
Near death, (maybe) explained? - kposehn
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/
======
wbhart
I don't understand the title of this post. After reading the article, I don't
see a workable explanation presented which accounts for the features of the
phenomenon which is described.

I recently read quite a few reports of NDEs for my own personal interest and
noted something interesting. Not all NDErs report real events. In one case I
read about, a schoolboy who briefly "died" at school reported seeing empty
classrooms as he moved down the corridor at his school. Of course school was
in and the classrooms full at the time. He knew that himself, but what he saw
was different to what was actually happening. This contrasts with the reports
in the article where there is apparent independent confirmation of actual
details and events.

The reports of people blind from birth having what seem to be visual OBEs are
intriguing (it is reported that people blind from birth do not have a
conception of what it is like to see, and in fact they do not even "see
black").

Even after spending some time reading about the phenomenon I was unable to
draw any conclusion whatever. The reports are highly perplexing regardless of
your perspective.

~~~
kposehn
I said maybe as I was not sure of the validity of the conclusions - people
here on HN are typically pretty good at cutting through the content to find
whether or not it is even close to accurate or useful.

~~~
incongruity
What, exactly, does the article conclude, in your opinion? (I'm genuinely
asking)

The strongest formulation I can come up with is: "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."

However, nowhere in the article does the _article's author_ offer a
single/summary explanation of NDEs/OBEs, from what I saw.

~~~
kposehn
At the moment, all it does is provide some talking points.

I'm not really swayed either way, as I don't have sufficient data to make a
good conclusion (and I need to do further research into it). I'm actually
enjoying some of the comments here as they're providing good insight.

~~~
WalterSear
The hand waving swayed me.

If someone insists on speaking with no tangible data, presenting conclusions
that clash with occam's razor, then I will be less likely to listen to them
going forward.

~~~
tfm
It's a genuinely interesting read, even if it does lean on the Astonishing
Particular Items Of Proof trope more than a little heavily, but the moment it
got to the words "in my opinion, the answer is ..." my eyes glazeth over and
skim mode began.

Once an author has weighed in with their personal interpretation, the only
refutations available will be ad hominem. "I'm not calling you a liar, but I
can't think of a way to end this sentence."

------
ComputerGuru
The title of the Salon article should be "Near death, unexplained."

It has a number of interesting case studies and is very grippingly written,
but though it offers theory after theory, it (attempts to) debunk them all,
then ends with maybe we're seeing something from another life (hereafter,
nirvana, whatever you want to call it).

------
pazimzadeh
This explains absolutely nothing, and provides no evidence against the
materialist view of the mind.

<<“The only way she could have had such a perspective,” said Clark, “was if
she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis
shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete
evidence for me.”>>

Maybe a NDE brings out what's in your subconscious mind, and she saw the shoe
on her way to her hospital room at some point.

"As pointed out by renowned NDE researcher Sam Parnia, some individuals have
reported an NDE when they had not been terminally ill and so would have had
normal levels of oxygen in their brains."

So those weren't really near-death, were they? Here's what Sam Parnia thinks
about NDE's: [http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-
experie...](http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-
probably-an-illusion).

~~~
gruseom
_Maybe [...] she saw the shoe on her way to her hospital room at some point._

Maybe she floated her way into the hospital room? That's what would follow
from the text you quoted.

Your response seems like a good example of how we make up just-so stories to
rationalize what we want to believe. First the emotions decide, then the brain
comes up with reasons.

I don't know if the provocative case studies in the article are as true as the
author implies, but whether they're true or not is quite irrelevant to what
most people, including most people called scientists, will say about it.

------
tgflynn
This is an extremely misleading title. The post is a rather long excerpt from
a book. Most of the information it contains is more than 10 years old and will
be familiar to anyone who has ever been curious enough to read about the
subject. The only relatively recent information concerns production of NDE
like phenomena through artificial cerebral stimulation (magnetic or with
electrodes). This has also been widely reported online over the past few
years.

------
bnegreve
There are a lot of mentions to _studies_ and not a single reference. Quoting
from the text: "Studies indicate", "studies [...] have shown", "studies have
revealed", "studies indicate" "Studies show" "some of these studies
demonstrates" "studies also suggests"

------
kstenerud
Unfortunately, the author is heavily biased in favor of the soul/spirit
explanation, as can be seen by the sudden change of tone when he starts
talking about "Materialistic" scientists.

~~~
vbo
I stopped reading when I got to that term, thinking "what's a materialis...
oh, right, it's a REAL scientist". Other than that, a fascinating article, I
might finish reading it now.

~~~
gruseom
_what's a materialis... oh, right, it's a REAL scientist_

Max Planck:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk
about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck>

Pretty sure Planck was a real scientist.

~~~
kstenerud
Yes, because untested hypotheses and opinions are always true when they come
from a scientist. That's how we know for a fact that Yahweh is 100% real.

Controlled double-blind experimental evidence or GTFO.

------
lordlicorice
> At one point in this experience, said Maria, she found herself outside the
> hospital and spotted a tennis shoe on the ledge of the north side of the
> third floor of the building. She was able to provide several details
> regarding its appearance, including the observations that one of its laces
> was stuck underneath the heel and that the little toe area was worn. Maria
> wanted to know for sure whether she had “really” seen that shoe, and she
> begged Clark to try to locate it.

> Quite skeptical, Clark went to the location described by Maria—and found the
> tennis shoe. From the window of her hospital room, the details that Maria
> had recounted could not be discerned. But upon retrieval of the shoe, Clark
> confirmed Maria’s observations. “The only way she could have had such a
> perspective,” said Clark, “was if she had been floating right outside and at
> very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it
> back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me.”

This sounds like something you'd see in a chain email...

------
paged90
It should be noted that the Pam Reynold case, the portions for which she had
the out of body experience (OBE), she was technically not clinically dead.
Additionally, following entering the light we have no way of knowing what
time-frame this occurred in; how do we know this occurred when she was
recorded as having no brain activity.

I find myself flopping between the two camps in a Devil's advocate manner -
the evidence really isn't strong on either side. There seems to be many
questions raised by NDE's, but seeing as we don't even have a firm grasp on
what consciousness is, or where it comes from, to suddenly say "NDE's prove an
afterlife, we can maintain consciousness when we're dead" is a very tenuous
claim.

Until we can say "This is consciousness, this is where it comes from, this is
what we believe to be the main contributors" to make a leap of this magnitude
concerning a topic we know little about is simply irresponsible.

~~~
tgflynn
You would think that if there were something real here more evidence of
"verifiable" NDE experiences would have become available. Instead articles
like this are still rehashing cases from 10 or 15 years ago.

~~~
paged90
It could be that due to the inherent lack of ability to perform this in a
controlled manner it is not being looked at. I can't imagine there's a line of
people waiting to be put in a near-death situation for an experience you have
~16% (?) of having, with the risk being death or brain damage.

Even if you could find volunteers, I'd like to see an institute willing to
take on the impending lawsuit should something ever go wrong.

~~~
ajuc
But you could put blackboard into operation room, write there result of a few
rolls of dices after the patient is unconcious, and clear the board before
patient wakes up.

Of course people will argue it's wasting time that is important to heal that
person, but if we want to get results, we could invest into one additional
person, that will perform this function.

Or we could just put monitor there, showing (not pseudo) random numbers when
pacient is for sure unconcious, to minimize costs, and risk of infection
becouse of additional person.

If NDEs and OBE are so common (a few percent people experienced it) after year
we would have our proof, or we would know it's extremely unprobable. Not that
I think right now it's true, but if we can check, why predict?

