Bippy made this same point, but I don't know where it's coming from. Is this a dogma? Can you perhaps suggest some sources on which you base this assumption? It seems to be correlated with his insistence that atheists are immoral. I know that religion is not the basis for your statement, so I am wondering where you got it.
Well think about it. Say you have a child whom you love. The problem is that as a materialist, you take it for granted that that child is
nothing more than a set of interacting particles. His behaviour is nothing more than the interaction of various neuronal impulses (themselves the result of an electrochemical interaction) and various hormones. If you injure or kill him, various physical and chemical reactions will happen, which may or may not be of interest to you, but so what?
You can see the same sort of idea played out in the TV analogy. If you seriously believe that everything you see on the box is somehow derived from the contents of the box, you can't meaningfully have any emotions towards what you see on the box - it would all have the quality of a cartoon. It is only when you realise that the TV is receiving a signal that represents 'real' people that you can make any sensible response to what you see.
Of course, these considerations don't prove anything one way or the other, but they do help to show that total materialism is a very extreme logical position to hold.
Do I understand that you are saying that the 'realness' of the vision must be an indicator that NDE's are real, because a brain going through trauma would not be able to produce such an elevated state of experience?
Well various doctors who have made a study of NDE's are very impressed by the way they differ from hallucinations and delirium. For one thing, people remember them clearly - often for the rest of their lives - which is not true of other kinds of mental disturbance - and even for the most part of dreams.
However, one of the key things about NDE's is that those who have them, often acquire additional information they didn't have before. Frequently they see their own resuscitation (usually from above) and can see things that they could not have seen from where they are lying (not to mention the fact that they are in cardiac arrest at the time!).
These phenomena are so frequent that the sceptics come up with theories to explain them - see Alex's interview with the extreme sceptic Dr Woerlee - such as the idea that there are still enough neurones firing in the brain to deliver these hallucinations, or that these neurones are receiving enough oxygen from the artificial circulation induced by the cardiac massage.
These theories ignore other cases of NDE's such as those experienced by some who fall through ice and spend time underwater with no heartbeat (the cold slows the deterioration of the cells so that some of these people can have really extended NDE's while absolutely no oxygen is reaching the brain).
NDE's are common enough that there is
no question that they happen, it is just a question as to how to explain and interpret them. I also think these phenomena are remarkable because they are so relevant - they focus on observing their body, going somewhere, meeting various people - loved ones and sometimes a 'being of light'. Some also report a vastly more vivid consciousness and a sense of timelessness. There is often a reluctance to 'return to the body'. A small proportion of NDE's also seem to be nightmarish, though these seem to happen at random - there is no sense in which those who experience them are bad in any way, and people can experience mixed NDE's. NDE's don't really correspond with the Christian message, so like the scientists, Christians also tend to ignore NDE's, or describe them as the work of the Devil!
Their is a prominent neurosurgeon, Eben Alexander, who experienced an extended NDE himself. He has written a book about it. Despite his profession and his former beliefs, he seems to interpret his experience as 'real'.
There is also a book "Irreducible Mind" (lead author Lead author Edward F. Kelly is Professor of Research in the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine) that catalogs a very large amount of evidence for phenomena that stretch the concept of materialism past breaking point. It is a bit turgid, but it most certainly demonstrates just what conventional science manages to ignore!
Indeed, one of the problems with modern science, is that it tries to ignore what it can't explain. So for example, someone pointed out that some psychology textbooks make absolutely no reference to NDE's!
I suggest you try listening to some of the earliest Skeptiko podcasts. Alex made them at a time when he didn't seem to have a strong opinion either way - you can get a feel for what made him as certain that materialism is wrong/incomplete as he is now - but perhaps Alex can forget that it takes a certain amount of time for others to reach the same position :)
David