New study linking brain activity to NDE's

Maybe the "obvious psychological reasons" David is talking about is really proponents wanting God as part of the equation but experiencing enough cognitive dissonance (because of the horrid rap organized religion has) that they don't want to use the term "God"?
I don't experience any such "dissonance". Also you'll find I use the word God in a number of my posts. The only issue is the potential for misunderstanding among others, as they pick up my words and re-interpret them according to their own belief system. Just as it can be difficult to pick up the idioms and actual meaning of a foreign language, the same issues can also arise between two people who are each native speakers of the same language.

There's an implied view in your argument that the discrepancies between different worldviews can be resolved by argument and debate. I don't think that is so. As I hinted earlier, some things can only be understood by actual experience at first hand. But that isn't sufficient to resolve the matter either. When opportunities arise, one may choose. There is always free choice. No one is forced into adopting views with which they disagree. Live life. Make choices.

However one should recognise that this thing called God continues to either exist or not, regardless of what we think. There is no wishful thinking or wanting to believe in a fairy tale. There is only the world as it is. One can either choose to explore it, or choose not to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
He wrote that in 1950. Much research was poured into these areas during and after this time. They did not find anything that did not turn out to be a hoax or an effect that was not reproducible or did not regress to the mean. (I understand that many here vehemently disagree with this last sentence).

I used to believe exactly that. But it isn't really true. One experience that first seeded doubt in my mind, was a TV program in which a scientist stated very firmly that "There is no scientific evidence for psychic phenomena" (I wish I remember who he was), but the point was that I knew at the time that there are many ψ papers reporting positive results. I suddenly realised that this guy, at least, was spreading propaganda rather than just telling it as it is.

Dean Radin goes into a lot of detail about the relevant scientific experiments, in his book, "Entagled Minds". He himself is a physicist/engineer.

It is certainly true that some mediums and others have been found to be cheating, but these are a tiny proportion of those who have been tested. It is also worth realising that enormous pressure is put on anyone who claims to have psychic powers. "Move this, or answer that" or you are a fake! This puts them under immense pressure to 'perform' and a few cheat. However, ask yourself - is it really impossible to devise a scientific experiment that is proof against cheating? Many serious ESP experiments place the participants in sound proof electromagnetically shielded rooms separated by some distance, for God's sake!

David
 
One comment about high-profile NDEs. These attract a lot of attention, and may give the impression that there are just these few isolated examples of people who wish to attract either fame or perhaps notoriety, as well as the untold wealth arising from sales of a book. But the picture is very much larger than that. Based upon various surveys carried out over recent decades in different countries there may be from 292 million to over one billion people alive today who have had an NDE. One can read about many of these cases, or see them retold in videos. These people have neither fame nor riches as a result. These are ordinary people who just happen to have something interesting to say.
 
Very relevant points, Typoz

I've posted this video before (apologies) but for anyone who hasn't seen it (I doubt there's many now) ) ) it's worth a couple of minutes just to listen and observe the impact that an NDE has on perfectly normal people, in this case a lawyer. I liked this as an example simply because the guy is so normal, savvy and articulate.

The emotion and contentment he expresses are incompatible with the typical sceptical explanations, as he says
"You've got to understand, I've seen the equivalent of a Martian in the back yard.....it was so incredible etc etc"

I contacted this chap (poor sod :)) and he was kind enough to respond. He doesn't accept ANY explanation other than
it was real, the "people" he saw were really there and he *really was* floating towards a large group of people he didn't know
but who were wanting him to come towards them, welcoming him with a feeling of love that was so profound he still cannot formulate a comparison with anything here...."It was just so amazing" ....
He was not religious, he was not expecting it, he was definitely dead for a few minutes (shocked a dozen times) and when he woke up he was in a state of immense happiness, couldn't stop talking about it for months/years ...still talking about it
(the arrest was 5 years ago) now.

The challenge for the sceptics has been for over forty years now to come up with an explanation that adequately fits the data and they haven't. Nowhere near. And the latest explanatory gimmick, rat brain farts is so weak and desperate it's not worth the paper it's written on. Personally I now have no doubt what NDE's mean but while "certainty" is amusing to some members ( I don't care), I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that there is actually something in a human being that will not die. That fits the data perfectly.

For those that haven't seen it, skip to 01. 40

http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/did-they-see-an-afterlife/30768290
 
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?

No, but ordened and consistent experiences like these during a critic brain activity points to a mind-body separation.
 
Consciousness arises from complexity.
We are learning more about this complexity every day.
Your foundational premise that consciousness "arises" (a term of religion) from complexity, has no evidence basis. I hope to find cogent argument for opposing opinions to informational realism. You appear to recite the common talking points.

We ARE learning about complexity through information science. Particularly germane to the topic at hand is the research of G. Tononi and his efforts to measure integrated information (an actual working model for organic complexity). There is actual observation and data-gathering from phenomenal events in his work, rather than a bunch of metaphors that serve as scientific analysis. Not surprisingly he doesn't find a "magical mist of mind" arising from a pile of material complexity. He pushes consciousness down to all intrinsic substance and has looked to panpyschism as the only alternative left, for a physicalist PoV (point of view)
 
This thread is getting philosophical... but I want to add my opinion on its original scientific side.

As Max_B and Smithy rightly said, this study has entirely nothing to do with the NDE controversy - and would be almost certainly unnoticed both by the skeptics and the proponents if not for the passing personal comment of one of the researchers. This study is not about clinical death at all - it is about the short initial period of asphyxia. It is fully and universally accepted, and not challenged by anyone (including NDE proponents and non-materialists in general) that brain activity does not stops immidiately after someone starts being asphyxiated. To the contrary, it is entirely rational to predict that brain will be over-active because of severe psychosomatic ordeal - which, subsequently, will lead to excessive release of neurotransmitters evident even in dozens of minutes after the event.

These neurotransmitters, however, does not help anyone during the period of clinical death, when, according to mainstream observations, there is no identifiable activity in the parts of the brain which, according to mainstream theories, are necessary for higher functions of the psyche. And this is not refuted by the paper - it is not specially mentioned at all, being a part of general background knowledge of any decent neuroscientist.

As for the NDE comment - since no one of the study authors is an NDE researcher, they can't be blamed for not having a detailed knowledge about the NDEs, as well as conditions and circumstances of their manifestation. For him, NDE probably are "just some weird visions arising when brain is in stress". Consequently, the comment is made - the comment which is just an opinion, not an inference from the study data.
 
Last edited:
One comment about high-profile NDEs. These attract a lot of attention, and may give the impression that there are just these few isolated examples of people who wish to attract either fame or perhaps notoriety, as well as the untold wealth arising from sales of a book. But the picture is very much larger than that. Based upon various surveys carried out over recent decades in different countries there may be from 292 million to over one billion people alive today who have had an NDE. One can read about many of these cases, or see them retold in videos. These people have neither fame nor riches as a result. These are ordinary people who just happen to have something interesting to say.
There are currently thousands of recorded NDE cases now (over the last 30+ years of research). All the 65+ peer-reviewed studies have provided consistent scientific data, with a similar spread of percentages of people reporting NDEs. Extrapolating the percentage to the general population, it would mean 1) that NDEs are not a rare event, but actually more common than we think 2) millions of people have experienced NDEs.

My Best,
Bertha
 
This thread is in the process of being moderated. Lioue has been banned, his recent posts have been deleted, and many responses to his inconsiderate remarks have also been deleted as either off-topic or too focused on lioue's inappropriate comments.

Please keep in mind that drive-by opinions such as those posted by Lioue are not welcome because they are 1) not serious, 2) do not fairly represent research in the field, 3) are immoderate in their expression.

AP
 
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?
If I love my child, which I do, then everything after the second sentence is just crazy talk.
Again, you seem to make the leap from 'materialist' to 'psychopathic sociopath' with frightening ease.
Humans are social, most primates are social. Hell, most *mammals* are social. Sociability works for the survival of the individual and the species.
The fact that I love my child does not require a mind-body separation to be true as a starting premise. I'm a humanist and I don't think we are robots driven by external minds, these concepts are not mutually exclusive and it's insulting to imply that they are.

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.
This does not illuminate my original question. Why do you believe this? I didn't ask you to tell me what I think about it for two good reasons: 1) You are not in my head and 2) Your statement of my position is wrong. I asked you the question because of I do not know why you think that materialism=amoral.

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 agree with this statement.
But it seems that your a priori assumption is that mind and brain are separate, that the brain is not responsible for consciousness.
I am arguing that the null hypothesis is more intellectually honest.
Bringing back my earlier mention of Occam's Razor, I will quote Alcock, "... parapsychology has unabashedly invented a number of such entities by way of explaining away failures to produce consistent and replicable data."

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'.
And while Dr. Alexander might be a fantastic fellow and fun at a party, I have no way to verify that anything he experienced was indicative that his consciousness was not a product of his brain. Just as I have no way of confirming sightings of, or abductions by, aliens. It puts it on the same plain as, "I had a really vivid dream and you must believe it is true."

My grandfather had such a dream. He saw a group of people walking down a road and just a few people who got off the road to follow a separate path. At the end of the road was hell. He watched as hundreds of people fell screaming from the road into a lake of fire and brimstone. This inspired him to become a preacher and completely changed his life. This dream was so vivid that it reshaped his whole life, his family's life, and the lives of thousands of people he met over the following 45 years. By all rational scales, he was a jerk before this dream and a scrupulously honest and caring man after it.

Does this mean that it was real? Do you find this convincing and now want to become a Pentecostal Christian?
I don't, and I loved and cared for the man.

Based on recommendations by you, and others here, I *have been* looking at the results of these studies. So far, I have not found anything that would move me out of the null hypothesis. My apostasy does, perhaps, make me demand facts and be more skeptical of claims based on wish-thinking. This does not make me popular at parties.
 
It is certainly true that some mediums and others have been found to be cheating, but these are a tiny proportion of those who have been tested. It is also worth realising that enormous pressure is put on anyone who claims to have psychic powers. "Move this, or answer that" or you are a fake! This puts them under immense pressure to 'perform' and a few cheat. However, ask yourself - is it really impossible to devise a scientific experiment that is proof against cheating? Many serious ESP experiments place the participants in sound proof electromagnetically shielded rooms separated by some distance, for God's sake!

And when they do, nothing beyond statistical chance happens. When someone claims they are telepathic or can move things by telekinesis, this seems an extraordinary claim. "Physics don't apply to me!" When they start making further claims about how they can't do it when someone is watching? It just makes the whole thing suspect. What's wrong with a little hic Rhodus, hic salta?
 
We are learning more about complexity every day. So far there is no evidence whatsoever that it leads to consciousness.
Ah. Well, I clarified my statement of 'complexity' to the more correct term of 'emergent property' in my discussion with David Bailey. Perhaps you could look at the two papers I cited for more information on this complex topic.
It is entirely conceivable to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
It is a much bigger leap to say that the brain is a radio receiving communication from a pervasive psychic background radiation that cannot be measured by any known means or even adequately defined.
 
Just listen to the hateful scorn this guy pours out here. Just because people dare to believe in something more than this materialist loser.
Considering the words that he could have used, I thought his comment was thoughtful and considered. In fact, just 4 posts later, David is trying to explain to me why I should be happy and content to kill or injure my own child. Bertha, in case you are in any doubt, I find this statement abhorrent. So far, the hates seems to be flowing one way and I am the one being called an immoral baby-murderer.
 
Considering the words that he could have used, I thought his comment was thoughtful and considered. In fact, just 4 posts later, David is trying to explain to me why I should be happy and content to kill or injure my own child. Bertha, in case you are in any doubt, I find this statement abhorrent. So far, the hates seems to be flowing one way and I am the one being called an immoral baby-murderer.
This was an interesting thread that tried to understand "meaning". David sees us and our brains as analogous to LEGO bricks... That may help you understand how he has reached his conclusions.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/what-gives-your-life-meaning.2150/
 
And when they do, nothing beyond statistical chance happens. When someone claims they are telepathic or can move things by telekinesis, this seems an extraordinary claim. "Physics don't apply to me!" When they start making further claims about how they can't do it when someone is watching? It just makes the whole thing suspect. What's wrong with a little hic Rhodus, hic salta?

Quantum Physics has demonstrated reality itself has non-local properties. It is not much of a jump to assume consciousness also possess non-local properties as well. In fact, some
of the most brilliant psychologists in the last century published papers on telepathy, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

Carl Sagan was a second rate astronomer who misinformed the general public by stating extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No, that is not the case in science.
Extraordinary phenomena simply require normal scientific empirical observations. Nothing more than that.

The problem with guys like you Richard, is you ignore the empirical data in psi (and NDEs) because you have such a strong bias toward both classes of phenomena. And
your bias is based on your blind faith in materialism. Which is like a religion to you.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Considering the words that he could have used, I thought his comment was thoughtful and considered. In fact, just 4 posts later, David is trying to explain to me why I should be happy and content to kill or injure my own child. Bertha, in case you are in any doubt, I find this statement abhorrent. So far, the hates seems to be flowing one way and I am the one being called an immoral baby-murderer.
His comments were the usual Skeptical baloney. Much like yours is so far - all you've done is repeat Skeptic talking points we've all heard ad nauseum on this board over and over again.
You guys never think for yourself. You quote from your Skeptical bible, and you rarely know much about the actual research that has been performed in psi, and often know even less about psychology (or physics).

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
This was an interesting thread that tried to understand "meaning". David sees us and our brains as analogous to LEGO bricks... That may help you understand how he has reached his conclusions.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/what-gives-your-life-meaning.2150/

Oh! I think I found it in this quote from David in that forum:
I agree with a lot of Alex's ideas, and I would put it this way. Almost everyone has aspects of this life that make it meaningful - children, friends, cats, other animals, ideas, etc. There would not be a problem if it were not for conventional science which tells you that all of these are collections of fundamental particles following equations (except perhaps ideas, which are stored in brains that are made of fundamental particles....).

Many scientists are happy to fudge this, but the most fundamentalist materialists like to say that life is fundamentally meaningless. Alex's point, is how can you get meaning out of collections of things that are individually totally meaningless? If nothing individually matters, it is damn hard to see why collections of stuff should matter! This feels closely related to the other big question - if matter simply evolves according to rules, why should the collections of matter we call brains experience stuff? This means that fundamentalist materialists can't really talk about "giving their lives meaning", because that translates into one set of meaningless particles giving their temporary assembly, a meaning!

My understanding of this argument is this:
  1. atoms don't think.
  2. so collections of atoms can't think.
  3. therefore, anyone who believes atoms think is deluding themselves.
Does that sound like a succinct recitation of your position, David?
 
Back
Top