Do NDE's Really Demonstrate Survival?

Max_B

Have you ever checked out the research of Dr. Harold Saxton Burr?




Yes, I was able to buy one of his books secondhand a few years ago. Rather ahead of his time I think...

Although I never got to follow up his work to see whether his discovery of EM fields which later matched the orientation of the developing embryo was replicated.

Some of the later studies I wasn't so sure about, but the earlier stuff looked interesting.

Sheldrake mentions him but once in his new science of life, in a short sentence to dismiss Burr's work as a completely different theory to his own... which I've never felt was very fair.
 
Reporting back to human society via a brain is trivially necessary. This fact is entirely neutral with respect to how any information was "detected," and does not allow for any conclusion.
 
Yes, I was able to buy one of his books secondhand a few years ago. Rather ahead of his time I think...

Although I never got to follow up his work to see whether his discovery of EM fields which later matched the orientation of the developing embryo was replicated.

Some of the later studies I wasn't so sure about, but the earlier stuff looked interesting.

Sheldrake mentions him but once in his new science of life, in a short sentence to dismiss Burr's work as a completely different theory to his own... which I've never felt was very fair.
I am not convinced about Burr's research because it was never replicated, but I did find it interesting. One of his students continued his research into the field of neuroscience. He published a book on his findings its called Electrodynamic Man by Leonard J. Ravitz.

As for Sheldrake, I agree. All of his ideas are second-hand. The idea of morphogenetic fields can be traced to early experimental biologists or embryologists such as Hans Spemann and Paul Alfred Weiss. Sheldrake basically mixed some of this up with the ideas of Hans Driesch an early biologist turned psychical researcher who promoted a neo-vitalist mechanism known as entelechy and some discredited Lamarckian ideas.
 
I am not convinced about Burr's research because it was never replicated, but I did find it interesting. One of his students continued his research into the field of neuroscience. He published a book on his findings its called Electrodynamic Man by Leonard J. Ravitz.

As for Sheldrake, I agree. All of his ideas are second-hand. The idea of morphogenetic fields can be traced to early experimental biologists or embryologists such as Hans Spemann and Paul Alfred Weiss. Sheldrake basically mixed some of this up with the ideas of Hans Driesch an early biologist turned psychical researcher who promoted a neo-vitalist mechanism known as entelechy and some discredited Lamarckian ideas.
Well Sheldrake does give credit to those before him, and Lamarck's ideas look a lot less discredited when you read up about epi-genetics!

David
 
You are wrong: veridical extrasensory experiences, cases Peak in Darien...
Can you cite these cases?

Peak in Darien experiences are anecdotal, and none of them have been cross-examined. Most of these alleged cases are reported from over a hundred years ago in old psychic or spiritualist literature. It is not reliable scientific evidence.

If you read Bruce Greyson's paper "Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died: “Peak in Darien” Experiences" all of his cases are from old spiritualist books mostly from the early 1900s and he accepts them at face value. There is no way to go back in time and check these cases. How do we know natural causes were not ruled out? At least one of Greyson's cases turned out the be a hoax.
 
Can you cite these cases?

Peak in Darien experiences are anecdotal, and none of them have been cross-examined. Most of these alleged cases are reported from over a hundred years ago in old psychic or spiritualist literature. It is not reliable scientific evidence.

If you read Bruce Greyson's paper "Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died: “Peak in Darien” Experiences" all of his cases are from old spiritualist books mostly from the early 1900s and he accepts them at face value. There is no way to go back in time and check these cases. How do we know natural causes were not ruled out? At least one of Greyson's cases turned out the be a hoax.
Natural causes are not ruled out en bloc. But if you make a claim about a particular natural cause, it's not that hard to rule it out.
 
I am not convinced about Burr's research because it was never replicated, but I did find it interesting. One of his students continued his research into the field of neuroscience. He published a book on his findings its called Electrodynamic Man by Leonard J. Ravitz.

As for Sheldrake, I agree. All of his ideas are second-hand. The idea of morphogenetic fields can be traced to early experimental biologists or embryologists such as Hans Spemann and Paul Alfred Weiss. Sheldrake basically mixed some of this up with the ideas of Hans Driesch an early biologist turned psychical researcher who promoted a neo-vitalist mechanism known as entelechy and some discredited Lamarckian ideas.
I think that fairly recent discovery at Tufts using electrically reactive dyes probably suggests that he had measured some charges that predicted (or at least identified) the future orientation of the neural tube. But we're way beyond that now anyway...

As David pointed out there are now 2-3 studies showing some type of very specific epigenetic inheritance in the offspring of male rodents - even via IVF. Most interesting to me is that these IVF studies show the same inheritance effect, but much reduced, compared with normal mating.

The only suggestion currently on the table to explain the dampened inheritance effect is that the IVF procedure somehow selects for immature sperm... But that explanation is not at all clear yet, as the other factor is that the sperm harvesting procedure used kills the donor male. It seems quite possible to me that there might be field type effects involved
 
Nop. Not only that, but NDEs with apparitions and mediumship are independent evidence of the existence of an afterlife, as pointed OP.
I don't think the NDE provides me with evidence for (or against) an afterlife, NDE experients have not actually died - the ability to recall an experience shows there was always sufficient energy available to cells to avoid serious brain damage.

Haunting type apparitions appear to show temporal processing (over time) tied to spatial patterns in the present. Crisis type apparitions seem to somewhat reverse that process - for a short period of time they seem to be experienced in different locations. That some apparitions are seen of people still alive suggests these types of phenomena can originate from places other than an afterlife, and are more complex than any naive 'spirit' explanation.

Mediumship I don't know much about, but what I have read, suggests that it is often unclear where the mediums information is coming from. In all the cases Ive seen (admittedly limited) it seems very difficult to establish whether mediums are genuine, and when/if that is able to be more firmly established, mediums often seem only able to produce information that was already known, or, already in the world. That too only indicates information coming from the past, and present.
 
I don't think the NDE provides me with evidence for (or against) an afterlife, NDE experients have not actually died - the ability to recall an experience shows there was always sufficient energy available to cells to avoid serious brain damage.

mediums often seem only able to produce information that was already known, or, already in the world. That too only indicates information coming from the past, and present.
Max,

I enjoy your thoughtful posts. There are two glaring assumptions in the above - that limit your scope and strength of argument. First, we agree that the 5 senses are energy dependent, as they send afferent signals to the brain for integration. However, there is zero evidence that the understanding and integration of these signals - at a level of deeper-meaning - is driven only by physical processes. The exact opposite is reported and is in the general knowledgebase of science, that suppression of the afferent signals (sensory deprivation) enhances experiences of deep meaning and may be a doorway to second sight.

The second assumption you are depending on is being directly challenged by Raymond Moody and other researchers. Research is underway that will gather and analyze the natural data coming from end-of-life experiences. Your point is: if there is new information coming "across" from a "higher" state of perception - well then, we will/should easily recognize it. Dying folks tend to say crazy stuff when going back and forth from dream states to physical awareness. There a two equally logical possibilities. They are crazy and hallucinogenic. Or they are reporting symbolically in a context not currently understood, exactly because it IS new information outside the context of normal afferent signals. Take a second and look at the link.

http://www.finalwordsproject.org/

By studying the language of the threshold, Final Words Project aims to offer tools to loved ones and healthcare providers to help connect more deeply and compassionately with the dying--and to illuminate an enduring question: Does consciousness survive bodily death?

So far, I have found the speech at end of life compelling--something which has never been studied before through the lens of linguistics. A handful of authors have written about deathbed conversations from a transpersonal perspective: Maggie Callanan and Patricia Kelley, Peter Fenwick, Osis and Halradsson, and a few others. However, as of yet, no one has analyzed the communications of the dying for the structures of the language itself. - Lisa Smartt
 
Max,

I enjoy your thoughtful posts. There are two glaring assumptions in the above - that limit your scope and strength of argument. First, we agree that the 5 senses are energy dependent, as they send afferent signals to the brain for integration. However, there is zero evidence that the understanding and integration of these signals - at a level of deeper-meaning - is driven only by physical processes. The exact opposite is reported and is in the general knowledgebase of science, that suppression of the afferent signals (sensory deprivation) enhances experiences of deep meaning and may be a doorway to second sight.

The second assumption you are depending on is being directly challenged by Raymond Moody and other researchers. Research is underway that will gather and analyze the natural data coming from end-of-life experiences. Your point is: if there is new information coming "across" from a "higher" state of perception - well then, we will/should easily recognize it. Dying folks tend to say crazy stuff when going back and forth from dream states to physical awareness. There a two equally logical possibilities. They are crazy and hallucinogenic. Or they are reporting symbolically in a context not currently understood, exactly because it IS new information outside the context of normal afferent signals. Take a second and look at the link.

http://www.finalwordsproject.org/
Sorry, I didnt understand the point you were trying to make with reference to what I said... you'll have to be blunter and point out specifically what you disagree with...
 
Sorry, I didnt understand the point you were trying to make with reference to what I said... you'll have to be blunter and point out specifically what you disagree with...
You said " the ability to recall an experience shows there was always sufficient energy available to cells to avoid serious brain damage".
It shows no such thing. It is an assumption, based on a metaphysical opinion.

You said "(second sight) produce(s) information that was already known, or, already in the world. That too only indicates information coming from the past, and present."

This is patently false. New information about higher states of perception have been recorded throughout history. Right now, some individuals who are losing biological brain based cognition and approaching death - develop clear and deeply emotional experiences. Failing equipment doesn't improve its reach of function. The fuzziness of the language may yield symbolic communication about experience independent of brain-based information processing. These events tell us things outside of the semantics of material life and may communicate what is perceived from non-brain based perception. hence - The Final Words Project where these meaningful expressions can be documented and analyzed. You should look at the website.

Actual observation of the dying - doesn't show always show "fade-to-black" - but some substantial percentage of times - it shows the more than vivid colors, synesthesia and deep emotional meaning beyond normal mental states. Just like in meditation - where the silencing of the mind can explode into patterns, feelings and ideas beyond those of the 5 senses.
 
Last edited:
You said " the ability to recall an experience shows there was always sufficient energy available to cells to avoid serious brain damage".
It shows no such thing. It is an assumption, based on a metaphysical opinion.

You said "(second sight) produce(s) information that was already known, or, already in the world. That too only indicates information coming from the past, and present."

This is patently false. New information about higher states of perception have been recorded throughout history. Right now, some individuals who are losing biological brain based cognition and approaching death - develop clear and deeply emotional experiences. Failing equipment doesn't improve its reach of function. The fuzziness of the language may yield symbolic communication about experience independent of brain-based information processing. These events tell us things outside of the semantics of material life and may communicate what is perceived from non-brain based perception. hence - The Final Words Project where these meaningful expressions can be documented and analyzed. You should look at the website.

Actual observation of the dying - doesn't show always show "fade-to-black" - but some substantial percentage of times - it shows the more than vivid colors, synesthesia and deep emotional meaning beyond normal mental states. Just like in meditation - where the silencing of the mind can explode into patterns, feelings and ideas beyond those of the 5 senses.
Don't understand why you disagree with my first quote... People who suffer serious brain damage due to lack of energy die, or are so damaged that they can't tell us anything... Those who can tell us things, apparently had sufficient energy to avoid damage. Totally obvious to me.

As for the second quote... You seem to have taken it out of context and rewritten it... I was specifically talking about mediums there... so haven't got a clue why you've inserted second sight...?
 
Don't understand why you disagree with my first quote... People who suffer serious brain damage due to lack of energy die, or are so damaged that they can't tell us anything... Those who can tell us things, apparently had sufficient energy to avoid damage. Totally obvious to me.

As for the second quote... You seem to have taken it out of context and rewritten it... I was specifically talking about mediums there... so haven't got a clue why you've inserted second sight...?
I don't think the NDE provides me with evidence for (or against) an afterlife, NDE experients have not actually died - the ability to recall an experience shows there was always sufficient energy available to cells to avoid serious brain damage.
I find your statement illogical and tautological. You dismiss evidence that an NDE (and maybe an OBE) offers evidence of an actual experience of mentation, while the brain was not functioning, because if an experience was had -- it means that they still had functioning neural activity. This goes right around in a circle protected by a belief that physical function is all there is.

I offer that -- physical functioning supports a developed sensation of understanding, which happen at a separate generative level than the 5 senses. It is where the processes are informational and the activity is with information objects.

Medium is a loaded term. Mediums appear in many cases to be presenting trickery. However, in some more rare cases, mediums report factual information. What the second category of mediums do -- is employ second sight as a process. So, I was hoping to take the conversation from loaded words to measurable processes.

The thing a "medium" does in the non-trickery case is to have a viewing at the level of the mind's eye, hence second sight. You simply dismiss my clear and simple stance of what is second sight. Second sight is not mystical - it is normal "understanding of abstraction" functioning better than normal.

Einstein visualizing the relative nature of the speed of light is no different than a medium finding an 11 year old's body from a vision. Both "saw" and understood an information object in their conscious environment, imho
 
Last edited:
Top