it says at approximately 8:40 a.m. Pam Reynolds claimed she "“pop” out of her body and hover above it, watching as doctors worked on her body".

Read this.

At 8:40 a.m., the tray of surgical instruments was uncovered, and Robert Spetzler began cutting through Pam’s skull with a special surgical saw that produced a noise similar to a dental drill. At this moment, Pam later said, she felt herself “pop” out of her body and hover above it, watching as doctors worked on her body.

The big glaring issue there is that she wasn't near death when the alleged out of body incident began, she was simply under general anesthesia at that point which was administered about 7:15 a.m. According to the article Mrs. Reynolds heart was stopped at around 11:05 a.m. and her EEG flattened into total silence a few minutes later.

Read this.

"At 11:25 a.m., the team tilted up the head of the operating table, turned off the bypass machine, and drained the blood from her body. Pamela Reynolds was clinically dead. "

So basically the best case is this Pam Reynolds out of Body experience episode but if you read carefully doesn't even fit a timeline that coincides with her clinical death.

[TNDemo]

45. What I always wondered about is why

When people meet them in the light or tunnel, if it just random brain firings, why is it always people who are dead? Seems like it would be people who are alive or historical figures but it is always someone who loved them and predeceased them. I don't have an opinion on this, but found that curious.

[cosmicaug]

47. "Random" works on what is already there. Self interprets.

If it were random firings, you'd expect things with vast association networks in your mind to be preferentially triggered (because they have more connections). That would make it more likely to be people who are immensely significant to the person experiencing an NDE, such as loved ones, rather than historical figures. So you might expect people who are alive and directly known to the person rather than historical figures.

The other aspect of it is that if the brain will try to make sense of random stimuli (whether external or internal) such as in dreams. If one is under the impression that one is dead or dying one may very well use that as a reality filter and selectively interpret these random firings as dead relatives.

[Silent3]

60. I'm still waiting for the supposed forthcoming explanation of NDEs

Nargles?

[tama]

70. Yup

The article didn't offer any scientific reductionistic explanation for the phenomena related to NDE and OBE. "Source" probably does not count as one, any more that "singularity".

IMO the most promising avenue for scientific explaining for at least some of the phenomena would be magnetic bodies bigger (in time and space) than classical bodies.

[Silent3]

74. The article didn't even offer a woo "explanation"...

...the article merely tried to discredit scientific explanations, leaving any other explanations up to the vivid imagination of the reader.

Which I'm sure leaves many people happy, despite the title being misleading, because some people are much happier left to their mental playgrounds, patting themselves on the back for clever accountability-free guessing.