Near-Death Experience: Investigating Theoretical Implications

[Evo]

I have not had an NDE, so I cannot confirm them. However, in the book Evidence of the Afterlife, by Jeffrey Long, MD (Harper, 2010), there is a chapter dealing with worldwide consistency. Based on "the largest cross-cultural study of NDEs ever performed", he makes the following conclusions:

- The core of the NDE experience is the same all over the world. Whether Hindu in India, Muslim in Egypt, or Christian in the US, the core elements of out of body experience, tunnel experience, feelings of peace, beings of light, life review, reluctance to return and transformation after the NDE are all present.

Perhaps I should have specified how people interpret NDEs vary based on culture, even the reported incidences varies drastically. Supposedly 18% of Americans claim to have had them as opposed to only 4% in Germany. One has to wonder how many of these reports are false memories.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g141t0356tj08841/

To the extent any of the experiences are the same it simply means most human brains are the same. Visual Migraine auras are the same all over the world because all humans have pretty much the same visual cortex which gets disturbed in the same way during Cortical Spreading Depression. Hildegard of Bingan, though, thought her Migraine auras were visions of heaven. Tonic-Clonic seizures are pretty much the same all over the world, and so, if you insist, you can interpret that to mean people are seized by the same sorts of spirits all over the world, or you can interpret it to mean the human brain suffers the same kind of hypersynchronous neuronal firing all over the world. Heart attacks are the same all over the world, does this mean human hearts are all basically the same, or does it mean there are still medieval elves out there throwing elf-shot at people?

I agree, the physical part of the "NDE" would indicate that it's related to what is happening within the brain, nothing mystical about it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

One has to wonder how many of these reports are false memories.

Yes, and my suspicion would also be that the people claiming a worldwide pattern are discarding reports that don't fit the pattern they like.

I recall seeing a Hiroshima bomb survivor interviewed on TV. After the bomb went off, she said, she saw devestation all around her, became aware her clothes had been blown off, and saw mulitated, screaming people everywhere. Then, suddenly, she saw a large, beautiful golden box sitting on the ground in front of her. She crawled toward it, climbed into it, and shut the lid. Inside she felt safe and completely blissful. The next thing she was aware of was being in a medical tent all bandaged up.

A report like that is simply not included by people who want to assert these things are the same all over the world over all cultures.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Near-death experiences are hallucinations created by the brain due to hypoxia.

Why is this hypothesis more reasonable than the hypothesis that NDEs are what tehy seem to be?

It has been shown that pilots undergoing g-force stress training have similar experiences.

What relevance has this got?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I am not aware that any NDE's have been scientifically proven.

Scientifically be proven to be what?

And what relevance has your statement got to do with anything whatsoever?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Apparently you don't understand that the onus of proof lies with the one making the claim.

No I don't. However perhaps you could give an argument for this?

First of all how do we decide which of the various competing hypotheses are a "claim" and conversely which are "non-claims"?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Why is this hypothesis more reasonable than the hypothesis that NDEs are what tehy seem to be?

What exatly are you trying to argue? What do "they seem to be" to you?

What relevance has this got?

The relevance is obvious, a year ago the OP posted an acecdotal "out of body experience" which was "published" online. I replied OOBE's are really just hallucinations brought on by hypoxia (which have been repeatably demonstrated in pilots under controlled conditions), and posted a link to the thourough Wikipedia article on the general subject of out-of-body experiences.

Are you claiming OOBE's are not hypoxic hallucinations?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No I don't. However perhaps you could give an argument for this?

First of all how do we decide which of the various competing hypotheses are a "claim" and conversely which are "non-claims"?

Read up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

The burden of proof is a pragmatic approach to dealing with responsibility for a claim and whether or not a claim is ready for acceptance. The reason we have it is because it makes sense to have the person making the claim invest the effort to back it up before it is accepted, otherwise it requires the work of others to come up with any evidence for or against a claim which is impractical because the number of claims out there vastly outnumbers the number of people available to investigate them. Another dimension to this topic is verification and falsification, if a claim cannot be verified or falsified then there is no good reason to accept it. If the burden of proof was on the person hearing the claim then they would have no way of achieving that so instead we would be left with a situation wherein all unverifiable/falsifiable claims are accepted which would destroy any functioning society.

Claims are statements that make a firm assertion of fact, for example:

I believe that X is caused by Y
and
I believe that X is not caused by Y

Are positive claims whereas:

I don't believe X is caused by Y

Is not a positive claim. The former are making statements about how the world works whereas the latter (for comparison) makes no claim as to how the world works.

 

[Evo]

No I don't. However perhaps you could give an argument for this?

Well, then, you've just learned something new.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, then, you've just learned something new.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

I don't know how I forgot about the implicit appeal to ignorance! I'm going to put that down to just getting home from work :zzz:

 

[zoobyshoe]

...and posted a link to the thourough Wikipedia article on the general subject of out-of-body experiences.

I'm not seeing where the wiki article addresses the hypoxia of pilots. If it's there, whereabouts? If not, do you have a link? I'm not doubting you, of course, I just haven't heard of this.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Sorry about that I misspoke, in fact what I meant is Near-Death Experiences (NDE) rather than specifically an Out-of-Body Experience (although I would classify some OOBE's as a sub-set of NDE's). Pilots undergoing G-Force simulation testing have reported some similar experiences to people that were "clinically dead" for a period of time in hospitals; things like going towards a bright light for example.

What little research there has been in this field indicates that the experiences Moody lists as typical of the NDE may be due to brain states triggered by cardiac arrest and anesthesia (Blackmore 1993). Furthermore, many people who have not been near death have had experiences that seem identical to NDEs, e.g., fighter pilots experiencing rapid acceleration.

http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry about that I misspoke, in fact what I meant is Near-Death Experiences (NDE) rather than specifically an Out-of-Body Experience (although I would classify some OOBE's as a sub-set of NDE's). Pilots undergoing G-Force simulation testing have reported some similar experiences to people that were "clinically dead" for a period of time in hospitals; things like going towards a bright light for example.


http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html

That article links to this:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html

but this, too, is just a summary, of the research of a Dr. Winnery. There's no links to his own writings, which is what I'd like to read. I'd be especially interested in reading the verbatim reports of the pilots who experienced G-LOC in the centrifuges.

Apparently this guy, Whinnery, was the first to demonstrate the NDE was "real", in the sense the experiencers were reporting what seemed real and vivid to them as opposed to them being speaking metaphorically about vague impressions. The distinction is important as it is with Phantom Limb syndrome and many other neurological experiences. The "feeling" the limb is still there in an amputee is full blown and vivid, not just a vague impression. The sensory aspects of the NDE are full blown and persuasive. Apparently this wasn't appreciated before Whinnery.

At any rate, over 15 years he was able to study 700 cases of G-LOC induced NDE's. This is the study and research asked for in the OP. It's repeatable and producible in a lab setting.

 

[Dotini]

Aficianados of the NDE will perhaps enjoy this interview with Raymond Moody. "During the interview Moody discusses the role of logic and nonsense in studying the near-death experience".
http://www.skeptiko.com/raymond-moody-understanding-near-death-experiences-as-nonsense/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[PeterJ]

Yes, but realize that some people here don't understand science.

I'm sorry mate, but from your exchange with Nesp I'd say your understanding is not great. Or not as great as his anyway.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm sorry mate, but from your exchange with Nesp I'd say your understanding is not great. Or not as great as his anyway.

Care to clarify this statement? As this converstion has gone on I can't see anywhere that shows Evo does not understand.

 

[PeterJ]

I didn't mean to start a row, Ryan, and sorry if I made one likely. I just felt that Evo's approach was infused with temperament and preconception, while Nesp's was scientific, impartial and not carefully enough read. This was my impression as a bystander. If you read the exchange I think you'll see why someone might have gained this impression.

As to NDE's, it seems to me that if NDEs are regularly reported this is a scientific fact and it needs a scientific explanation, regardless of the content of those reports. If lots of people report that they feel sick after taking some medicine or other then we do not dismiss these reports on the grounds that the sciences deal only with intra-subjective data. A stack of reports can be measured with a ruler.

The status of the contents of such reports is a different matter, obviously, but if we say that the contents of reports of NDEs are inadmissable in science this would put an end to any idea of 'scientific consciousness studies', and we might also start wondering if our written records of our meter readings are not also first-person reports.

By one way of looking at it nobody has ever observed anything other than a first-person report, which is why solipsism is unfalsifiable. It would therefore be impossible to defend the idea that first-person reports are not scientific data.

Of course some reports are scientifically useless for various reasons, usually lack of repeatability, and perhaps this would include those about NDEs. This would be a decision for scientists. They can set their own standards for evidence. But this would be about defining the limits of science. If NDE reports lie outside of science then it would make no difference to anybody what the sciences think about them. Or this is how it seems to me.

 

[ZapperZ]

As to NDE's, it seems to me that if NDEs are regularly reported this is a scientific fact and it needs a scientific explanation, regardless of the content of those reports. If lots of people report that they feel sick after taking some medicine or other then we do not dismiss these reports on the grounds that the sciences deal only with intra-subjective data. A stack of reports can be measured with a ruler.

This analogy does not work. People getting sick produce a physiological effect that can be measured! It is no longer just in people's head. What physical evidence is there for NDE that allows for it to be objectively measured independent of "lost of people" reporting it?

The status of the contents of such reports is a different matter, obviously, but if we say that the contents of reports of NDEs are inadmissable in science this would put an end to any idea of 'scientific consciousness studies', and we might also start wondering if our written records of our meter readings are not also first-person reports.

By one way of looking at it nobody has ever observed anything other than a first-person report, which is why solipsism is unfalsifiable. It would therefore be impossible to defend the idea that first-person reports are not scientific data.

If you are saying that I cannot falsify a first person's report, then this is false. I can indeed QUESTION the validity of a first person report simply based on what he/she claims to have perceived. Why? Because I can show you examples on where the mind and what people "believe" they saw can be highly unreliable.

1. One often cited NDE is the so-called out-of-body experience. However, it has been shown, in not one, but at least TWO papers published in Science[1,2], on how the brain can be tricked into producing such out-of-body experience. In other words, there's no evidence of any such phenomenon, but yet, the participants still claim on having such an experience.

2. The mind can play quite a trick on us and can be highly unreliable. This has already been shown in many cases where participants claim something had happened, when it hasn't! See, for example, Ref. [3].

3. So if the mind can be be tricked, and also unreliable under the BEST of conditions, consider how even less reliable it is when it is under physical duress, such as when the body is near death!

And yet, even after all this, we still accept such anecdotal description as evidence, and a reliable one at that? How low of a standard do we need to set here?

Zz.

[1] H. Henrik Ehrsson Science v.317, p.104824 (2007).
[2] Bigna Lenggenhager et al. Science v.317, p. 1096 (2007).
[3] Dario L. M. Sacchi et al., Applied Cognitive Psychology v.21, p.1005 (2007).

 

[Bipolarity]

Classic example where anecdotes alone proved to be the worst kind of source for science:
Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis

1 experiment, carried out properly > 1000000 anecdotes

BiP

 

[zoobyshoe]

This analogy does not work. People getting sick produce a physiological effect that can be measured! It is no longer just in people's head. What physical evidence is there for NDE that allows for it to be objectively measured independent of "lost of people" reporting it?

Both you and Evo have for some reason jumped to the conclusion that the posters you're addressing are only interested in studying the NDE scientifically to prove it is what it seems to be. My reading of both of them is that they are quite open to simply finding out what it is.

To the extent the OBE can be studied in the lab we can learn huge amounts about how the brain informs you where you are located. The first amazing thing we learn is that the "self" does not automatically associate itself with the body where it's located and needs special integrative functions in the temporo-parietal junction to create the impression you are where you are: in your body. That's a mind boggling thing to learn. Still, it's poorly understood and needs a great deal of further study.

The NDE should be studied to find out what it can tell us about how the brain works.

 

[ZapperZ]

Both you and Evo have for some reason jumped to the conclusion that the posters you're addressing are only interested in studying the NDE scientifically to prove it is what it seems to be. My reading of both of them is that they are quite open to simply finding out what it is.

I don't get it. Finding out "what it is" is not the same as "studying the NDE scientifically"? There are other ways to find out what something is unambiguously that everyone can agree on? Really?

To the extent the OBE can be studied in the lab we can learn huge amounts about how the brain informs you where you are located. The first amazing thing we learn is that the "self" does not automatically associate itself with the body where it's located and needs special integrative functions in the temporo-parietal junction to create the impression you are where you are: in your body. That's a mind boggling thing to learn. Still, it's poorly understood and needs a great deal of further study.

The NDE should be studied to find out what it can tell us about how the brain works.

I'm all for studying it. Check the fact that I've cited extensive scientific studies of various aspects of NDE! The more we study it, the more we will realize that (i) the brain isn't always reliable (ii) we are easily fooled and (iii) that these NDE observations do need any "supernatural" explanations.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't get it. Finding out "what it is" is not the same as "studying the NDE scientifically"? There are other ways to find out what something is unambiguously that everyone can agree on? Really?

Strawman.

I'm all for studying it. Check the fact that I've cited extensive scientific studies of various aspects of NDE! The more we study it, the more we will realize that (i) the brain isn't always reliable (ii) we are easily fooled and (iii) that these NDE observations do need any "supernatural" explanations.

Neurology is already way beyond these trivial points. The fact a given phenomenon is not supernatural appears incidentally from studying what it is. Undertaking a study with the agenda of proving something is not supernatural is not something neurological researchers do. Anything generated by strong confirmation bias like that would naturally be suspect. Their agenda, rather, is simply to find out what it is, what neurological mechanism underlies the experience.

 

[Evo]

I don't see the point in discussing this since this entire forum will disappear after tomorrow.

 

[surajt88]

I don't see the point in discussing this since this entire forum will disappear after tomorrow.

Sorry for being off-topic, but ongoing discussions in S&D will be continued in GD right? Or will they be locked away?

 

[ZapperZ]

Strawman.

Ambiguous.

Neurology is already way beyond these trivial points. The fact a given phenomenon is not supernatural appears incidentally from studying what it is. Undertaking a study with the agenda of proving something is not supernatural is not something neurological researchers do. Anything generated by strong confirmation bias like that would naturally be suspect. Their agenda, rather, is simply to find out what it is, what neurological mechanism underlies the experience.

I don't see how that differs from what I was saying. *I* was the one who suggested that, TO ME, the more one studies it, the more that I find the claim of anything supernatural to be even less convincing. That has been the pattern we have seen so far! I certainly hate to put my thought into what neuro-scientists were thinking.

Zz.

 

[Evo]

Sorry for being off-topic, but ongoing discussions in S&D will be continued in GD right? Or will they be locked away?

ALL S&D threads will be locked. The new forum is due to open tomorrow.

 

[dlgoff]

ALL S&D threads will be locked. The new forum is due to open tomorrow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG6b3V2MNxQ

 

[Evo]

Bye S&D!