As with my own previous thread, Robertb's addressed the post-experience phenomenon of moral elevation. That's not easily disprovable, so those wanting to debunk NDEs as a whole divert onto other associated phenomena and respond about those. That is, they can't keep the present issue in focus.

If the moral elevation and personality change parts are also "intracranial in nature and origin," so what? What causes these? Why can't scientists bottle it and sell it to prison wardens? (joke) And so what if all the imagery is also in accordance with a person's cultural background? What activates it to the point that it takes hold of the personality and produces changes?

My suspicion is that underneath (metaphor) all one's cultural conditioning and social learning, there is another level (metaphor) to our identity which IS universalist and altruistic, and many NDE experiencers access this in ways that their ordinary filtered (metaphor) daily awareness doesn't allow.

(Yes, just as NDE experiencers 'translate' their visions into familiar images and tropes, we need to use consensus-reality-referencing language to talk about these things. I suspect that scientific workers are also bound by their fields' focused jargon (neutral meaning) and interpret the phenomena in those terms.)

Some sort of genetic universal ethic, that is accessed after trauma to the brain?

I still think it could be along the lines of what I said in the original thread. If you had what you thought was proof that there is an afterlife, you'd straighten up pretty quickly, due to the fear of eternal consequences.

It would also take away the fear and negativity of dying. I'd sure be a happy person if I felt I had proof of an afterlife.

Activating the angular gyrus creates reports of out of body experiences.

This is directly observable and repetable.


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers07.html

Why aren't your NDE's merely activation of the angular gyrus?

Although, I love unweaving the rainbow, myself.

The discussion was with a researcher on the effects of LSD (I almost wrote "LDS") on the brain. I only caught his first name--David--who began graduate research in the late 60s. He made the same point you did on one thread, Richard, about LSD sometimes causing a permanent wholesale shift in perception of the world (often positive but sometimes negative). He said the mechanisms of that shift are still largely unknown.

I'm interested in why NDEs and related subjects cause so much upset here. I could understand it if people were encouraging foolish or harmful behavior based on interest or belief in them, but I don't see that kind of encouragement. The ridicule employed (not the rational argumentation) appears to me to be an attempt at "policing" others thoughts--kind of a manifestation of the purity moral Jonathan Haidt writes about. Anyway, that in itself is interesting.

On the positive effects of NDEs, I am curious if the benefits the researchers measure are different from the benefits of religious belief generally or if there are qualitative or quantitative differences. I wonder if NDErs are less prone or not to the dark, defensive group-think that too often accompanies religion.

It also occurs me to me I know (knew) one person who used LSD and had the kind of shift you mentioned. He was Mormon and a former bishop. Don studied Buddhism and took LSD at one point. He described becoming one with everything. He was was very kind toward my wife and myself, although it was hard on my convert-Mormon brain. I also once witnessed him hug schizophrenic man in our branch, talk to him softly, and calm him down when the man was upset. Everyone else was at wits end trying to deal with him. Don didn't seem to have a problem.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 07:11PM by robertb.

Who's upset? It's been great stress relief on a nasty day. Easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh, a "shooting" reference. Guess you found a target.

angular gyrus thing, rob?

Of course, simulating it produces the response. Everything we experience happens in our brain. Everything. The NDE question is whether for not our brains participate in a consciousness outside themselves as well. The AWARE project is set up to try to answer that.

P.S. I don't go by "Rob" but "Bob" is just fine. :-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:19PM by robertb.

I don't want to get this thread pulled.

Actually, I'm asking both you and Dick. But the Foxe seems to be evading again.

Why doesn't your 3rd sentence logically contradict your 1st and 2nd sentences?

1. Of course, simulating it produces the response.

2. Everything we experience happens in our brain.

3. Everything.

Sorry. I don't see the contraction.

Where'd that guy go, any way?

in a different hemisphere (no, not the Right Hemisphere...)

angular gyrus thing, Dick?

Is it alright if I call you "Dick?"

Such twistings are seldom familiar and most often disparaging. I recall you once corrected someone (steve benson?) for spelling your name with a capital L.

Sorry, I haven't had the time to read up on the angular gyrus, and until I do, I can't make a worthwhile comment. Is this a structure which is always stimulated in NDE experiencers? Do people practicing OBE meditations incidentally trigger this?

Jill Bolte Taylor's book My Stroke of Insight is by a brain scientist who had a stroke, and it has some great science in it, including the meltdown of her "internal narrator" and the view of the world from the integrative, fluid oneness, peaceful part of the brain. Beautifully described (I'm butchering this.)

She also has a TED talk that addresses the question.

There. Not an NDE and not theological, but it addresses the questions of perception and the biochemistry of the brain.

And it's a great read.

I did not follow the other thread, but it seems to me that you are trying to make too much hay out of the emotional and moral responses to NDEs.

The subjective experience of the NDE must, of course, be explained. This includes not only the various individual features of the NDE established as a common thread (i.e. out-of body, tunnel, light,etc.) of such experiences, but the experience as a whole. If entirely neurological, then we need a credible neurological explanation. But the response to the experience is not part of the experience. On the contrary, it is a natural psychological (and neurological) response.

The cognitive and emotional response to the experience, and any moral or worldview changes resulting therefrom, are nothing more than cognitive mental processes instantiated by the brain as a response to the experience. These post-experience changes, presumably occuring when the brain is intact and properly functioning, add nothing more to the realist claim for the experience beyond the fact that the experiencer found the experience compelling, and believed it to be real. How does that psychological/neurological post-experience effect logically entail increased credibility to the experience itself, as a real phenomenon? After all, no one is denying that the experiences occur, or that they are compelling to those that have them. So what?

All sorts of hallucinations carry with them emotional responses. This doesn't, in my view, provide any evidential support for the reality of the experience, i.e. that someone actually did in fact leave their body, enter a tunnel, and emerge in light, or whatever. It just means that our emotions are governed by our experiences, and these were profound experiences, whether ontologically real or not.

Suppose a person had a vivid dream that they had been attacked by a vicious dog. Thereafter, the person was deathly afraid of dogs; hated dogs, and came to think of the incident as real. Would you then say, look at that fear and emotion. He must have actually been attacked. No. The emotional response is separate from, and independent of, the reality of the experience, although not from the phenomenological experience itself.

In short, someone asserting that NDEs were brought about solely by brain function, or brain deterioration (and assuming they could give a viable account of such), would have no further need to explain the emotional response.

Either you haven't been reading this board for the last several years or you disingenuously brought up this NDE topic under false pretenses.

Raymond Moody's "studies" (using the term ever so loosely) are a joke and are not supported by credible scientific evidence.

This is Moody's mood-ring mumbo-jumbo:

Plant yourself in front of mirror, eating fruits and vegetables but drinking no coffee or milk.

Remove all jewerly, watches, etc. and be sure to be wearing loose-fitting clothes.

Maybe Steve Jobs will then appear to you and tell you what he saw.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers18.html


Now, has the approach of your Moody for contacting the dead through NDEs appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Evade this:

Mainstream scientific research has firmly established that NDEs are a neurobiological creation of the brain.

If people who experience these brain-induced phenomena wish to chalk them up to magical mystery tours of the afterlife, so be it. Whatever floats their ghost.

In the meantime, sound scientific evidence rejects the premise that these mind-altering, life-changing experiences (at least for some folks) are anything but organically rooted under the human skullcap.

Keep in mind (as in your brain--the one that when it dies, you die with it) that true believers in NDEs/OBEs claim to have seen ghosts, angels or zombies.

They may believe they really did see ghosts, angels or zombies. Studies may show that this is what the fervently believe.

No matter how much "seeing" these ghosts, angels or zombies may seem "real" to them and may have changed their lives and/or personalities, does that therefore make ghosts, angels and zombies real?

It's amazing (not to mention amusing) how desperately some people wish to translate explainable physical realities into other-worldly myths in an attempt to stare down the fearful face of death.

It is, like, so Mormon, Catholic, Protestant . . .



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:24PM by steve benson.

If you are dying, the brain is undergoing a stressful shutdown as O2 and glucose decrease. It seems to me that the brain would want to conserve what little reserve it has for as long as it can. It could do this by producing happy and comforting thoughts. This seems like the economical thing to do.

Just as a person can go into shock in extreme trauma which is the body's way of "checking out" of the situation, the brain could respond to make the stressful situation as tolerable and comfortable as it can.

It would cost less for the brain to be able to shut down anxiety-producing thought and concentrate on producing thoughts that are associated with good emotions. Good emotions help the person relax and could possibly help with vascular state (blood pressure), corticosteroids, release of endorphins, etc.

I think the brain could avoid strife and resort to whatever pathways are likely to bring comfort. It seems to me that these types of thoughts would reflect concepts from the individual's most comforting religion or hopes.

After the recovery (the person didn't die), the person could remember the extreme comfort and thoughts he had during the near shutdown. The "experience" might be enough for the person to view things differently and have memories he had when the brain was in "protect me I'm dying" mode.

I still don't see any reason to resort to a supernatural explanation. There are enough plausible explanations that involve brain physiology.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:16PM by dagny.

Dagny, what you are saying perhaps fits the "freeze" response to trauma. The brain shuts down to mimic death as a last-ditch effort to escape being killed.

A brain in trauma and/or denied oxygen (not the only scenarios for NDEs or OBEs, but good ones) begins to malfunction and, in worse case scenarios, shut down.

During that process, normal neurological functioning is disrupted; hallucinations can occur; memories flash; bizarree images are produced; pop, pop, fizz, fizz.

And, by the way, not everyone sees Jesus during these moments. Non-Christians don't, for example. As the brain drain, they flash up on the screen of the mind's eye the cultural and experiental images retained through life in grey matter of the person going through the cranial meltdown.

I think some kinds of meditation, as well as exercises in cognitive therapy, work toward that same end. Is the glass 'normally' half-empty? Are they 'thinking outside of the glass' itself?

These transcendental touchspots, if you will. were discovered and electronically prompted by neurologists while doing research on the brains of epileptics.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:17PM by steve benson.

Your proposed explanation is woefully speculative. More importantly, it falls far short of explaining the holistic nature of these experiences, or their common features. On your assumptions, I see no reason to assume that an individual's "most comforting religion or hopes" would generate the same experiences as someone elses comforts and hopes. Moreover, how would you explain an atheist NDE?

If you take the attitude that "supernatural" (I would say metaphysical) explanations are per se objectionable, then, yes, any materialist explanation is preferable. But the problem is that when science undertakes an explanation of a phenonema, such an explanation must pass scientific scrutiny; i.e. it must have explanatory power. Otherwise the phenomena remains unexplained, leaving the door open for metaphysical explanations.

The fact is, you are wrong. There are NO plausible scientific explanations, at least to date. Does this mean that one must resort to a metaphyscial explanation. No. But it does mean that you cannot insist that the problem doesn't exist, or that an explanation has been provided, when in fact, it hasn't.

I would pose the same challenge to you that I did to Steve. Other than the skeptical literature, what actual science have you read and considered on this issue?

Reed Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you take the attitude that "supernatural" (I
> would say metaphysical) explanations are per se
> objectionable, then, yes, any materialist
> explanation is preferable.

Occam's Razor does cut in that direction, doesn't it.

Steve said:

"Mainstream scientific research has firmly established that NDEs are a neurobiological creation of the brain."

This is simple a false statement. "Mainstream science" has provided several explanatory theories regarding the NDE phenomena, all of which are highly problematic. The main problem is that deteriorating, function-inhibited, brains usually do not have vivid, holistic, cognitive experiences. The only advantage such explanations have is that they are materialist explanations. If you have a materialist bias, as many scientists do, then you will reject the metaphysical claims of NDEs. But this does not mean that you have explained them. Nor does it mean that the materialist explanations are "better" simply because they are materialist explanations.

"If people who experience these brain-induced phenomena wish to chalk them up to magical mystery tours of the afterlife, so be it. Whatever floats their ghost."

If you are really O.K. with this, why do your posts on this subject display such condescending passion? Some might consider this insecurity.

"In the meantime, sound scientific evidence rejects the premise that these mind-altering, life-changing experiences (at least for some folks) are anything but organically rooted under the human skullcap."

See comment above. Tell me, Steve, what have you read on this subject that cannot be characterized as the writing of professional skeptics? Have you even read the science?

"Keep in mind (as in your brain--the one that when it dies, you die with it) that true believers in NDEs/OBEs claim to have seen ghosts, angels or zombies."

This, of course, is ridiculous. NDE researchers do not, and are not logically compelled, to believe in ghosts, angels or zombies.


"They may believe they really did see ghosts, angels or zombies. Studies may show that this is what the fervently believe."

Why are you changing the subject?

"No matter how much "seeing" these ghosts, angels or zombies may seem "real" to them and may have changed their lives and/or personalities, does that therefore make ghosts, angels and zombies real?"

No. But if you are a scientist addressing this subject, just like with NDEs, you need to provide an account of how and why these experiences persist. You cannot simply assume they are ridiculous, and then claim you have provided a scientific explanation.

"It's amazing (not to mention amusing) how desperately some people wish to translate explainable physical realities into other-worldly myths in an attempt to stare down the fearful face of death."

Couldn't someone equally say, "Its amazing (not to mention amusing) how desperately some people wish to explain away metaphysical realities in an attempt to preserve their materialist worldview?"

"It is, like, so Mormon, Catholic, Protestant . . ."

. . . and so atheist?

There is no mainstream, credible, accepted science of any note that contends that NDEs or OBEs somehow occur outside the cranium. That kind of woo-woo explanation is the regular realm of paranormalists and religionists, for whom silly superstition is preferred over hard evidence. I have cited neurologists, for example, who don't buy the out-of-brain explanation that apparently you do.

And by the way, Reed, professional scientists are professional skeptics. Theories are tested, blasted, abandoned, modified or accepted by rational scientific skeptics all the time, based upon the application of evidence to the theory under scrutiny. That is what scientists do.

It's skepticism with a capital "S."

And, by the way, Dagny is a scientist by profession. You can't hold a candle to her.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:25PM by steve benson.

Credible NDE science does not provide any explanation for NDEs, and such practitioners are as interested in neurological and psychological explanations as skeptics. They merely report the phenomena and invite scientific research and explanation. There are, of course, some NDE enthusiasts that go further. I would agree that these folks often overstate the evidence.

All I am saying, or ever said, is that no credible materialist explanation has been provided. That is simply a fact.

Scientists do, as you suggest, have a skeptical bent. However, professional skeptics, as you know, make their living, or attempt to profit, solely by debunking religious or "supernatural" views. I do not have a problem with this enterprise; in fact I appreciate it. The problem is that they are apologetic in their purpose, present distorted facts (like that NDEs have been scientifically explained) and often poor logic. The have a mission to debunk, and will not let fairness and accuracy interfere with that mission.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:34PM by steve benson.

Rather than a materialist?

You are now operating in the area of faith.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:31PM by steve benson.

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

For you information, materialism has been scientifically proven to be false. Moreover, scientists engage in metaphysics all the time. It has nothing whatever to do with faith.

You really need to read up.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 08:36PM by steve benson.