NDE Research From a Christian Perspective (Podcast)

[Eteponge]

I personally found it very odd how most of the posters in the James Randi thread linked were completely ignorant of the existence of Veridical Information being obtained during the NDE/OBE state, as that's elementary level NDE/OBE Knowledge 101, the whole number one reason NDEs/OBEs are considered as potentially more than just brain chemistry. (Visual / Audiable Veridical Details either in the immediate area or quite a distance away from the physical body, including those in patients blind and born blind. Cases of persons meeting deceased relatives they didn't know at the time were dead, as well as cases of persons meeting deceased relatives they had either never met before or were never told about, and cases of persons provided Veridical Information by deceased relatives in the NDE state.) These were apparently unknown and considered non-existent by all there (including the "Pro-NDE" guy apparently) except for one skeptical poster there, who conviently wrote them all off as little more than false folklore (without supplying any evidence or indication of this accusation on his part I may add) and claiming (quite ignorantly) that there has never been a single case where Veridical Information has been verified (Oh, I can think of over a dozen well documented cases off the topic of my head, far more if I researched a bit further) and then basically goes the route that people who believe that those stories have merit are deluding themselves.

The Dr. B in the thread seems to have over-analized something here. Given the pressumption that there IS still brain activity going on somewhere in the brain while EEG shows zero brain activity (for which he provides no *ample* evidence, mainly flails at it with Augustine/Woerlee oriented remarks while calling it "woo") what evidence is there that the brain can still produce images in this state that can be recalled, especially given the massive level of coherence and structure of most NDEs. (Having a coherent often veridical OBE, being told you are dead, meeting deceased relatives, having a life review, visiting a heavenly place, meeting a spiritual being or religious figure, being told it is not your time, being sent back) not to mention the Veridical Details, visual/audiable of the surrounds and places at a distance, especially those of the blind and those born blind, and Information wise (from deceased relatives), can all be explained by a little something left firing in there? He seems to have overshot that one.

Not to mention, how many of us have had dreams that matched all of the elements in the NDE? I don't recall any. Very convient for the brain to put such a scenerio together in it's last moments. Not to mention, many of the cardiac arrest patients and others probably didn't know they were dying before they had their NDE, depending on the nature of which caused their clinical death. So, their brain somehow knew they were dying, even if they were consciously unaware, and presented a fitting afterlife scenerio for them? Uh, okay.

He briefly mentions the Pam Reynold's case where she recalled a conversation during anesthesia, but doesn't comment on the Veridical Details that took place AFTER that during stand-still (how convient!), such as accurately describing the unique instrument being used on her during the point in the operation that she was in stand-still, (I should also add that she had her eyes taped shut and her ears were plugged during the procedure), and meeting a deceased cousin in the NDE state that she did not know was dead, and her NDE experience ending with her consciously deciding to jump back into herself. But hey, that's how this type of selective skepticism works. It's all a process of eliminating the parts you know you can't adaquetely explain with brain chemistry, and keeping the parts you know you probably can, giving a half-truthed presentation without the whole of the data there.

I know that the book "Irreducible Mind" is a good critique for most of the other stuff he was bringing up, the epileptic studies and such. Michael Prescott discusses that book a lot on his blog, and the authors were interviewed by Alex.

As for the "Science has proven the OBE to be an Illusion" game they were playing, here's true critical thinking at work...

Eteponge's Blog: Claim that scientists recreated OBEs untrue. Debunking an inaccurate news story.

[Occam's chainsaw]

I personally found it very odd how most of the posters in the James Randi thread linked were completely ignorant of the existence of Veridical Information being obtained during the NDE/OBE state, as that's elementary level NDE/OBE Knowledge 101, the whole number one reason NDEs/OBEs are considered as potentially more than just brain chemistry.

The issue of veridical perception has never been reliably demonstrated and so most researchers wanting to truly understand the OBE / NDE ignore it for making other arguments. I think it is a debate worth having – but it is by far the most controversial area – so when researchers ignore it – they are actually concentrating on more reasonable information.

(Visual / Audiable Veridical Details either in the immediate area or quite a distance away from the physical body, including those in patients blind and born blind.

Why would’nt hearing, taste, smell / tactile sense etc work in the blind? Also – most (but not all) blindness are a limitation of the eyes – not the brain. Arguments like those made above seem to display a lack of understanding of neuroscience on these matters.

Cases of persons meeting deceased relatives they didn't know at the time were dead, as well as cases of persons meeting deceased relatives they had either never met before or were never told about, and cases of persons provided Veridical Information by deceased relatives in the NDE state.)

All highly controversial and deeply questionable. Also – people meet others who are not dead and could not ever be dead (i.e., fictional characters and cartoon characters). I don’t think you should ignore those instances either.

The Dr. B in the thread seems to have over-analized something here.

No – he is being detailed and comprehensive. OBEs and NDEs involve complex neurocognitive processes.

Given the pressumption that there IS still brain activity going on somewhere in the brain while EEG shows zero brain activity (for which he provides no *ample* evidence, mainly flails at it with Augustine/Woerlee oriented remarks while calling it "woo")….snip….

.

That is simply untrue. He is the only poster providing extensive references and citations in that discussion. I always think when having debates of this sort that we all owe it to each other to represent the opinions of others as accurately as possible. Otherwise, all you end up doing is arguing against your own confusions (as you are here). He provides evidence from epileptic studies, NDEs, neurophysiology, etc, that the flat EEG means nothing in terms of the brain being dead. If you want more google Syncope! You get flat EEGs there - but people are far from being dead.

…snip….what evidence is there that the brain can still produce images in this state that can be recalled, especially given the massive level of coherence and structure of most NDEs.

You seem to misunderstand that debate. Firstly, it was clearly argued that there is no evidence conclusively showing that NDEs take place during flat EEG or even near that time. So the brain may well be more than ‘coherent’ when the NDE occurs. Also you – like Fenwick and others totally misuse the term ‘coherent’ here and commit a fallacy of equivocation. Neural coherence is not the same thing (exactly) as cognitive stability.

Having said that – a good deal of evidence from hallucination studies shows that the brain can, in some circumstances, become more ‘coherent’ (well, more synchronised and excited to be precise) than under veridical normal perception. This is partly due to the brain undergoing states of disinhibition. Think about it – if there is more activity going on in your visual cortex – than it has ever experienced before (even during perception) then the images it generates will seem vivid and real.

Dr B also discussed, at great length that in many cases this ‘coherence’ you talk of can represent illusory conjunctions in information and false memories. In other words – its an illusion – it never happened like this. There is a wealth of psychological knowledge showing that people do put narratives (stories and meaningful sequences of events) onto random and fragmented information / images. Perhaps something like this is happening in some NDEs (though of course, not all).

Having a coherent often veridical OBE, being told you are dead, meeting deceased relatives, having a life review, visiting a heavenly place, meeting a spiritual being or religious figure, being told it is not your time, being sent back) not to mention the Veridical Details, visual/audiable of the surrounds

Your reasoning here is loaded and flawed – as this has never been shown to be the case during flat EEG, under critical examination. So, you are generating a controversy where there need not be one. The coherence you keep referring to can happen simply because the brain is far from dead and working hard.

……especially those of the blind and those born blind, and Information wise (from deceased relatives), can all be explained by a little something left firing in there? He seems to have overshot that one.

He answered it perfectly – though you seem to have missed it (he argued the brain is still firing fine – but missed by the EEG). Why do you seem to think that the brain (even in blind people) cannot hallucinate? Could you point me towards the evidence that supports your fundamentally flawed assumption? I know the assumption is common in NDE circles – but they all make that mistake for the same reason.

Very convient for the brain to put such a scenerio together in it's last moments.

No – it is not doing it in its last moments per-se it is doing it all the time!!!!! In addition these brains are not in their ‘last moments’.

Not to mention, many of the cardiac arrest patients and others probably didn't know they were dying before they had their NDE, depending on the nature of which caused their clinical death.

Why would this be important?

So, their brain somehow knew they were dying, even if they were consciously unaware, and presented a fitting afterlife scenerio for them? Uh, okay.

The brain was responding to confusing contexts – in the same way it always does under such instances – hallucination.

He briefly mentions the Pam Reynold's case where she recalled a conversation during anesthesia, but doesn't comment on the Veridical Details that took place AFTER that during stand-still (how convient!),

Now you really are struggling. Firstly, the conversation was about EEGs not Pam Reynolds – so you are building a straw-man argument here. Also, the information she provided has been assessed independently (Augustine) and found to not be that accurate at all. In addition, there is no evidence anything happened during the 2 – 4 mins when the brain had been completely drained of blood. The operation took around 4 – 6 hours if I remember correctly. You seem to think that just because someone argues ‘it was real’ – that it was.

such as accurately describing the unique instrument being used on her during the point in the operation that she was in stand-still, (I should also add that she had her eyes taped shut and her ears were plugged during the procedure),

This never actually happened – so your argument is flawed. She never accurately described the tools that accurately.

But hey, that's how this type of selective skepticism works.

I think you are being unfair. There was nothing selective about that debate. You are criticising it – when in fact it was about something else. It was about the argument surrounding flat EEG and NDEs – that is all. You also clearly don’t understand what was discussed as some of your claims above are clearly false in terms of the information and references that were provided (I note you provide no scientific references).

I know that the book "Irreducible Mind" is a good critique for most of the other stuff he was bringing up, the epileptic studies and such. Michael Prescott discusses that book a lot on his blog, and the authors were interviewed by Alex.

You are seriously mistaken about that being a good critique to the points raised in the JREF discussion.

As for the "Science has proven the OBE to be an Illusion" game they were playing, here's true critical thinking at work...

Who specifically said that? Not Dr B and the others……or is this another one of your delusions?

[daresh]

Occam's chainsaw said:

He provides evidence from epileptic studies, NDEs, neurophysiology, etc, that the flat EEG means nothing in terms of the brain being dead. If you want more google Syncope! You get flat EEGs there - but people are far from being dead.

There is indeed a misunderstanding between flat EEG's and the brain being totally death. But what is generally accepted is that persons are totally unconscious during flat EEG's, temporal loss of all functions of the brain, not able to do clear thinking or anything at all.... During syncops this is the same, temporarly loss of consciousness, this doesn't mean their brain is dead ofcourse... But it's sure that the brain isn't firing just fine anymore unless you are claiming that all is okey even when there is total lack of electric activity in the cortex of the brain??

The important thing is, that people are apparently unconscious but are still reporting very vivid, coherent experiences which would normally require a lot of brain waves.
With a cardiac arrest it's proven that a flat EEG occurs within 10-20 seconds...
for this: "De Vries JW, Bakker PFA, Visser GH, Diephuis JC, A.C. Van Huffelen AC. Changes in cerebral oxygen uptake and cerebral electrical activity during defibrillation threshold testing. Anesth Analg 1998;87:16-20."
"Clute H, Levy WJ. Electroencephalographic changes during brief cardiac arrest in humans. Anesthesiology 1990;73:821-825."
"Losasso TJ, Muzzi DA, Meyer FB, Sharbrough FW. Electroencephalographic monitoring of cerebral function during asystole and successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Anesth Analg 1992;75:12-19."

People that had nde's during cardiac arrests report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. The occasional and verifiable out-of-body experience become very interesting now because it goes together with the apparent period of unconsciousness. It's true that it hasn't been reliably tested yet, nobody ever tried to design a test for this, but such studies are underway like Parnia is doing, but if you hear the current non scientific testimonies then for me logic just shows to keep an open mind because there are some very compelling cases with a lot of detail which make it very hard to just say ah that's clearly been an hallucination.

And ofcourse the difference between NDE and hallucinations:
Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible. People tend to forget their hallucinations, whereas most NDEs remain vivid for decades. Furthermore, NDEs often lead to profound and permanent transformations in personality, attitudes, beliefs and values, something that is never seen following hallucinations. People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real.” Further, people who have experienced both hallucinations and an NDE describe them as being quite different.

So to recap, what do we have, people having NDE's during flat EEG's where they are supposed to be unconscious and definetly not reporting coherent, vivid experiences...

For further reading, this is a good article where the neurophysiology during cardiac arrests is discussed: Dr. Pim van Lommel, M.D.: Continuity of Consciousness

Greets,
Filip

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by daresh

So to recap, what do we have, people having NDE's during flat EEG's where they are supposed to be unconscious and definetly not reporting coherent, vivid experiences...

Exactly... it's so interesting to hear Skeptics dance around this point. Cognitive dissonance in action.

[pacificwhim]

Gents on both sides of this issue,

The bottom line is that no one knows currently if or how the brain can generate such complex cognition when it is in a traumatized state. It may be able to and we don't know how; it may not be able to, in which case we dont' know the mechanism by which such a complex experience as an NDE is produced. In any case, if you're looking at the issue from an unbiased perspective, there isn't sufficient data to state a conclusion either way. There is only the need for more innovative research.

[mcromer]

The issue of veridical perception has never been reliably demonstrated and so most researchers wanting to truly understand the OBE / NDE ignore it for making other arguments.

I suppose if one is determined that veridical perception during NDEs cannot exist, then it is possible to dismiss all of the accounts.

In the same way if one is convinced that the Jewish Holocaust did not happen, then all evidence to the contrary is equally considered unreliable. This is just normal human cognition at work, like it or not!

Confirmation bias is a huge deal and it can afflict both positional psi-deniers and credulous psi-believers. But I have seen very few in the anti-psi camp who ever show doubt in their own beliefs because of it. Andrew Endersby might be the lone exception I am aware of.

Everyone should look at the results of the confirmation bias studies and just be humbled and very skeptical of their reasoning and conclusions. I don't want people to be unshakably convinced that psi is real, in fact I am not unshakably convinced. What I want is people to be as skeptical of the anti-psi spin machine as they are of pro-psi observations and findings. Come on, look at how distorted people can be when evaluating evidence that conflicts with their preexisting beliefs, and know it can and does happen to you too! If you are not willing and able to do this, you simply aren't serious about investigating reality and finding out the truth.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Exactly... it's so interesting to hear Skeptics dance around this point. Cognitive dissonance in action.

Alex, haven't you read what Occams Chainsaw posted or the posts of in the JREF? It looks more like you haven't done your homework or you're in denial and now trying to make it *seem* like the "skeptics" are the ones with the problem. It's to bad your show depends on this B.S. Maybe it's time to find another hobby.

[Larry Boy]

Nice to see that we can have a civilized discussion here.

According to one side, we have "overwhelming evidence" for psychic functioning. According to the other side, we have "no evidence whatsoever".

As for me, an agnostic, I can only laugh at the certainty of your statements. Why take so strong positions? Isn't it more interesting just to explore than taking sides and sticking to them whatever happens?

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

Nice to see that we can have a civilized discussion here.

I agree - but it is important everyone makes the effort to read what people are saying.

According to one side, we have "overwhelming evidence" for psychic functioning. According to the other side, we have "no evidence whatsoever".

No - I am saying the evidence is insufficient to support the nature of the claim. Survival may be real (though I doubt it) - but the evidence from NDEs is clerarly insufficient at this point. Who knows what might happen in the future?

As for me, an agnostic, I can only laugh at the certainty of your statements. Why take so strong positions? Isn't it more interesting just to explore than taking sides and sticking to them whatever happens?

Then, with respect, you have failed to understand the positions from both arguments. There is a wealth of research going on from people on both sides of the theoretical fence - I would call that exploring!

In addition - people are on firm grounds to take the side of the most sound evidence - that process is called science.

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by mcromer

I suppose if one is determined that veridical perception during NDEs cannot exist, then it is possible to dismiss all of the accounts.

No - I would suppose that if the evidence is more consistent with an alternative account, which only makes necessary and evidenced assumptions, then there is no reason to assume NDEs provide evidence for survival.

Confirmation bias is a huge deal and it can afflict both positional psi-deniers and credulous psi-believers.

You are totally ignoring the quality of the evidence and the fact that a great deal coming from survivalists is factually untrue - so it has nothing to do with bias at all - unless you call accepting the most likely provisional truth a bias

But I have seen very few in the anti-psi camp who ever show doubt in their own beliefs because of it.

I know many more (check out the JREF) and would count myself as one. But doubt comes from evidence and reason - not what people want to be true.