Near death, explained
salon.comOne of the problems with NDE reports is that it is not clear exactly when the experience occurred. While the patient's brain may not function at all during the medical procedure, it is far from certain that this is the time NDE is taking place. It is very possible that the whole experience occurs shortly before the brain loses function or shortly after it regains it.
Another problem is the memory of the witnesses, like in the "shoe incident" described in the article. It's been known that people who come to believe they are witnessing something extraordinary suffer from great amounts of confirmation bias and other memory-distorting psychological effects.
Finally, as always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NDE is a fascinating topic deserving rigorous scientific study – one that might shed light on some of the mind's mysteries – but in no way should a relatively small number of reports change our complete view of the mind-brain problem.
The shoe incident really confused me... maybe because I skim-read, but will read again when I'm off this flight and on a bigger screen than my blackberry.
I understand that memory of things will practically dead might be possible, and while the science goes over my head, I'm fine with that. Even "looking down on yourself" can be achieved with a.) science of still remembering something and b.) imagination
But figuring out something no-where near your body, like the shoe outside... short of a non-scientific explanation (e.g. religious), I really can't see how that could ever be possible.
Unless that's not quite what happened. A witness's memory can be deceiving.
What is the position of the author can be seen in one sentence from the article:
"Materialistic scientists have proposed a number of physiological explanations to account for the various features of NDEs."
Obviously, the author doesn't consider himself a "materialistic scientist."
RationalWiki mentions the author of this piece: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience#Ma...
This doesn't change the fact that NDEs are an interesting phenomenon, and we're not quite sure what's going on with them. Still, I'll bet money that they're not going to tell us anything new about physics.
Thanks. RationalWiki also concludes:
"Non-materialist neuroscience has failed every single one of the categories. Its basic framework is unwieldy and does not provide any clear, specific, falsifiable predictions. What few tests might be imagined for it have all turned up evidence strongly against its basic predictions. It has failed to advance knowledge, create new hypotheses and definitely has not made clear how it will aid in helping us understand and treat brain injuries or illnesses. It has been a complete flop scientifically. So why the sudden surge in books and publications pushing it? We are dealing with a political and religious movement just as we have dealt with in intelligent design and creationism."
In pure logic, the author didn't admit that he was not a materialistic scientist. That's not an important point, right?
> 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.
Having experimented with Lucid Dreaming... I'll call bullshit.
> NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness.
By definition, if the instrument that is failing is the one that is measuring (itself!), you're not going to get results that tell you anything at all.
I encourage everybody to try lucid dreaming, it's very instructive. After my experiences, I'm 100% certain that it is responsible for everything from alien abductions to NDEs.
It's a lot of fun, too! Not to mention a lot cheaper and safer than experimenting with street drugs, although usually, you have to pay for the difference with patience.
AHem, read the criticism of this wikipedia article on one of the Authors of Proof of heaven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)
No science behind it, etc..
It seems to me even reading about the critics that Neurology is a very young science with not all its Science Processes and Measure snot fully established yet..
In which we learn that many have had veridical NDEs/OBEs corroborated by third parties, but nothing is actually explained. The reader is merely treated to a series of anecdotes that render little beyond providing room for suggesting there is continuity of experience, without the accompanying clarity an explanation ought to provide.
There is also little attempt made to veil an implicit contempt for 'materialistic scientists'.
well, it's an interesting article, but there's no explanation as the title suggests.