"Doctor says near-death experiences are in the mind"...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/16/cheating.near.death/index.html




I'm taking the logical route and siding with Dr. Nelson.

nor disproved. Saying that they happen in the mind proves nothing. It just leads to the next question: why does this happen in the mind at that particular time. Dr. Nelson has a theory. People who have had the experience have another theory. That is where it stays. Even if the brainwaves show that these people are experiencing REM, nothing is proved or disproved.

If a known "entity" (to use the terms of Occam's Razor, that entities should not be needlessly multiplied), hallucinations, a known and well-documented phenomenon, is sufficient to explain NDE's then there is no good reason, unless evidence compels it, to invoke a new "entity" (some sort of supernatural event, "spiritual" event, etc.) as an explanation.

That it's possible that the known entity isn't the explanation (since plenty of things can be considered "possible") is not in and of itself sufficient reason to propose alternate entities.

suggest that nde's effects may be caused by the pineal gland releasing dmt into the brain during times of extreme stress.
My on cough coughexperimentscoughcough with the stuff sure did resemble the bright light sensation nde experiencers report.Same with alien abduction storys.

But is the mind attached to the brain?

I used to be severely anemic and I passed out more than once. I was going to lie down and didn't quite make it. It was like being asleep. I remember waking up and didn't want to move because I was so comfortable, even though I'd landed on a piece of furniture... :shrug:

it's been helpful for me - it's like the aura before a migraine. It gives me just enough time to sit down and put my head down so I'm not crashing to the ground and hurting myself.

It's funny to me that I've seen people convinced that the near-death experience is proof of god, but nobody ever seems convinced that the migraine aura is proof of god.

since I knew it was going to be awhile. It's just that I didn't always make it. Once, I hit my chin against a bedside table and another time I fell on a wooden towel rack, breaking it, and that's the time I was really comfortable, didn't want to move... :boring:

It also happened a couple of times at work. Once, I made it to the really icky couch in the ladies' room, another time I went down in the doorway practically in front of my boss. This was early on and I stupidly thought I could make it to my car to drive home. She got someone to drive me... x(

I've never had a near-death experience like the OP described, so I can't judge. I just know that fainting is nothing like that... :shrug:

Fortunately, I'm okay now. It took three surgeries in seven years, but I'm no longer anemic, nor ill, at least not in that way... ;)

typo :blush:

just purple and yellow blotches in my visual field.

For me, it was more like a short dreamless nap. I was there and then I wasn't. And I didn't see any family members until they woke me up... ;)

I think the jury remains out for me.

I've fainted and went nowhere, light out, light on.

I also drowned as a religiously un-indoctrinated young child, and wonder what part of my brain this researcher would say looked back and viewed my own body floating beneath the surface of the water while I was going into the light?

I was pretty close to dying from the loss of blood but the only thing I dreamed was getting my 2 year old son and hugging him.

There was a hospital emergency room, I'm not sure where in the US, that had a word taped in a certain location so only a person floating above their body could see it. Every time someone had a near death experience they asked if they saw the word. No one identified the word.

Do people in India who believe in reincarnation also have these near death experiences? It was my understanding that they experienced something different.

It is very possible that we leave our bodies at the time of death and can look down and see ourselves, etc. and that it is perfectly logical and has a scientific explanation that involves some kind of an afterlife.

We just don't know about it yet. Or maybe our brains are incapable of conceiving of the science that would explain it.

If our bodies incorporate our entire being, how can it be in two places at once? You can't break the laws of physics and have a scientific explanation for it at the same time although you think that would be possible.

You seem to be implying a mild variation of Pascal's wager: "Since I can't disprove it in my own mind, it can't hurt to believe in near death experiences as proof of god/an afterlife/etc".

That our bodies are matter and our spirits are energy.

make that belief correct? (I'm referring to the belief in a "spirit")

Kinetic? Electric? Chemical?

Even if your formulation is correct, the "energy" of the mind is a product of the material engine that is the body. Once that material engine stops working (i.e. death), there is NO MECHANISM for maintaining the output of the "energy" of the spirit.

There is no such thing as free energy. It is entirely impossible for some free-floating ball of "energy" to exist without some material process that produces said energy.

Even more problematic is the idea that this kind of "energy" spirit could just go on existing forever without paying some kind of thermodynamic penalty. What you are proposing is, in effect, a perpetual motion machine that sustains the "spirit" in violation of the most basic laws of physics.

A long time ago I read a study about the terminally ill seeing deceased family members when they themselves were about to die. The study talked how the mind comforting the person in her dying moment. Which makes sense. I guess I am one of the cynics Dr. Callahan is referring to but trying to accept the supernatural route so easily and denying any other reasonable explanation seems troubling to me.

Is it hallucination, or is it spiritual? you pick.

I don't know where the hell else they could be experience but in the mind.

:shrug: - That's where we experience everything, right? Real or imagined, it all happens there.....

how people can believe that NDEs are actually your "soul" leaving your body for a short period of time. Even when I was a dyed in the wool Christian it didn't make sense to me, since what I knew of a soul and heaven suggested that you had to wait for your turn. ("The dead in Christ rising from the graves in Revelation was always a bit contradictory to the idea that everyone who died went straight up.)

Anyway, we KNOW that the biochemistry of the human brain is capable of creating some of the most lucid and believable hallucinations ever experienced. We also KNOW that, in the moments preceding death, as our bodies start to shut down, brain chemistry does some very strange things in order to ease the pain of transition from life to death.

Knowing all of that, which is the simpler explanation? That our human brains are predisposed to have a lucid dream just before dieing because of their chemistry, or that "we" temporarily leave our bodies and somehow manage to remember that experience after being revived by doctors?

I know which one seems simplest to me...

happens at the time of death. If the majority Christian belief was that the righteous dead are "asleep in Jesus" until JD, we wouldn't have all the "Grandma's looking down on you now from heaven", or "Satan sent Saddam Hussein to heaven as punishment after their breakup" sorta cultural ideas that we do today.

Not that I think this makes an NDE anything other than the byproduct of a brain suffering from oxygen deprivation...just nitpicking.

and that was one of the reasons why I was confused as a young Christian, but no Sunday School teacher was able to answer my questions about the phrase 'asleep in Jesus.' Of course, that didn't stop one of them from telling me that there was no scriptural support behind the idea that Grandma's in heaven right now as opposed to going there some day, but even she had been guilty of the 'Grandma's watching' mentality.

I think I might have been on the path to atheism long before I even suspected as much...

is real or all in his head, something along the lines of "why would it happening in your mind make it any less real"

I don't believe anyone would have been able to convince him that it was all in his head. At the same time, he was fairly old when this happened and since he knew his time was soon coming, he was at peace. I would never have said a word to him about it either. Maybe letting him have this illusion wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

near death, but still lucid, he repeatedly asked who this little girl was that kept peaking around the corner. He started seeing her about 2 days before he lost consciousness, maybe 3 days before he died. He never said that he thought she was someone he knew, and every time he mentioned seeing her, we just engaged him in conversation and he forgot about her. I learned later from a hospice pamphlet that it's very common. It's just something that happens to a lot of people as they enter the final stage of death.

no ones ever going to leave their bodies and see anything. It's just not possible.


People can have vivid hallucinations under stress and due to lack of oxygen however.

Dr Nelson says that the bright light is from REM. I believe we experience REM almost every night. I don't recall experiencing the bright light sensation. I realize this is a pretty short article, but based on it, I don't see a lot of evidence for Dr Nelson's hypothesis.

When you say you are siding with Dr Nelson, do you mean that you are awaiting the results of further study? Or, do you mean the he has convinced you that this is "part of the dream mechanism"? If the latter, what in the article do you find logically convincing about his claim?

From what I've read of NDEs, I think they remain an unexplained phenomenon, and I'm waiting for further explanantion before I make up my mind as to what they are.

without cornea’s, retina’s, optic nerve’s, visual cortex’s and remember what they saw without the cerebral cortex necessary to process and organize the visual information and recall it later?

There is no dilemma here between Dr Nelson's hypothesis (namely, NDEs are a part of the dream mechanism) and one other alternative. I've read a number of alternate hypotheses on this. I don't believe any of these have been firmly established. Based on the article, I see no reason to accept Dr Nelson's hypothesis over any other. Given that, I don't see why the logical route is to agree with him.

fits perfectly with the physical, biochemical, and psychological data that we have on hand thus far. Meanwhile, many of the alternative theories on NDEs rely on supposition about supernatural and therefore unprovable topics.

As was said by Silent3 earlier, Occam's Razor strikes again.

What data does that fit perfectly with? Everyone in REM sees bright lights? People experiencing severe trauma all go into REM? All people who experience an NDE are in REM? Where is the "perfect fit" data for that? One almost sure sign that a hypothesis is incorrect is that the data is a "perfect fit." Anyone who's ever done real-world analysis of data knows that there is damn near no such thing as a "perfect fit"..

In addition, not all NDEs can be explained by Dr Nelson's hypothesis. For instance, from an article that appeared in The Lancet:



Fully conscious people in REM? I don't think so.

Read the article. An instance of an NDE:



A flat EEG and REM? I don't think so.


As to your remark about theories relying on the supernatural, that's just a knee-jerk response. Because a phenomenon is currently unexplained does not mean that either the current physical hypothesis has to be correct or else it has to have a supernatural explanation. I've read enough about NDEs to know that Dr Nelson's explanation will not cover all cases. His data is not a perfect fit - nor should it be, even if he is right about some NDEs.

...a variant of a known phenomena, like dreaming or hallucination, makes far, far more sense than postulating mysterious invisible floating entities that can leave a body, record images without the aid of eyes or retinas or any other obvious sensory apparatus, return to a body, and transfer those impressions.

You're just engaging in a bullshit kneejerk reaction. Dr Nelson's hypothesis OR "mysterious invisible floating entities" do not exhaust the possibilities fo the resolution to this problem. It is exactly that type of thinking that is so objectionable. Some people will grasp at any half-assed guess because they think that prevents them from having to think about "mysterious invisible floating entities". The world is a great big place with lots of things human haven't begun to understand. Desperately grasping at convenient, untested answers is foolish.

...of experience, so it's hardly a matter of "grasp(ing) at any half-assed guess" to propose that kind of explanation for NDEs rather than invoking ANY new phenomena. That NDEs are a type of dream or hallucination is a very good, solid, full-assed educated guess.

If none of the descriptions of a bank robber quite match any real person, it's still a better guess that the unknown robber is some human being -- some member of a known, established category of entities -- and not a Yeti or a space alien and a mental projection of a psychic bank robber or anything else.

Whatever you think is left for NDE explanations, whether you wish to characterize any, all, or none of the possibilities as "mysterious invisible floating entities", nothing beats a variation on known phenomena until evidence proves it CAN'T be one of those known phenomena -- known phenomena that are even a rough match get the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is that dreams and hallucunations are not a rough match for many confirmed NDE experiences. From The Lancet article:



A dream? A hallucination? I know, this happens thousands of times, but most of the times the details are incorrect so we just forget about those times and this was just a lucky coincidence and that's why we remember it. Sure.

Once again, I have not said anything about "mysterious invisible floating entities". Nor do I believe that is the explanation for NDEs. I can think of a few simple, physical explanations. My point is, NDEs remain unexplained. Based on the information in the article cited in the OP, there is really nothing to make people accept Dr Nelson's hypothesis. So, why are people who normally proclaim their own rationality and skepticism so willing to accept this untested hypothesis?

But he's very likely at least in the ballpark, and no, a few stray anecdotes like the ones you relate aren't enough to convince me that there's something hugely mysterious phenomenon going on in dire need of explanation.

We live in a world with nearly 7 billion people. As of 2007, 1.78 people die per second. That's over 150,000 deaths per day. I don't know how many near-death experiences there are for every actually fatality, but even at 1000 to 1 you'd have 150 NDEs per day, nearly 55,000 per year, around half a million over the last ten years. Odds are you're going to have, by sheer chance, a few odd stories come out of that, many of them probably embellished even when people think they're being totally honest.

I realize that controlled circumstances and death don't mix easily (at least not under any sort of ethical research regime,) but without some sort careful experimental protocol stories like the one you relate don't have much value as evidence of unknown phenomena.

I didn't say anything about "there's something hugely mysterious phenomenon going on" just like I never said anything about "mysterious invisible floating entities." You are amazingly unable to deal with what I've actually said. My original reply to the OP was that I didn't see how accepting Nelson's hypothesis, which is completely unsupported in the referenced article, is following the logical path.

As to your estimate of 150 NDEs per day, read the article cited in the OP. It states that there are nearly 800 NDEs per day in the US. You claim: but without some sort careful experimental protocol stories like the one you relate don't have much value as evidence of unknown phenomena. Evidence of unknown phenomena? In the Lancet article they looked at 344 resuscitated patients. 18% (62 patients) reported an NDE. The only specific NDEs that are described experienced the phenomenon I described. Why would we accept that NDEs happen but reject the patients account of what they experienced? If we reject the patients' accounts, what the hell is anyone investigating? Do we accept that NDEs exist then just guess at what the experience is? Do we only entertain claims that fit into some preconceived notion of yours about what could be happening?

And again, I am not hypothesizing that this has to be anything mysterious; I'm just stating the obvious: it hasn't yet been explained. If you can't think of fairly simple physical explanations that accord with patients descriptions of what happened, that's a failure of your imagination, not evidence of anything "hugely mysterious".

...from an out-of-body perspective, while their eyes are closed, while sedated and/or by all outward signs unconscious, you're automatically talking about a "hugely mysterious phenomenon".


I deliberately low-balled my estimate. The fact that the real number of NDEs is much higher than my low-balled estimate only makes my point stronger. There is then a huge pool of stories, many tens or hundreds of millions of NDE stories, out of which to cherry-pick a handful of stories that seem to indicate a person having an experience of actual detailed visual information without the aid of that person's own eyes or any other known sensory mechanism.


You actually don't see a difference between accepting that a person has had an experience and accepting every detail of what they say about it? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That someone believes they saw themselves on an operating table as if from an outside perspective looking down on their own body is not in itself an extraordinary claim. That this perception includes real-life detail that a person couldn't or shouldn't have been able to perceive via well-known sensory abilities IS an extraordinary claim, and must be held to higher standards.

What percentage of NDE reports include verifiable details of real-life things being perceived from out-of-body perspectives, where you can rule out things like fraud and embellishment as well as common, completely honest distortions of memory where people begin to incorporate facts learned after an experience into their own memories of that experience?


What "it" hasn't been explained? If you take away supposed extraordinary perception and just leave NDEs as nothing more than people thinking they've perceived themselves from a detached perspective, or seeing a tunnel or a bright light, maybe not every single thing as has been fully explained, but then again, the reason why you can remember (or not) what you did last Tuesday hasn't been thoroughly explained down to every firing synapse and every neurotransmitter and protein encoding either. If you do throw in the extraordinary perception part, there's no reason yet to regard that as anything more than error, coincidence or statistical noise, not demanding any particular need for explanation.

I haven't said anything about about out-of-body experience. You seem to be hung up on the fact that you don't know how to explain something, and you therefore conclude it can't have happened. Your belief system is getting in the way of your analysis. The phenomenon looks hugely mysterious to you because you are unable to rationally consider it. And, no, the explanation does not require anything other than a normal physical explanation.

Then, you assume that stories about people reporting factual details about what was happening while they are unconscious are cherry-picked. From the information I've read, this seems to be a fairly common part of NDEs. But even if it weren't, the fact that people, many people, can accurately report what is going on around them while they are unconscious, and that this happens during an NDE does require an explanation. At the very least, it should not be ignored because it is inconvenient for someone's particular belief system.

You actually don't see a difference between accepting that a person has had an experience and accepting every detail of what they say about it? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That someone believes they saw themselves on an operating table as if from an outside perspective looking down on their own body is not in itself an extraordinary claim. That this perception includes real-life detail that a person couldn't or shouldn't have been able to perceive via well-known sensory abilities IS an extraordinary claim, and must be held to higher standards.

I guess you will have to explain what exactly an "extraordinary claim" claim is. Right now, it appears that any claim that doesn't fit into your expectations is extraordinary. And, while you're at it, you might try explaining what "extraordinary evidence" is, and why someone recounting their experience while unconscious doesn't constitute extraordinary evidence (again, the stories are quite common, and unless there is some worldwide conspiracy to support these claims, they have to be considered).

And no, I would not consider it good analytical practice to accept that something happened, an NDE, because people tell me it did, but then reject the verifiable part of their claim (we can verify there recollections about what was going on in the room) because it's difficult to explain.

What "it" hasn't been explained? If you take away supposed extraordinary perception and just leave NDEs as nothing more than people thinking they've perceived themselves from a detached perspective, or seeing a tunnel or a bright light, maybe not every single thing as has been fully explained, but then again, the reason why you can remember (or not) what you did last Tuesday hasn't been thoroughly explained down to every firing synapse and every neurotransmitter and protein encoding either. If you do throw in the extraordinary perception part, there's no reason yet to regard that as anything more than error, coincidence or statistical noise, not demanding any particular need for explanation.

Basically what you're recommending is that we ignore all the inconvenient facts. I guess we should be glad that science will not be stymied by following your amazing advice that it should remain incurious about undertaking an investigation that may be difficult = although given what science has already investigated and largely resolved, I don't see this as particularly difficult. Why we would ignore the fact that people seem to be recording events while they are unconscious? Why would we ignore that opportunity to investigate how the brain works? Why would we assume that all these events can be explained away without an actual investigation?

No, you haven't said much of anything at all other than what you disagree with, how close-minded other people are, what isn't good enough as an explanation for you, etc. Time for you to put your cards on the table.

What part of NDEs do you think is not sufficiently explained by dreams or hallucinations? Please don't just quote another story. Tell me specifically which details are not sufficiently explained.

Do you think people who have NDEs actually experience seeing without using their eyes, gain true knowledge of their surroundings while apparently unconscious which they can remember and report later?

Do you think the apparent knowledge of surroundings during NDEs is the result of auditory, tactile, and/or olfactory clues, translated into a visual experience? If so, since people also incorporate such senses into dreams (I've done that myself, such has having someone call to me when I'm sleeping and instead of waking up, turning that call into a part of a dream), and hallucinations often are mixed with real stimuli, that kind of explanation doesn't rule out dreams or hallucinations.

Is there anything you'd rule out a person learning during an NDE? Could people see things inside closed boxes? Inside dark rooms? Things no one else is seeing at the time? Something that someone had hidden on top of a light fixture way over their head and everyone else's heads? Are you so wonderfully open-minded (unlike these stodgy so-called scientific types, clinging to their "belief systems" about what makes sense or not) that you don't want to rule anything out?


What is your "normal physical explanation"?

Your "normal physical explanation" isn't one of these bad pop-sci interpretations of quantum mechanics, is it?

(emphasis mine)

What is the "this" you refer to? If the details are sufficiently vague, many people would know by ordinary means that they were, say, in a hospital surrounded by doctors, on an operating table, etc. So it doesn't take extraordinary sensory capability to incorporate such facts into a dreamed/hallucinated experience.


Please define "many". "Many" compared to the the millions upon millions of NDEs that happen all of the time?


Please define "accurately"? Further, please tell me how these stories show that an effort has been made to differentiate between knowledge incorporated into NDE accounts that was easily obtainable by normal means, which information has been carefully checked to have not been provided to the NDE subject before or after the NDE, but before the person recounts the NDE.


Thinking you need eyes to see with is a "belief system"?

I'm not quite done here, but will have to come back later to add what's left to say.

Oh, that's right, you don't want specific stories about someone's NDE. Exactly what do you think an NDE is? And, how do you think we learn about them? They are stories. That is their basis. Of course, your refusal to consider stories matches the rest of your posts. You don't want to be bothered with information. You're so certain of your assumptions that you won't accept information that doesn't match what you expect.

What part of NDEs do you think is not sufficiently explained by dreams or hallucinations? Please don't just quote another story. Tell me specifically which details are not sufficiently explained.

To repeat from post 39:



I want to know how he recognized the nurse, how he knew about the crash car, how he knew this nurse took out his dentures, and how he was able to describe the people. I want to know how people get the verifiable parts of their NDE correct.

Do you think the apparent knowledge of surroundings during NDEs is the result of auditory, tactile, and/or olfactory clues, translated into a visual experience? If so, since people also incorporate such senses into dreams (I've done that myself, such has having someone call to me when I'm sleeping and instead of waking up, turning that call into a part of a dream), and hallucinations often are mixed with real stimuli, that kind of explanation doesn't rule out dreams or hallucinations.

It's possible. But why do you think people have these experiences: auditory, tactile, and/or olfactory; and don't have any actual visual experiences. These are all senses. Why do you assume some senses work and not others? As far as ruling out dreams, again, correct details say these are not merely dreams. And, no, I don't think he knew what the nurse looked like due to auditory, tactile, and/or olfactory clues.

Is there anything you'd rule out a person learning during an NDE? Could people see things inside closed boxes? Inside dark rooms? Things no one else is seeing at the time? Something that someone had hidden on top of a light fixture way over their head and everyone else's heads? Are you so wonderfully open-minded (unlike these stodgy so-called scientific types, clinging to their "belief systems" about what makes sense or not) that you don't want to rule anything out?

People are learning certain things, for instance, the appearance of the people working on them. Do I think they can see something that no one else can see? Sure, it's possible - as long as we're not talking about "invisible" objects - objects inside closed boxes are essentially invisible, objects on top of light fixtures are not invisible. Actually, I think they are seeing something that other people aren't seeing. And, no, that does not require an OBE.

Are you so wonderfully open-minded (unlike these stodgy so-called scientific types, clinging to their "belief systems" about what makes sense or not) that you don't want to rule anything out?

Well the stodgy old scientific types I've known and worked with are driven by data; not assumptions. So, yes, I am open-minded enough to consider things, even somewhat unexpected things, that people tell me that have been verified by others - others who have nothing to gain by their statements. I've certainly never known a stodgy so-called scientific type that wouldn't consider such data.

Your "normal physical explanation" isn't one of these bad pop-sci interpretations of quantum mechanics, is it?

Once again, you're the first one to bring up quantum mechanics. You seem to have all these concerns about what I'm thinking, but you also seem to pay no attention to my posts, you appear not to have read the article cited by the OP, nor the cited Lancet article. You claim to be rational, yet you seem to ignore empirical data and rely on your feelings.

What is the "this" you refer to? If the details are sufficiently vague, many people would know by ordinary means that they were, say, in a hospital surrounded by doctors, on an operating table, etc. So it doesn't take extraordinary sensory capability to incorporate such facts into a dreamed/hallucinated experience.

That's actually pretty simple, standard English: Then, you assume that stories about people reporting factual details about what was happening while they are unconscious are cherry-picked. From the information I've read, this seems to be a fairly common part of NDEs. This refer to people reporting factual details about what was happening while they are unconscious.

Please define "many". "Many" compared to the the millions upon millions of NDEs that happen all of the time?

Go read up on NDEs. The Lancet article alone refers to 2 of these. I doubt that NDEs would be taken seriously except that part of the stories told are verifiably true.

Please define "accurately"? Further, please tell me how these stories show that an effort has been made to differentiate between knowledge incorporated into NDE accounts that was easily obtainable by normal means, which information has been carefully checked to have not been provided to the NDE subject before or after the NDE, but before the person recounts the NDE.

Sigh. Once again:



How does he recognize the nurse? From a verbal description? From a verbal description he gets to: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are' and not Are you the that nurse knows where my dentures are Of course you can claim that this nurse (and all the others) are remembering incorrectly, but the statements are quite different and not likely to be misremembered. Also, it's not good practice to just ignore all inconvenient facts because the "might" be wrong.

Thinking you need eyes to see with is a "belief system"?

Your assumption that the people that have these experiences, don't have eyes is based on your certainty that the stories that you hear can't be true. Rather than thinking about what could explain it, you jump to the conclusion that the report is false. That need to jump to that conclusion so quickly is based on your belief system. The rational way to proceed is to consider what could have caused this experience. It's common. Many people have reported it. Many stories are verifiable. Why would we assume these people must all be wrong. And you, miles away, just know more about what happened than the people that were there.

Then you say things like (emphasis mine), "Once again, I have not said anything about 'mysterious invisible floating entities'. Nor do I believe that is the explanation for NDEs. I can think of a few simple, physical explanations."

Go ahead. Please elaborate on these "few simple, physical explanations".

There's more in the last post I could respond to, but let's take this one issue at a time.

Apparently, the people who wrote that article were also impressed by the story.

Go ahead. Please elaborate on these "few simple, physical explanations".

By mentioning that there are a "few simple explanations," I was hoping that you might try to do a little thinking. It's pretty obvious. The story:



A few simple facts, direct from our story:

The man was comatose;
The man was lying in bed;
The nurse removed his upper dentures;
The next time the man sees the nurse, he recognizes her.

The first thing to be aware of is that comatose is different than unconscious. If you pull an unconscious person's eyes open, and release them, they shut immediately. The eyes of a comatose person only re-close slowly. The man was lying down. The nurse removes his upper dentures. Do you see a picture here? What do you think happens when the nurse removes his upper denture. Do you think his head tilts back? What do you think happens to his eyelids? Do you think they might open? In post #53, you noted that comatose people may receive sensory data. Actually, there are therapeutic treatments for comatose patients that involve sensory stimulation. So, there is a clear implication that if his eyes open, they may react to the visual stimulation, and may send impulses to the visual centers of the brain. Based on that, I'm guessing that the brain may passively process the nerve impulses and they actually get saved in long-term memory. Is that possible? I don't know. But it, and probably other scenarios, could explain the man's recognizing the nurse. We don't have to assume that someone is lying or that, what ..., someone described the nurse to him so well that he immediately recognized her upon seeing her?

It's just as easy to explain other details. Spend a little time thinking how the story could be correct rather than how to explain it away.

...while comatose or unconscious or whatnot, and we know that other senses like hearing aren't blocked off, then why is a dream (or hallucination -- I'll just say dream for short henceforth) that incorporates that sensory information so out of the question?

You wonder why I'm forced to guess that you're talking about woo-ish things when you hold the simple idea that you essentially think these people may have "peeped" close to your chest as if it's precious secret, or a necessary "exercise for the reader" to figure out that that's what you have in mind?

The reason I wouldn't guess that that's what you have in mind is because if that's what you have in mind, your objections to the dream explanation make even less sense. Silly me, I was giving you credit that you might, you know, have more of a point, even if it was one I guessed was probably based on ideas I wouldn't agree with.

So what's left that isn't explained by a dream-like state? The witnesses' adamant insistence that their experiences were "more than dreams"? The common features of NDEs that many different people experience? Is the accuracy of a few surprising real-life details now "off the table" as one of the supposedly amazing things about NDEs in dire need of further explanation?

The only information in the article about Dr. Nelson's idea is:



That's it. Notice that the article states: Nelson thinks that near-death experiences are part of the dream mechanism and that the person having the experience is in a REM, or "rapid eye movement," state.

My first post on this, post #29, states that I'm waiting for further explanation before I make up my mind about NDEs. A quite simple statement really. The first response to that asked me how people can see, essentially, without eyes. My response was that we are not required to accept either Dr. Nelson's hypothesis or one other hypothesis. That is my answer because that is what I am saying. The article really does not give us enough information to decide. I was really trying to avoid this round and round in circles about peripheral issues. It does not matter what I believe may be happening. I am not going to be the one to figure it out.

You wonder why I'm forced to guess that you're talking about woo-ish things when you hold the simple idea that you essentially think these people may have "peeped" close to your chest as if it's precious secret, or a necessary "exercise for the reader" to figure out that that's what you have in mind?

My position, all along, has been, we don't know enough. First post #32 brought up the supernatural and then your first post in response to me, post #34, started right in with: mysterious invisible floating entities. You brought up woo-ish things in your first post, while I was making a very simple point about a logical position. No one forced you to bring up woo-ish things. You brought them up immediately.

The reason I wouldn't guess that that's what you have in mind is because if that's what you have in mind, your objections to the dream explanation make even less sense.

No, it actually doesn't. Based on the article, Dr Nelson's hypothesis maintains that NDEs are dreams. Based on my reading, that is not sufficient. The ability to accurately describe what happened while comatose and near-death is part of many NDEs and it's not explained by dreaming.

So what's left that isn't explained by a dream-like state? The witnesses' adamant insistence that their experiences were "more than dreams"? The common features of NDEs that many different people experience?

It should be obvious that there are many interesting things left to research and explain about NDEs.

In the vacuum created by your vagueness, I'm attempting to create models of what you're getting at. If those models are incorrect, correct them, don't just say "That's not it! That's a straw man!"

As for "inconvenient facts", they have to be both "inconvenient" and facts. It may be a fact that Bob said, "I saw a alien spacecraft last night!". His saying it being a fact and the existence of alien spacecraft being a fact are two separate things. What "facts" about NDEs are being ignored?


Suppose your boss tells you he's going to give you a million dollar per hour raise. Is that or is that not an "extraordinary claim"?

Would you doubt this merely because (shame on you for being so closed-minded!) it doesn't fit your terribly cramped unimaginative expectations? Do you know EVERYTHING about money? EVERYTHING about what is economically feasible? EVERYTHING about what can realistically happen in payroll? Of course you don't, but that's no good reason for your bullshit filter to not be sounding a very loud alarm if your boss says something like that.

I'll guess, however, that your challenges to what I think are extraordinary claims about sensory capabilities during NDEs would sound a lot like the above, about how I don't know EVERYTHING about senses, about consciousness, about the mind, etc., and therefore I'm being terribly closed-minded not allowing for... well, allowing for whatever vague possibilities have you so far have been evasive about.

There seem to be a lot of self-styled "open minded" people who view the fact that someone, somewhere once said something like, "If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings!" as a very important negative example, they are determined they won't make that kind of mistake themselves.

People doubted Lamarck's version of evolution, however, and they were right to do so.
People doubted phlogiston theory, and they were right to do so.
People doubted N-rays, and they were right to do so.
People doubted Piltdown Man, and they were right to do so.

Yes, everyone once in a while even a well-tuned bullshit filter will decide to label as impossible or improbable that which later turns out to be likely or true.

So what.

It doesn't happen nearly as often as selective retelling of such failures would suggest. People love drama, they love a good story, so all the times when someone said something couldn't be done, and someone else heroically triumphs and proves the doubters wrong, that gets a lot of play in books and movies and other media. The countless times doubts have proven well-founded don't get talked about much. The many times doubters are in the minority, or when doubts are expressed but not particularly adamantly, get distorted into "everyone said it was impossible!" when stories of invention and discovery are told.

None of this makes the "well, I can imagine anything is possible that hasn't absolutely be proven not true" a particularly worthy or superior or enlightened position. That sort of emphatic neutrality also tends to vanish when the possibilities one wants to keep afloat don't happen to suit one's fancy or one's personal sense of expertise on the likely vs. the unlikely.

I asked you to tell me what constitutes an extraordinary claim, and you reply by asking me whether or not a particular incident is an extraordinary claim. But, based the requirements implicit in your statement that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, I have to answer, "No." After all, the only "evidence" required is my paycheck, which I consider pretty ordinary evidence.



I guess I should express surprise here. After all, you do seem to be embracing my position. My position, as plainly stated in post #29, is that I am withholding judgement on Dr. Nelson's hypothesis, i.e. I am doubting it.

And, just to put the whole issue of doubt in a somewhat broader perspective, most of the people who doubted Lamarck's version of evolution were wrong to do so. They doubted it because they were certain that species did not evolve to other species. They were as certain of that as you are of your assumptions that certain phenomena that are testified to by multiple people, just can't be true. If the history of human knowledge tells us anything, it tells us that many of the things we are certain of, are just plain wrong.

...until you believed the claim that you were going to get such an extraordinary raise, and I'm sure (at least if you're smart) you'd do a lot of double and triple checking before depositing a check like that, and wouldn't (or shouldn't) believe it until the check actually clears. You would (or should) have to be braced for someone coming along later saying, "This was all a big mistake" and taking all of that money back.

Compared to a typical reaction of being told you'd gotten a $0.25/hour raise, there is a much higher standard of evidence and caution required to believe the ridiculously larger raise. It's of course possible your boss could lie or be in error about the smaller raise too, and you might even double-check your next paycheck to make sure the tiny raise came through, but you can pretty much take the claim that you're getting a $0.25/hour raise at face value.

"Extraordinary evidence" simply means evidence of a higher degree than might ordinarily pass as sufficient. Compared to being told that someone saw a stray dog in your yard you'll need more evidence to believe that a stray unicorn was seen. Compared to being told that someone went out to see a movie last night you'll need more evidence to believe that they visited Mars last night.


Doubt comes in degree, and your doubt about the dream explanation sounds very strong. Even deciding upon a degree of doubt is a form of judgment, a form that's hard to withhold.

Fiercely doubting a $1,000,000/hour raise makes sense. Doubting a $0.25/hour raise with the same ferocity does not.

That you (finally!) admit that you think one simple explanation for the real-life facts people report from NDEs is simply a matter looking with open eyes, popping open or stuck open, makes strong doubt of the dream explanation even more perplexing.

Let me be clear by what I mean by a dream or hallucination -- maybe you're being far more restrictive in how you take those words: Any perceptual experience that plays out inside your mind requiring nothing more, or very little extrapolation from, well-documented properties of the human brain, that does not require access anything other than normally obtained memories and sensory data.

Could undocumented properties of the brain be involved? Sure, but why suppose so when known properties seem sufficient? If you do suspect more, expect to meet a higher standard of proof to prove that. The further afield you go from what can be explained by the brain being a complex lump of chemical reactions, the more evidence you are rightly expected to provide. Anecdotal evidence from the people whose stories are repeated precisely because they are surprising does not meet that criteria.

What I strongly doubt (and deity-of-your-choice forbid that I'm suggesting that YOU personally are suggesting any of these things!) is the NDEs are any sort of indication or proof of "spirits", "souls", an afterlife, real contact with something more than the mere memory of dead relatives, psychic connections between people, new sensory capabilities, etc.

Yes, I should have said "more closely" rather than "perfectly", but I was in a hurry. Keep in mind that even though some NDEs fall outside Nelson's hypothesis, that is no reason to throw it out entirely. We should refine it, instead, in order to take the outliers more firmly into account, as the scientific method suggests.

Further, ALL of your assumptions about REM are false.

'Everyone in REM sees bright lights?'
Where was that ever said? It is a known fact that everyone experiences REM differently, even though REM is controlled through specific sectors of the brain. It is also known that there are different states to REM, which makes determining how it will affect people more difficult. It can be inferred that people who experience REM see something, but what that is cannot be determined exactly, and no one has attempted to say so. What happened with Dr. Nelson's hypothesis was that he said the REM centers of the brain were activated, not that the REM sleep state itself was entered.

'People experiencing severe trauma all go into REM?'
Again, never stated, but then not everyone who goes into severe trauma has an NDE, now do they?

'All people who experience an NDE are in REM?'
That could be a working hypothesis. It's certainly yet to be determined.

'Fully conscious people in REM? I don't think so.'
Actually, the areas of the brain that deal directly with REM sleep are the pons, thalamus, and cerebral cortex. All three of these areas would be stimulated in the proper fight-or-flight scenarios, which could lead to a type of REM-like hallucination.

'A flat EEG and REM? I don't think so.'
Actually, according to this document, EEGs can be flummoxed by many different biological problems, most of them occurring near death or coma. Aside from that inconsistency, there is no way to know whether the patient referenced in your post experienced the NDE before, after, or during the EEG flatline.

And if you'll look at my post, you'll notice that I said "many of the alternative theories on NDEs rely on supposition". Notice that the word "all" makes no appearance in that sentence. So your statement about my 'knee-jerk response' is unwarranted.

Finally, let's just boil this down to brass tacks before we start talking around each other. Here's my final statement on the subject.

NDE's are difficult to explain thoroughly using current biochemical, physical, and psychological data. However, with so many brain functions, including REM, currently unmapped and ill-understood, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we will find an answer in the brain eventually, and perfectly UNreasonable to assume that there is a supernatural cause for these phenomena.

That's what I was trying to say with the post that you responded to.

Which is right on target with the subject of the OP.

Namely: Because Dr. Nelson's hypothesis fits perfectly with the physical, biochemical, and psychological data that we have on hand thus far.

Yes, I should have said "more closely" rather than "perfectly", but I was in a hurry.

More closely doesn't cut it either. There are no studies nor data cited with respect to Dr Nelson's claim in the article. That's not to say that he doesn't have such evidence, just that there is no basis for your claim.

Further, ALL of your assumptions about REM are false.

'Everyone in REM sees bright lights?'

That's not an assumption, it's a question and the question deals with your main claim: Because Dr. Nelson's hypothesis fits perfectly with the physical, biochemical, and psychological data that we have on hand thus far.

'All people who experience an NDE are in REM?'
That could be a working hypothesis. It's certainly yet to be determined.

Again discounted by the data in the study cited in post #33.

'Fully conscious people in REM? I don't think so.'
Actually, the areas of the brain that deal directly with REM sleep are the pons, thalamus, and cerebral cortex. All three of these areas would be stimulated in the proper fight-or-flight scenarios, which could lead to a type of REM-like hallucination.

Dr Nelson did not state that people were having REM-like hallucinations. He said the bright lights were caused by REM.

'A flat EEG and REM? I don't think so.'
Actually, according to this document, EEGs can be flummoxed by many different biological problems, most of them occurring near death or coma. Aside from that inconsistency, there is no way to know whether the patient referenced in your post experienced the NDE before, after, or during the EEG flatline.

That document only states that a flat EEG does not necessarily mean the brain is dead. It does not say the brain is still functioning at anywhere near the level required for REM; look at the causes - barbituate coma, severe hypothermia, etc. All the conditions cited are conditions that definitely decrease brain function. I didn't claim this patient was brain dead, I claimed they had a flat EEG and therefore weren't undergoing REM.

there is no way to know whether the patient referenced in your post experienced the NDE before, after, or during the EEG flatline.

You should read up on NDEs if you want to discuss them. A common occurrence of an NDE is that the patient gives a detailed explanation of what was happening in the room. That's a very good indication of when the NDE occurred. It's somewhat difficult to account for this detailed explanation and postulate that the NDE occurred at a different time.

NDE's are difficult to explain thoroughly using current biochemical, physical, and psychological data. However, with so many brain functions, including REM, currently unmapped and ill-understood, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we will find an answer in the brain eventually, and perfectly UNreasonable to assume that there is a supernatural cause for these phenomena.

From my original response to the OP: From what I've read of NDEs, I think they remain an unexplained phenomenon, and I'm waiting for further explanantion before I make up my mind as to what they are.

I don't assume any supernatural causes for anything. However, the article offered no supporting documentation for Dr Nelson's hypothesis. I don't see it any logical reasoning to accept Dr Nelson's hypothesis.

Also, in my original response, I asked the OP what exactly he meant by siding with Dr Nelson.

neurologist, neurosurgeon, or even remotely qualified to state EXACTLY what is happening in the brain during REM, let's just agree to disagree for now.

Here's my last multi-fold question to you: Since you are so adamant that NDEs are unexplained phenomenon, and you haven't made up your mind, what is your working hypothesis? Do you have one? If so, why is it better than anyone else's? If not, why continue to attack the hypothesis of someone working the problem?

I make no such claim. My question to the OP was why he thought he was taking the logical route in accepting Nelson's hypothesis. There is no supporting data in the article for what Nelson claims. Does that mean Nelson is wrong? No. It just means that, based on that article, there is no reason to accept his hypothesis. To me, the logical thing to do is to withhold judgement. Nelson may well be right about a subset of NDEs; I don't see how he can be right about all NDEs.

I don't consider myself to be attacking Nelson's hypothesis, just pointing out that I don't see how logic dictates that we accept it. Again, I have read about NDEs and I don't believe that Nelson's idea explains them all.

Why point out that I think people are jumping to accept a hypothesis without sufficient information? I think it is an extremely bad idea to do that. I also think that when a bad idea is being propagated in a public forum, it should be challenged. At the beginning of the 20th century, many physicists thought they had pretty much solved all the important physics problems and just some clean-up remained. After they realized they had the structure of the atom all wrong, and Niels Bohr was working on this problem, one of the questions he asked was, "How did we have it all so wrong?" The reason, he concluded, was that people accepted as known, things that were actually speculative.

Usually, such strong conviction that the 'other person' is wrong is a sign that you have a hypothesis yourself. I was simply curious as to what it might be.

Of course, I already knew the answer to the question before I asked it, given your posting past, I was just hoping that you might come clear...

I began by asking the OP why he thought that accepting Nelson's hypothesis (based on the cited article) was the logical path. Based on the article, we don't know exactly what Nelson's ideas actually encompass. I don't believe the part of his ideas mentioned in the article can fully explain NDEs.

At least they can't at the present time, but I expect that will someday change.


Where exactly is the mind located.....really?

Are you sure?



Another link.


A different point of view....



:)

or self-awareness, or if you want to get very simple the concept of perception.

Your first article is talking about nothing more than autonomic functions, so there's no 'mind' to speak of there. Your second article is a clear case of 'armchair biology', an attempt to explain complex biological phenomena through simple philosophy. Neither article provides any evidence whatsoever that what scientists refer to as 'the mind' exists outside the human brain.

How can anyone look at the data on personality changes tied to brain damage (Phineas Gage, brain tumor surgery survivors, Alzheimer's patients, etc.) and conclude that the "mind" is located anywhere BUT the brain?

No one has their gallbladder removed and is forever after (for example) unable to remember/recognize people by their faces.

the natural process has developed a way to comfort us as we die.

I'm not ruling out something more than that (in fact I lean toward the "something more", myself), but if I just look at the evidence of some studies that suggest NDEs result only from a biologial process, it's nice to know that many of us will be eased into non-existence.

I mean, just like you don’t remember your dreams normally, unless you wake up while having one, or very soon after. I wonder if some of these people are being revived to a high enough state of consciousness that allows them to remember these NDE dreams, while others that are revived, stay at a low state of consciousness after they are stabilized, and just don’t remember the NDE dreams. The same way ordinary everynight dream/recollections work.