Near death experience seems no more than brain's trick to me

#1
I follow "The God of Infinite Complexity", which means reality is actually infinite complex beyond anyone's ponder and fathom. The meanings included in our thoughts and talking, the way we think and talk, would be considered too simple and maybe stupid in the long future.
So based on my humble faith, I would like to say the explanation to nde, and the truth behind this phenomenon could have three kinds of possibilities:
First possibility, so many documented nde cases suggest and lead to such possibility that human mind and the thingy which is often refered to as "self" or "ego", could rely on something other than organic brain, instead of macroscopic brain organ, thus could kick away brain organ and exist without it. The "thingy" which our conceptual terms "mind", "self" or "ego" rely on, is something microscopic so even macroscopic brain organ dies, they still exist invisibly from our eyes, in a manner of subatomic, quantum or superstring scale, or in some hyper dimensions which current science hasn't touched onto.
Second possibility, ndes are produced by brain, and if all the peculiar cases are veridical rather than bogus, their outstanding traits really only indicate the possibility that brain itself has some nouveau and gorgeous functions or potentially such latency, nothing needs to be produced by something other than brain, brain itself truely can have such capability which current science still has not even a bit of grasp to understand.
Third, the third possibility to explain all of these, is that both the two possibilities mentioned previously are wrong, instead, a more advanced statement or many more advanced statements should be invented to explain all of these, but for them I'm completely unable to fathom or talk a single bit about, the effective explanations which are truely capable of grasping the truth, are beyond our current thoughts or language, every attempt to address an effective explanation is futile.

I have no right to step forward an opinion about which possibility is conclusively correct or tends to be correct, because first I myself never had any nde, not even any hallucination or lucid dreams, second I have no close contact with any nders or researchers in this area, everything I know about this domain is from online reading.

But from all of I have read, I want to share my thoughts about nde and to see the others' response to my thoughts, I think there had been no evidence really sufficient to even lead towards the first possibility mentioned previously, the core and crux of this thought is the key word: DETAILS!

NDEers used to say their experiences are "definitely real", "hyper real", but reality contains infinite details, so many nde accounts have little details. For example, accounts of seeing deceased relatives during ndes confuse me a lot, because almost every cases narrating the meet of deceased relatives only include several repetitive speakings, mostly are "It's not your time yet, go back for your mundane tasks." But different people should have different personalities, should concern different things regarding and between themselves and the subject of ndes. Consider a pair of parents meet their beloved son long after his attending a foreign university for 4 years and has come back hometown in mother country, what should they talk about, something before their long time depart, during this son's foreign life, and right on the way back home, there are a lot of details to share, they shouldn't just talk about: "It's not your time, you still have tasks on earth to finish."

Someone would argue that nders don't necessarily narrate their experiences in great details especially regarding their personal or private conversations, or the ndes often last very shortly so there is no time to show someone's personality in the short communicating, but with so many cases which had shown unrealistically simple scenarios and similarly lack of details, I incline to think maybe these are cheap imaginations produced by brain, most people are incapable of forging a long, fresh and complex story within a short period, this is more like a brain's mechanism, rather than a reality of another world.

Similar problem exists among nde accounts about visiting an unknown place usually full of light but nothing more, being granted "knowledge of everything" which is nothing more than a single literal phrase recursive of itself not even more complex than a simplest math formula or a segment of java code used to query a database record, and reincarnation accounts which claim they were pilots during World War II in their last lives and simply show their savvy of a single fighter plane terminology, these could be easily forged by brain without need to resort to some form of otherworldly forces.

But bearing my previous concerns in mind, how do we interpret the accounts of ndes being described as "hyper real", "highly organized", "splendidly vivid", and etcetera? I think an analogy might be possibly used to erase the contradict or paradox. Consider our physical world as a real photo, and nde as a photo being heavily processed by photoshop, a real photo can be dull, but it's real while a photo being processed by a graphic technology which is unimaginable one hundred years ago, can then become cartoon sharp and more attractive, but it's unreal and distorted.

"Hyper real", "splendidly vivid" are only feelings, and feelings could be produced by brain, while infinite details can't, and the latter forms the reality.

I think every peculiar phenomenon tend to open a possibility that our mind and spirit don't simply "disappear" at death, because if it should be a "simple disappearance", there should have been no "多此一举", means unnecessarily or meaningless "out-of-the-air" tweak or prank.

But a lot of those reported peculiar phenomenons are quite anecdotal, I saw some religionists called some nders "morons", because those nders reported themselves seeing God during their experience revealed "God" is quite different from that imbued by any of various religions, and some creeds imbued by religions are unnecessary or opposite to the real God's revelation during ndes, often regarding great love. Those religionists then waged an article war against nders' claims, intending to stick to the religion's tradition, they wrote a lot, cited a lot of "religion proofs", which are even more anecdotal than many of nders' reports. Religionists really acted for protecting their "Beliefs" or "Benefits" or "Profits", none of the business of digging the truth. So if those religionists' anecdotes should be debunked as faking, so as anecdotes relevant to ndes, because anecdotes tend to share the similar "joke-like" characteristics, at least if not by a malicious or deceiving purpose at all.

If those reports about nders knowing something they were impossible to know under reductionist science's explanation, or something happened which should not had happened at all without violating the physics principles, are not anecdotal but verified as truth, it would more and more lead to my first possibility hypothesis mentioned in my first post, but the doubt lays on that those reported anecdotes simply provide little details thus at least "look like" could be forged, if not truely forged.

Consider the hot and famous HBO TV Series: A Song of Ice and Fire, it depicts an epic story of a fantasy medieval world, with so abundant and vivid details, so profound and intricate story-line, although that's a work (masterpiece in my opinion) of numerous talented movie-makers, novelists, stylists, etcetera, that also shows that human brain truely has great "forging" (conceive something which is not reality) ability, given enough time and enthusiasm impetus, and also innate flair possessed by someone. So it would be even easier for human brain to forge a vivid near death experience and relevant anecdotes, which have been seen by many reported accounts, but none of them is more complex than an epic fantasy novel or tv series. No details, no truth, with chin-dropping details, it would be more prone to be truth but still not certain, rather, the less details, the less likely to be a truth but more likely to be a prank or story or false memory. Why so less genuine-like details reported by nde accounts and relevant anecdotes, lack of details even compared with, for example, a tv series.

I am a Chinese, sorry for my English, I should stress I don't mean anything conclusively or with certainty, I should remind myself always to be open-minded and truely skeptic without biasing on any unsolved mysteries, I highly respect science and science is progressing rather than concluded, I just put a little curiosity on an obvious fact about nde accounts' lack of details in many aspects and I would be grateful for anyone's response to my thoughts, thanks!
 
#2
Your idea does not hold. If it is argued that hyper-lucidity is a feature that turns on NDEs evidence of an afterlife, is because if mental events depend for existence of neural events, then hopefully disorganized neural events correspond to disorganized mental events. But this is not what happens during NDEs, but the opposite happens, mental events in NDEs are more lucid than during wakefulness.

This feature along with extrasensorial and veridical experiences suggest that NDErs have glimpsed the afterlife.
 
#3
Your idea does not hold. If it is argued that hyper-lucidity is a feature that turns on NDEs evidence of an afterlife, is because if mental events depend for existence of neural events, then hopefully disorganized neural events correspond to disorganized mental events. But this is not what happens during NDEs, but the opposite happens, mental events in NDEs are more lucid than during wakefulness.

This feature along with extrasensorial and veridical experiences suggest that NDErs have glimpsed the afterlife.
Thanks for your quick reply, I understand what you mean, and it's my pleasure to discuss, I think "hyper-lucidity" is only a feeling, when nders feel something, doesn't necessarily mean something are created by reality, for example I feel what I saw are real, and lucid, doesn't prove they are truely real.

So how do I know what I saw are real? I should get close to it, to scrutinize its surface, its texture, its granula, its infrastructures, if I deem I saw a person, I should get close to him or her, talk to him or her, to know what kind of person he or she is. The more DETAILS I get, the more it tends like to be real, the less I get, the more likely it is by my brain's trick.

Someone would argue nde accounts are actually detailful, but there comes compare, compared to an April Fool prank which usually consists of several cheat words, sure those reported nde accounts could be viewed as detailful, but the details are far from sufficient to build another world beyond our mundane world on earth, consider if someone had lived in a claustral village in a valley surrounded by big mountains and steep cliffs for 20 years since his or her birth, and then walk out to visit New York and play a iPhone 5, how many details he would talk with his childhood playmates, who still stay within that village?
 
#5
huh? you are cherry picking here, ,the reality of the nde has been confirmed by veridical perception, and the consistency of its features, as for your claim that they conversations with dead loved ones are always the same that is just wrong, many times an nder will telepathically talk about even thngs that they thought were not important with dead loved ones. And again you miss the point, its not what they talk about thats important, but that they consistently meet dead loved ones!! i mean, what is that? that is truly amazing and cannot be easily explained away, especially considering that many people weren't aware they had died!

to say something is just a feeling, and that feeling is produced by the brain puts u in a bit of a quandary, you must explain how a totally compromised brain can produce such vivid realty and elevated sense as well as an obe state where you are never able to interact with the environment, you may be interested in another thread about it in the consciousness and scene forum called "non interaction with environment as evidence for NDE"
 
#6
I am a Chinese, sorry for my English, I should stress I don't mean anything conclusively or with certainty, I should remind myself always to be open-minded and truely skeptic without biasing on any unsolved mysteries, I highly respect science and science is progressing rather than concluded, I just put a little curiosity on an obvious fact about nde accounts' lack of details in many aspects and I would be grateful for anyone's response to my thoughts, thanks!
Hi EW... thx for the post, but given that we've covered this topic with about 100-200 of interview hours it might be more useful if you were to narrow done your criticisms/questions. For example, Dr. Jeff Long was one of the first to really dig into and quantify the "hyper-lucid" stuff. What are your thoughts on these shows:

http://www.skeptiko.com/94-jeffrey-long-near-death-experience-research/
http://www.skeptiko.com/jeffrey_long_takes_on_critics_of_evidence_of_the_afterlife/
http://www.skeptiko.com/118-jeffrey-long-responds-to-parnia/
 
#7
Hi EW... thx for the post, but given that we've covered this topic with about 100-200 of interview hours it might be more useful if you were to narrow done your criticisms/questions. For example, Dr. Jeff Long was one of the first to really dig into and quantify the "hyper-lucid" stuff. What are your thoughts on these shows:

http://www.skeptiko.com/94-jeffrey-long-near-death-experience-research/
http://www.skeptiko.com/jeffrey_long_takes_on_critics_of_evidence_of_the_afterlife/
http://www.skeptiko.com/118-jeffrey-long-responds-to-parnia/
Hey alex. im new here, dont know how to send a personal message, I invite you read my first post, its called "
Non Interaction with the enviroment during the NDE as Evidence for its reality
" im planning on expanding on it with a paper. There have been some interesting responses, but again, i dont see the point ever being rebutted with evidence to the contrary, I have found its often the overlooked but consisten details of the NDE that portrays a frightening sense of its reality, a sense of truth. I am now a huge fan of your show and would love to here a skeptic address this question above!
 
#8
Thanks for your quick reply, I understand what you mean, and it's my pleasure to discuss, I think "hyper-lucidity" is only a feeling, when nders feel something, doesn't necessarily mean something are created by reality, for example I feel what I saw are real, and lucid, doesn't prove they are truely real.
You seem to have not understood the argument I have presented. The argument is not "NDEs feel hyper-lucid, therefore NDEs are real," but the argument is "some people have hyper-lucid and coherent experiences when neuronal activity is more critical, therefore, the experiences can not depend heavily on neuronal activity. "

I'm not sure I understand the term "hyper lucid". Anyone got a definition, or some sort of lucidity scale?
The hyper-lucidity is to have more lucidity compared to the waking, like waking often more lucid than dreams. No lucidity scale, it is something that can only be fully understood if it is experienced.
 
#9
The hyper-lucidity is to have more lucidity compared to the waking, like waking often more lucid than dreams. No lucidity scale, it is something that can only be fully understood if it is experienced.
Realer than real... but anecdotal, purely subjective and immeasurable. Do people who have an NDE actually use that term? Seems unlikely, unless they had prior knowledge of NDE jargon.
 
#11
Look here:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence06.html

And then we have extrasensory and veridical experiences, which is not purely subjective or unmeasurable... but this is another issue.
Thanks Haruhi, but that didn't really answer the question: Do people who have an NDE actually use that term? Seems unlikely, unless they had prior knowledge of NDE jargon.

The patient may say something like "it felt very real" or "I was very aware during the experience", and this puts a tick in the hyperlucidity box.

"Hyperlucidity" has little meaning to me (more real than real?). It appears to be an arbitrary, subjective label word put on these experiences, not by NDErs, but by NDE scientists. (who then are able to say, "how to you explain hyperlucidity then?")
 
#12
This sounds about like the usual skeptical argument that the subconscious is able to perform any level of any detail as long as it seeks to deceive the mind it's attached to. There's no way to falsify this argument either, because when you say the subconscious can manufacture any level of detail then you equally cannot say any experience in any waking state is known. Consider the Descartes quote, "How do I know the world is not the product of a demon trying to trick me?" for an example how this line of argument has no end.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#13
Thanks Haruhi, but that didn't really answer the question: Do people who have an NDE actually use that term? Seems unlikely, unless they had prior knowledge of NDE jargon.
Here you go: :)

(It was) very hyper-real and extremely crisp and vivid, much more real and interactive than sitting here and talking with you right now. (...) I mean, the kind of mental function that occurs when you’re in that hyper-real state, the way that information comes in from spiritual beings and kind of the interaction with them is so intense and extraordinary, it’s really inexplicable in earthly terms. (...) Initially I thought, “Gosh, it was almost too real to be real.” That hyper-reality that people describe, I just wish we could bottle that up and give it to people so they could see what it’s like because it is not something that is going to be explained by these little simplistic kind of talking about CO2 and oxygen levels. That just won’t work. I promise you that won’t work. (...) Especially because that hyper-real state is so indescribable and so crisp. It’s totally unlike any drug experience. A lot of people have come up to me and said, “Oh that sounds like a DMT experience, ”or“ That sounds like ketamine.” Not at all. That is not even in the right ballpark. Those things do not explain the kind of clarity, the rich interactivity, the layer upon layer of understanding and of lessons taught by deceased loved ones and spiritual beings.
Eben Alexander, November 2011 Skeptiko interview (a year before publication): http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience/
... I felt arms wrap around me even though I had no physical form; colors were electric, smells fantastic... The experience of death has been the most real and physical experience of my life, and the world here felt cold and heavy and unreal for sometime afterward.
NDEr cited in Jeff Long, Evidence of the Afterlife, p. 54

(Did this experience seem a dream to you? Or did it seem different?) Very, very different from a dream. In fact, it felt like actual reality happening. (So that when it was happening...it did seem real to you?) Much more. It was where I could recall colors, places, things [referring to a flashback phenomenon], just everything together. And it was very, very vivid.
NDEr cited in Kenneth Ring, Life at Death (1980), p.83
(Was it like a dream?) No. It was very real. It's as real as you and I are.
NDEr cited in Kenneth Ring, Life at Death (1980), p.83
Things that are not possible now [in this reality], are then [during the NDE]. Your mind is so clear. It's so nice. My mind just took everything down and worked everything out for me the first time, without having to go through it more than once.
NDEr cited in Raymond Moody, Life after Life (1975), p.41
I've had a lot of dreams and it wasn't like any dream that I had had. It was real. It was so real.
NDEr cited in Michael Sabom, Recollections of Death (1982), p.227
I was in a coma for seven or eight days and I had all those other convulsions. I had hallucinations then but they weren't the same. They were real - that is, they weren't like a dream, yet they weren't the same as I felt in that ambulance, in that in the hallucinations I'd be more like a spectator but in the experience [NDE] where I lifted out of my body, it was me!
NDEr cited in Michael Sabom, Recollections of Death (1982), p.232
“It was real, Dr. Morse. It was realer than real. I was floating in the air. And I was alive! I saw you putting a tube into my nose, and I didn’t like that”. –A seven year old child describes her near death experience.
Melvin Morse, "An Ode to Peter Fenwick"
 
#14
The argument for lucidity is an interesting one, but I'm not sure what a "more real" rather than a "less real" reality means...as if "realityness" was a quantitative measure we could somehow sample with a gauge.

I am sympathetic to the idea. But it is problematic. Feeling that something is "realer" than the waking world does not establish that it in fact *is* realer than the waking world. The waking world feels "less real" to the dissociative, but that doesn't of itself make that true either.
 
#15
The argument for lucidity is an interesting one, but I'm not sure what a "more real" rather than a "less real" reality means...as if "realityness" was a quantitative measure we could somehow sample with a gauge.
But when we are talking about a non-controvertial topic, we measure lucidity by querying the agent (e.g. asking the person if they feel awake or tired.)

Logically if we decide that you cannot measure someone's lucidity by asking the person, then we need to apply this to other medical practices as well. And if one takes the tact that we cannot trust the person because of what I mentioned earlier (a sub-conscious which can come up with an infinite number of infinitely detailed lies at any point) then one cannot measure lucidity at all, as even an objective measurement has to be interpreted by a subjective mind. How do we know that the researcher in question's subconscious didn't lie about what the meter said for example?

How do you objectively know that you are awake right now, and not having an infinitely complex dream about reading my post?
 
#16
But when we are talking about a non-controvertial topic, we measure lucidity by querying the agent (e.g. asking the person if they feel awake or tired.)

Logically if we decide that you cannot measure someone's lucidity by asking the person, then we need to apply this to other medical practices as well. And if one takes the tact that we cannot trust the person because of what I mentioned earlier (a sub-conscious which can come up with an infinite number of infinitely detailed lies at any point) then one cannot measure lucidity at all, as even an objective measurement has to be interpreted by a subjective mind. How do we know that the researcher in question's subconscious didn't lie about what the meter said for example?

How do you objectively know that you are awake right now, and not having an infinitely complex dream about reading my post?
Well, the words "hypertired" and "hyperawake" show how contrived the concept appears.

Experiencing a "higher level of reality" strikes me as a somewhat vain, yet very human, claim.
 
#17
The argument for lucidity is an interesting one, but I'm not sure what a "more real" rather than a "less real" reality means...as if "realityness" was a quantitative measure we could somehow sample with a gauge.

I am sympathetic to the idea. But it is problematic. Feeling that something is "realer" than the waking world does not establish that it in fact *is* realer than the waking world. The waking world feels "less real" to the dissociative, but that doesn't of itself make that true either.
This is metaphorical. "More real than real" means that the waking world feels like a dream compared to NDEs. True, it does not necessarily reality, but nothing implies that we experienced the reality, as JCearly wrote. We can not prove that what happens in dreams is not real, and yet the whole sensible world agrees with it, plus I said that the argument that I explained is not "NDEs feel hyper-lucid, then they are real", but the argument is "there are lucid and coherent experiences when neural activity collapses, then the experience can not rely heavily on neural activity."






 
#18
Hi, all here, I'm very glad to express my meaning here, and to see both agree and disagree opinions, your replies are boon to me, I like Skeptiko very very much, to be honest a lot of discussions here are too complex, brain-twisting, professional or contain too many sophisticated specialized words and habit phrases and elusive grammar structures and usages, which I couldn't find meaning in the English-Chinese dictionaries, thus although many people had expressed their meanings very very earnestly and lucidly and completely, sometimes due to my insufficient English language training I can barely understand, but it's a wonderful place to learn.

I think my meaning hadn't been sufficiently clearly expressed in my first post, due to my dilapidated English. I will try as follows, consider a video game aims at building an immersive virtual reality as resemblance to our real world as it can.
Its first attempt would be to draw some 2-dimensional images, and add description texts next to it, this kind of video games had been done in the 1980s.
Its second attempt would move to 3d technology, early 3d games are not quite refined, with jagged lines and coarse textures, a lot of refining technologies being added with the computing science's development, occlusion, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, particle effect, physics havoc, real person martial expert animation tracking, real person facial-expression tracking, I have little knowledge regarding cg technologies so what I said might be errata, what I want to express, is that contemporary cg technology has already been able to draw a 3d object which makes our real person unable to tell whether it is a real object in real world or it is a cg created within lcd, so does a virtual person, and both 3d objects and 3d living things can do very very real animations in contemporary video games or cg movies.
Its third attempt, I think maybe in the future with holographic technology's breaking, all the cg images can go out of screens which are flat planes, instead, images can be projected in the air, and if various problems such as transparent, light leaking, aura, etcetera could be solved, could it cheat people to deem those images are real things flowing around him or her? I think projecting an enveloping of lights in the air and making the images composed by that lights look like real things, is not easy to realize in the near future, but consider its possibility.

The most difficult attempt, the fourth attempt, is to make the images, whether in a lcd or in the air, to have artificial intelligence. CG movies got less problems regarding this unless the maker intended to make an interactive movie, no matter how real a cg movie could be, it has fixed story-line, while it is important to design ai in video games, speaking to contemporary video games, programmed ai is programmed, it can't effectively mimic real creatures' behaviors, could anyone here predict what I would say in this post before I posted?

Actually, on an ultimate strict basis, no one can prove anything real, for example, I can't guarantee this forum is not constructed by my brain, which sneakily hides great ability to forge such an unexisted but super real reality to cheat me which I never know, the same thing to all of you visiting this forum. But there comes difficulty. To forge a 2d image and make it looks like real is easy especially by using Photoshop, to forge a vivid 3d object is more difficult and to make it holographic is even more difficult, and to make a fake person who could unpredictably interact with you is almost impossible.

So come back to nde, I think most reported nde accounts stay in the same level of detailfulness as the first, second, third attempt of video game creation mentioned above, but too less the fourth attempt which can only be revealed by INTERACTIONS, only interactions can give someone sufficient details to make it looks like real to him or her, if without interaction, we can't guarantee what we saw are not photos processed by Photoshop, are not 3d objects created by 3d modelers or 3d animators, and maybe brain could forge holographic images when near-death. Without sufficient communications and interactions with the one appeared in the nde, how do anyone know that was a real person rather than a holographic image, even if that holographic image can move, can talk several sentences which has also realized in a contemporary video game? I believe anyone reading this post of mine almost has no doubt that I am a real person rather than a person-in-the-dream, because we communicate, but communication is not enough, because what I said maybe recorded previously, so I might be a posting-machine or posting-program, but I'm not only communicating with you but also saying something as a response to what you said, namely INTERACTIONS, if this can't be seen as real, nothing can be seen as real.

Consider most nde accounts, they reported they saw someone during nde, but if asked what they talked, no one remember as detailful as what I said above, therefore, no sufficient interaction details. Most nde accounts resemble dreams in two aspects:
First, they had insufficient interaction details with what they saw during nde, and the interaction details is very important to erase the possibility that nde are holographic images forged by some of human brain's hidden abilities. When we dream, we often see someone but whenever we attempt to contact with him or her, he either runs away or ignores or the dream just ends, person-in-a-dream never agrees to have profound and detailful interactions with us. Sometimes it is us subconsciously know he or she won't be interested to interact so we simply forget to sponsor an interaction.
Second, they seemed to had lost their personalities during nde, that is very similar to when we are in a dream, different people should have different, and, very diverse kinds of personalities, for example, a person who is penny-pinching would concern about someone still owes him or her one dollar all day, whenever he or she meets that guy in real world he or she would most likely to ask the money, but when in dream, he or she would probably just "saw" that person but didn't show his or her personality of penny-pinching to interact with that ower, and as this dreaming person awake, he or she might shout out loudly: "I had met that guy just now but how could I forget to ask my money back!" then after a while he or she might then grumble: "Oh, my bad that's only a dream." This shows that we act very very differently when we are awake with when we are dreaming. NDErs seem have no diverse personalities and concerns during nde, as well as lack of interaction details with the one they claim to had seen.

I must apologize I surely didn't mean any disbelief to the veridical of nders' accounts, the accounts are too many, shouldn't all of them have been deceived by their brains, and some of them are renowned professors, for example, Eben Alexander, they know better about what is reality and what is illusion than me, but how should I address my question about the ndes' generally lack of interaction details, after all, what I mean have some hold I think.

as for your claim that they conversations with dead loved ones are always the same that is just wrong, many times an nder will telepathically talk about even thngs that they thought were not important with dead loved ones.
Hi, as far as I know there is no such talking which is very interactively detailful.
And again you miss the point, its not what they talk about thats important, but that they consistently meet dead loved ones!! i mean, what is that? that is truly amazing and cannot be easily explained away, especially considering that many people weren't aware they had died!
Some talented 3d modelers and 3d animators would be able to create vivid 3d image of someone and let me deem I meet him or her, but I won't believe he or she is real unless I interactively talk to him or her, meet can be easily forged, that's only a vision, interactive talkings are very difficult to be forged thus have heavier weight to lead towards the proof of the genuineness. Most nde accounts contain little interactive details.
What are your thoughts on these shows
Hi, Alex, thanks for the links, I like your voice very much, and I love Skeptiko, to be honest it's a bit difficult for someone whose mother tongue is not English read through so intricate English sentences, I coarsely browsed your links, I think it's far from sufficient to address those conclusions, the reason I wrote above in this post, and I would read your links more carefully to see whether there is refute to my thinking mentioned above.
 
#19
This sounds about like the usual skeptical argument that the subconscious is able to perform any level of any detail as long as it seeks to deceive the mind it's attached to. There's no way to falsify this argument either, because when you say the subconscious can manufacture any level of detail then you equally cannot say any experience in any waking state is known. Consider the Descartes quote, "How do I know the world is not the product of a demon trying to trick me?" for an example how this line of argument has no end.
How do you objectively know that you are awake right now, and not having an infinitely complex dream about reading my post?
There are actually criteria, the reason why I am more likely to be real to you, is that what I might reply to you is unpredictable, and full of interactive details, while nde reports don't contain such unpredictable, interactive details. The reason why this world is real, is that it is interactively unpredictable, consider a guy goes to the street and abruptly praises a stranger pretty girl, different girls would respond quite differently, someone shy, someone happy, someone angry, someone call cops or call thugs to beat that guy, in most reported nde, there seems no such diverse interactive details, it seems there are only static or moving images, which is actually easily created by a 3d video game, not to mention some hidden nature mechanisms. And the entities appeared in those nde, seem to act uniformly, for example most of them would ask the nders to "Go back, it's not your time to die yet." It's not realistic. Although it's not sufficient to debate those accounts' reality, but it worth a doubt.
 
#20
So come back to nde, I think most reported nde accounts stay in the same level of detailfulness as the first, second, third attempt of video game creation mentioned above, but too less the fourth attempt which can only be revealed by INTERACTIONS, only interactions can give someone sufficient details to make it looks like real to him or her, if without interaction, we can't guarantee what we saw are not photos processed by Photoshop, are not 3d objects created by 3d modelers or 3d animators, and maybe brain could forge holographic images when near-death. Without sufficient communications and interactions with the one appeared in the nde, how do anyone know that was a real person rather than a holographic image, even if that holographic image can move, can talk several sentences which has also realized in a contemporary video game?
For their reports no NDErs felt was talking to an automaton / hologram of their deceased loved ones, but they remember talking to their deceased loved ones. The fact that NDErs not remember the exact details does not mean it did not happen. In fact it is expected that NDErs can not remember all the details of their experiences, because the brain is so overwhelmed by information alleged in NDEs.

Consider most nde accounts, they reported they saw someone during nde, but if asked what they talked, no one remember as detailful as what I said above, therefore, no sufficient interaction details. Most nde accounts resemble dreams in two aspects:
First, they had insufficient interaction details with what they saw during nde, and the interaction details is very important to erase the possibility that nde are holographic images forged by some of human brain's hidden abilities. When we dream, we often see someone but whenever we attempt to contact with him or her, he either runs away or ignores or the dream just ends, person-in-a-dream never agrees to have profound and detailful interactions with us. Sometimes it is us subconsciously know he or she won't be interested to interact so we simply forget to sponsor an interaction.
I believe that there is enough detail in the reports of NDEs to establish a glimpse of a quasi-objective reality. A Example:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research19.html

You're going to better know about NDEs that the people who have had an NDE? Sometimes NDEs details are difficult to translate to language.

Second, they seemed to had lost their personalities during nde, that is very similar to when we are in a dream, different people should have different, and, very diverse kinds of personalities, for example, a person who is penny-pinching would concern about someone still owes him or her one dollar all day, whenever he or she meets that guy in real world he or she would most likely to ask the money, but when in dream, he or she would probably just "saw" that person but didn't show his or her personality of penny-pinching to interact with that ower, and as this dreaming person awake, he or she might shout out loudly: "I had met that guy just now but how could I forget to ask my money back!" then after a while he or she might then grumble: "Oh, my bad that's only a dream." This shows that we act very very differently when we are awake with when we are dreaming. NDErs seem have no diverse personalities and concerns during nde, as well as lack of interaction details with the one they claim to had seen.
The NDErs feel they are the same person for their experiences, although they may experience a detachment to find it easier transit.
 
Last edited:
Top