NEURAL NIRVANA: Although the specific causes of this part of near-death experiences remain unclear, tunnel vision can occur when blood and oxygen flow is depleted to the eye.
Image: Neil T/Flickr
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Near-death experiences are often thought of as mystical phenomena, but research is now revealing scientific explanations for virtually all of their common features. The details of what happens in near-death experiences are now known widely—a sense of being dead, a feeling that one's "soul" has left the body, a voyage toward a bright light, and a departure to another reality where love and bliss are all-encompassing.
Approximately 3 percent of the U.S. population says they have had a near-death experience, according to a Gallup poll. Near-death experiences are reported across cultures, with written records of them dating back to ancient Greece. Not all of these experiences actually coincide with brushes with death—one study of 58 patients who recounted near-death experiences found 30 were not actually in danger of dying, although most of them thought they were.
Recently, a host of studies has revealed potential underpinnings for all the elements of such experiences. "Many of the phenomena associated with near-death experiences can be biologically explained," says neuroscientist Dean Mobbs, at the University of Cambridge's Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. Mobbs and Caroline Watt at the University of Edinburgh detailed this research online August 17 in Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
For instance, the feeling of being dead is not limited to near-death experiences—patients with Cotard or "walking corpse" syndrome hold the delusional belief that they are deceased. This disorder has occurred following trauma, such as during advanced stages of typhoid and multiple sclerosis, and has been linked with brain regions such as the parietal cortex and the prefrontal cortex—"the parietal cortex is typically involved in attentional processes, and the prefrontal cortex is involved in delusions observed in psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia," Mobbs explains. Although the mechanism behind the syndrome remains unknown, one possible explanation is that patients are trying to make sense of the strange experiences they are having.
Out-of-body experiences are also now known to be common during interrupted sleep patterns that immediately precede sleeping or waking. For instance, sleep paralysis, or the experience of feeling paralyzed while still aware of the outside world, is reported in up to 40 percent of all people and is linked with vivid dreamlike hallucinations that can result in the sensation of floating above one's body. A 2005 study found that out-of-body experiences can be artificially triggered by stimulating the right temporoparietal junction in the brain, suggesting that confusion regarding sensory information can radically alter how one experiences one's body.
A variety of explanations might also account for reports by those dying of meeting the deceased. Parkinson's disease patients, for example, have reported visions of ghosts, even monsters. The explanation? Parkinson's involves abnormal functioning of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that can evoke hallucinations. And when it comes to the common experience of reliving moments from one's life, one culprit might be the locus coeruleus, a midbrain region that releases noradrenaline, a stress hormone one would expect to be released in high levels during trauma. The locus coeruleus is highly connected with brain regions that mediate emotion and memory, such as the amygdala and hypothalamus.
In addition, research now shows that a number of medicinal and recreational drugs can mirror the euphoria often felt in near-death experiences, such as the anesthetic ketamine, which can also trigger out-of-body experiences and hallucinations. Ketamine affects the brain's opioid system, which can naturally become active even without drugs when animals are under attack, suggesting trauma might set off this aspect of near-death experiences, Mobbs explains.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
145 Comments
Add CommentWhile this research is not yet finalized, it's already a good example of how, in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should study the matter further and not make an explanation based on hearsay, tradition, or wishful thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoing any of the latter only makes us dead wrong.
As a formerly clinically dead person I experienced none of the near death events. I truly had hoped for at least a choir or virgins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who gave gone through this experience often tell about a tunnel going to hell and heaven .Now we have a scientific truth .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfabulous...but if the electrical energy that keeps our heart pumping is in fact energy "soul" or whatever you want to name it, and energy cannot be created or destroyed...then where does it go after we die? Why not figure out deja vu? So you figured out WHERE it happens, but not WHY?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get stuck on the whole business that energy can't be destroyed. Energy can be converted. our living energy comes from chemical reactions of us eating and breathing. We extract energy from breaking and forming chemical bonds. This energy is then used to do other work in our body such as making and breaking other chemical bonds in the countless processes that keep us alive. When something goes wrong in this chain of chemical reactions, you die. Energy production is stopped, so there is no missing energy of the soul to speak of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhilst I am glad there are more studies attempting to discover the more mysterious sides of the mind, I am somewhat disturbed by the lack of any form of mention of the work done by Dr Rick Strassman, having famously published his study of the neuro transmitter DMT. Which was largely initiated and revolved around the release of large doses of DMT at times of severe stress - quite specifically - near death experiences! I strongly urge anyone interested in this article to read his published 'DMT - The Spirit Molecule' As it elaborates far more thoroughly, the biochemical and neurological effects of near death states, and DMT activity. As well as describing the experiences of the subjects in great and awe inspiring detail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a former psychology student I'm always quick to point out that scientists and empiricist dominate the global collective databanks of research concerning all phenomena.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey set up a nice false dichotomy: if its not science its nothing. This is WRONG. The many spiritual traditions of the earth can confirm the existence of the afterlife both with science and historical knowledge. Its not just numbers and material people. Somethings require abstract, immaterial, and non-empirical understanding.
@y00ch: As a past psychology student you should know that the domain of science is limited to what can be empirically studied. The dichotomy you speak of is false - those things which can be empirically studied are studied, those which can't be aren't. You can choose to believe whatever you want about things that can't be empirically studied, and empirical study can't tell you whether you're right or wrong in these beliefs (no matter how hard Dawkins stomps his feet). While it's likely that some things will always be beyond the reach of science to study (e.g. whether or not there is a God) as we learn more and more about the world around us we're finding more and more that we can study empirically. This means that sometimes long-held spiritual beliefs are found to be in conflict with scientific fact (e.g. the earth is not the center of the universe, as the Catholic Church tried to make us believe for centuries) and so sometime our beliefs need to be adjusted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there is more to life than what science can explain. And yes, sometimes scientifically-oriented people take their own beliefs a bit too far (science says that the universe could exist without a God, therefore there is no God). However, at the end of the day science and faith are fundamentally disconnected: science deals with what you can empirically study and demonstrate repeatedly to others. Faith deals with things you can't empirically study or prove. This doesn't make science better than faith (that's a value judgement - it's up to the individual to decide), but they are different: when 2 scientists disagree on a scientific theory, through sufficient experimentation one (or perhaps both) can eventually be proven wrong and one (or neither) can eventually be proven right. When 2 people of faith disagree one can't prove the other wrong - because faith is purely subjective (which is also not a criticism of faith - lots of really important things are purely subjective).
I think it's important that people keep in mind these difference between science and faith. Too many people think of science is faith-based and religion is fact-based.
exactly my reaction to this information. we knew before that these experiences could be explained biochemically, reproduced in a number of ways. but i feel just because we can explain and create the experience when someone is NOT in the throes of death does not, for me, negate the belief that the experience is spiritual in nature. the atheists who have experienced NDE come back to report their surprise and shock at the existence of a beautiful afterlife. So to not believe does not mean it ain't there!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and like the article shows, it does not mean it IS there either. Also, "baloney" isn't a very convincing critique of Trulahn's post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@anniepc: You're right - baloney is one of the sources of chemical energy Trulahn is referring to. :P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLunch meat has no place in this conversation. If you disagree, state your reasons and provide evidence or a source to back up your argument. Otherwise, please keep your non sequiturs to yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisy00ch said, "The many spiritual traditions of the earth can confirm the existence of the afterlife both with science and historical knowledge."
I beg to differ. Were this the case, we would have a single, cohesive understanding of what the afterlife is. We certainly do not. And let's not ignore those that do not believe in an afterlife at all. You've made an assertion that can't be supported. The only thing that the many spiritual traditions of the Earth can confirm is that we as a species are still largely terrified of death and have yet to learn how to deal with the reality of our own mortality. Thus far, the best that our spiritual traditions have come up with are ways to cope with our fear and anxiety by constructing an elaborate scenario in which we "cheat" death by having a consciousness that survives the demise of our physical bodies. You say that the afterlife can be confirmed by science. I wholeheartedly disagree. What can be confirmed by science is the biological phenomena that lead to our assumption that there must be something "on the other side." That is far from evidence or confirmation.
Don't get "caught up" in one of most basic LAWS of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. You're not creating new energy, you're harnessing the shift of it...that is as basic as FACT will get. Again, you discovered "WHERE" it happened in the brain..."WHY" would we need this? "WHY" does it happen? Denial of faith doesn't guarantee you're a more evolved human...put up a logical argument instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that what Trulahn is saying not to get "caught up in" is the erroneous idea that because energy can't be destroyed it must go to heaven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe energy in our bodies comes from the food we eat (chemical energy). As Trulahn very correctly points out, energy can be converted from one form to another. For instance, our bodies convert chemical energy into mechanical energy (i.e. moving), thermal energy (aka heat) and electrical energy, just to name a few. When you "die" some parts of your body keep on going for a little while - because there is still energy in there (chemical, thermal and electrical) and some of those physical processes can continue fora little while even if you're dead (because of that leftover energy).
Incidentally - the chemical energy we ingest comes from dead plants an animals. If your "soul" took all your energy with you when you died, there would be nothing left for your starving marooned shipmates to survive on when they eat your carcass and boil your bones for soup.
Again - science is about what can be proved. Faith is about what can't be. Like good neighbors, they aught to be able to coexist in peace, and at the end of the day go to their separate homes and not try to tell each other what to do.
Correlation is not causation. If one studied matter change measured via some form of interference,in which case science has confirmed that dopamine signaling is changed as a function of oxygen consumption, one cannot confirm how exactly the process of correlation happens due limitation of a measuring methodology. The interference of C/O has been intensively studied although basic quantum models have limitation as matter processes space. We may have just measured the effect of such happening expressed by a language we use to denote an empirical fact. Facts are subject to interpretations and an object of philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice to see Derick's post, we have confounded the understanding of religion in the US recently with claims of studying non-scientific beliefs as science and including religious influences into what are clearly scientific problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems we were clearer on this issue in the 1770's when the founders of the country were mostly Deist's, recognizing that you couldn't prove there wasn't a god so they took Pascal's Wager and went with the idea that there is a god but there is no godly influence on our actions or our environment.
Centuries later most American's still are so confused they make claims that an afterlife can be proven or latch onto God Gene's and the such to try to connect these very different areas.
A little surprising to see the percentage on this thread that confuse the issue but the use of religion in our political system may be a large factor in the creation of the confused positions.
Many people, including Derick in TO. talk about "faith" as though it is a good, even noble,concept. But what is faith? Faith is the belief in something even if all evidence, maybe even proof, are against it. People who relay on "faith" in making thier decisions are using a foolish principle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's been suggested many times before that scientifically explainable extreme biological conditions may produce these unusual perceptions. I'm glad we're discovering these scientific explanations again, anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe we should investigate why we apparently have to keep rediscovering newsworthy scientific research... Is it remedial education, educating the uninitiated, simply milking a story or just milking a research grant? I'll have to pass on paying $37.95 for what turns out to be a preprint of the article soon to be published!
The only reason that anyone with any intelligence at all would believe in religion is because they want an afterlife. There are no other benefits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMorals? The law is better suited to conforming behavior when a christian can simply ask for forgiveness for any horrible act they do. Real consequences are a much better way of forming morals.
Serving god? A true supreme being would not require worship. Only an inferior and terribly egotistical being would.
Since jews, christians and muslims all worship the same god, in their own way, shouldn't they believe that they will all be in Heaven together? Of course they don't! Therein lies the basic contradiction of the 3 religious belief systems that cause so much horror in our world. The jews made up god, the christians added another one and took into account the fact that they can't be trusted, then the muslims butchered the whole thing.
I find it fascinating that science is growing towards eventually proving that no god exists. I already know he doesn't. To say it can't be proven only belittles the human potential. This area of study is on the right path. The destination is a little closer.
I knew someone who had a NDE. He said it was not a hallucination from an oxygen starved brain. In the hospital he was not conscious, but he could describe exactly everything that happened around him during his NDE. And what about the examples of people blind from birth that could see for the first time during their NDE? That’s a neat trick. These scientific explanations sound reasonable on the surface, but scratch the surface and you’ll discover they’re full of holes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sagener: Faith, like nuclear energy, gender roles, honey bees, and basically everything else, is neither good nor bad of its own accord. It is how we place these things in our life that makes them good or bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance - countless billions the world over draw comfort from their faith when difficulty arises. Who hasn't known a friend or relative who drew on their faith for strength and comfort in a time of need? Clearly, this is a positive aspect of faith.
On the other hand, common faith has been used to justify countless atrocities throughout history, like the one whose 10th anniversary we all observed yesterday.
Clearly, faith and science have something in common: despite their potential benefits, they're both very dangerous when used incautiously.
Personal anecdotes are not sufficient to prove that a near death experience has any supernatural element to it. You say you knew someone who had one. How well did you know him? How am I supposed to know whether he is a trustworthy individual? How does he know it wasn't a hallucination? Is he a neurologist? I've never heard of this blind-from-birth-then-can-see-during-a-NDE phenomenon. Maybe it really is a trick. Can you cite a reputable source? These anecdotes you present don't even sound reasonable on the surface, and crumble under the slightest scrutiny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out this video about a blind person’s NDE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbtoX3Q5OI
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese cases are real and documented. Also, for information about what is REALLY going on with NDE research, I’d suggest checking out a site called Skeptiko that deals with these matters. A lot of scientists have an axe to grind, and refuse to even entertain the possibility NDE may be outside the physical brain. I suggest we consider the story of the Black Swan. NDE just may be a Black Swan.
@anniepc "baloney." I take your baloney and raise you a polenta loaf, both of them disgusting in equal measure and irrelevant to the comment you were replying to. If luncheon meats are to be your rebuttal for scientifically sound arguments, your point of view is dead meat. I'm going to drag my 'soul energy' to the deli, thank-you very much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA YouTube video that relates a personal anecdote that cannot be substantiated in any way? NOW I'm convinced!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a previous dabbler in some of these substances I can say in confidence that ketamine (in small amount) once - did have a the world around me appear as they movies portray this experience very closely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't so K.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan the author of this article tell us...
What is life? Nobody can answer the question about NDE unless what constitue Life is resolved first.
You cannot find the power source of "LIFE" in absolute sense by physical science, but you can find its impressions only on the physical level
A. It has been reported that lightning strikes can cause people to report memory loss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisB. There have been physical brain processes identified in diseases like Alzheimer's that cause memory loss
C. Since these physical processes exist and cause results similar to those in the lightning strike patients (memory loss), it must be the case that Alzheimer's processes totally explains the memory loss in the lightning strike patients and no other process can be at work since the end results are the same.
Look at the FORM of the argument in the article and you'll find it is the same as the FORM of the argument I've given above, which is of course absurd and therefore makes the FORM of the argument invalid. Take a logic course SA. Effect does not imply cause.
Can Alzheimer sufferers describe the effects they're experiencing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI once was treated for having an overabundant serum levels of a toxic waste product due to organ failure. My doctor told me not to drive because I may not be thinking clearly. I explained that I wasn't having any problem like that - he pointed out that if I was, I wouldn't be aware of it.
Since our conscious awareness of our own condition is demonstrably dependent on the sufficiently correct functioning of our brains, physical conditions that interfere or otherwise diminish physiological brain functioning can directly influence our perceptions of reality.
Physiological conditions that may commonly occur as organs fail to provide sufficient oxygen and other critical resources to the brain should be expected to produce common perceptions of personal experience.
If we all take LSD tonight and watch "2001 A Space Odyssey" in a large movie theater we will each experience an extremely broad spectrum of intense perceptual effects, but for many of us those effects will be fundamentally quite similar...
Saying that the NDE can be explained as being due to a biological process is not the same thing as saying that it IS due to a biological process. That is a logic error that I have seen a lot of people make. Example; A sneeze can also be explained as being due to a cold virus. But every time you sneeze, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing so due to infection from a cold virus. Your sneeze could also be due to a reaction to a pollen grain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no doubt that everything we experience has an biochemical explanation. As with my experience taking "ayahuasca" in Peru... what a strange, powerful, spectacular and out of this world experience!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven faith, or religious feelings can be explained in this way...
As for the "soul" or "atma" or consciousness, Well,it can be a primordial substance or a kind of energy yet to be discovered...
Perhaps, but since the deprivation of oxygen delivery to the brain is almost certainly a very common condition preceding death, and that oxygen deprivation can produce some of the effects described by those who have been near death and survived. I logically assert that high incidences of oxygen deprivation (and other physiological conditions likely to occur due to organ failure) often produce many of the perceived near death experiences reported by survivors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you from the strict point of view of science, in which supernatural explanations have no place. But you should read some of the accounts of NDE's in books like 'Life After Life' and 'Light Beyond' by Dr. Raymond Moody. Some of the reported accounts of his patients' experiences are very intriguing, if actually true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"'Many of the phenomena associated with near-death experiences can be biologically explained,' says neuroscientist Dean Mobbs, at the University of Cambridge's Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe key/operative word here is "MANY". Not ABSOLUTELY, conclusively ALL, just MANY.
I'd also suspect that common physiologically induced perceptions are likely to be (briefly) subject to individual belief systems followed during a person's life. Of course, I'm just guessing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Seeing your life pass before you and the light at the end of the tunnel, can be explained by new research on abnormal functioning of dopamine and oxygen flow"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeeing your life pass before you? Many people say they see their entire life as 'one single event'. This is like upgrading the brain, which normally sees events in time, to something that is above time. The 'abnormal functioning' can make the brain do wonders, which are not possible when the brain is functioning in normal mode.
Plus, if 'abnormal functioning' means experiencing bliss, euphoria and love, and 'normal functioning' means experiencing the opposite, I think it is because natural selection has mistakenly created the psychological side of our being in an upside down manner. We are meant to experience pain and the like, because bliss, love and euphoria only belong to drug use and the abnormal functioning of the brain! But we are still lucky to have these qualities. Turns out, natural selection is not totally heartless!
The fact that Near-death experiences (NDEs) occur is widely known since 1970s (the books by E. Kubler-Ross and R. Moody). Yet, we could not read articles like "hey this and this phenomenon occurs in NDEs, but we do not know why" in SA. It is only after a "scientific explanation" is found that we are allowed to read about NDEs in SA. To me this points out to some kind of bias towards this kind of phenomena - SA should report all observed natural phenomena, including those without known explanation. Similarly in the present paper authors mention the aspects of NDEs they believe they can "explain" but fail to mention the aspects of NDE they have no explanation for. Thus either their knowledge of NDEs is insufficient or they intentionally choose mentioning only the facts fitting to their theory, which would be dishonest. I often referee research papers in mathematics and physics, but I could never accept such an incomplete article for publication. For readers interested in NDEs I recommend recent books by e.g. Pim van Lommel or Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry or perhaps also Ian Stevenson. A lot of information can be found at www.skeptiko.com. (sorry for my english - i am not a native speaker)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(sorry for my english - not my native language)
I had sleep paralysis over the years and nothing come close to tunnel expedition, lights, family etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Y00ch: "The many spiritual traditions of the earth can confirm the existence of the afterlife both with science and historical knowledge"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI call bullshit.
If they can, then they should. Science isn't some exclusive club, dude. If someone discovers how to reliably do something, or a factual explanation for something that doesn't rely on "because I said so" or "because my dog got a crooked butt hair," that *is* science.
So, you claim these principles can prove an afterlife, so show us. Otherwise, stuff a sock in it and get back to work finding that proof.
The article was a fascinating explanation of the biology of near-death experiences. It has very little to say about the existence of an afterlife or the nature of an afterlife other than to say that the near-death experience cannot be used as proof of an afterlife. That's about it. It's not out of the question that at some point we do prove an afterlife. "We're not likely to", "almost certain", etc. are statements of faith and something that a real scientist wouldn't say, only a layperson who is substituting one type of faith for another. The real story, I think is the discussion in the comments. It's stunning how people of all levels of education are so ignorant of many of the basic tenets of philosophy and epistemological thought. I understand this happens, the religious are desperately trying to find a way to interject the specific tenets of their faith into a situation and as an over-reaction, we get bad reasoning from people who should know better. But lets be clear here, for all areas of science, there is a relatively small base of proven laws and a very large base of theories that are unproven. The job of scientists is to try to prove or disprove these theories and an awful lot of theories get put off to the side on the stack labelled "not provable at the current time". Almost all spiritual matters end up in that pile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent write-up Derick. It's a relief to see there still exists some sanity with folks around these forums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I think deja vu has been pretty well defined in research. When certain populations in the brain process information faster than others, the effect can manifest as a feeling of deja vu. As far as the energy which powers the electrical potentials in the heart; it comes mostly from the energy stored in chemical bonds and although it's not destroyed, after it's been used it exists as latent heat energy which is inherently chaotic and cannot possibly exhibit the organization necessary for consciousness, experience, or anything of the sort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinfomebaby: A live human is warm. Much of the food a live human eats is converted into heat-energy to keep the body warm. When a human dies, the body gradually becomes cold and the heat eventually leaves the body and heats the ambient air in the room where the dead body is located. The heat energy moves from the dying body and heats the air molecules in the room. All this could be minutely measured and could be (and has been)proved to obey the Conservation of Energy principles you seem to have trouble understanding. You are like many religious nuts and metaphysical crackpots who seem to pop up on the S.A. boards whenever evolution or near death experiences are discussed and you simply make fools of yourselves with your silly postings. Next time you are in a room with a dead body, touch the body and feel how COLD the body has become ! The heat LEFT the body and heated the entire room !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’d suggest the NDE has essentially been proven. The horse is out of the barn. As an example: In case of cardiac arrest (no blood flow to the brain). Hundreds of people who experienced cardiac arrest and had the NDE were interviewed. They were able to accurately describe in detail the events surrounding them DURING their cardiac arrest. The accuracy was 80-90%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther individuals were interviewed, who had cardiac arrest but did NOT have an NDE. Asked to describe events surrounding them, they completely failed. They were not even close. I’m sure there may be a perfectly rational explanation for this, but I haven’t heard it yet.
Instead of profanity and insults, it might be useful to listen to this podcast interview with Dr. Jeffrey Long. It really is quite good;
http://www.skeptiko.com/118-jeffrey-long-responds-to-parnia/
I think you need to read the article again...I can not see at any point the author suggesting anything other than "a host of studies has revealed potential underpinnings for all the elements of such experiences. "Many of the phenomena associated with near-death experiences can be biologically explained," says neuroscientist Dean Mobbs, at the University of Cambridge's Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. Mobbs and Caroline Watt at the University of Edinburgh detailed this research online August 17 in Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is quite different to say what can be and what is. While it is not logical to say that when something A always follows something B it means than something A causes something B, I don't think the author has done that anywhere...I'd be interested in you quoting where you say that was said.
Also, spiritualists are forever indicating that the fact of NDEs implies an after life. These studies simply say there are other possible explanations.
Oh...sorry, I meant to say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is not logical to say that when something A always follows something B it means than something B causes something A....(or in other words, if something B is always preceeded by something A... )
What a marvellous range of responses. I have an uncle who admitted having a NDE on the operating table. He was a metrologist for Government research, and so rarely discussed such 'unscientific' matters. He described the disgust at watching the operation from above. He felt violated!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt that the self is a separate entity, with unmeasurable 'energy'. Even the CIA used this human feature in their Stargate research (remote viewing) but terminated the program when it became public.
How then do we explain the occasional (though compelling) NDE's in which people who were pronounced dead by a physician, return to life with reports of seeing things they could not have seen or with knowledge of things they could not possibly know? I'll give 2 examples. In the first example, a patient having emergency surgery "dies" during the procedure, he's removed from the ventilator & his body taken to the morgue - on the way there he moves. CPR is initiated & he is taken to the ICU. Days later when he is able to talk he tells an amazing story which includes things he witnessed during the time resuscitation is attempted in the OR, then he tells of floating through the ceiling and above the hospital, he tells of a tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital. The doctor he tells this to is intrigued & investigates. On the roof of the hospital he finds the shoe! In another story, a woman is in an auto accident & is taken to the nearest trauma center,( she has never been to this city before) during an emergency surgery, she goes into cardiac arrest. She is pronounced dead, the surgeon & anesthesiologist leave the OR & as her body is moved to a stretcher, she exhibits signs of life, CPR is started, the surgeon & anesthesiologist return & she is transported to the ICU. Days later when she is extubated, she tells the surgeon about not only about things she "saw" & "heard" after being pronounced dead, she tells him about "knowing" about the affair he is having!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a nurse, I have had a couple of patients talk about these experiences, but the one I cannot explain was from a patient I had in the neuro trauma unit. This patient had a severe head injury from an auto accident, after more than a week on life support we had to tell his parents he was not going to recover. They agreed that if tests showed no brain activity, he should be removed from life support. EEG's were done, as were cold calorics ( ice water is injected into the ear canals while an EEG is being done) there was no brain activity. Life support was removed & his parents were allowed to be with him as he "passed away." what should have taken minutes turned into hours - he continued to have what we thought were agonel breaths & EMD ( electro mechanical dissociation) we assured the family this was normal. The parents then wanted him back on the vent & we complied. Over a period of a week he improved & 2 weeks later he was transferred to a rehab facility. Months later his mom stopped in to tell us of her sons NDE - including a description of the cold caloric!
All death experiences described in your article are illusion,may be nightmares.Most patients went to coma before death,how can they remember in detail last experiences.?What may they tell how to judge their authenticity?They may be resorted nightmares
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInterestingly those who have NDEs and then actually die report a totally different experience ie often a brown tunnel and normally a red or green flashing light and usually the is an officious voice telling people to keep to the left, wait their turn etc. Again this is probably just some silly final neurochemical reaction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttention everyone: ALL animals on earth eventually DIE !! If I stomp on an ant, does a little 'ant spirit' float off to some mysterious ant heaven where some magical 'Ant God' judges the life and death of the ant ? ...of course NOT ! Humans are simply smart Apes with less hair. When a Chimpanzee dies, does a magical 'Chimpanzee Spirit' float off to some Chimp Heaven where a magical Chimp God judges the entire life and death of the Chimp ? ...of course NOT ! When humans die, they are DEAD..just like EVERY other animal on planet earth. I get VERY tired of all you metaphysical spiritual idiots and religious NUTS who post drivel on the S.A. boards every time an article on NDE's or evolution is published. All you 'spiritual' clowns should go post your inane drivel on astrology or scriptural or phrenology websites...the S.A. boards are here for discussions of SCIENCE !!...NOT mythology and Voodoo !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo 13inches (of what?) is happy to be on the same level as ants and apes. The result of science downgrading humans to animal status is probably one reason why there is so much immoral behaviour in the recent years. This insidious erosion of moral standards persists with the likes of Dawkins, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStarting the the Royal (Geological) Society in 1836, the hidden agenda of such academic institutions has been to remove every trace of 'God' from the world's history. Uniformitarian eons supposedly give enough time for chance to cause life to start and evolution to HAPPEN - by accident. We are sucked along with countless 'millions of years' to think anything can happen - given long enough, etc. It's a religion with no meaning.
Some scientists seem to believe that the human (or ape) entity requires no more than a warm, oxygenated brain to exist. How very sad that they have degenerated to such an empty state. Is living just temporary, pointless, physical existence, and NOTHING more? What's the point of S.A. then?
To suggest ANY "mystical, religious or spiritual" explanation, other than a naturalistic one, based on the functions of our evolved neurobiochemistry, is patently absurd, and usually based on the indoctrinated musings of those making such bald assertions. Without a doubt, every experiencial aspect of our consciousness... or slide toward an altered brain state... or death, is wholly instantiated by our marvelous physical brains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImmutable law: brain function = mind = consciousness.
The faith-based need to get over their goofy concept of some unknown "soul" based agency, superveing by some unknown and unknowable mechanism, upon our physical brains. Of course, most of these delusional folks likewise believe in ghosts, demons and angels... not to mention their god(s). Sheesh!
But... but... aren't we humans Almighty Gawd the Father's "Special Creation"... immune from the immutable laws that govern the universe in every other aspect imaginable??? Surely we cannot face the same fate as every other living entity... or stars... and galaxies... cuz' we are made in HIS HOLY IMAGE... and the infallible bible tells me so!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf i can't be immortal... well... then, what's the point... life sucks and everyone should be depressed.
Disclaimer: above written with tongue planted firmly in cheeck:-)
I found the title promised more than was delivered in the article. I didn't find any scientific explanations of the truly amazing aspects of near death and out of body experiences, which are real phenomena. Thirty years ago my secretary in Huancayo, Peru reported an out-of-body experience where she traveled to 250 miles to Lima to visit her grandmother. When she made the first actual visit some time later she was able to tell her grandmother what was in the hall closet before opening it. My son, at age about seven, had an out of body experience which was very credible. Thirteen years ago an old girl friend visited me in a dream the night she died. This was not a near-death experience. She actually died, cut up with a knife in her own living room. From the dream I knew that something very painful had happened to her. I woke shaking from the dream and immediately told my wife. One doesn't usually tell one's wife about dreams involving ex-girlfriends. My wife told me to call a mutual friend because it was obvious to her that something had happened to my ex. Yes, she had been murdered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow these things--near death experiences, out of body experiences, visits by ghosts--are real phenomenon. I would like to see some honest efforts to explanation them, not cynical efforts to explain them away.
Certainly John... ghosts ARE real as are "Dead Men Walking"... it's just the rest of us, predisposed as we are to reason and reasonable proof, can't seem to find a single credible shred of evidence to support such wild assertions, subjective experience aside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr perhaps, you subscribe to a variation of the conspiracy theory that the faith-based employ to attempt to derail the edifice of evolution... that somehow the vast global science community is by agreement, simply ignoring all the "evidence" to support creationism and a 6 thousand year old planet.
True, it may be more fun... and provide fodder fer folklore to imagine a "spirit realm" somewhere, unseen and undetectable in our inexorably expanding Cosmos, but like Bigfoot, it hasn't left a REAL footprint as yet.
Dear Spin-oza, like you, I base my belief as to what is 'out there' on my experience. The night my ex-girlfriend was murdered in her own home 600 miles away she visited me in a dream. It was very clear in the dream that she had just died, and that it had been very painful. In fact, she had just been murdered when she visited me. In the dream we were standing on the bank of a river, and it was dark. And there was another part of this 'dream,' which I now consider a visitation, that I didn't tell you. She was not alone. There was an eight-year old boy with her who seemed impatient to leave. Eventually he took her hand, they turned around, and walked off into the dark together. So I don't merely believe in ghosts, I also believe in angels. I saw the angel of death. I predict you will someday, too. These are facts, spin-oza.You can close you mind to them for the time being, but I cannot. To paraphrase Shakespeare's most famous character, who also believed in ghosts: There's more between heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy. You see, ghosts and angels usually show themselves to us in dreams. That way we are free to say it was only a dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmm... you just made my point John. Like many before you, prescience who believed in all mannner of supernatural entities... and every culture throughout (human) history had their own cast of mythological characters... and god-men/women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and since you are "certain" of these "facts", then why twitter about here on Sci-Am... you should be living the life of an ascetic mystic, lost in meditation, blissfully communing with the eternal, eh?
As a NDE survivor myself I can speak with some authority because I have been there and experienced it firsthand; because all conscious experiences are similarly subjective (at least with present technologies) that is the best that anyone can hope for at this time. And I can say with utter certainty that I did not experience "hallucinations" or any other form of fabricated or imaginary experience because it was REAL and I know that in the same way that you, the reader of my words at this moment understands you're not dreaming them up and imagining them. You know you are conscious, you observe what is in front of you, and you know what you see. If you also are schizophrenic and know that you sometimes see things that aren't real, then maybe you can argue otherwise about YOUR OWN perceptions, but but I am not schizophrenic and while I can't speak for everyone who's had an NDE I can speak for myself and I know what I saw and experienced is genuine and exists on some level of reality, that being a far higher level of reality than we commonly experience. Unfortunately being a subjective experience the reality of an NDE is impossible to fully convey to others, and I don't expect to be able to. However, rather than simplistic unscientific dismissals of the phenomenon as artifacts of hypoxia and/or reduced blood flow to the brain or anything else (which if they were could be easily studied) I'd like to see some RESPONSIBLE science come forward about NDEs instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is very poorly titled to say "Near-Death Experiences Now Found to Have Scientific Explanations" when in fact no actual "scientific explanations" have been discovered or presented, only wild speculation. The closest the article comes to any "scientific explanation" is the part about "tunnel vision" being a feature of hypoxia! Clearly, at no point in the process of writing this article has an actual survivor of a NDE been involved and the author has no idea what he is talking about, though he pretends to. That's not science, no experimental evidence is presented, and Scientific American should be ashamed of itself for sinking to the level of National Enquirer false claims for the sake of sensationalism.
By the way my NDE happened in 1969, well before the first book about them came out in the 1970's, so there's no "me-too" effect possible in my case. My life was changed dramatically and continues to be affected by the experience, all in good ways. We would do well as a society to try to scientifically understand NDEs instead of trying to dismiss them.
As a NDE survivor myself I can speak with some authority because I have been there and experienced it firsthand; because all conscious experiences are similarly subjective (at least with present technologies) that is the best that anyone can hope for at this time. And I can say with utter certainty that I did not experience "hallucinations" or any other form of fabricated or imaginary experience because it was REAL and I know that in the same way that you, the reader of my words at this moment understands you're not dreaming them up and imagining them. You know you are conscious, you observe what is in front of you, and you know what you see. If you also are schizophrenic and know that you sometimes see things that aren't real, then maybe you can argue otherwise about YOUR OWN perceptions, but but I am not schizophrenic and while I can't speak for everyone who's had an NDE I can speak for myself and I know what I saw and experienced is genuine and exists on some level of reality, that being a far higher level of reality than we commonly experience. Unfortunately being a subjective experience the reality of an NDE is impossible to fully convey to others, and I don't expect to be able to. However, rather than simplistic unscientific dismissals of the phenomenon as artifacts of hypoxia and/or reduced blood flow to the brain or anything else (which if they were could be easily studied) I'd like to see some RESPONSIBLE science come forward about NDEs instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is very poorly titled to say "Near-Death Experiences Now Found to Have Scientific Explanations" when in fact no actual "scientific explanations" have been discovered or presented, only wild speculation. The closest the article comes to any "scientific explanation" is the part about "tunnel vision" being a feature of hypoxia! Clearly, at no point in the process of writing this article has an actual survivor of a NDE been involved and the author has no idea what he is talking about, though he pretends to. That's not science, no experimental evidence is presented, and Scientific American should be ashamed of itself for sinking to the level of National Enquirer false claims for the sake of sensationalism.
By the way my NDE happened in 1969, well before the first book about them came out in the 1970's, so there's no "me-too" effect possible in my case. My life was changed dramatically and continues to be affected by the experience, all in good ways. We would do well as a society to try to scientifically understand NDEs instead of trying to dismiss them.
The title of this article states that there are scientific explanations for NDE, however the article goes on to describe speculations instead of any sign of proof of the assumptions. Evidence is not proof. A title truer to the content of this article would be "Hunches About the Causes of Near Death Experiences".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm...I can understand finding out what people having NEDs thought was happening...but you suggest that people who 'actually die' have a different kind of experience..how do you know that? Did the dead tell you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh my...do you really believe what you are saying? If so, pray tell why you even read anything in SA, since you clearly believe it is all drivel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I would not say I am 'happy' to be on the same level as ants (so far as life and death is concerned)...I just am.
Oh, and the point of SA is to make the life I have make sense, which is not the same as it having 'meaning'. The only 'point' to life is to continue it.
Don't believe everything you think...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI encounter, daily, people who 'know' some thing or another only to find out they are wrong. Have you never had the experience of 'remembering' something a certain way only to find out that is not what happened at all.
If you don't want to understand that your understanding is all in your brain, not in your 'soul', and fallible to boot, so be it, but I ask the same questions asked by others- why do you even come to the SA site?
The point, my good man (or woman as the case may be), is that there are valid scientific explanations for what happens. No where in the article does it say this was proof, only a valid explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you hear hoofbeats in central park....don't go looking for zebras....
Allow me to invite you to see my essay The Existence after Life in http://existenceafterlife.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe materialistic view of this subject is not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is another world: the spirit world or the ethereal world: the afterlife.
Some try to explain the near death experience in such materialistic explanation which is not essentially true.
Such experience is also encountered in many intervals of life, not necessarily near death.
The explanation:
When man is about to die (as is it also the case when man is under the effect of certain drug, or some psychological or psychiatric circumstances maybe) --> the communication with the spirit beings will be more.
In such instances, the spiritual beings will have more influence on man (as is also the case during sleep)
I myself saw some of such spiritual observations; one of which was confirmed by my son who saw the same observation at the same time; and this was some years ago.
See a good explanation here:
<http://www.quran-ayat.com/man/index.htm#The_Death_Appointment_>
See also my page on the Facebook: Ea Nassir
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001130108287#!/profile.php?id=100001130108287>
And the valuable book that I have translated from Arabic: (Man after Death)-- by Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly, the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible:
<http://www.quran-ayat.com/man/index.htm>
Completely unscientific research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf no one can describe their real death how can you determine near-death experiences?
Same problem with artificial intelligence. how can we create it if we don't understand real intelligence?
We are talking about the process towards death. They can’t be a spiritual experience because this would be only after death. I had an idea or a hypothetical explanation of these experiences and would like to add that brain activity is basically electrochemical; as neurons go dying electrical shocks or sparks occur which in turn produce electromagnetic waves as radar they bounce back, returning to the brain producing the sensation of watching from outside the body.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if the full physiological response to seeing a tree was determined, would that be considered a scientifically valid demonstration that trees do not exist? What am I missing here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSPIN-OZA WROTE:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and since you are "certain" of these "facts", then why twitter about here on Sci-Am... you should be living the life of an ascetic mystic, lost in meditation, blissfully communing with the eternal, eh?
OK, SPIN-OZA, WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE THAT I AM NOT LIVING THE LIFE OF AN ASCETIC MYSTIC, ETC.?
It turns out that I'm not, but what makes you think that my reasoned response to my own experience should compel me in such a direction?
Your reasoning is a bit difficult for someone who has been reading SA for the past 50 years to follow. Keep an open mind, man!
Great explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could not have said it better. I have always believed that the belief in an all mighty God has diminished all of human accomplishments. The reality is that just 10,000 years we were living in caves and now we are begining to explore space. This we did on our own, but in our religious society all the glory goes to God, because in their eyes it was "his" will to make it so. I can only hope that in a few hundred years there will be more people smart enough to appreciate all the accomplishments of human kind and give credit where credit is due.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, Marc305...I am now trying to not attack the people, just the idea. It's hard. Possibly the near death experience simply mimicks or expands on the dream state. I wonder if the same parts of the brain involved with dreaming are stimulated in the near death experiences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI come to this site to learn. It is so annoying when people come here to preach. WE WILL OVERCOME!!!
Cheers!
Hello Karen 00100...you are way too smart to be my first wife, also named Karen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseanassir...Delusions are not proof. Simultaneous delusions in your family are called genetic defects.
I know that science will one day disprove religion. I only wish that I could live long enough to see it.
Whisky time...CHEERS!
I was all set to make a comment. But, with 79 already here, no body will read this far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you read this comment, please disregard. Thank you.
Clearly brain damage doesn't explain how some people experiencing NDE were able to accurately describe what was happening at the top of the hospital , or the corridor outside of the operation room .. Nor have this study been able to replicate an actual NDE, with literally the heart going off on the ECG .. Sigh .. the standards Sci-Am Mind set in the science world ..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI experienced none of the above during my NDE back in 1975. My experience had different elements which are not explained by the above article, therefore, for me, the jury is still out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a "former psychology student" noting FORMER and STUDENT, that's great, I took a psychology class too. In fact, probably many people here on S.A. have taken a psych class or two. You said the MANY spiritual traditions of the earth "can confirm the existence of the afterlife both with science and historical knowledge." Okay, my mother is a strict christian, I'm an atheist, my brother is a muslim, my other brother is an agnostic, I have a buddhist friend, have met a wiccan,and had a class with a hindu. Please tell me, which spiritual tradition is most accurate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCigarshaped, I'm sure we all know what faith you subscribe to, there aren't many other belief systems with a rep of rousing people to say the kinds of things you said in reply to 13inches. First of all, morals exist with or without God. The golden rule existed before Jesus. And I remember how retarded my mom's phrase "because I said so" was, Hitler said something too, but right and wrong is not based on anyone's say so. Be it someone visible or not. You asked what's the point of S.A. without God, well as an atheist, I'll explain a step further, what is the point of life without God? Asking that is as ignorant as asking what's the point of hiking, skiing, rock climbing or other forms of extreme sports/outdoor activities, it's about the adventure; live, enjoy, and allow others the same opportunity. This view also takes on the issue of fear of death, if there's no afterlife there's no need to live in fear of death, because although that will end the adventure, it will prove to be the end of suffering, as opposed to with God there may be eternal judgment. I would be very depressed if I still believed in God, but I'm not; because I don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisread Dan Brown's "Lost Symbol" he's way ahead if these guys, light years, how he know that?!?!?!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, you're saying that someone who passes out in a heat stroke or who perhaps was in a serious car wreck and ended up in the ICU for a week or two can't tell after the fact that he/she was almost dead. gnagy, near-death experiences occur when the individual is not far from dead, but is still alive. There is nothing unscientific about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA seriously injured creature caught by a predator would be full of endorphins. This enables it to fight for its life without being distracted by pain. The effect would last long enough for the prey to escape, or be killed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoldiers have done some odd things on a battlefield, picking up their blown off arms etc.
And people attacked by sharks have said that they
"felt a tug" and found an arm or leg had gone.
(They used to call it "shock" years ago.)
Did this evolve, or is it, as religious people might think, some provision by a merciful god?
Well this is interesting, but if NDE's were "caused" by the reasons they give then everyone who went through those things would have them. And it's actually a rather small number of those having been revived from clinical death that report having had any of what they describe as NDE's. If I remember right it's only somewhere around 9%. That doesn't make sense. You should be seeing a lot more NDE's if they had such common and organic explanations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, the vast majority don't see anything at all. They report seeing nothing. So the question goes back to why are only SOME people having these experiences? Since science is only about measuring the material, I don't think it can or will ever answer that question.
Most if not all of such studies ignore at least the probability of these NDE are truly genuine, and related to the afterlife world or the spirit world: simply because such researchers are almost atheists or bear some part of atheism in their convictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile such NDE (and many of such observations are not Near Death) are the perception in some way of the afterlife or spirit world.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/man/index.htm#The_Soul_after_Death_
There is the afterlife or the spirit world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost if not all of such studies ignore at least the probability of these NDE are truly genuine, and related to the afterlife world or the spirit world: simply because such researchers are almost atheists or bear some part of atheism in their convictions.
While such NDE (and many of such observations are not Near Death) are the perception in some way of the afterlife or spirit world.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/man/index.htm#The_Soul_after_Death_
NightDreamer:"First of all, morals exist with or without God."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what is the scientific explanation for that, evolution I suppose? Is conscience a chemical phenomenon?
And "The golden rule existed before Jesus."
He based his teachings on Judaism and 1000s of years of God-inspired belief.
"And I remember how retarded my mom's phrase "because I said so" was, Hitler said something too, but right and wrong is not based on anyone's say so. Be it someone visible or not."
Well I have a bit if respect for the guy who designed and created me.
"You asked what's the point of S.A. without God, well as an atheist, I'll explain a step further, what is the point of life without God? ..adventure; live, enjoy, and allow others the same opportunity."
You obviously had a bad childhood, I enjoyed every bit of my Christian upbringing, no restrictions - done the same for my kids. They've turned out fine!
"This view also takes on the issue of fear of death, if there's no afterlife there's no need to live in fear of death,because although that will end the adventure, it will prove to be the end of suffering,.."
I wonder how many humans share your willingness to be deleted? Of course I'll be glad when the suffering is over - because I know there is something much better.
"..as opposed to with God there may be eternal judgment. I would be very depressed if I still believed in God, but I'm not; because I don't."
The established Churches have a lot to answer for in their old 'hell-fire' talk. I'd prefer to risk being with the essence of Good, rather than the zero option. I'm just looking forward to knowing all the answers to these questions.
BTW has anyone else read 'Journey of Souls' by Michael Newton,PhD? His research was based on numerous patient (regressive) hypnotherapic interviews and their consistent responses. No mention of big G but an interesting insight?
This type of explanation is sorely lacking in explanatory power...How do 'brain chemicals' or 'lack of oxygen' explain seeing things or being places when it was impossible to do so under the circumstances?! and proved to be correct by questioning witnesses afterwards or the person themselves correctly identifying people/objects/situations that they could in no wise experience other then in a 'supernatural' encounter'. Take for example these very things happening to blind from birth or severely visually impaired people, where did that come from...lack of O2?!!! Take a look at the book 'Mind Sight' and 'skin seeing' doesn't fit the bill either. These explanations are so lacking because they don't even address the question of 'how did they 'see' factual happenings when they could have in no way seen..lack of O2? Come On!!! Even young children have described their birth at 2 or 3 years old when no one ever discussed it with them and they were correct! Materialistic Reductionism will never explain these things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Karen I 'believe' in clear perceptions and experiences just as you and most people do so I could say for example try to poo-poo your reported first-person declaration if you were to make one that you had sex three times this morning and tell you that no, you must have imagined it and don't believe everything you think you experience. And you being the experiencer and maybe even still a little sore would know what a stupid thing it would be for me to try to tell you your own experience was only imaginary. Wouldn't you? You should understand that you are speaking in total ignorance and throwing up a wall of denial in your own mind that prevents you from perceiving and understanding something quite profound about death that you will one day go through yourself whether you return from it or not. To deliberately not want to know more about what happens when you die raises the questions of 'why not? what are you afraid of?'. I can only guess so one strong possibility is that you already think you know all the answers in the form of some religious belief system, and that belief system is somehow threatened by what NDE survivors relate of their experiences, is that even close?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do 'get' that memory is fallible but that's usually for smaller details of one's experience and not the major things, you're probably not going to forget your name or social security number unless you're in a pretty advanced state of dementia or other brain damage. You're also not likely to ever forget that you've been to Disneyland or ascended to the top of the Eiffel Tower, either. Or to 'remember' that you did if you really didn't. These and other peak life experiences don't just get imagined away and one of the important take-home lessons from NDEs is that they are in most cases life-changing events that go on to affect people in good ways for the rest of their lives. No sorry that is not a side effect of brain hypoxia and that whole line of denial comes from someplace other than science through people who have never experienced an NDE themselves and consequently really don't know what they are talking about.
@Karen "but I ask the same questions asked by others- why do you even come to the SA site?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I haven't noticed anyone else asking but I do observe you have asked the same question of others like you're personally defensive about the website itself, could you be a Scientific American employee of some kind? If you are I hope that you will feed back to management that flaky articles like this one with false-claiming titles unsupported either in the article or in reality are damaging to their credibility as a legitimate science outlet. This is National Enquirer quality you have on your website, for shame.
You are definitely right. I've learnt alot from your comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear SA,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love science but not when it applied with a blindfold. I know most scientist don't believe in an After Life or any paranormal experience. However, if you discount the many observations when these people are experiencing the near death experience than you are not being a scientist you are not being through. When people see their family members doing unheard of things in the waiting room. When a person wakes up and can tell you who made the light fixtures in the operating room a name you can only see if you are up there than I say there is something more going on here than your answers. It is easy as a scientist to come up with answers when you don't need to cover the many questions around this phenomenon and you won't be called on by your colleges who believe as you do. No these are not hallucinations and until scientist practice real science the answers to NDE are still waiting for honest unbiased answers.
Joseph Capp
NY
As someone who had NDE experiences after a near-fatal accident, all I can say is..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky” -Buddha
♥
Spin-oza said: "To suggest ANY "mystical, religious or spiritual" explanation, other than a naturalistic one, based on the functions of our evolved neurobiochemistry, is patently absurd, and usually based on the indoctrinated musings of those making such bald assertions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo make a scientific claim based on idea that a proposal is "patently absurd" is completely unscientific. What Copernicus claimed about the Earth moving around the Sun was also "patently absurd," at the time. You are the indoctrinated one making bald assertions.
"Without a doubt, every experiencial aspect of our consciousness... or slide toward an altered brain state... or death, is wholly instantiated by our marvelous physical brains."
On the contrary, the comments here show that there is considerable doubt. Doubt is a very useful scientific tool. You should try it sometime on your own religious belief that the material is all there is.
Spin-oza said: "Immutable law: brain function = mind = consciousness."
It seems you have raised your own beliefs to an immutable law. Have you at least published it in a peer-reviewed journal?
Spin-oza said: "The faith-based need to get over their goofy concept of some unknown "soul" based agency, superveing by some unknown and unknowable mechanism, upon our physical brains. Of course, most of these delusional folks likewise believe in ghosts, demons and angels... not to mention their god(s). Sheesh!"
You attempt to discredit the "soul" by insult and ad hominem attacks ("goofy" and "delusional"). It is not only the faith-based who believe there is more to reports of NDE than delusions. The truly scientific pay attention to the data, and don't dismiss it just because it is "impossible." I count myself as one of them. I am not willing to let people like you tell met that my experiences did not happen, just because they did not happen to you. Or perhaps they did happen to you and you dismissed them as impossible, therefore untrue.
I happen to believe very deeply in science, and I believe that it will eventually get over its bias towards materialism. Things now considered "paranormal" will be accepted as a natural part of a larger reality that we don't yet understand. Remember Godel's incompleteness theorem. In any mathematical system there will always be statements that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. However, they can be proven within a larger system.
People who deny the reality of NDE share the same mindset as those who believe in biblical creationism or deny global warming. What they believe is based on personal bias and not the facts. It is bizarre when someone rejects solid NDE research because it does not conform to his or her worldview, and claim to do so in the name of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think at least some people contemplate concepts such as God because they're after the truth of how our reality exists, not just because they want to survive death. The truth is what is important, and just because something seems very fanciful on the surface doesn't automatically make it untrue. When we are able to fool the mind and create virtual worlds ourselves, the question of whether or not this is the real world is very relevant. That there is neurochemistry paralleling any event in a person's life, including death, should not be surprising. It's easy enough to say, "When this happens, this happens." But it can't determine whether what is happening is real or not. If you haven't explained experience itself (the Hard Problem,) you haven't explained anything, as always. Of course the process of death has a correlate in the brain -- that would make sense -- but what, essentially, is the experience? Where does experience begin and end? What it comes down to is a question of mind over matter, and no matter how much you try, you'll never be able to use your mind to prove to itself that it is only material. Our senses are limited and so, therefore, is our knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this32 percent of Russians believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, and yet it does not. Your own personal beliefs, even when supported by the beliefs of large numbers of other people doesn't always mean they're factual. Few people who believe in an afterlife would abandon their doctors for faith healers and yet the evidence for both an afterlife and faith healing are essentially the same. The scientific method isn't always perfect, but it's the only thing standing between us and the chaos of personal belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery well written and considered!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKaren said: "If you don't want to understand that your understanding is all in your brain, not in your 'soul', and fallible to boot, so be it, but I ask the same questions asked by others- why do you even come to the SA site?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask this question of someone who just reported his own NDE which included things that he could not have known otherwise, and then you accuse him/her of not wanting to understand that what he experienced was just a hallucination. Let me ask you the same question you asked. If you are going to dismiss other people's experience/observations/data as hallucinations then why do you even come to SA? Just to defend and reconfirm your own narrow view of what is possible?
As a retired neurosurgeon who has observed deaths, turned off ventilators on those who fit brain-death criteria, and has participated in numerous resuscitations etc. from "dead" and near-dead states, I have not observed any of the NDE descriptions or anecdotes that so fascinate the "spiritually-inclined". That does not prove the non-existence of NDE phenomena or their significance (proving such non-existence is impossible). Nevertheless I have found myself persuaded that it is improbable that failing brains in failing metabolic and physical states would be likely to come up with valid and organized observations. Since all qualities of belief arise in the brain, and the presence of "true belief" tends to guide the selection and rejection of "memories" and "observations", (some science behind this comment) it is not surprising that "recall" of events would appear in the context of long-held belief systems, but these would be new interpretations imposed after the acute events have subsided. As previously noted by others, failing brain would be expected to create a melange of electrical and neurotransmitter dysfunctions and phenomena(as also observed with psychoactive drugs), which would then be "reorganized" in the prevailing context of the brain, after the event. "Feelings of certainty" are brain "conclusions" which are probably contributed by specific areas of the brain involved with such processes (which means they may be tracked with functional imaging etc. eventually). There is accumulating data suggesting memory fallibility (through reorganization of old memory), again influenced by prior brain function context, true belief etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe science is still young in this area, but the trend so far suggests that the answers will lie on the scientific side of the discussion, as history has shown to happen with many of the unknowns over the centuries. Will we ever be able to disprove belief systems like this? -- of course not, but we can progressively increase the probability that the science is correct. Good data and good interpretations of reproducible data is what will prevail. Beliefs are beliefs, but if they clash with real data, they will remain suspect. Anecdotes are interesting, but always suspect -- they can only really be evaluated if they can be scientifically assessed. Science is not perfect, but it is better than whatever finishes second!
Without testable data, NDE is all urban legend.
I'm clinically dead every morning and all I get is having to rush the shower, toothbrush, clothes routine and a near-death experience from angry teachers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdmittedly I do sometimes tend to forget the 'clothes' part though. Just try to explain to the woman walking her dog outside of your house why you're not wearing a shirt...
I experienced the light at the end of the tunnel event when I was giving birth to my second child. No anesthetic was used. I remember a nurse saying :breath Mr. K****m, breath. At which point I made myself breath. At least that is what it felt like. It was so easy not to breath. Also I felt very calm, very relaxed. The thought went through my mind at that time 'I have to live for him' meaning my son. It sounds dramatic but it wasn't. It seemed I had a choice to breath and live or not to breath and die. I have never had an explanation for what happened. Of course I assume now if I hadn't started breathing on my own the doctor would have intervened. Can you explain what happened?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould ocular oxygen deficiency be the cause of Republican tunnel vision?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to Sagener, comment # 17, re faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn old priest once told me that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but fear. So what are you guys who belittle faith so afraid of? Faith is not a belief system, but a way of living. "Fear not!" is the first lesson of the New Testament. It's a good rule to live by.
And all this stupid effort to debunk NDEs in the name of science. I am a scientist and I am not convinced by the posturing of would-be scientists. What about RDEs--Real Death Experiences. My ex-girlfriend, as I noted in an earlier comment, visited me in a dream while her dead body lay cut up in a pool of blood in her living room 600 miles away. This is a fact that I have to live with, not some kind of wishful thinking. All this jammering about NDEs being due to oxygen deprivation or some other 'natural' phenomenon is simply running from the facts. As I noted in my earlier post, NDEs are not 'supernatural', rather it is nature that is super. Take another look!
I appreciate that we now know some sites and biochemical reactions that can cause near-death experiences. It's very interesting. However, I'm 62 and still haven't decided what I believe about death and the possibility of life after dead. Nobody has, as yet, been able to measure or weigh dark matter or dark energy, even though most of space in general and most of our bodies seem to be made up of it. Until both measurement and explanation occur for these concepts, I'll keep my mind open. And if it doesn't occur, I'll find out when I die. Or I won't exist any more and my body will be disintegrating, recycled just like any other animal or plant. Actually, either option has its own charm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy pursue this research? To take away hope from the terminally ill? Make parents who have lost children despair even further? What good can possibly come out of this? All it does is underline the basic pointlessness of everything. Tolstoy, Rembrandt, Mozart. It's all as useless as my most recent fart. In the long run, the universe will either expand indefinitely or collapse on itself -- and after that: Nothing, not even darkness. So what if there is no afterlife? Isn't it a nice, even beautiful illusion? Look at the alternative: An utterly unfair world, where some very bad people, eg Hitler, live to relatively old age and never get adequately punished, while others, eg babies born in Hitler's concentration camps, never get to experience anything but pain in their short, miserable lives. There are so many other things that science can turn its attention to. Why spend time and resources exploding a myth that gives hope and direction to so many?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeadhunter7, supposedly a retired neurosurgeon (?) suggests NDE is an urban legend. He/she claims NDE has no “testable data”. Really now? All the NDE research that is clearly available is meaningless? Really? I’d like to hear someone debunk this research, but nobody here at SA seems to know anything about it. Science is funny that way, isn’t it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlwyU0_M88o
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow long will mainstream scientists keep their blinders on? They pick and choose which studies they base their beliefs on, and ignore the ones that would invalidate them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvan Alexander taught and performed neurosurgery at the Harvard Medical School for 15 years. In 2008, his career took an unexpected turn, one that would give him profound insight into the possibility of life after death. He contracted an extremely rare form of bacterial meningitis, and fell into a deep coma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlwyU0_M88o
His case is *far* from unique. Many have had these experiences, and more and more studies are being done on them. Yet this research is still largely ignored, and many with entrenched bias for the now-obsolete materialistic reductionist theory keep rehashing the same tired old ideas.
Bgoeth99, that is an excellent video. It’s from the documentary series “Through The Wormhole” narrated by Morgan Freeman, a respectable series and not fringe. I’d really like to hear some solid evidence debunking all of this. Instead, we get science as politics, arguing from bias/opinion and not fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an excellent documentary about NDE that actually offers multiple viewpoints on the topics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD9jigzzuas
It’s one of the best documentaries on the topic I’ve seen.
Ah yes! The dreaded "?" ad hominem attack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe existence of "research" is not a proof, only the meaningful data that "real science" and its processes generate. All it takes is real testable data and facts, not opinions. If there were real data proving the "paranormal claims", further debate would be unnecessary. Currently the data supports the neuroscience explanations. If something changes, perhaps we will all believe. "True belief", alas, does not replace science.
Headhunter7, there is far more evidence for some aspects of the paranormal then there is for, say string theory. Is it safe to say there is ZERO evidence supporting string theory? But string theory sure gets a lot of attention (and funding).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI submit the issue with NDE is a puzzling philosophical aversion to even entertaining the very idea. I can’t explain this aversion. Not that long ago the NDE were not even acknowledged as reality. A few fearless researchers like Raymond Moody pushed the boundaries of conventional wisdom. Now the NDE experience is recognized as a fact, albeit currently unexplained. If we relied only on current conventional wisdom, we’d still deny dark matter exists.
Could these same brain mechanisms and biochemistry account also for experiences reported during autoasphixation, a practice often reported by adolescents during masturbation experimentation. A very dangerous practice, since it sometimes results in accidental death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really think so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat, this part:
"Although the specific causes of this part of near-death experiences remain unclear, tunnel vision can occur when blood and oxygen flow is depleted to the eye" ??
That's vague and purely speculative. There is no useful statement in that sentence.
It says:
A) Tunnel vision can occur in humans
and
2) We can't relate that to what people say about NDEs.
Not a "scientific truth" in my book.
The whole article is loaded with "might", "may", "suggests", etc...words you use disavow the content of the statement. Words you use when you're stretching to reach your target word count.
And the earth would be flat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had my own off-the-wall, based-on-nothing idea about this...anybody ever seen a learned discussion of...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if: Since string theory requires the existence of 7 dimensions beyond our senses, what if the NDE is actually a glimpse into the doorway of one or another of these? What if, in that state, we are freed from the mechanics of our 5 senses and become able to experience some of whatever else is out there?
Kind of goofy, but why not?
While the scientist in me acknowledges that there may be some truth in the explanations suggested,the eternal romantic in me roots for all the mystical reasons.... :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I do believe NDEs to have a perfectly natural explanation, this article is another depressing display of how the scientific community seems to be more interested in shutting up the paranormal crowd than in actually finding answers, the title being the most evident example: nothing has been proven. A general theory has been drawn and no experiment has yet been conduced. And let's talk about this theory...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit sounds to me as all the old explanationss put forward in the past to explain NDE, warmed up and heavily spiced to hide the fact that they have all been discarded before.
Ketamine and DMT? Yes, they can cause similiar experiences to NDE... or completely different. It's like saying that since both apples and ferrari are red, apples are ferrari.
The cultural knowledge of NDEs can influence their unfolding? Maybe - but can this be applied to the first hundreds reports of NDEs collected by Moody, PimVomLommel etc., before it became common knowledge?
Lack of oxygen to the eyes causes the white tunnel? Too bad, AWARE study checked the oxygen levels of its subjects - nothing wrong there.
And last but not least, what kind of mental slalom must have required to have connected Cotard syndrome to NDE is beyond my understanding.
This study has little more foundation than those who claim NDEs are a proof of an afterlife. For now it's a collection of guesses, informed guesses maybe, but little else. Publicizing like anything else is preposterous.
The duty of science is to find answers, not to reassure people that their vision of the world, wether materialistic or dualistic is correct. So how about we cut these performance acts and try to understand what happens to a dying brain so that, maybe, we can make it live a little longer?
What is the evolutionary value to this if we are dying? Or perhaps it's value is to those who almost die?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently thought I was having a near death experience. But it was just my wife suing me for divorce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to #2:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget about the choir. I'll setlle for the virgins.
Good to hear not everyone has them! They were concerning me... but darn man, the thought of a god makes me feel like a prisoner! Not nice! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said mate :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was just thinking the same thing (but with worse articulation of it!)
Kudos to Noedre (comment 121) for making most of the points I wanted to make and thus saving me a lot of typing. It's a shame most of the reactions to this article take the form of a God vs. Science debate, and almost no one seems to have thought critically about the article itself. The article is so bad I can't believe a once respectable journal as SA would publish it--it would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The author seems to have no knowledge of NDEs and the title is designed to appeal to people who have no knowledge of NDEs. As Noedre said, none of this is "new" research and it has all been debunked long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also applaud the bravery of the few who related their own NDEs and after-death communications. These phenomena are real and have real life-changing effects on people that hallucinations do not have. These phenomena would be better known if our society wasn't so closed-minded and intent on making people afraid to talk about such things.
I've always been interested in this topic. This article really gives another view on near-death experiences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've recently created my own site on this subject
http://whatslifeafterdeath.com where you can view videos of nde's
Thats nice. But can Science explain the many experiencers that claim that they have left their body and can correctly recall conversations that happened while they were supposedly unconscious?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is unscientific to investigate in this area using instruments that are only physical!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAwareness of awareness is the first step. Leaving the physical form and observing it from another location is the second step.
The third step is to consciously visit a world outside of this one and have verification of the fact through communication with others who have done the same!
This so called "Scientific Investigation" is unscientific since it presupposes that all that existence is physical brain/reality and only looks at it from that point of view!
Science seems hellbent on disproving out of body and spiritual states. The materialists all want you to believe that all that exists is contained in the physical world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a reality and at a time where even the molecule has been verified as acting both as a wave and a solid it is not unreasonable to consider the physical world as an illusion!
The spiritual worlds exists despite the insistence of the so called esteemed scientists!
What of the views:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConveyed (UFO's not only are in, they're required)
lesson in math/history/morality such that those
3 are one and the same.
A full Earth, full written conveyed lesson would
have proceeded thusly:
Upon closer scrutiny, the East and West at a
particular point contained utterly identical
moralities, but with the West having had
thrown in an equivalent experience to the
one involving Gray's Sports Almanac in
Back to the Future.
Thus, admonished to not judge, it judged
just the same.
To judge is to control. To control is to
limit and enslave.
That defines much obnoxious in the world
near and far. That defines entrenched
monopolies and their pepper spraying
cooks.
How?
The same witchhunt that condemns religion
proves it.
Demonize. Make afraid of being wrongly
ferreted out as a demon.
Float a false ideology.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_py_060422_warped_interpretatio.htm
Demonize whomever does not conform to that.
There happen to be brilliant people--including
quite many physicians--who can describe
people who've had these NDE's who can
describe what was occuring, with detail, in operating
theatres, during their own surgeries, while
anesthetized.
On my site I describe stuff as to Nostradamus
pertains seeing personalities through
"real time."
Quantum mechanics suggests when we look for
key connections, then like connecting waves
of possibilities they are found.
The story of Gilgamesh itself, then, our world's
first piece of literature, becomes in this sense
a possible message in the bottle from day
one confirming morality's connection with
our very existence.
http://holygenes.weebly.com/
The scientific studies have only researched a biological explanations. I have experienced an out of body experience which I saw my own body from a side angle. I could see every follicle of hair in perfect sharp color. This was an angle of my self I would never see in the mirror. Therefore my conscious mind was outside my physical body. My witness account contradicts these scientific explanations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut unfortunately, my account can't be proved, and this does not say it isn't real.
I have read several NDE accounts and they are not always the same format. The accounts by some that have changed the way they live their lives is of particular interest to me. I am not a scientist, just someone who has experienced a lot of living. I understand recreational drugs fairly well and I am opposed to pharma drugs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll I can comment is about what I have experienced and it was not an NDE yet it involved something supernatural to me. This experience changed my life situation which improved within days and was badly needed. I was lifted from a dark place in my soul by the gentle breeze of tree branches outside my window. The warmth and love that came my way was magical. I fail to see how that euphoric experience that lingered was initiated by extreme trauma since we are discussing body trauma.
I had distress but no body trauma. This experience felt greater than myself and I was immediately transported to a feeling of being loved and supported.
Until we know more about the brain and conquer the dreaded brain diseases, we need to keep an open mind in every direction. The brain is more than physical; of that I am convinced.
Scientific truth? You can feed ketamine or tons of other drugs to 100 people and though they may have an out of body experience, none of them will "go to heaven" be given a choice if they want to return, be told prophecies of their life to come. Same goes with brain stimulation, I suggest you study near death experiences, many of them before thinking they've put a cap on it. Research some of the NDE's such as the one that happened to a woman while her brain was refrigerated and drained of blood. This blew the hell out of her neurosurgeon, as she described events in the room that could not be observed with a refrigerated brain with no electrical activity. Just do a little research and keep an open mind is all I'm saying. The following I cannot prove, and don't expect it to be believed, but it did happen to me. I prayed the most miserable imploring prayer of my life, I was homeless at the time, camping on the Mad River in california, I specifically asked "if my life is this miserable will I at least see the friends that have died before me" finished praying, found a cross under my hand that I lost on the same riverbank 2 weeks earlier. Could've put my hand down in the right place, coincedence etc., but this is a large area of space,covered with rocks and the circumstances surrounding it, the specifics of the prayer leave me to doubt that it was coincicence. Again, there's no way I can prove it, it was a subjective experience, but it did change the way I view life entirely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think there ever will be conclusive evidence on NDE's. If God were something that you could show a smoking gun for, we would've found it already. I believe, and this is just my belief don't flame me for it, that there's a reason that God cannot be proven, the nature of our existence is to search, to learn, to examine, always to go on searching...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf God were disproven, the believers would go on believing, and if God was proven real, the scientists would go on attempting to disprove it. People are some stubborn bastards sometimes:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had an NDE at the age of 6.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was under anaesthetic at the time.
Unconcious.
“Died” on operating table.
Must have been “real” because I was unconcious to start with, and at the age of 6 had absolutely zero idea of what a NDE was.
They ere not spoken about in 1966.
Interesting take on the common perception that NDE are only experienced by people who think they are in danger of dying.
I had no thought at all.
Was out of it.
We humans are not only aware, we are also aware of being aware.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps this''awareness-that-is-aware-of-being-aware'' is what is sometimes called ''soul.''
Demonstrating that experiences similar to those ''anecdotally'' reported by NDE survivors can be chemically induced by the brain does not, ipso facto, demonstrate that awareness (soul) does not exist independently of the brain, nor that this awareness does not survive physical death. Is it possible that biochemical alterations of the brain, are nothing other than ANOTHER way of experiencing the same reality which may be experienced by ''awareness'' after the the body ceases to function? And how do you define reality?
These question would need to be answered before we can definitively conclude that experiences reported by those who undergo brain alterations are THE SAME AS those reported by survivors of NDEs and thus NDEs are not real. Being able to produce an experience (the bright light, for example) biochemically does not mean:
1. that this is the only way, nor,
2. that the experience itself, no matter how it is produced, is somehow artificial. Both methods, in fact, may be ways opening a door upon a much larger ''reality.''
Another weakness in this article (and in any article which eschews personal testimony as anecdotal) is its failure to realize its own conclusions are based on anecdotes. How does a researcher know that dopamine creates a particular experience? Since he himself cannot directly participate in a subject's experience he can only know it indirectly. He must rely on the subjects ''subjective'' description of it.
That in itself is anecdotal !!
And does the researcher know for sure that experiences reported by two different subjects are the same? If he has not participated in the actual experience of either of them how can he possibly know that experiences produced biochemically in the brain are truly the same as those reported by NDE survivors (for example in quality, in intensity, etc.)?
Well, without direct experience, he can't.
It would seem to me that only a person who has had both near death experiences and those produced through biochemical brain alteration - would truly be in a position to compare them and definitively state that the one is exactly the same as the other.
But then scientists wouldn't believe him, because his testimony would only be anecdotal.
So does the fact that the biochemically altered brain can produce experiences similar to NDEs disprove the validity of ND experiences?
In my opinion the answer is no.
I find it interesting that those who would discredit the validity of NDEs - simply passing them off as hallucinations produced by a dying, oxygen starved, chemically altered brain - either choose to ignore or seem to be unaware of one of the most significant NDE studies ever completed - that by Pim Van Lommel (published in The Lancet in 2001 under the title Near Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands) wherein Van Lommel absolutely demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NDEs occur, not in the last seconds of brain activity, nor in the initial seconds of resumed brain activity, but rather during the period in between when the brain is clinically dead and totally inactive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, they like to quote the 1990 study (also printed in the Lancet) that demonstrates that out of 58 people recounting near death experiences only 28 of the people reporting an NDE had actually been on the verge of dying (thereby discrediting a large part of the anecdotal testimony as not being really ''near death'').
In 2003, Michael Shermer, in the pages of Scientific American tried to discredit Pim Van Lommels work. Pim Van Lommel wrote a response/rebuttal to Shermer's article.
Here are links to all it:
1. Van Lommel's study as published in The Lancet:
http://sedna.no.sapo.pt/death_scresearch/pdf_docs/sdm_nde.pdf
2. Van Lommel's answer to Michael Shermer:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html
3. Michael Shermer, 'Demon-Haunted Brain' Scientific American, page 25, Mars 2003 (Couldn't find a link to Michael Shermer's article, hence the reference information for those who wish to look it up in some other way).
I find it interesting that those who would discredit the validity of NDEs - simply passing them off as hallucinations produced by a dying, oxygen starved, chemically altered brain - either choose to ignore or seem to be unaware of one of the most significant NDE studies ever completed - that by Pim Van Lommel (published in The Lancet in 2001 under the title Near Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands) wherein Van Lommel absolutely demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NDEs occur, not in the last seconds of brain activity, nor in the initial seconds of resumed brain activity, but rather during the period in between when the brain is clinically dead and totally inactive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, they like to quote the 1990 study (also printed in the Lancet) that demonstrates that out of 58 people recounting near death experiences only 28 of the people reporting an NDE had actually been on the verge of dying (thereby discrediting a large part of the anecdotal testimony as not being really ''near death'').
In 2003, Michael Shermer, in the pages of Scientific American tried to discredit Pim Van Lommels work. Pim Van Lommel wrote a response/rebuttal to Shermer's article.
Here are links to all it:
1. Van Lommel's study as published in The Lancet:
http://sedna.no.sapo.pt/death_scresearch/pdf_docs/sdm_nde.pdf
2. Van Lommel's answer to Michael Shermer:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html
3. Michael Shermer, 'Demon-Haunted Brain' Scientific American, page 25, Mars 2003 (Couldn't find a link to Michael Shermer's article, hence the reference information for those who wish to look it up in some other way).
As reasonable as Mobbs and Watts arguments seem on the surface, dig a little deeper into this subject and things become more complicated, and less certain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would feel uncomfortable making such a strong claim as as Mobbs and Watts make here: "...the scientific evidence suggests that all aspects of the near-death experience have a neurophysio-logical or psychological basis..."
Once you spend time researching the subject in an open minded way, it proves difficult to fit the inconvenient data into a model that explains all aspects of the experience using current scientific theory.
Careful not to confuse "use of energy" or even "generation of energy" with "creation of energy". A car may use energy, but when you shut the car off that energy doesn't "go somewhere" and in fact simply stops leaving the physical fuel that was being "used" as a source of it. This is a dumbed down answer, but I hope it is sufficient, because there is simply so much that "could be explained".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the scientific community going to do about the use of cpr? Gee I thought for years five breaths was needed, now its no longer necessary? In other words "experts" were wasteing time with a process of five breaths? You guys can't even get that right and you guys are tackling the afterlife? lol Work on curing mental illness where you morons just cover up the symptoms and claim victory over illness with drugs that make a person miserable? "LETS MAKE HIM BRAIN DEAD WITH DRUGS SO HE CAN'T EVEN THINK AND CALL IT A DAY!!!" LOL A percent of people who have ndes have a watch stop if they wear it? Some come back with unexplained intelligence? Some blind since birth are able to tell their loved ones how they look? Why do people see visions of dead people? Yea we have no creator...the body just functions for years just by accident!!! GET YOURSELF ANOTHER CRAYOLA FOR YOUR NEXT CLUELESS ARTICLE FROM SCIENCE RESEASRCH. Be careful chokers, science may kill you one day with their medical expertise!!! Wasn't the back slap taken out of the heimlich after being preached for years? lol Maybe a puree machine is much safer then science expertise? lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese experts make me laugh. This guy talks about the parts of the brain like we've done "great" things with mental illness? lol What do we do with brain injuries? Can we operate on a retarded person and make him well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust what do we know about the brain to make these claims? We don't know jack about the brain. Well we can't do anything to help mentally ill can we? What? drugs that numb the brain? lol We have had no success against Parkinsons or any other brain disease. What have the experts done to show they know the brain and how it functions? If we did, we could help people. We used to take persons brains out like Frankenstein with diaster results? lol Science knows so little abd claims to be an expert which is a load in their pants.
Bottom line, this is nonsense. You are aware of one mind; your own. To study your own mind is paradoxical due to the fact that your mind is the one doing the observing. To study someone else's mind is equally paradoxical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor anyone to believe in the kind of stuff written in the article they would have to be following a nonsensical belief system like empiricism or physicalism. Seeing as both of those beliefs are infantile and philosophically void I have no reason to believe in them.
I cannot even prove conclusively that anyone else's mind actually exists; let alone prove that I can "study" them. I can study my perception of the supposed actions of people's minds (even my own) but none of my interpretations of what I observe could be considered "truth" or "fact".
No amount of study of the brain will ever lead to any understanding of the mind; to do so would be nonsensical. Of course you can link thoughts to the actions of the brain. This does not mean that I have to believe hocus pocus, faith based beliefs from an empiricist or physicalist though. The brain relies on the mind to exist... it is almost as if this "scientist" is saying that it is the other way round.
I am a scientist by the way. My chosen scientific discipline relies heavily on empirical data. The appreciation of empirical data does not require for me to be an empiricist; it merely requires for me to understand the relevance and usefulness of the empirical data at hand.
I am a rationalist and philosophical idealist. In other words, I do not put my head in the sand or live in a box.
Many neuroscientists seem to follow empiricism for some odd reason. One thing I have noticed about empiricist neuroscientists is that they are not objective when it comes to interpreting the results of experiments. They often imprint their faith based beliefs into the interpretations that they "create". Dawkins is another one who does the same. I see it as infantile and unprofessional.