Image: Matt Collins
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Have you ever died and come back to life? Me neither. No one has. But plenty of people say that they have, and their experiences were the subject of an episode of Larry King Live last December on which I appeared as the token skeptic among a tableful of believers, including CNN’s medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, New Age author Deepak Chopra, a football referee who “died” on the playing field, and an 11-year-old boy named James Leininger who believes he is the reincarnation of a World War II fighter pilot.
Dr. Gupta started us off by recalling that when he was in medical school the residents were taught to mark the time of death to the minute, when death can often take anywhere from a couple of minutes to a couple of hours to occur, depending on the conditions. As Gupta noted, people who have fallen into freezing lakes and “died” were not quite dead, and their core body temperatures dropped so rapidly that their vital tissues were preserved long enough for subsequent resuscitation. In other words, people who have near-death experiences (NDEs) are not actually dead!
The same definitional problem arose when guest host Jeff Probst (of Survivor fame, fittingly) introduced the football referee: “A man died on a football field seven years ago and came back to life.” Gupta added that he “was dead for two minutes and 40 seconds.” When I was asked for an explanation, I said: “He wasn’t dead! You started this hour off with Sanjay Gupta explaining we can’t say somebody’s dead at one given moment at a particular time on the clock. That’s not how it works. It takes two, three, five, 10 minutes to go through a dying process. The ref wasn’t dead. He was in a near-death state.” In fact, moments after collapsing, the ref had his heart restarted by an automated external defibrillator. There was nothing miraculous to explain.
Fuzzy language is pervasive in such discussions, and no one uses it better than Dr. Chopra, as in this explanation for NDEs: “There are traditions that say the in-body experience is a socially induced collective hallucination. We do not exist in the body. The body exists in us. We do not exist in the world. The world exists in us.” Here is Chopra on death: “Birth and death are spacetime events in the continuum of life. So the opposite of life is not death. The opposite of death is birth. And the opposite of birth is death. And life is the continuum of birth and death, which goes on and on.” When I asked what had happened to little James Leininger’s soul if his body is now occupied by the soul of a World War II fighter pilot, Chopra offered this jewel of Deepakese: “Imagine that you’re looking at an ocean and you see lots of waves today. And tomorrow you see a fewer number of waves…. What you call a person actually is a pattern of behavior of a universal consciousness.” Indicating our host, he continued, “There is no such thing as Jeff, because what we call Jeff is a constantly transforming consciousness that appears as a certain personality, a certain mind, a certain ego, a certain body. But, you know, we had a different Jeff when you were a teenager. We had a different Jeff when you were a baby. Which one of you is the real Jeff?” Jeff looked as confused as I felt.
When Gupta was asked how a physician deals with such apparent medical miracles, he fell into the fallacy of the argument from ignorance: “When I was researching this for a long time, I thought I was going to explain it all away physiologically. But things that I heard and validated and subsequently believed convinced me that there were things that I could not explain. There were things that were happening at that moment, that near-death experience moment, that simply could not be explained with existing scientific knowledge.”
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
32 Comments
Add CommentQuick correction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, moments after collapsing, the ref had his heart restarted by an automated external defibrillator. There was nothing miraculous to explain.
AED devices don't actually cause the heart to begin beating again, they only respond when the heart is beating irregularly There purpose is to stop the heart completely. In the vast majority of cases it then takes a couple of drugs to cause the heart to begin beating again. On extremely rare occasions a person's heart can begin to spontaneously beat following defibrillation.
Michael, the word "skeptic" comes from the Greek word for "thought." A skeptic is one who thinks, not one who defends a position without considering the fullness of argument on all sides. A skeptic does not demonize other perspectives without fully understanding them first; that is the role of fundamentalism. There is nothing that has been discussed in your article that is "supernatural," because none of it is outside of nature; your understanding of nature is perhaps just a bit too narrow, as you somewhat admit. The true "unified theory" is one which will unify, not further separate, all lines of inquiry. If your fundamentalism is trying to shut three-fourths of the world's wisdom out in the cold, you had best be sure which side of the door you're on when it closes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnsoh kind of beat me to the punch here. If anyone on the panel was claiming a supernatural explanation for the NDE's, it was not reported in the article. Chopra was simply offering an expanded naturalistic view of what might have happened. Chopra's explanations usually are quite irritating to people like evangelical christians who prefer a supernatural explanation of NDE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the Doctor, it sounds like he was simply in a state of uncertainty or "wonder" at what occured. What is wrong with that?
The mere claim of wisdom is an empty claim. Scientologists claim wisdom. So do Born-Again Christians and psychics as well as proponents of the paranormal, astrology, Nostradamus, reincarnation, telepathy and crystal power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrast this, for example, with general relativity. Scientists don’t appeal to wisdom when they say that general relativity has validity. Rather, general relativity makes extremely specific and precise predictions that come true upon investigation; it has nothing to do with claims of wisdom.
It’s unlikely that anybody accepts all of the claims mentioned above. Some people may reject all of them. Some people may latch on to a few because they find them appealing. And some people employ the methods of critical thinking to weed out the untrue from the likely.
Shermer falls into the last category, which makes him the absolute antithesis of a fundamentalist.
Deepak Chopra says fuzzy things that are based on nothing more than the claim of wisdom. When he says, “What you call a person actually is a pattern of behavior of a universal consciousness”, you have to wonder how he knows this (and you have to wonder what it means). He says “actually”, which means he’s making a statement of “actual” truth. Maybe he’s right. Maybe he’s not. But how would we ever know, and how could we possibly differentiate him from a fraud?
Sounds like the author had a tough time, not even being able to establish that near death is not dead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it was really important to establish whether the experiences of those who nearly die result from physiological effects or spiritual events, at least some effort could be made to establish the affects of resource deprivation on brain processing and perception. But it’s really not that important, is it? Why not simply allow those who believe to believe?
I always enjoy Michael Shermer's articles because he exposes plenty of nonsense for what it is. The fact is that people who choose to believe nonsense will continue to believe it in the face of all evidence to the contrary. There's nothing we can do about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, near death is not yet dead. No one has been able to resuscitate a corpse. If all metabolic processes shut down and the body starts into rigor mortis then that's it. You're done. If you come back to life, well, then you weren't dead to begin with.
The spiritual mysteries begin where science ends but this is no proof that science will never probe and understand such mysteries. We know more than we did before. Yesterday's mystery is today's research topic.
If reincarnation does occur then it will be something for which a test can be done.
HolierThanThou -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If reincarnation does occur then it will be something for which a test can be done."
Not to dispute your statement, but I am impressed by your faith in science.
"If reincarnation does occur then it will be something for which a test can be done." Absolutely. Please let me second that statement!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at us. We all think we know the answers. We either jump into the science boat or the spiritual boat. It is like we pick sides as if they were baseball teams and our ego would love it if the other side loses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not just keep an open mind with regard to what the possibilities may be? Remember, 100 years ago, today's science would be supernatural. Maybe 'supernatural' and spiritual things do occur. However, from another perspective, these things are just natural.
Again, know that a little over a century ago we were all riding horses around. To boast that we know anything is ignorant at best. So science (which has an important role) will continue to advance as we humans (the only conscious beings on the earth) will also. We will learn and discover new things.
Complete reliance on one topic (science or supernatual) is to deny the complete picture. It is like saying that a quarter only has a 'heads'.
A question for leuken: What makes you think humans are the only conscious beings on Earth? I'm guessing that maybe you've never had pets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do have a dog. His name is Larry. I am very connected with him as he has a great personality. However, Larry, along with any other animal cannot contemplate the meaning of the word 'consciousness'. Nor can any animal be self aware; meaning, looking at a reflection of itself and thinking "I am an animal, what does that mean?" Chimpanzee's can't contemplate the meaning of the universe and ask where they came from and how they got there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was saying.
...I guess a better term would be self-conscious
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs "supernatural" concerns a limit of current scientific knowledge I wouldn't say that Gupta's line of argument was incorrect. Supernatural is anything that is outside of natural law (except positive law)....It is in fact the case that because we don't understand it is magical. There may come a time/set of jointed rules that is identified as explanation that will allow for the supernatural label to expire but the label remains until such time. A person is blind until they are not blind as a person is hungry until they are not hungry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo whomever replied to my earlier response...Yes, something can be considered supernatural until it is explained (science , reason, logic)...current scientific understanding of light refraction allows us to better understand the nature of how invisibility (the bending of light around objects). Hence what was once supernatural is now explained. My statement is based on the premise that all occurrences/phenomena are explainable and our ability to explain them depends on our present lens (current scientific limit). What we consider supernatural is what can merely be a social/scientific paradigm shift away from being an occurrence that fits within our newly broadened view of natural law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout an astounding pile of empirical evidence the truth will not be known for quite some time, if ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a skeptic myself, I question everything on both sides of the spectrum. I have a hard time accepting things from people who can't provide evidence for their theories.
Personally, focus on death by us humans with a rather short life span is quite macabre. Just enjoy life and the beauty of Nature.
Potatoe chip,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeepak Chopra “What you call a person actually is a pattern of behavior of a universal consciousness”, you have to wonder how he knows this (and you have to wonder what it means)
One of the characteristics of Buddhism is called "Anatta",the word means "non-self',and is exactly what Chopra means.
So maybe before you develope these rants you should actually know what your talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trick is one got to stick to the story line. People will listen to you, believe in you. After all you already died once and all are very sympathetic to you. Light at the end of the tunnel, moving towards it on your way up to the heaven, while looking down at your own body DrGupta and others still working on trying to pull you down to the earth , so later you can tell your story. See the beauty of the double talk: you are Dead; no actually it is not that bad; it is only Near Death and that too just an Experience, neatly summed up as NDE.
In another scenario, if your were snatched by an ET, stick to the story line , big heads, big eyes , two small holes will do for the noses , long stick like hands and legs with a very weak slim bodies. Do not forget the tiny little slits for the mouth, does not matter above or below the nose holes. After all, they need to get some nutrition. Theses work like charms, sort of "quantum eye witnesses". These story lines are very powerful stuff. Add to these little bit of "universal consciousness" and do not be stingy in profusely using phrases like paradigm (sounds like a Pair of Dimes: if several million people believe in, that will do) shifts, quantum this and quantum that . You are all set. Ready togo. You will be invited to be guests in some TV talk show somewhere in this universe. There will be plenty of wise guys equipped with universal wisdom as experts sitting by your side. There will be commercial breaks for the sponsors , products will be sold and you will get your fifteen minutes fame; in most cases; in rare case might even write a book and make few bucks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trick is one got to stick to the story line. People will listen to you, believe in you. After all you already died once and all are very sympathetic to you. Light at the end of the tunnel, moving towards it on your way up to the heaven, while looking down at your own body DrGupta and others still working on trying to pull you down to the earth , so later you can tell your story. See the beauty of the double talk: you are Dead; no actually it is not that bad; it is only Near Death and that too just an Experience, neatly summed up as NDE.
In another scenario, if your were snatched by an ET, stick to the story line , big heads, big eyes , two small holes will do for the noses , long stick like hands and legs with a very weak slim bodies. Do not forget the tiny little slits for the mouth, does not matter above or below the nose holes. After all, they need to get some nutrition. Theses work like charms, sort of "quantum eye witnesses". These story lines are very powerful stuff. Add to these little bit of "universal consciousness" and do not be stingy in profusely using phrases like paradigm (sounds like a Pair of Dimes: if several million people believe in, that will do) shifts, quantum this and quantum that . You are all set. Ready togo. You will be invited to be guests in some TV talk show somewhere in this universe. There will be plenty of wise guys equipped with universal wisdom as experts sitting by your side. There will be commercial breaks for the sponsors , products will be sold and you will get your fifteen minutes fame; in most cases; in rare case might even write a book and make few bucks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trick is one got to stick to the story line. People will listen to you, believe in you. After all you already died once and all are very sympathetic to you. Light at the end of the tunnel, moving towards it on your way up to the heaven, while looking down at your own body DrGupta and others still working on trying to pull you down to the earth , so later you can tell your story. See the beauty of the double talk: you are Dead; no actually it is not that bad; it is only Near Death and that too just an Experience, neatly summed up as NDE.
In another scenario, if your were snatched by an ET, stick to the story line , big heads, big eyes , two small holes will do for the noses , long stick like hands and legs with a very weak slim bodies. Do not forget the tiny little slits for the mouth, does not matter above or below the nose holes. After all, they need to get some nutrition. Theses work like charms, sort of "quantum eye witnesses". These story lines are very powerful stuff. Add to these little bit of "universal consciousness" and do not be stingy in profusely using phrases like paradigm (sounds like a Pair of Dimes: if several million people believe in, that will do) shifts, quantum this and quantum that . You are all set. Ready togo. You will be invited to be guests in some TV talk show somewhere in this universe. There will be plenty of wise guys equipped with universal wisdom as experts sitting by your side. There will be commercial breaks for the sponsors , products will be sold and you will get your fifteen minutes fame; in most cases; in rare case might even write a book and make few bucks.
Sorry , by mistake (obviously) , my comments got posted several times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNicely said, thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNicely said, thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdeath occurs in less than the blink of an eye...there is one instant when you are here and another when you are not. this i know from PERSONAL experience. my husband died instantly, in the midst of a conversation...here one second, dead the next...some "process", eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's great that you're being the diplomatic fence-sitter, but you're forgetting an important tid bit; there's is no evidence for the supernatural and is evidence for science. The things that science has explained is what we can say we KNOW and all else is speculation but waiting for the scientific method to explain it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this100 years ago today's science would have Appeared supernatural because the people of that time had very limited knowledge of the natural world. To boast that we do know something has nothing to do with the fact that we rode horses(don't know where you're going with that,) we are allowed to say that we know the things that the scientific community agrees upon. We're also not the only conscious beings on Earth, only the highest of them, think; dolphins, apes, even Fido. Your coin anology would work if there were a supernatural side to acknowledge, all I see is an occurrance yet to be explained.
Come on, we are allowed to have these arguments. And for you to take the subtle shots at the people who've taken sides because it suits our ego is reprehensible in my opinion. I have hopped in the science boat, but only because the other's full of holes and taking on water.
@leuken: You've made the error of implicitly claiming that science and "spirituality" are somehow equivalent concepts, that they're both "topics", and both serve to somehow close our minds a bit (therefore why not "just keep an open mind?").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is not a "side to pick"; it's not a set of claims, it's a *way of thinking designed to minimize the chance that we're fooling ourselves*. Almost by definition, it's the best way we humans know how to figure out what's true and what probably isn't. It doesn't close our minds, and it doesn't open them. It's an *idea-filtering process*, based ultimately on what really WORKS and what doesn't. By its very design, science is the best method we humans know about for getting closer to knowing things about the world we live in - which includes ourselves.
So when you label science as a "topic" I think you're making a subtle but important mistake. It's not a topic; it's simply the best way we know of for getting closer to the truth about almost anything, whereas "spirituality" (in the sense that most people think of it) is a set of badly-defined ideas and vague thought processes more useful for poets than truth-seekers. Poetry is great - but no poet should claim to use poetry as device for seeking objective truths about the universe. It's subjective almost by definition. Similarly, "spirituality" just makes people feel better. It creates feelings of wonder in us - but usually based on random associations with other abstract and badly-defined ideas (Chopra is a master of poetic nonsense) and flat-out false claims.
So to sum up: your conclusion that it's equally bad to "rely on science" as to "rely on the supernatural" is wrong, because you didn't define science correctly. By "relying on science", you've simply made the best bet humans can possibly make about whether or not we're going to find out some truth(s) or not. There are no guarantees, but for truth-finding it's really the only game in town.
@leuken: You've made the error of implicitly claiming that science and "spirituality" are somehow equivalent concepts, that they're both "topics", and both serve to somehow close our minds a bit (therefore why not "just keep an open mind?").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is not a "side to pick"; it's not a set of claims, it's a *way of thinking designed to minimize the chance that we're fooling ourselves*. Almost by definition, it's the best way we humans know how to figure out what's true and what probably isn't. It doesn't close our minds, and it doesn't open them. It's an *idea-filtering process*, based ultimately on what really WORKS and what doesn't. By its very design, science is the best method we humans know about for getting closer to knowing things about the world we live in - which includes ourselves.
So when you label science as a "topic" I think you're making a subtle but important mistake. It's not a topic; it's simply the best way we know of for getting closer to the truth about almost anything, whereas "spirituality" (in the sense that most people think of it) is a set of badly-defined ideas and vague thought processes more useful for poets than truth-seekers. Poetry is great - but no poet should claim to use poetry as device for seeking objective truths about the universe. It's subjective almost by definition. Similarly, "spirituality" just makes people feel better. It creates feelings of wonder in us - but usually based on random associations with other abstract and badly-defined ideas (Chopra is a master of poetic nonsense) and flat-out false claims.
So to sum up: your conclusion that it's equally bad to "rely on science" as to "rely on the supernatural" is wrong, because you didn't define science correctly. By "relying on science", you've simply made the best bet humans can possibly make about whether or not we're going to find out some truth(s) or not. There are no guarantees, but for truth-finding it's really the only game in town.
I am the father of James Leininger and did not believe this was possible. Mike, you call yourself a true skeptc of this phenomena. Why don't you get out of your skeptic chair and come down to visit us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis applies to anyone of the skeptics. Approach your skepticism with the same passion I did.
You are all espousing an opinion . The facts, details and corroboration of what James said to us are not opinion. They are fact. I did not begin the journey o fsiscovery to prove this could happen. I attempted to disprove everything James told us. The attempt failed miserably.
Am surprised the Scientific American is not quite as Scientific as I once believed.
Bruce Leininger, co-author "Soul Survivor"
I am so tired of Shermer's bias against any perspective that includes God, or in this case life after death. He is just as bad as the guy in California who sued to have "in God we Trust" removed from the pledge. Michael I challenge you to debate this matter openly as you think anyone who thinks that there is a God or who thinks there is an afterlife is not playing with a full deck or is somehow not "scientific" enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to this, it requires more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer. Science cannot be confused as the end of all knowledge. It is just a tool we use to verify testable hypotheses, and as such is limited. I do agree that life after death is not testable in this sense, so it is not scientific in a strict sense of the word. But there are many things that are not true science in a strict sense that scientists try to talk about and explain. History and the flow of time--events--are not testable. They occur once and we try to forensically recreate what happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening, etc.. Does this mean that history does not exist? Of course not. Micheal would have us believe that if knowledge is not testable scientifically then it does not exist.
This is unteneable and completely false. It would negate historical knowledge and much of social science. In the same way religious phenomena as knowledge is not testable scientifically, but it does not mean that it does not exist. Shermer's arguments are simply wrong because not all knowledge is scientifically testable not even in the loose sense of the word. Science is also open ended. Just because we do not have the correct tools to verify the existence of the afterlife today does not mean we will not have them tomorrow. Just because our knowledge of para-psychological knowledge is limited at this time does not mean that these phenomena do not exist.
As a subscriber and a lover of science I am appalled by the lack of debate about religion in Scientific American. I am appalled that the magazine would use someone like Shermer whose ignorance and bias make him unfit to be writing and leading the debate on phenomena of which he has already made a decision that they don't exist. Does this mean that the editors believe all people who believe in God are not intelligent or somehow uneducated? I just ask for fairness in representation, perhaps have a scientist who believes in God to occasionally make an editorial comment, perhaps?
phaseshift. I do agree with you that knowledge in science is not the same as spirituality, but rather than say they are not equivalent, you are saying that one is a superior type of knowledge than another. I could not disagree with you more. There are areas of knowledge which we do not fully comprehend and to say that just because we can't scientifically test these makes them untrue is doing exactly what Shermer is doing. It is confusing science with all knowledge. If science were all knowledge or if knowledge had to be filtered by science we would have to throw out historical knowledge not just spiritual knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCentaurus-A
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am appalled that the magazine would use someone like Shermer whose ignorance and bias make him unfit to be writing and leading the debate on phenomena of which he has already made a decision that they don't exist."
I agree completely. Shermer is an entertainer, not a scientist. He makes his income from his dogmatic position. If he changed his mind about the existence of spiritual matters he would lose his audience and his income. I am likewise appalled that SA would give him a forum to disparage what he cannot understand. I consider myself to have an extremely scientific mind, because I refuse to reject the evidence of my senses just because it does not agree with a theory, no matter how well-established. I have had experiences of my own that cannot be explained by current theories of science. I consider Shermer to be completely unscientific because he rejects the possibility that something may violate his favorite theories.
Recently Robert Silverberg, the science fiction writer, recently proclaimed in print that due to experiences he has had personally, he now believes in ghosts. He said that all the other explanations were so unlikely that according to Occam's Razor, the most parsimonious explanation of what he witnessed is real supernatural activity. That took courage, in my opinion. (Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction, Oct/Nov 2010)
Shermer might say that the most parsimonious explanation is that Silverberg is staging a publicity stunt, or that someone else is staging an elaborate prank on him. Perhaps he would be right. But that means that all anecdotes, research papers, news reports, etc., are likewise not acceptable as evidence because of the possibility of fraud or mistake. Perhaps the only evidence that Shermer would accept is an experience of his own, perhaps a visitation by someone he knows who has died. I won't hold my breath.
@ Lucian "It's great that you're being the diplomatic fence-sitter, but you're forgetting an important tid bit; there's is no evidence for the supernatural and is evidence for science. The things that science has explained is what we can say we KNOW and all else is speculation but waiting for the scientific method to explain it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural, it is just not acknowledged in mainstream scientific journals. When you have your own waking encounter with a dead relative, how do you investigate it? Well, there are ways, but taken by itself it is just an anecdote, and we all know what "scientists" say about anecdotal evidence. (Hint, it is not evidence.)
A lot of science starts out as anecdotes. "Look at that! The bacteria died in this culture that has mold in it!" It was once believed that meteors could not be investigated because you could not perform repeatable experiments with them, but nobody said that meteors did not exist.
Here is a web site that lets you participate in psi research yourself:
http://www.gotpsi.org
An interesting recent book on premonitions is "The Power of Premonitions" by Larry Dossey, available on Amazon.
The interesting aspect of these near death experiences is not the question of whether someone is dead or not, but what they say they experience while they are in this state. I was told by a man in his seventies that during his near death experience he left his body on the hospital bed, made his way down the hall (observing all the activities on the floor), and made his way to the parking lot. He said he distinctly remembers specific models of cars that he saw there. I asked if he had thought to write down any license plate numbers for later verification, but he said no. Too bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this