93. University of Kentucky Researcher, Dr. Kevin Nelson Skeptical of Near-Death Exper

[alextsakiris]

Near-death experience skeptic, Dr. Kevin Nelson says the burden of proof is on experiencers to show their experiences are real.

We all dream, but do we ...

Click here to read more ...

[Ersby]

I think that's the best skeptical take on NDEs that I've heard.

[paqart]

I just listened to this (and transcribed it nearly verbatim by hand to help me remember it). I really enjoy how deftly Alex deals with guests who clearly have opposed positions to his own. This guest, Dr. Kevin Nelson, clearly had decided that there was one fact that no one could knock down, that there is no way to tell if the NDE event took place at exactly the same time as a flat EEG.

Because the patient is in the room before and after the flat EEG, and Nelson clearly believes that any amount of information may be generated by a brain during REM activity, the fractions of seconds on either side of a flat EEG are enough to explain NDE's as brain-based activity.

Alex then shoots a wonderful arrow into that by mentioning that many NDE experiencers see things that happen outside of the room they're in, but Nelson explains that away as a mental reconstruction.

The mental reconstruction idea, as I see it, is a myth that needs to be studied and either shot down or verified conclusively. I'm tired of reading about, or in this case hearing about, a person's mental powers of imagination being responsible for NDE's, OOBE's, Precognition, and other phenomena. It is the argument of last resort. "Your brain is an incredibly powerful organ, capable of processing tremendous amounts of information." Fine, let's see if it actually produces that kind of information.

There is an old cliche that ten thousand monkeys at ten thousand typewriters for ten thousand years will randomly produce every book ever written. I consider that to be every bit as fallacious as the idea that our imagination is responsible for all these NDE experiences. If monkeys could do that, then I would expect that at least one of the hundreds of thousands of art students (monkeys) who have been trained in art and have tried to copy the Mona Lisa, with it sitting right in front of them as reference, would have been able to make a convincing replica.

Like DNA, randomness cannot account for the structure in certain types of systems. The structure behind imagining the interior of a hospital and spilled drinks in a cafeteria is every bit as absent in a truly randomized event as it would be for monkeys who have no goal when set behind a bunch of typewriters. They'd have no reason to recognize whether they were typing words, if they could even be persuaded to type at all, and are more likely to retype the same similar patterns than to modify their output in a consistent way that would create the kind of variety necessary to prove the assertion that they could randomly accomplish the job assigned to them. If they managed half a Hallmark greeting card, I'd be surprised.

This isn't to say that our ability to imagine things by mental effort alone isn't great, but that if it is entirely brain-based, it is either based on available information or random. If the former, it doesn't account for many NDE's where available information was insufficient to generate the NDE memory in question, and if it is imagination, then the random "monkey" comes into play.

When I listened to this doctor, I had the feeling that he felt that he was talking to a person of inferior understanding because Alex isn't a neurosurgeon. If that is the way to win arguments these days, then how does he respond to other neurosurgeons? Alex didn't ask, but I've heard other scientists in other situations say, "well, they aren't real scientists." On what basis? "Because this opinion or subject area isn't legitimate." That is a particularly weak answer that I consider unworthy of any scientist. I may not like some of the bizarre artifacts made by contemporary artists, but I wouldn't consider saying that the people who made them aren't artists. As an artist myself, I should know better and do. Whether you like it or not, these various scientists, like Sheldrake, Radin, Tart, etc, all got their degrees just like Nelson, even other neurosurgeons, even at the same campii, and they disagree. One cannot say they are invalid as professionals on that basis alone.

AP

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by paqart

This guest, Dr. Kevin Nelson, clearly had decided that there was one fact that no one could knock down, that there is no way to tell if the NDE event took place at exactly the same time as a flat EEG.

This is a very good point. Invariably, everyone who claims there is no reason to think that an experience could occur without brain activity fails to mention what kind of evidence would indicate that this is the case. I get the feeling that such evidential status is unreachable, even in principle, if one adheres to a materialist/physicalist set of assumptions.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

This is a very good point. Invariably, everyone who claims there is no reason to think that an experience could occur without brain activity fails to mention what kind of evidence would indicate that this is the case. I get the feeling that such evidential status is unreachable, even in principle, if one adheres to a materialist/physicalist set of assumptions.

When listening to the doctor on this program, it became clear to me that a skeptic is only a skeptic until he accepts a non-material universe. At that point, he cannot be accepted as a skeptic anymore. This means that the only people who can be described as skeptics are people who, per force, cannot truly be "open-minded" about psi or the supernatural. If they were, they wouldn't be skeptics. Part of skepticism is more than being unconvinced, because to be unconvinced, some other belief must occupy the same space. The proof is in the frequently uttered statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A non-materialist claim, like for the survival of consciousness after death, is not extraordinary unless you don't believe it. If you don't believe it, you aren't open-minded because you are already convinced of a mutually exclusive position.

Skepticism is a syndrome of belief. The only question is which position is believed.

AP

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Ersby

I think that's the best skeptical take on NDEs that I've heard.

Did we listen to the same interview?

All I heard was 'burden of proof' & 'extraordinary claims' skeptical catchphrases .... with his extraordinary claim neuroscience undestands consciousness, unless he regards correlations as proof.

He mentioned William James for some reason, as if it supported his argument. .... however "most of the phenomena of psychical research are rooted in reality." - William James

Or perhaps more coherent still ....

'... The result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as I am of any personal fact in the world that she [psychic Leonora Piper] knows things in her trances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state' William James

Therefore if William James was correct in 1909 and it also turns out in modern day research that ESP increases during NDEs .... then Kevin Nelson's theory still makes no difference even if there is an REM association with NDEs ...if ESP increases during altered states, dismissing NDEs are mere hallucinations is an error as one has to solve the puzzle why disrupting the brain increases ESP .. it is a violation of the materialist's version of natural selection, yet not a violation of non-materialist versions of natural selection which view the brain as a interface of the consciousness/mind.

[P_Synthesis]

Made this point on the page itself, but should ask here because you are all more familiar with the research than I. Is there in fact any evidence that NDE patients are undergoing greater fight-or-flight stimulation than non-NDEs?

Alex is saying that greater accuracy of resuscitation recall from NDE = better factual awareness, but the interviewee pointed out greater bloodflow to the brain -- and other physiology, which interestingly would be measurable, eg. adrenaline or cortisol levels. Is there any info, or what does the literature suggest more generally about stress level in NDE patients? Is there a correlation there? Just curious...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by paqart

There is an old cliche that ten thousand monkeys at ten thousand typewriters for ten thousand years will randomly produce every book ever written. I consider that to be every bit as fallacious as the idea that our imagination is responsible for all these NDE experiences. If monkeys could do that, then I would expect that at least one of the hundreds of thousands of art students (monkeys) who have been trained in art and have tried to copy the Mona Lisa, with it sitting right in front of them as reference, would have been able to make a convincing replica.

What? The monkeys aren't reproducing the books because they understand English and are trying to mimic specific artistic items. They reproduce them just like a computer generating random sequences of letters would reproduce them. The comparison to the Mona Lisa is irrelevant.

Like DNA, randomness cannot account for the structure in certain types of systems.

Absolutely correct. Who do you think is claiming that randomness alone accounts for the structure in DNA? Or do I misunderstand you?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by paqart

The mental reconstruction idea, as I see it, is a myth that needs to be studied and either shot down or verified conclusively. I'm tired of reading about, or in this case hearing about, a person's mental powers of imagination being responsible for NDE's, OOBE's, Precognition, and other phenomena. It is the argument of last resort. "Your brain is an incredibly powerful organ, capable of processing tremendous amounts of information." Fine, let's see if it actually produces that kind of information.

What kind of information? Images of tunnels and white lights? We have documented evidence that people can produce works far more imaginative than that.

Or do you mean information like what's sitting on top of the tall cabinet in the operating room? Before we bother seeing if people can produce that sort of information from their imaginations (whatever the heck that means), let's first make sure they are actually accurately stating what's on top of the cabinet.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by paqart

When listening to the doctor on this program, it became clear to me that a skeptic is only a skeptic until he accepts a non-material universe. At that point, he cannot be accepted as a skeptic anymore. This means that the only people who can be described as skeptics are people who, per force, cannot truly be "open-minded" about psi or the supernatural. If they were, they wouldn't be skeptics.

Here you go mixing apples and oranges again. You rag on skeptics for not being willing to accept the supernatural, then mix this up with psi, and then draw a conclusion that is not warranted.

There are two separate issues here.

First, the supernatural. If someone can give a coherent definition of what it means for an event to be supernatural, then I will gladly consider the possibility that the supernatural exists. I will not consider this to have anything to do with psi.

If someone can show me convincing evidence of a psi event, then I will be convinced, or at least on the way to being convinced, that psi exists. I will not consider this to have anything to do with the supernatural.

Only when a theory of psi is developed and then shown to require the supernatural will I agree that the two are related.

The proof is in the frequently uttered statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A non-materialist claim, like for the survival of consciousness after death, is not extraordinary unless you don't believe it.

You appear to think that the term extraordinary relates to someone's personal belief about the claim. It does not. It relates to the amount of established science that would have to be discarded if the claim were true.

That said, I think that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" could be discarded without significant loss of cleverness.

~~ Paul