Near-Death Experience: Investigating Theoretical Implications

[hereandnow672]

[During the pilot phase in one of the hospitals, a
coronary-care-unit nurse reported a veridical out-ofbody
experience of a resuscitated patient:
“During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-
year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care
unit. He had been found about an hour before in a
meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives
artificial respiration without intubation, while heart
massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we
want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have
dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures
and put them onto the ‘crash car’. Meanwhile, we
continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half
the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood
pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he
is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care
unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only
after more than a week do I meet again with the patient,
who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his
medication. The moment he sees me he says: ‘Oh, that
nurse knows where my dentures are’. I am very
surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘Yes, you were there
when I was brought into hospital and you took my
dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it
had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding
drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.’ I was
especially amazed because I remembered this happening
while the man was in deep coma and in the process of
CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had
seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from
above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR.
He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the
small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as
the appearance of those present like myself. At the time
that he observed the situation he had been very much
afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die.
And it is true that we had been very negative about the
patient’s prognosis due to his very poor medical
condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he
desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to
us that he was still alive and that we should continue
CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says
he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left
hospital as a healthy man.”]

Source: http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf (p.3)

This information was published in 2001, a) how are more people not talking about this, and b) regardless of the ambiguity that derives from such a claim, why are we (assuming we're not or haven't) investigating this more?

Thoughts?

 

[JaredJames]

We are not investigating because as with all other NDE claims, it is purely anecdotal evidence and in the eyes of science - completely worthless.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Near-death experiences are hallucinations created by the brain due to hypoxia. It has been shown that pilots undergoing g-force stress training have similar experiences.

More than you probably ever wanted to know about out-of-body-experiences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience

 

[hereandnow672]

Near-death experiences are hallucinations created by the brain due to hypoxia. It has been shown that pilots undergoing g-force stress training have similar experiences.

More than you probably ever wanted to know about out-of-body-experiences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience

Are they able to perceive physical reality from some sort of lateral metaphysical standpoint?
It is unclear to me why this alleged patient and nurse would fabricate such a story; there is no monetary incentive, fame incentive - the man, if the story is true, didn't care at all that much about its implications. It seems highly unlikely that this was fabricated as it was published by what popular opinion has dictated as a heavily credible source.

The point being: if what this study says is true, then there are profound implications regarding the mutual compatibility of perceptual reality and 'metaphysical' reality. And I see no reason for disinformation. Entirely separate, but am I correct I'm deducing that, generally speaking, nobody seems to be interested pursuing a complete understanding of the dream-state? That would be amazing.

 

[JaredJames]

The point being: if what this study says is true, then there are profound implications regarding the mutual compatibility of perceptual reality and 'metaphysical' reality. And I see no reason for disinformation.

I direct you to the other NDE thread, this exact item has been posted there.

This is a lovely collection of stories, but that's all it is. Like I said, anecdote doesn't mean jack in science.

Entirely separate, but am I correct I'm deducing that, generally speaking, nobody seems to be interested pursuing a complete understanding of the dream-state? That would be amazing.

What? There are lots of people working on dreams.

 

[hereandnow672]

I direct you to the other NDE thread, this exact item has been posted there.

This is a lovely collection of stories, but that's all it is. Like I said, anecdote doesn't mean jack in science.What? There are lots of people working on dreams.

a. I understand that. However, consider the discovery (and rarity) of synesthesia; interest developed, I assume, from "anecdotal evidence". We know now that synesthesia is real as it has been experimentally verified. Where do we draw the line between pursuing (and at the very least an interest) the verification of anecdotal evidence with potentially profound implications toward our understanding of reality? There has been one William Sidis, one Isaac Newton, one Galileo; all of whom's intellect and in turn contribution has derived from the physical components of their body inherited at birth - just as one who could theoretically "perceive reality from a metaphysical standpoint as it were truly happening" would probably derive that ability from birth, and may very well be one of a kind relative to their times.

b. Nobody talks about dreams in everyday conversation. Thus the extent of my observation.

 

[JaredJames]

a. I understand that. However, consider the discovery (and rarity) of synesthesia; interest developed, I assume, from "anecdotal evidence". We know now that synesthesia is real as it has been experimentally verified. Where do we draw the line between pursuing (and at the very least an interest) the verification of anecdotal evidence with potentially profound implications toward our understanding of reality? There has been one William Sidis, one Isaac Newton, one Galileo; all of whom's intellect and in turn contribution has derived from the physical components of their body inherited as birth - just as one who could theoretically "perceive reality from a metaphysical standpoint as it were truly happening" would probably derive that ability from birth, and may very well be one of a kind relative to their times.

I'd recommend the philosophy forum for this lot.

b. Nobody talks about dreams in everyday conversation. Thus the extent of my observation.

That means nothing. There is plenty of research on dreams out there already and still being conducted.

 

[Evo]

Are they able to perceive physical reality from some sort of lateral metaphysical standpoint?
It is unclear to me why this alleged patient and nurse would fabricate such a story; there is no monetary incentive, fame incentive - the man, if the story is true, didn't care at all that much about its implications. It seems highly unlikely that this was fabricated as it was published by what popular opinion has dictated as a heavily credible source.

The Lancet isn't very credible right now, what with the HUGE scandal over the editors backing the MMR/autism fraud.

 

[Jack21222]

lateral metaphysical standpoint?

I know what all of those words mean individually, but I have no idea what they mean in that order. Can you please rephrase this in everyday English instead of Woo-speak?

 

[thorium1010]

The point being: if what this study says is true, then there are profound implications regarding the mutual compatibility of perceptual reality and 'metaphysical' reality. And I see no reason for disinformation.

Have you read the paper you posted thoroughly and looked at the discussion at the end. The discussion starts with why only small no. of patients experience this, why not a large majority.


Interesting fact about the study -

Mortality during or shortly after stay in hospital in patients who had an NDE was significantly higher than in patients who did not report an NDE (13/62 patients [21%] vs24/282 [9%], p=0·008), and this difference was even more marked in patients who reported a deep experience (10/23 [43%] vs 24/282 [9%], p<0·0001).

 

[nesp]

I'm an agnostic on near death experiences but, as a retired scientist, I'm a bit appalled at some of the responses to the OP. He posed two scientifically reasonable questions to anectdotal data:

a) how are more people not talking about this, and b) regardless of the ambiguity that derives from such a claim, why are we (assuming we're not or haven't) investigating this more?

While there may be good answers to these, "anecdote doesn't mean jack in science" is not one of them, nor is "near-death experiences are hallucinations created by the brain due to hypoxia." The first rejects the role of observation in scientific advance, the second assumes a result based on results whose conditions do not match the reported observation. Granted, the anectode must be screened to ensure it was correctly reported by a good witness, etc, but we have enough of these to meet the basic criteria for a good observational data set.

Not to be condescending, but science begins with interesting observations, then hypotheses, then tests to confirm or reject the hypotheses. The anectode posted is not in itself proof of anything but, if enough similar anectdotes are posted, a case could be made that these are observations worthy of a hyothesis and a test. This was the situation with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and the Martian canals, proven wrong, and Galileo's heliocentric theory, proved correct. All of these, and every other scientific theory, began with interesting observations that were new or didn't fit the mainstream. The vast majority of such observations are found to be false, or incorrect interpretations, but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement.

So the NDE anectodes may be hallucinations, may be misinterpretations, etc, but to reject them out of hand as being merely anectodes is to misunderstand the nature of the scientific method.

 

[Evo]

I'm an agnostic on near death experiences but, as a retired scientist, I'm a bit appalled at some of the responses to the OP. He posed two scientifically reasonable questions to anectdotal data:

a) how are more people not talking about this, and b) regardless of the ambiguity that derives from such a claim, why are we (assuming we're not or haven't) investigating this more?

While there may be good answers to these, "anecdote doesn't mean jack in science" is not one of them, nor is "near-death experiences are hallucinations created by the brain due to hypoxia." The first rejects the role of observation in scientific advance, the second assumes a result based on results whose conditions do not match the reported observation. Granted, the anectode must be screened to ensure it was correctly reported by a good witness, etc, but we have enough of these to meet the basic criteria for a good observational data set.

Not to be condescending, but science begins with interesting observations, then hypotheses, then tests to confirm or reject the hypotheses. The anectode posted is not in itself proof of anything but, if enough similar anectdotes are posted, a case could be made that these are observations worthy of a hyothesis and a test. This was the situation with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and the Martian canals, proven wrong, and Galileo's heliocentric theory, proved correct. All of these, and every other scientific theory, began with interesting observations that were new or didn't fit the mainstream. The vast majority of such observations are found to be false, or incorrect interpretations, but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement.

So the NDE anectodes may be hallucinations, may be misinterpretations, etc, but to reject them out of hand as being merely anectodes is to misunderstand the nature of the scientific method.

And how do you propose to do scientific testing of these anecdotes?

The few that are valid

I am not aware that any NDE's have been scientifically proven.

 

[nesp]

"And how do you propose to do scientific testing of these anecdotes?"
That's a premature question. First, tell me your hypothesis, then I'll suggest how to test it.

"The few that are valid...
I am not aware that any NDE's have been scientifically proven."

Validity does not equate with provability. Data validity is the process of ensuring that the data captured is internally consistent, gathered under the same set of rules, as free of bias as possible, with due diligence on the data source, the manner of reporting, etc.

Provability is well down stream. Data may be valid, as in Lowell's drawings of smudges on his observations of Mars, yet his hypothesis failed to be proven. Or the data may be invalid, in which case it's probably a waste of time to hypothesize.

For the sake of argument, suppose the hypothesis is that consciousness continues to exist for a certain period of time after clinical death. First thing is to critically define what we mean by consciousness, clinical death, etc. Again, for the sake of argument, suppose we agree on consciousness as being the ability to use one or more of our five senses to probe the same reality as those living. And clinical death as the stoppage for an agreed period of time of measurable brain activity. Then a reasonable observational study would be to compare reported observations by those clinically dead for that agreed-upon period of time with those living in the same space and time. If they didn't match to some statistical threshold, we could reject the hypothesis. If they did agree, we could entertain its correctness and wait for replication by other experiments. In either case, the best we could do it to demonstrate that such a hypothesis was experimentally tenable -- we could not, of course, prove it without recourse to random experimentation, nor could we extend its results to those who were clinically dead for more than the agreed-upon timeframe, for practical reasons.

Even with these constraints, such an experiment would be equally valid as those used today for other clinical observational studies on interventions such as experimental cancer therapies, for which double blind studies are the exceptions rather than the norm.

Again, I'm an agnostic on the topic under discussion, but a proponent of the scientific method.

 

[Evo]

"And how do you propose to do scientific testing of these anecdotes?"
That's a premature question. First, tell me your hypothesis, then I'll suggest how to test it.

Apparently you don't understand that the onus of proof lies with the one making the claim.

So let's see your proof.

 

[nesp]

"Apparently you don't understand that the onus of proof lies with the one making the claim.
So let's see your proof. "

What claim have I made?
Is basic science still taught?
How about basic reading skills?

 

[Evo]

"Apparently you don't understand that the onus of proof lies with the one making the claim.
So let's see your proof. "

What claim have I made?
Is basic science still taught?
How about basic reading skills?

You made the claim

but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement.

All right, let's see those scientific studies that verified these valid NDE's. You'll find that you can't just throw nonsense out on this forum and not be asked to prove it.

 

[nesp]

"You made the claim

but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement.

All right, let's see those scientific studies that verified these valid NDE's. You'll find that you can't just throw nonsense out on this forum and not be asked to prove it."


Well, this is worse than I thought. Quoting out of context is not in the best spirit of scientific studies. Perhaps it would help if you read my entire post,

"This was the situation with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and the Martian canals, proven wrong, and Galileo's heliocentric theory, proved correct. All of these, and every other scientific theory, began with interesting observations that were new or didn't fit the mainstream. The vast majority of such observations are found to be false, or incorrect interpretations, but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement."

I used well-known scientific observations, not NDEs, as an example of the use of the scientific method. As far as NDE's, you'll have to ask the OP. If you would read my entire post, you will note I was objecting to the casual dismissal of the questions asked in that post. I have no position on NDE's nor have I made any claims.

Now, would you like to post an scientifically objective, rather than an emotional, or knee-jerk, response to the OP's questions?

a) how are more people not talking about this, and b) regardless of the ambiguity that derives from such a claim, why are we (assuming we're not or haven't) investigating this more?

I don't know the answers, but I'm confident that "anecdote doesn't mean jack in science" is not the best answer.

 

[Evo]

"You made the claim

but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement.

All right, let's see those scientific studies that verified these valid NDE's. You'll find that you can't just throw nonsense out on this forum and not be asked to prove it."


Well, this is worse than I thought. Quoting out of context is not in the best spirit of scientific studies. Perhaps it would help if you read my entire post,

"This was the situation with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and the Martian canals, proven wrong, and Galileo's heliocentric theory, proved correct. All of these, and every other scientific theory, began with interesting observations that were new or didn't fit the mainstream. The vast majority of such observations are found to be false, or incorrect interpretations, but the few that are valid form the basis for scientific advancement."

I used well-known scientific observations, not NDEs, as an example of the use of the scientific method. As far as NDE's, you'll have to ask the OP. If you would read my entire post, you will note I was objecting to the casual dismissal of the questions asked in that post. I have no position on NDE's nor have I made any claims.

Now, would you like to post an scientifically objective, rather than an emotional, or knee-jerk, response to the OP's questions?

a) how are more people not talking about this, and b) regardless of the ambiguity that derives from such a claim, why are we (assuming we're not or haven't) investigating this more?

I don't know the answers, but I'm confident that "anecdote doesn't mean jack in science" is not the best answer.

Please learn how to use the quote button.

Perhaps I did misunderstand you, my apologies, you lost me at Galileo.

So back to your post, anecdotes are meaningless in science. You seem to disagree, so post some evidence to show why we should consider unproven anecdotes.

 

[nesp]

Apology accepted, let's start over.
Sorry, I don't know how to use the quote button so if that's the price of entry, I'm out.

"So back to your post, anecdotes are meaningless in science. You seem to disagree, so post some evidence to show why we should consider unproven anecdotes."

- Prior to Chladni's "On the Origin of the Mass of Iron Discovered by Pallas and Others Similar to It, and on Some Natural Phenomena Related to Them," (1794) rocks falling from the sky were rejected as merely anecdotal. And they were, since no scientific studies had been done, and no theories had been advanced, other than quasi-religious ones, for meteorites.

- Ball lightning has been reported anecdotaly since at least the 1600s, and it's only recently that plasma theory has been advanced and tested as a hypothesis.

- Curing or betterment of an illness through extra-medical means has been anectdotaly reported for eons, and was only validated by science through double blind studies of placebo effects.

I could go on, but you get the idea. None of these were proven until science took the anecdotes sufficiently serious to begin hypothesizing and testing.

This has nothing to do with NDEs, but neither does my original post.

 

[Evo]

Apology accepted, let's start over.
Sorry, I don't know how to use the quote button so if that's the price of entry, I'm out.

"So back to your post, anecdotes are meaningless in science. You seem to disagree, so post some evidence to show why we should consider unproven anecdotes."

- Prior to Chladni's "On the Origin of the Mass of Iron Discovered by Pallas and Others Similar to It, and on Some Natural Phenomena Related to Them," (1794) rocks falling from the sky were rejected as merely anecdotal. And they were, since no scientific studies had been done, and no theories had been advanced, other than quasi-religious ones, for meteorites.

- Ball lightning has been reported anecdotaly since at least the 1600s, and it's only recently that plasma theory has been advanced and tested as a hypothesis.

- Curing or betterment of an illness through extra-medical means has been anectdotaly reported for eons, and was only validated by science through double blind studies of placebo effects.

I could go on, but you get the idea. None of these were proven until science took the anecdotes sufficiently serious to begin hypothesizing and testing.

This has nothing to do with NDEs, but neither does my original post.

And the sun used to revolve around the earth, and evil spirits and witches caused disease.

In other words, nothing you've posted has added anything of value to this thread.

The quote button is at the bottom right of all posts.

 

[nesp]

Thanks for validating some of my reasons for retiring. It's hard to refute lack of logic. Good luck in all of your endeavors. I'm out.

 

[thorium1010]

Thanks for validating some of my reasons for retiring. It's hard to refute lack of logic. Good luck in all of your endeavors. I'm out.

Nesp , if you are going to say people have closed their mind, it's because most of the time studies like these are often pushed as evidence for consciousness outside the body (which can be one of several possible explanations ).

An important question is why only a small percentage people (in the study ) have NDE's and majority have no recollection of the event ?

But the most important question is, how do you proceed from anecdotal stories (however accurate they maybe) to testable hypothesis or a RCT ?. There is no possible way to do that (I may be wrong on this ).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Nesp , if you are going to say people have closed their mind, it's because most of the time studies like these are often pushed as evidence for consciousness outside the body (which can be one of several possible explanations ).

An important question is why only a small percentage people (in the study ) have NDE's and majority have no recollection of the event ?

But the most important question is, how do you proceed from anecdotal stories (however accurate they maybe) to testable hypothesis or a RCT ?. There is no possible way to do that (I may be wrong on this ).

I kind of agree but anecdotes can be a way for scientists to find observations. For example someone might say to me "I just added X chemical to Y chemical and it blew up in my face". It might already be well established that X added to Y does nothing. However if we take the person to be telling the truth we may ask him to replicate the conditions for us to observe. We may then discover that when X is added to Y under a specific variable that has previously not been taken into account that an explosion does follow.

The problem is with verifying the truthfulness of anecdotes (rarely are they first hand) and whether or not you could replicate them. If I told you that a ball of exotic matter just floated around the room before disappearing we have no way of testing it even if I am telling the truth because we cannot replicate it.

Large quantities of anecdotes may point to there being some phenomenon going on but it is not necessarily the phenomenon the anecdote is describing. Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel is an often said anecdote but under investigation we may find out it is caused by oxygen starvation rather than a vision of Heaven. I find that proponents of anecdotes often ignore this and cite examples where fact was just anecdotes as proof that their anecdote must be true rather than being an indication of something else.

 

[pftest]

I suggest people here read the previous topic, it contains an abundance of scientific sources on the subject:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=479733

Heres a bit about NDEs and oxygen deprivation of the brain:

In this study possible physiological causative factors could not be investigated adequately in view of the relatively small number in the study (NDE) group. Nevertheless it was interesting that patients in the study group had higher oxygen levels than those in the control group. This may simply be a skewed result due to the low patient numbers. Alternatively it may indicate that patients who had NDEs had better oxygenation during the resuscitation, allowing better cortical function. Provided that blood oxygen levels reflect cerebral oxygen levels, the findings suggest that in this cardiac arrest model, cerebral anoxia may not be an important causative factor in these experiences, and indeed may mitigate against them. There is support for this in other models of the NDE, where psychological causes are thought to trigger the experience such as in those occurring just before a major accident, the cerebral circulation is not compromised and hypoxia cannot be a factor. However, it would be unwise, with such small numbers, to draw any significant conclusion from this finding.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3186005&postcount=89

 

[nesp]

I kind of agree but anecdotes can be a way for scientists to find observations. For example someone might say to me "I just added X chemical to Y chemical and it blew up in my face". It might already be well established that X added to Y does nothing. However if we take the person to be telling the truth we may ask him to replicate the conditions for us to observe. We may then discover that when X is added to Y under a specific variable that has previously not been taken into account that an explosion does follow.

ryan, at the risk of extending an exchange that went well off track, let me attempt to address your reasonable response in a way consistent with my original intent.

The point of my response was not primarily about NDEs, nor did I take a position one way or the other about the subject. For some reason, my post was confused with that of the OP, and I was asked to defend the objectiveness of NDEs. To repeat, my response to the OP was not about that at all but, rather, an appeal to those who reject anectodes out of hand as being nonscientific and, therefore, of no use to the advancement of science. Since you responded to that aspect, yes, your example of chemicals mixed in a different way, is a good example of precisely the point I was trying to make. And the keys, as you note, are validation of the report (to remove outright lies and misunderstandings), a suitable hypothesis, and replication under controlled test conditions.

This may or may not be possible for NDEs, I don't know nor do I care. But I would hope that, as in the case of reports of falling rocks, that we at least take the time to validate the reports and attempt to hypothesize and formulate a test.

 

[nesp]

I suggest people here read the previous topic, it contains an abundance of scientific sources on the subject:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=479733

Heres a bit about NDEs and oxygen deprivation of the brain:

Thanks for the link. I'm glad some consider such anecdotal data sufficiently serious to attempt to construct hypotheses, such as oxygen deprivation, which may be suitable for some type of controlled testing.

 

[rockhouse]

No matter what anyone says, the stories of clinically dead people being able to see what's going on around them is a trip.

And personally i believe most of these accounts.

 

[Evo]

Thanks for the link. I'm glad some consider such anecdotal data sufficiently serious to attempt to construct hypotheses, such as oxygen deprivation, which may be suitable for some type of controlled testing.

Yes, but realize that some people here don't understand science.

 

[pftest]

This whole "anecdotes are meaningless in science" was settled in the previous topic (see the example of a woman with epilepsy who had her brain stimulated and experienced an OBE) and also in this topic (someone mentioned synesthesia). To find the relation between activity of the brain and cognitive abilities and experiences, anecdotes are often very useful.

Testing of the OBE part of NDEs is also mentioned in the previous topic:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3185624&postcount=73

 

[MACHO-WIMP]

This whole "anecdotes are meaningless in science" was settled in the previous topic (see the example of a woman with epilepsy who had her brain stimulated and experienced an OBE) and also in this topic (someone mentioned synesthesia). To find the relation between activity of the brain and cognitive abilities and experiences, anecdotes are often very useful.

Testing of the OBE part of NDEs is also mentioned in the previous topic:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3185624&postcount=73

Can you elaborate on the person with epilepsy having an OBE after having her brain stimulated?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Can you elaborate on the person with epilepsy having an OBE after having her brain stimulated?

Here's an article about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/020916/full/news020916-8.html

Here's the researcher:

http://lnco.epfl.ch/olaf.blanke

Here's the abstract of one of his papers:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/2/243.abstract

 

[MACHO-WIMP]

Here's an article about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/020916/full/news020916-8.html

Here's the researcher:

http://lnco.epfl.ch/olaf.blanke

Here's the abstract of one of his papers:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/2/243.abstract

Thanks

 

[samsracecar]

Are they able to perceive physical reality from some sort of lateral metaphysical standpoint?
It is unclear to me why this alleged patient and nurse would fabricate such a story; there is no monetary incentive, fame incentive - the man, if the story is true, didn't care at all that much about its implications. It seems highly unlikely that this was fabricated as it was published by what popular opinion has dictated as a heavily credible source.

The point being: if what this study says is true, then there are profound implications regarding the mutual compatibility of perceptual reality and 'metaphysical' reality. And I see no reason for disinformation.


Entirely separate, but am I correct I'm deducing that, generally speaking, nobody seems to be interested pursuing a complete understanding of the dream-state? That would be amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

I feel that this explains most NDE's. The visual, tactile, and auditory stimuli are sometimes imperceptible from reality. I know, I've experienced this multiple times.

 

[IDOGAWACONAN]

Well infact these phenomenons have been well investigated...
they can be explained by science,nothing strange.

 

[imiyakawa]

I've done reading on this topic for about a year, a few years ago. Forgot most of the papers that I read. I recall the most interesting result from different studies being the claimed veridicality of NDEs.. Some cases seemed quite remarkable. Unfortunately I don't remember many references as it was a very long time ago. One that I do remember is Sartori's study and the purported veridicality whilst the patient was on the worst level of the Glasgow Coma Scale and events recounted correctly while he was in the "coma", albeit there were minor errors in the patient's account (although I think they were trivial in that a recounting of any memory is somewhat like this, perhaps especially when the brain has just been fckd up).

I haven't read Raymond Moody's new book, where he claims that patients have shared death experiences where they all report sharing the same NDE. Knowing his writing style I never bothered buying it because you have no idea whether or not he's lying, the individuals involved are lying, or any other set of explanations.

I stopped researching NDEs when I read Keith Augustine's piece, basically a compilation of all NDEs that he'd read where there was absurd visuals (flying over medieval castles with birds, etc), false predictions, and NDEs with people that were still alive. Of course, believers have the ability to rationalize all this in their various afterlife/soul paradigms.

Interesting stuff.. Excited to see the results of AWARE, although in my correspondence with Sartori approximately 9 months ago AWARE hadn't produced a "hit" yet.