Near Death Experience- response to Unklee

[krkey1]

I meant to answer your question about NDEs earlier Unklee, but I got a little busy. So here you go.

First I would advice you to read these two websites:

www.near-death.com/
www.nderf.org/

also look at this part

www.near-death.com/skeptic.html



I will say I do not agree with everything on them. However I do feel they present a good overview of the subject. I would also encourage to read the Howard Storm NDE-http://www.near-death.com/storm.html

you can listen to Howard Storm describe his experience-.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5Wt5Dl2zVc&feature=related
This has five parts to it.

NDEs have been stumping mainstream since they were first discovered by Raymond Moody in the 1970s. Scientist tend to fall into three categories about this subject.

Believers- These tend to be your researchers. They have studied NDEs and concluded they are not hallucinations. It should be noted these are mainstream scientist, such as Michael Sabom, Kenneth Ring and Bruce Greyson. It should also be noted many of them started off as skeptics.

Uncritically skeptical. This is unfortunately the vast majority of scientist. They automatically assume NDEs are hallucination without researching the subject. They tend to do this for philosophical reasons. They tend to take the debunkers at face value, without investigating their claims.

Debunkers- These are the scientist who absolutely insist that NDEs are medically explainable. They use explanations such as lack of oxygen etc, even thought none of these phenomena are known to produce anything remotely similar to the NDE. They often do distort evidence to fit their arguments. When reading these scientists arguments it quickly becomes obvious that they are philosophy driven and deeply preconceived notions that the existence of any sort of dualism is impossible. Susan Blackmore is a perfect example of one these debunkers, for example in her book Dying to Live she immediately states that evolution disproves the existence of the soul. She also dismisses NDErs claims that conflict with her views by simply asserting she doesn't believe them. A good critique of her argument can be found here-http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html

Here are the reasons I feel NDEs are best explained using the afterlife model.

1.) Those who have had NDEs absolutely insist they experienced the afterlife and they were not hallucinating. If anyone should know it is them. If not, why not?

2.) In over 30 years of research on this subject no medical explanation has withstood rational scrutiny. If it was caused by medical reasons surely that explanation would have been discovered by now.

3.) NDErs have accurately described both visual and auditory aspects of surgery done on them while unconscious. None NDErs were unable to do either aspects of describing their surgeries and in fact made major errors. This study ( Sabom) study excluded anyone with a medical background from being interviewed.

4.) NDErs born blind or those who become blind at a young age ( 5 or younger) has visual based NDEs. ( Ring Study). This is the exact opposite pattern of what would be expected if these were hallucinations or dreams in this population ( you would expect only auditory hallucinations)

5.) NDEs have occurred during flatline cases. Even if the brain is still functional at this time, it is not functional enough to hallucinate or store memory.

6.) NDErs report gaining religious insights that are incoherent with their previous religious views. For example 70% of NDErs come back believing in reincarnation. If it was just a hallucination one would expect it to correspond more with the subjects preconceived religious notions.

7.) Children report having NDEs. This disproves the argument that NDEs are caused by a fear of death or deeply religiously engrained notions because children have neither of these.

8.) While rare Hellish NDEs do occur. This disproves the notions that NDEs are a fantasy to help the brain die pleasantly.

9.) People have brought back information from their NDEs that they could not have known through normal means. For example it was reported at the 2007 IANDs conference that a patient meet his true father during an NDE. He later asked his mother about this experience because he did not know the entity reporting to be his father and he already knew who his father was. His mother brought out a picture and asked if the entity looked like this person. He said that was the person and then his mother explained to him that she had an affair during World War II and she never told anyone till now. The person she had an affair with was a soldier and he was killed during the war. His stepfather had just assumed he was the biological father. How can any hallucination do that?

10.) NDEs make no evolutionary sense. They would seem to encourage death, not survival. If this was something that evolved one would expect it to scare someone into living as long as possible, not trick someone into blissful death.

Skeptics tend to be very uninformed on this subject. NDErs describe what happened to them as more real then real, more beautiful then beautiful, they found their true home, that this is true reality and Earthly reality is an illusion. You would expect the dying brain do the exact opposite of what is being observed.

Hope this helps

Recommend Reading:

Recollections of Death- Michael Sabom
Mindsight- Kenneth Ring
Lancet study December 2001-http://www.nderf.org/Lancet%20von%20Lommel%20Review.htm
Irreducible Mind- Expensive but great, also debunks often used explanations for NDEs.

[humphreyclarke]

For the record, I am sceptical about NDEs because they tend to be bound up with neo-religions like spiritualism, new age mysticism and western pix-a-mix forms of Buddhism. That said, there does appear to be a certain continuity between them which is interesting. Even A J Ayer, the logical positivist had one as I recall and claimed he saw ‘a divine being’ which caused quite a stir at the time. My feeling is that NDEs are outside science and firmly in the realm of subjective human experience. In terms of the evidence for the existence of the supernatural they fit in the same category as religious experiences. I don't know how comfortable I am with this idea you can 'fool the system' by almost dying; thereby instigating the tunnel and the red light before the afterlife administrators realise their mistake; although you could argue that the experience is meant to offer comfort and strengthen the faith of the terminally ill person.

Attempts to investigate them ‘scientifically’ seem a tad farcical. These quotes from Susan Blackmore’s book are priceless:

"Under conditions of extreme tiredness and smoking hashish I had an NDE-type experience complete with the tunnel and light, out-of-body travels, expansion and contraction of size, timelessness, a mystical experience and the decision to return..."

Crikey, I want whatever she was smoking.

"Something should be seen leaving the body and going into the tunnel. The tunnel itself would be present in physical space and we should be able to measure it or in some way detect its presence."

This conjures an amusing image of scientists crowded around a dying person with tape measures, attempting to get the dimensions of the tunnel as it rises from the body.

"... It is my contention that this "real thing" -- NDEs, mystical experiences and indeed everything encountered on the spiritual path -- are products of a brain and the universe of which it is a part. For there is nothing else."

Hmm, what about that infinite multiverse in which everything that can exist does exist?.

"I shall never forget my own ketamine experience, the extraordinary sensation of watching the floating parts of the body that seemed to have nothing to do with 'me' coming in and out of vision as 'I' seemed to drift about away from them."

I’m starting to understand where ‘The Meme Machine’ came from. This woman has taken more drugs than Keith Richards. For the record, in my student days I once took ketamine by accident (don’t ask). I ended up being chased by pink jesters around my flat, before making a sick joke to my Irish flatmates about the potato famine and telling them the walls were melting. If that is what the afterlife is supposed to be like then sign me up for non-existence.

[krkey1]

Humphrey

I will confess a frustration with your response, but then again I am very used to this type of response.

I posted 10 different pieces of evidence which argue that NDEs are not hallucinations. While not all of these evidences are scientific, it doesn't mean that they are not evidence. Testimonial evidence is accepted evidence.

But some of the evidence is certainly scientific. For example the Sabom and Ring studies on NDEs. Other pieces of evidence while ultimately not testable still can use scientific means to gather them.

Certainly skeptics think this is a scientific question. They propose many known mechanisms that they believe explains it.

To a degree Humphreys I just consider your answer to be a bit of a copout, no offence. I mean with the 10 pieces of evidence I listed, if they are correct, why should NDEs not be accepted as afterlife experiences. Why should someone trying to objectively research this question be agnostic on what causes this.

I understand your new age criticism,but I think it is a bit flawed. For example their are documented NDEs from Ancient Greece. Do a search for the NDE of a soldier named UR. That certainly predates the new age!

Also another possibility is that the New Agers could be correct and that is why NDEs line up with their views!

[humphreyclarke]

Well, I wouldn't say I'm that sceptical about NDEs, perhaps a better choice of words would be 'cautious, but by no means dismissive'. A friends of mine's grandmother had one which was vivid and had all the classic elements. The purpose of posting was really to have a go at Susan Blackmore rather than anything else; I think we can be in agreement on that one. My take is that the oxygen deprivation and ketamine explanations are thoroughly unconvincing. It may be that brain trauma would cause hallucinations but this would not explain the consistency of the 'visions'. I've known plenty of drug users over the years and none of them had anything like a classic nde whilst under the influence. Futhermore the content of a lucid dream would vary dramatically depending on the subject in question. NDEs seem to occur regardless of your religious convictions, the A.J Ayer one being a good example.

The problem is that the purpose of science is to find a naturalistic explanation and push it as far as it will go. For example, I happen to think that a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is impossible; but I don't fault people for trying. Ultimately I think NDEs are part of our subjective experience and therefore beyond scientific examination. The critiques from Blackmore and others seem to be mere statements of their personal philosophy combined with anecdotes about their narcotic experiences. Its fun to read but pretty dismal stuff.

[krkey1]

Dear Hump

I understand what you are saying about science but I certainly feel science should not use a bad naturalistic explanation instead of just saying we don't know however the evidence does seem to support the afterlife so far. That would be an honest answer.

I am a paranormalist. However I do not believe the paranormal is strictly speaking unnatural, it is just an aspect of nature ( ie the universe) yet to be understood. I do believe in souls and I think they came to exist naturally. I think the same way about the afterlife. One day we will understand how it happened.

Saying NDEs cannot be correct at face value and have a natural origin is stifling inquiry in my opinion.

[krkey1]

Let me give an example. We didn't throw out observations that seemed to refute Newtonian Physics and I do not think we should do that with NDEs. They offer an enormous challenge to the notion that the mind is completely linked to the brain. I would encourage you to read the book Irreducible Mind. It shows how many non Paranormal aspects of consciousness cannot be explained through the idea the mind and the brain are the same thing. It shows the evidence best supports a soft dualism.

[humphreyclarke]

Jan 15, 2009 15:49:51 GMT krkey1 said:

Let me give an example. We didn't throw out observations that seemed to refute Newtonian Physics and I do not think we should do that with NDEs. They offer an enormous challenge to the notion that the mind is completely linked to the brain. I would encourage you to read the book Irreducible Mind. It shows how many non Paranormal aspects of consciousness cannot be explained through the idea the mind and the brain are the same thing. It shows the evidence best supports a soft dualism.

Ah, now that does look interesting. I am due a look at conciousness and I was thinking of getting David Chalmers's 'The Concious mind'. My own position is that of double aspect theory, which I suppose is a kind of soft dualism. I find explanations like Dennett's multiple drafts theory of conciousness thoroughly unconvincing; not least because he tends to use the theory of evolution as a battering ram. As to those who argue we don't have free will, I find that a bit silly. The brain clearly gives rise to mental states which are causally effective.

The most ridiculous to me is eliminative materialism, after all if it is impossible to have beliefs, how is it then possible to have a belief in eliminative materialism?.

[krkey1]

I would highly recommended the book I mentioned earlier.

Here is what I remind myself of. As of now we do not know the following

a.) how consciousness arose
b.) how consciousness to the complexity of human intelligence arose
c.) we do not know completely how consciousness functions.

To say consciousness must be one way in light of those HUGE glaring deficiences in Human Knowledge is dogmatic at best, arrogance at worst.

I think answering those questions will be the greatest things science will have ever done.

[Mike D]

Hi there krkey,

While I agree that there is a 'case to answer' for any materialist on NDEs, and that there is tendency for some to dismiss the idea of NDEs out of hand, I feel that there are one or two of the points you make that I would question.

1.) Those who have had NDEs absolutely insist they experienced the afterlife and they were not hallucinating. If anyone should know it is them. If not, why not?

It seems to me that if you are going to follow this line of reasoning, you are likely to end up declaring every experience as valid. Are all UFO abductees indeed abducted by travellers from another world? Are all people who believe that God talks to them to be believed? My own view is that we need to be careful assuming that an experience and the interpretation of that experience are equally authentic.

2.) In over 30 years of research on this subject no medical explanation has withstood rational scrutiny. If it was caused by medical reasons surely that explanation would have been discovered by now.

Firstly, the fact that various asopects of NDEs have been artificially replicated would suggest that it is at least possible that a material explanation exists. Secondly, the science of the brain and mind is still relatively new, so it seems a little precipitate to say that an answer will not be found. It may be that science will never be able to fully explain the mind and consciousness, but I think that there is lot of work to be done before we conclude this.

3.) NDErs have accurately described both visual and auditory aspects of surgery done on them while unconscious. None NDErs were unable to do either aspects of describing their surgeries and in fact made major errors. This study ( Sabom) study excluded anyone with a medical background from being interviewed.

Sabom's study sounds intriguing, but I haven't read it yet. I have ordered it from Amazon, so I'll let you know. The other side of this is that there have been some studies (I'll try and look them up) where people have reported details of hospitals, operating rooms etc that have proved to be incorrect - while under a materialistic point of view, the accuracy of some OOB reports is intriguing, the failures have to be explained by those who hold to the validity of NDEs.

4.) NDErs born blind or those who become blind at a young age ( 5 or younger) has visual based NDEs. ( Ring Study). This is the exact opposite pattern of what would be expected if these were hallucinations or dreams in this population ( you would expect only auditory hallucinations)

I'm not sure if this is a valid conclusion - even if you are born blind, the area of the brain that would normally process and interpret visual data presumably still exists and can be prone to stimulation?

5.) NDEs have occurred during flatline cases. Even if the brain is still functional at this time, it is not functional enough to hallucinate or store memory.

You may be correct, but I would like to see this statement backed up by some kind of medical study.

7.) Children report having NDEs. This disproves the argument that NDEs are caused by a fear of death or deeply religiously engrained notions because children have neither of these.

As a child of 7, I had a morbid (but fortunately short-lived) fear of death to the extent that I would turn by back if a hearse passed so as not to look at it. To my knowledge, it's not that uncommon either. As for children not having deeply ingrained religious notions, I think you would find this is also untrue - there was a programme on TV, which gave lurid coverage of the emotional abuse of children in some religious movements, whence children became preachers and imitiated adults in other ways. This might be unusual, but it shows that children do have a propensity for strong religious notions.

8.) While rare Hellish NDEs do occur. This disproves the notions that NDEs are a fantasy to help the brain die pleasantly.

It would indicate that NDEs are a conscious fantasy, but I don't get the feeling that this is a serious objection to NDEs at any rate.

9.) People have brought back information from their NDEs that they could not have known through normal means.

I'd need to have a look at this one, but it sounds as though potentially it could be promising. However, itt reminds me a bit of reincarnation studies, where often there is the possibility of 'contamination of information' (e.g. people being led to a conclusion), or of people essentially knowing more than they knew they knew (e.g. the Bridey Murphy case was a case in point). These might not always be the case, but I think they would need to be eliminated before a conclusion of 'knowledge through unusual means' was reached.

10.) NDEs make no evolutionary sense. They would seem to encourage death, not survival. If this was something that evolved one would expect it to scare someone into living as long as possible, not trick someone into blissful death.

But you could argue it the other way round - people who experience NDEs and return often feel an urge to 'live life to the full', so from that angle they do make evolutionary sense (if evolution worked that way).

I repeat, I think NDEs are worth studying and should not be dismissed. The 'brain chemistry' view may have some potential holes, but I think the NDE case is not as strong as your arguments make out.

Mike

[krkey1]

1.) Those who have had NDEs absolutely insist they experienced the afterlife and they were not hallucinating. If anyone should know it is them. If not, why not?



It seems to me that if you are going to follow this line of reasoning, you are likely to end up declaring every experience as valid. Are all UFO abductees indeed abducted by travellers from another world? Are all people who believe that God talks to them to be believed? My own view is that we need to be careful assuming that an experience and the interpretation of that experience are equally authentic.

Kris- I did not list this argument by itself. I listed it with nine supporting evidences. Have you ever heard the reed analogy. It is easy to break a single reed, but put a lot together it becomes far more difficult.

People in general know they are hallucinating or having vivid dreams. I did both while I did training with the US Army. I had a dream that seemed so completely lifelike, but I realized it was a dream. I hallucinated once because of stress but I realized after awhile ( about a few seconds) I was hallucinating.

Remember testimonal argument is accepted in courtrooms, by business researchers and in everyday life.


Quote:2.) In over 30 years of research on this subject no medical explanation has withstood rational scrutiny. If it was caused by medical reasons surely that explanation would have been discovered by now.



Firstly, the fact that various asopects of NDEs have been artificially replicated would suggest that it is at least possible that a material explanation exists. Secondly, the science of the brain and mind is still relatively new, so it seems a little precipitate to say that an answer will not be found. It may be that science will never be able to fully explain the mind and consciousness, but I think that there is lot of work to be done before we conclude this.

Kris. You are simply mistaken on this regard. NDEs have NOT been replicated at all by science. Later I will get you an article from IANDS ( International Association of Near Death Studies) for you to read on this.

Be very care with similarity arguments. For example pears and apples are similiar, now are they the same thing? A scrapped leg and a leg blown off have similarities, do you think doctors will treat them the same now. I think you see what I am saying.

Quote:3.) NDErs have accurately described both visual and auditory aspects of surgery done on them while unconscious. None NDErs were unable to do either aspects of describing their surgeries and in fact made major errors. This study ( Sabom) study excluded anyone with a medical background from being interviewed.



Sabom's study sounds intriguing, but I haven't read it yet. I have ordered it from Amazon, so I'll let you know. The other side of this is that there have been some studies (I'll try and look them up) where people have reported details of hospitals, operating rooms etc that have proved to be incorrect - while under a materialistic point of view, the accuracy of some OOB reports is intriguing, the failures have to be explained by those who hold to the validity of NDEs.

Kris. There have been no such studies. NDE patients again and again in the Sabom, Lancet and Satori studies have accurately described their operations. NDEs with hallucinatory material do occur, but at a rate of less then one percent. And even in some of these cases it is debatable if it was a hallucination. Remember though just because some stuff might be a hallucination it does not

Mike we are both materialist. I do think the soul for lack of better better words has to be made out of something We just disagree on survival it would seem


Quote:4.) NDErs born blind or those who become blind at a young age ( 5 or younger) has visual based NDEs. ( Ring Study). This is the exact opposite pattern of what would be expected if these were hallucinations or dreams in this population ( you would expect only auditory hallucinations)



I'm not sure if this is a valid conclusion - even if you are born blind, the area of the brain that would normally process and interpret visual data presumably still exists and can be prone to stimulation?

Kris Studies have been done before on how do people born blind or those who became blind at a young age dream and hallucinate and the studies concluded they do not do it visually. So the evidence is that if NDEs were just hallucinations or dreams they should not have had visual based elements.


Quote:5.) NDEs have occurred during flatline cases. Even if the brain is still functional at this time, it is not functional enough to hallucinate or store memory.



You may be correct, but I would like to see this statement backed up by some kind of medical study.

Read Irreducible Mind and I will try to post more on this for you. Right now I don't have access to my books!


Quote:7.) Children report having NDEs. This disproves the argument that NDEs are caused by a fear of death or deeply religiously engrained notions because children have neither of these.



As a child of 7, I had a morbid (but fortunately short-lived) fear of death to the extent that I would turn by back if a hearse passed so as not to look at it. To my knowledge, it's not that uncommon either. As for children not having deeply ingrained religious notions, I think you would find this is also untrue - there was a programme on TV, which gave lurid coverage of the emotional abuse of children in some religious movements, whence children became preachers and imitiated adults in other ways. This might be unusual, but it shows that children do have a propensity for strong religious notions.

Children younger then 7 have NDEs. And you were no offense not typical of a child. Melvin Morse did these studies on children and he excluded the children you mentioned above.


Quote:8.) While rare Hellish NDEs do occur. This disproves the notions that NDEs are a fantasy to help the brain die pleasantly.



It would indicate that NDEs are a conscious fantasy, but I don't get the feeling that this is a serious objection to NDEs at any rate.

Kris - why would someone create a fantasy of them being tormented or going to Hell?


Quote:9.) People have brought back information from their NDEs that they could not have known through normal means.



I'd need to have a look at this one, but it sounds as though potentially it could be promising. However, itt reminds me a bit of reincarnation studies, where often there is the possibility of 'contamination of information' (e.g. people being led to a conclusion), or of people essentially knowing more than they knew they knew (e.g. the Bridey Murphy case was a case in point). These might not always be the case, but I think they would need to be eliminated before a conclusion of 'knowledge through unusual means' was reached.

Kris- I will get more on this aspect of NDEs for you later, probably this evening. You should do more research on verifable reincarnation cases they are out there. Might I recommend both of Ians Stevensons books called Reincarnation and Biology. They contain verified cases. Be warned though they both cost 150 bucks!!

It is always logically possible for contamination but often times it is not probable. Remember you need evidence of contamination, you just cannot say it without evidence.

Quote:10.) NDEs make no evolutionary sense. They would seem to encourage death, not survival. If this was something that evolved one would expect it to scare someone into living as long as possible, not trick someone into blissful death.



But you could argue it the other way round - people who experience NDEs and return often feel an urge to 'live life to the full', so from that angle they do make evolutionary sense (if evolution worked that way).

Kris - Read a lot of NDEs. While they do come back with a purpose you will notice many of them didn't want to come back!! Many more want to go back!! Again if NDEs were products of evolution you would expect the brain to kick the crap out of you for nearly dying not this!!

I repeat, I think NDEs are worth studying and should not be dismissed. The 'brain chemistry' view may have some potential holes, but I think the NDE case is not as strong as your arguments make out.

Kris- Thanks for your objections, they gave me a good opportunity to clear up some misperceptions and mistaken information I will get more info for you soon

[krkey1]

Hey Mike

How did you reply to me like you did? I would prefer to reply in that way.

[krkey1]

Hey Mike

Flatline NDEs- www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html


NDErs + New Knowledge-http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html

also look at the case of Al Sullivan- www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=95&pgtype=1

It is discussed in more depth on page 390 of Irreducible Mind.

Hope this helps you some.

[krkey1]

Mike

On your claims that NDEs have been replicated in the lab-

www.iands.org/iands_news/ndenews/

third article, basically no they haven't

[rfmoo]

Hello All,

I am quite intrigued by near death experiences. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on exactly what they are. I have read Sabom's work and find it riveting. But these experiences show a lot of cross cultural variation and the sceptical viewpoint has not yet lost the day. Consider, for example, these links:

www.near-death.com/hindu.html

altered-states.net/barry/newsletter224/ndethai1.htm

www.adam.com.au/bstett/SupernatNDEs116.htm

My own view, to the extent that I have one, is that these experiences are not unmediated visions of another world, but they may well be mediated (i.e. by ego/culture/biology) visions of another world that might really be there. As Arthur Clarke liked to say, unproven, but as he probably would not say, possibly the real McCoy.

Best,

Richard

[krkey1]

Hey RFMOO

I don't think it is game over yet for skeptics but it is certainly a game being lost by the skeptics. Imagine a baseball game, bottom of the 7th inning, the winning team is leading by five runs. That is the kinda situation skeptics are in. They haven't lost yet but unless something really changes they will lose.

I think a good explanation for differences from cultures is two-fold

a.) different explanations for the same thing. Take for example a being of light. A Christian would say it was Jesus, a Hindu would say it was Krishna. Their really was a being of light, it was just identified differently

b.) I have read a ton of NDE literature and one thing you learn quickly in studying that is the afterlife ( assuming these are not hallucinations) is more easily affected by the mind then things on Earth are. The mind shapes the perception of the environment into what it expects the afterlife to look like to a degree.