• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

Think this through:

Why should a brain create 'a lifereview' where you can feel empathie for others, yourself and can have a metaposition. You get insight in relationships on a higher level.
When the brain is disfunctioning...

People who experienced a lifereview do not talk about hallucinations or constructed stories. They remember what they see in their lifereview and get more insight into the relationships they had with other people.

This is new information from an external source...

Such a complex phenomenon like a lifereview, cannot be explained by current neuroscience.

These people, who experienced a lifereview, got new information from an external source while their brains were disfunctioning. This new information has a great impact on how these experiencers live their lives differently from then on.

On the packaging of toilet paper hereabouts, which is transparent plastic, they like to print babies. Why babies, I have no idea. Puppies are also popular.

When the plastic deforms, which it does as you remove rolls, the baby's face starts to warp. Very soon you have what looks like a movie-monster with elephantiasis. It leers and winks around folds of Lovecraftian space. Obscene and gibbering.

Think this through:

Why can the print of a baby become a foul monster when the plastic's surface dysfunctions? This is new information from an external source.

You cannot explain this complex phenomenon with our current sciences.
 
On the packaging of toilet paper hereabouts, which is transparent plastic, they like to print babies. Why babies, I have no idea. Puppies are also popular.

When the plastic deforms, which it does as you remove rolls, the baby's face starts to warp. Very soon you have what looks like a movie-monster with elephantiasis. It leers and winks around folds of Lovecraftian space. Obscene and gibbering.

Think this through:

Why can the print of a baby become a foul monster when the plastic's surface dysfunctions? This is new information from an external source.

You cannot explain this complex phenomenon with our current sciences.

:bigclap

Well said!
 
Think this through:

Why should a brain create 'a lifereview' where you can feel empathie for others, yourself and can have a metaposition.


Appeal to personal incredulity.

You get insight in relationships on a higher level.
When the brain is disfunctioning...


Unsupported assertion.

People who experienced a lifereview do not talk about hallucinations or constructed stories. They remember what they see in their lifereview and get more insight into the relationships they had with other people.

This is new information from an external source...


Unsupported assertion.

Such a complex phenomenon like a lifereview, cannot be explained by current neuroscience.

These people, who experienced a lifereview, got new information from an external source while their brains were disfunctioning. This new information has a great impact on how these experiencers live their lives differently from then on.


Unsupported assertion.

Hitchens's razor applies.
 
How many times has one heard some variation of "my whole life flashed before my eyes...?" People report "life review" situations rather routinely when facing death, whether or not brain damage is involved. Or at least the accounts are there. If you disallow the accounts of those whose brains are not damaged, what would lead you to believing the accounts of those whose brains are damaged? It would appear, at least from popular accounts and literature, that imminent death, or the fear of it, often causes people to do a quick review of their lives, and it's not all that uncommon to hear that such an experience brings about a change in one's subsequent behavior and attitudes. When you retell a story under dire circumstances, it's not all that surprising that things acquire a new meaning. Why on earth would it be otherwise? Nothing like mortality to wake you up and put your values in perspective. But what does that mean, other than that? What part of that experience is external? What part of that information is new? We see no evidence that it involves anything but memory. We think what we think, and when our brains are compromised, or when we believe we are about to die, or both, we think differently. Is that news?
 
How many times has one heard some variation of "my whole life flashed before my eyes...?" People report "life review" situations rather routinely when facing death, whether or not brain damage is involved. … Is that news?

Oh dear. You seem to have put actual effort into your post, based on extrapolation from natural occurrences and reasonable conclusions. You run the risk of seeming completely sane and without a single blunt tree-cleaving device to grind.

You are making an exemplar of yourself. Mind how you go!
 
Oh dear. You seem to have put actual effort into your post, based on extrapolation from natural occurrences and reasonable conclusions. You run the risk of seeming completely sane and without a single blunt tree-cleaving device to grind.

You are making an exemplar of yourself. Mind how you go!
Deepest apologies. I forgot for the moment where I was.
 
"True open-minded skepticism is our greatest ally in trying to better understand the mind-brain connection as it is revealed through the extraordinary lens of near-death experiences (NDEs)." (dr. Eben Alexander)
 
"True open-minded skepticism is our greatest ally in trying to better understand the mind-brain connection as it is revealed through the extraordinary lens of near-death experiences (NDEs)." (dr. Eben Alexander)

A "true open-minded skeptic" would be able to accept that NDEs are completely intrapsychic, since there's no objective evidence to the contrary.
 
"True open-minded skepticism is our greatest ally in trying to better understand the mind-brain connection as it is revealed through the extraordinary lens of near-death experiences (NDEs)." (dr. Eben Alexander)

Yeah, let's believe this guy:
In a 2013 investigation of Alexander's story and medical background, Esquire magazine reported that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error.[13][14] The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating".[14][13][15]

Alexander responded: "I wrote a truthful account of my experiences in Proof of Heaven and have acknowledged in the book both my professional and personal accomplishments and my setbacks. I stand by every word in this book and have made its message the purpose of my life. Esquire's cynical article distorts the facts of my 25-year career as a neurosurgeon and is a textbook example of how unsupported assertions and cherry-picked information can be assembled at the expense of the truth."[15]

Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down', 'inactivated', 'completely shut down', 'totally offline', and 'stunned to complete inactivity'. The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science."[16] "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline."[17] Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)
 
So, true open minded skepticism is probably defined by Maarten as 'whatever agrees with me, or at least leaves enough wiggle room so I don't have to answer hard questions'.
Whereas asking for evidence, not assuming the existence of magic where natural explanations suffice, and arguing with Maarten are seen as 'evil closed minded pseudo-skepticism'.
A transparent ploy to dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with him as petty and shortsighted.

Maartenn100... Most of us would be delighted if evidence for an afterlife shows up, but it just isn't there. No amount of wishful thinking or name calling is going to make evidence appear.
 
To be able to provide the next nobel prize in science is not a criterium for this forum, I hope. For a forum like this, hundreds of independent anecdotical evidence is suficient to have a good argument in an open discussion. No one here can provide the next nobel prize, so don't expect this from other people on the forum here when they give arguments pro a certain position.
 
Last edited:
How did the doctor know that the serial numbers were correct?

Read his comment here on Facebook how he checked the numbers:

see here on Facebook


Christopher Yerington

"I did need a step stool to see the numbers. You could only pull the lights down so far - ceiling mounted on adjustable arms. I did have to wait until the OR was done be used the day I checked. I just talked to my wife (also an anesthesiologist - we met in residency) about this case because of the incredible response in the Quora community - like 100,000 views which is far more than I've received previously for any answer. She remembers the 'serial' numbers as being the Ohio State University identifier numbers - like facility code numbers for equipment. My memory is that they were each 3-4 letters followed by a couple series of numbers. I had written them down and carried them in my front scrubs pocket... thinking, at the time, it was insane. One of the nurses in the OR did show me that you could, if you manipulated the arm in one way and rotated the light housing completely you could almost invert the whole thing and see the back... they do that for cleaning. Hope that helps."

see here on Facebook
 
And the name of that marine? Albert Einstein!

ETA: okay, more seriously... Let's say we find this anecdote compelling.
How would you go about designing a test to check if OOBEs are possible?
Because even an interesting anecdote is only an anecdote, and even doctors can be fooled, or lie, or be mistaken.
 
Last edited:
This is not just one anecdote. It's one among many in the literature of out of body experiences and veridical perception. So, there are a lot of indications already

Sam Parnia is busy with the second part of the Aware Study. Each hospital installs high shelves in areas where cardiac arrest resuscitation is likely to happen, such as emergency rooms and intensive care wards. Each shelf holds one visual image that faces upwards and therefore is only visible from a vantage point near the ceiling. He has announced that the study will now go on until 2020, when a results presentation will be made to the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. It will be bring it in line to match the length, and hopefully breadth of the first AWARE. A larger data pool and more analysis means better observations and deductions.
 
Last edited:
Read his comment here on Facebook how he checked the numbers:

see here on Facebook


Christopher Yerington

"I did need a step stool to see the numbers. You could only pull the lights down so far - ceiling mounted on adjustable arms. I did have to wait until the OR was done be used the day I checked. I just talked to my wife (also an anesthesiologist - we met in residency) about this case because of the incredible response in the Quora community - like 100,000 views which is far more than I've received previously for any answer. She remembers the 'serial' numbers as being the Ohio State University identifier numbers - like facility code numbers for equipment. My memory is that they were each 3-4 letters followed by a couple series of numbers. I had written them down and carried them in my front scrubs pocket... thinking, at the time, it was insane. One of the nurses in the OR did show me that you could, if you manipulated the arm in one way and rotated the light housing completely you could almost invert the whole thing and see the back... they do that for cleaning. Hope that helps."

see here on Facebook


So there are ways of finding out the numbers other than having an OOBE.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom