Post by krkey1 on Jan 13, 2009 21:11:27 GMT
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.
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.