
Near death, explained - brfox
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/
======
pron
One of the problems with NDE reports is that it is not clear exactly _when_
the experience occurred. While the patient's brain may not function at all
during the medical procedure, it is far from certain that this is the time NDE
is taking place. It is very possible that the whole experience occurs shortly
before the brain loses function or shortly after it regains it.

Another problem is the memory of the witnesses, like in the "shoe incident"
described in the article. It's been known that people who come to believe they
are witnessing something extraordinary suffer from great amounts of
confirmation bias and other memory-distorting psychological effects.

Finally, as always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NDE is a
fascinating topic deserving rigorous scientific study – one that might shed
light on some of the mind's mysteries – but in no way should a relatively
small number of reports change our complete view of the mind-brain problem.

~~~
corin_
The shoe incident really confused me... maybe because I skim-read, but will
read again when I'm off this flight and on a bigger screen than my blackberry.

I understand that memory of things will practically dead might be possible,
and while the science goes over my head, I'm fine with that. Even "looking
down on yourself" can be achieved with a.) science of still remembering
something and b.) imagination

But figuring out something no-where near your body, like the shoe outside...
short of a non-scientific explanation (e.g. religious), I really can't see how
that could ever be possible.

~~~
pron
Unless that's not quite what happened. A witness's memory can be deceiving.

------
acqq
What is the position of the author can be seen in one sentence from the
article:

"Materialistic scientists have proposed a number of physiological explanations
to account for the various features of NDEs."

Obviously, the author doesn't consider himself a "materialistic scientist."

~~~
ggreer
RationalWiki mentions the author of this piece:
[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-
materialist_neuroscience#Ma...](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-
materialist_neuroscience#Mario_Beauregard.27s_quantum_mind)

This doesn't change the fact that NDEs are an interesting phenomenon, and
we're not quite sure what's going on with them. Still, I'll bet money that
they're not going to tell us anything new about physics.

~~~
acqq
Thanks. RationalWiki also concludes:

"Non-materialist neuroscience has failed every single one of the categories.
Its basic framework is unwieldy and does not provide any clear, specific,
falsifiable predictions. What few tests might be imagined for it have all
turned up evidence strongly against its basic predictions. It has failed to
advance knowledge, create new hypotheses and definitely has not made clear how
it will aid in helping us understand and treat brain injuries or illnesses. It
has been a complete flop scientifically. So why the sudden surge in books and
publications pushing it? _We are dealing with a political and religious
movement just as we have dealt with in intelligent design and creationism._ "

------
skore
> As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can
> experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and
> acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their
> bodies.

Having experimented with Lucid Dreaming... I'll call bullshit.

> NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness
> may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not
> accessible to our senses and awareness.

By definition, if the instrument that is failing is the one that is measuring
(itself!), you're not going to get results that tell you anything at all.

I encourage everybody to try lucid dreaming, it's very instructive. After my
experiences, I'm 100% certain that it is responsible for everything from alien
abductions to NDEs.

It's a lot of fun, too! Not to mention a lot cheaper and safer than
experimenting with street drugs, although usually, you have to pay for the
difference with patience.

------
fredgrott
AHem, read the criticism of this wikipedia article on one of the Authors of
Proof of heaven:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_\(author\))

No science behind it, etc..

It seems to me even reading about the critics that Neurology is a very young
science with not all its Science Processes and Measure snot fully established
yet..

------
bobwaycott
In which we learn that many have had veridical NDEs/OBEs corroborated by third
parties, but nothing is actually _explained_. The reader is merely treated to
a series of anecdotes that render little beyond providing room for suggesting
there is continuity of experience, without the accompanying clarity an
explanation ought to provide.

There is also little attempt made to veil an implicit contempt for
'materialistic scientists'.

------
GnwbZHiU
well, it's an interesting article, but there's no explanation as the title
suggests.

