Thanks for posting. Nice debate.
In the Q&A section, at around 01:06':30" Nelson says that we already have a model of how NDE work and cites the study by Lempert (1994, Germany) which, allegedly, perfectly matches the features described by Moody and other NDE studies.
Gerald Woerlee describes it shortly here:
http://neardth.com/consciousness-beyond-life.php (see chapter 8)
Has anyone read the study? As far as I can see this looks like another of those slick tricks played by pseudo skeptics. From the surface it looks like the study corroborates his point, it's all about physiology. But if you just take a look at the two tables shown on the website you'll notice there's no trace of the spiritual/mystical elements of the NDE. The table on Woerlee's website is also quite confusing: items such as "seeing colors" or "trascendental landscapes" don't mean anything, there's no context and no information about the quality of the experience. Similarly they mention "OBEs" but there's no detail about what kind of OBE did they have, nor there is a way to tell if the experience was organized or chaotic etc...
For example see the item "Light experience". What is it even supposed to mean? That anyone who faints and sees any type of "light" matches an NDE? If I dream seeing a light then I match the loving, all-pervasive light that NDErs can't even describe with words?
How many participants in Lempert's study had a radical personal change in their life after that experience? Let me guess... no one? And how many of those participants reported veridical elements during their OBEs? We have seen these kind of excuses pulled out of thin air more than once. For instance, the g-force induced black-out in pilots.
It is remarkable how pseudo-skeptics jump onto those cases at nearly the speed of light.
I find these kinds of cheap tricks very telling of the level of intellectual honesty that people like Nelson embody. Notice how they always present these arguments with a paternalistic tone and with no room for doubt. The "expert" has spoken, shut up you fools. And compare that tone with how people like Parnia or Fenwick who never take things for definitive and settled. Now, how is the skeptic and how's clown?
Anyways the 1994 Lempert study doesn't seem to be available. If anyone has a copy I'd like to take a closer look.
Thanks