Exploring NDE's and OBE's: Reasons to Reject the Claims?

[openlyatheist]

Upon searching for information on Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences I have found a plethora of information in favor of it, but no definitive works against it, save for the few articles addressing the phenomena on Infidels.org.

I have seen these phenomena represented as powerful proof of the existence of an immaterial consciousness and the afterlife by Christians and New Agers, yet no atheists I have seen take the phenomena seriously, despite the lack of solid science available to counter the claims. To put it mildly, I have seen far too many skeptics unable to win an argument on this subject.

Are there good reasons to reject the claims of NDE's and OBE's? What are they?

 

[PIT2]

Ur right, no one has been able to explain NDE's.

A scientific study of NDE's has actually shown that consciousness can continue (out of the body), even when the heart stops and the brain no longer has any activity.

 

[cronxeh]

Ur right, no one has been able to explain NDE's.

A scientific study of NDE's has actually shown that consciousness can continue (out of the body), even when the heart stops and the brain no longer has any activity.

and you have a reference for that claim?

 

[Dorje]

There was an article written in Skeptical Inquirer about NDE's not too long ago. The conclusion by neurologists was that NDE's are nothing more than the effects of changing brain biochemistry during the dying process. It might be available online at www.csicop.org.

A scientific study of NDE's has actually shown that consciousness can continue (out of the body), even when the heart stops and the brain no longer has any activity.

I would also like to see references to this "scientific" study.

 

[PIT2]

There was a study done in The Netherlands over a period of 13 years, which was published in The Lancet in 2001.

Here it is:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

The PDF file:

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf


Some quotes:

62 (18%) patients reported some recollection of the time of clinical death (table 1).

Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another paper posted in the credible anomalies thread.
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

 

[PIT2]

Here is another interesting paper/article(whatever its called) on NDEs:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v12n3a3.php


Abstract:

Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human Personality after Death? Relevant Features and Illustrative Case Reports

Emily Williams Cook, Bruce Greyson, and Ian Stevenson, Division of Personality Studies, Department of Psychiatric Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908

One of the main reasons that near-death experiences have generated so much interest in recent years among the general public is because they seem to provide evidence that consciousness survives the death of the physical body. It is puzzling, therefore, that most researchers — both those interested in NDEs and those interested in survival research — have neglected to address the question of whether NDEs do provide evidence for survival. We describe three features of NDEs — enhanced mentation, the experience of seeing the physical body from a different position in space, and paranormal perceptions — that we believe might provide convergent evidence supporting the survival hypothesis. We then describe 7 published cases and 7 cases from our own collection that contain all three features. These cases are all — with one possible exception — somewhat deficient with regard to their recording and investigation, but they exemplify the type of case that should be identified earlier and investigated more thoroughly than these have been, and that may then help us decide the extent to which NDEs can contribute to the evidence for survival of consciousness after death.

PDF file:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/12.3_cook_greyson_stevenson.pdf

Some quotes from the PDF:

We believe that when these three features occur together, they provide convergent evidence that at least suggests that consciousness can function independently of the physical body and hence may survive the death of that body. We emphasize that such evidence is only suggestive. No matter how serious their condition, persons reporting NDEs were in fact still alive in some sense, since their bodies were still functioning sufficiently to be revived. NDEs can therefore never provide conclusive evidence concerning what may happen to consciousness when the brain and body are no longer revivable.

We also, however, emphasize the importance of the convergence of these three features. We believe that when these three features occur...

Available medical records do not always provide all the information needed to make an adequate assessment of a patient’ s closeness to death.
Moreover, we do not even know what physiological conditions are minimally required for organized, vivid cognition (see, e.g., Baudoin, 1996; Duyff, Davies, and Vos, 1996; Lewin, 1980; Lorber, 1983). Nevertheless, the conditions under which some people have experienced NDEs do suggest that vivid, complex mental functioning can occur at a time when, given the person’ s loss of consciousness or of vital signs, we would not expect such functioning; and even a few well-documented cases of complex mentation occurring in conditions that are at variance with those predicted by a physiological model of consciousness may weaken that model.

There are many more interesting quotes.

Also, 14 cases of people with NDE are discussed.

 

[PIT2]

There was an article written in Skeptical Inquirer about NDE's not too long ago. The conclusion by neurologists was that NDE's are nothing more than the effects of changing brain biochemistry during the dying process. It might be available online at www.csicop.org.

Maybe ur talking about this article:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

In which they attempt to explain the 'bright light at the end of a tunnel'.

Unfortunately, focussing on 1 aspect of NDEs and ignoring the other 10(or more?), is not a proper way to explain NDEs. Yet, this is their claim:

This explanation of tunnel-and-light experiences does not constitute conclusive proof that this is the only mechanism by which these experiences can arise. After all, this explanation does not preclude paranormal or immaterial explanations. But it is an alternative, provable physical explanation that accounts for all aspects of these experiences, as well as making it possible to predict when these experiences are likely to occur.

 

[juju]

Hi

I have had seven OBE experiences.
meditation - 1
drugs - 1
masturbation - 1
intense concentration -2
spontaneous - 2

I have had one I am awake in the dream state experience. (spontaneous)

I have had one I am awake in an intermediate state between dreams and actual waking experience. (spontaneous)

All of the above were conscious and aware experiences and apart from normal waking consciousness.

juju

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have had seven OBE experiences.
meditation - 1
drugs - 1
masturbation - 1
intense concentration -2
spontaneous - 2

That is definitely interesting...

 

[cronxeh]

considering his age.. he really IS having an out of body experience

ok so maybe I am not that funny..

 

[Telos]

OBE's and NDE's are best studied independent of claims of "immaterial existence" or "souls" or whatever. Those aren't provable and are meaningless anyways.

The wonders of these experiences are far too great to reduce them to such double talk and spiritual/philosophical bickering.

I have had several experiences that can be classified as "OBE's," - I had the distinct feeling of "exiting" my body and seeing things just as lucidly as had I been awake. There is no use in trying to prove whether these experiences happen outside or inside the body - just that they happen, that they can happen at will, and that they can and should be explored.

I had already had "psychic" lucid dreams, but I use that word liberally because there was nothing especially conclusive. But in actuality, I have not actively pursued demonstrated trials of ESP (or whatever you want to call it) because, really, I am not prepared to adjust my world view to accept positive results, should they occur.

My first "OBE" occurred after years of lucid dream study, and as it was happening I thought, "no, this isn't possible... only whackos believe this kind of stuff... but... I am doing it." I do not think I was "outside of my body," whatever that means, but I sure was doing something significant!

Gradually, I am working up the courage to perform such controlled experiments, but justifying the effort is difficult. No matter how amazing my results would be, few would respect them. It's clear that the planet is flooded with fools on both sides of this issue.* No one appears to want to actually learn anything.

[Edit: Otherwise, they would be exploring these experiences on their own. Aside from the social stigma (which can be quite intellectually numbing), it's really very easy. Just be diligent about keeping a dream journal and employ critical thinking into realizing when you are dreaming - and then experiment! There's more to the phenomena than either the new agers or the debunkers would have you think. Way more.]

*(present company excluded, of course!)

 

[matthyaouw]

My friend claimed to have frequent OBEs. He said that many mornings before he woke, he could spend a good 5 minutes hovering above himself and his bed, watching his body. He told me he didn't know if it was an OBE or a dream or what, so I devised a little experiment for him. I told him to take a number of pieces of paper, and on each one, write a number on it (say, 50 pieces of paper, reading 1-50.) Every night, as he goes to bed, he should take one sheet at random, and place it on his bedside table (preferably slightly obscured by something so he can't see it from where he lays). If he is able to correctly say the number as he wakes, before he leans over to check on regular basis, and he really has not looked (conciously or while sleeping) then it would be fairly safe to say he was having OBEs.

He claimed it worked, and he was correct about the numbers. I'm still skeptical, but I don't fancy a proper controlled experiment, as hanging around in his room every night for a week or two as he sleeps isn't too appealing

 

[PIT2]

so I devised a little experiment for him. I told him to take a number of pieces of paper, and on each one, write a number on it (say, 50 pieces of paper, reading 1-50.) Every night, as he goes to bed, he should take one sheet at random, and place it on his bedside table (preferably slightly obscured by something so he can't see it from where he lays).

Sounds a bit like this experiment:

In an attempt to address this problem, Osis and McCormick (1980) designed a visual target that could be identified only if viewed from one particular visual perspective, and they recruited as the subject for their experiments a person skilled at inducing OBEs in himself. The success of this person in identifying the target led Osis and McCormick to conclude that he had done so by viewing it while out of his physical body, rather than by clairvoyance while inside his physical body.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/12.3_cook_greyson_stevenson.pdf