A Harvard neurosurgeon's evidence for life after death

[tonyrey]

My question implies nothing of the sort. It’s based on a simple, indisputable fact: people who have NDEs describe different versions of an afterlife (see here). Christians describe one that is consistent with their backgrounds, Hindus one that is consistent with theirs, Buddhists one that is consistent with theirs, etc. etc, etc… Some, like yourself, don’t glimpse anything of an afterlife. If all of that’s true (and I don’t see how you can deny it), then, IMO, the significant, disparate nature of NDEs renders them useless in telling us anything useful about an afterlife.

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

Others have already given you plausible, empirically-based naturalistic explanations for what you experienced. Accept them or not, I really don’t care, but don’t be surprised if you see them again in any future discussion of NDEs.

I am well acquainted with naturalistic explanations which overlook our primary evidence for everything: our subjective experiences.

It’s not good form to invent rationales for others’ objections. As a matter of fact, I do not think that all paranormal experiences will necessarily have scientific explanations – there may be things we’ll never understand. I do, however, reject all of the NDEs I’ve read about so far as evidence for an afterlife for all the reasons I’ve already given and more. One mistake I think others make is to assume that all currently unexplained phenomena will be forever unexplained and therefore, can only be attributed to the supernatural.

To assume all currently unexplained phenomena will be forever unexplained or are caused by natural events is equally unjustified.

The two questions I posed were posed as a package. The answer to the second, depends upon the answer to the first. Again, with emphasis added, they were:

Do you think Dr. Alexander proved there is an afterlife? If so, will you be expecting to see fluffy pink clouds and women in peasant dresses too?

Noting the conditional nature of the second question, you can see this question had nothing whatsoever to do with your past experience.

Dr. Alexander, a Christian, claims to to have seen fluffy, pink clouds and a woman in a peasant dress in what he further claims was a glimpse of the afterlife. For the sake of discussion, I have and am conceding that he really did experience those things and he really did glimpse the afterlife. In view of that concession, when I ask if you expect to see those things too – I am not asking about or commenting upon your past experience – I’m asking if you, another Christian, expect to see those things too in the afterlife. Given the thread’s topic and the religious affiliation you share with Dr. Alexander, I still think those are fair and appropriate questions.

I have pointed out **all **our experiences are conditioned by, and expressed in terms of, our cultural environment and our personal beliefs. It is unlikely that what people experience in NDEs corresponds exactly to reality but it is going to the other extreme to conclude that all have natural explanations. I believe Dr Alexander’s description of his experience is based on fact but not accurate in every detail because he is attempting to describe the indescribable.

I have the same difficulty in expressing my state of lucidity, detachment and ability to see myself objectively when I was virtually asphyxiated by sea water in my lungs yet it was for me a traumatic, unforgettable experience and incontrovertible evidence of the power and independence of our minds.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

Despite the fact that no one reporting an NDE actually died?

Does that mean that you think Dr. Alexander proved the existence of an afterlife?​

A request: I don’t edit your posts by removing bolding, italics or underlining that you might use to emphasize certain phrases or words and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do so with mine. Thanks in advance.

 

[Bradski]

I have the same difficulty in expressing my state of lucidity, detachment and ability to see myself objectively…

“Depersonalization is a frequent reaction to life-threatening danger. As an adaptive pattern of the nervous system it alerts the organism to its threatening environment while holding potentially disorganizing emotion in check. As a psychological mechanism it defends the endangered personality against the threat of death and, at the same time, initiates an integration of that reality. And, as a meaningful experience, a mystical elaboration of the phenomenon may achieve spiritual significance. This type of encounter with death may be followed by a sense of rebirth”. baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,9;journal,236,261;linkingpublicationresults,1:300329,1

It ain’t nothing special, Tony. As much as you’d like it to be.

 

[tonyrey]

“Depersonalization is a frequent reaction to life-threatening danger. As an adaptive pattern of the nervous system it alerts the organism to its threatening environment while holding potentially disorganizing emotion in check. As a psychological mechanism it defends the endangered personality against the threat of death and, at the same time, initiates an integration of that reality. And, as a meaningful experience, a mystical elaboration of the phenomenon may achieve spiritual significance. This type of encounter with death may be followed by a sense of rebirth”. baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,9;journal,236,261;linkingpublicationresults,1:300329,1

It ain’t nothing special, Tony. As much as you’d like it to be.

Your hypothesis is flawed by the following facts:

1. I was not depersonalised but intensely aware of myself.
2. I was not motivated by fear of death but** the thought** of my mother.
3. Reality was not integrated because I wasn’t concerned about my own survival.
4. There was no “mystical elaboration of the phenomenon” because at no time did I pray, think of God or expect life after death.
5. I have never attached spiritual or religious significance to my experience.
6. I have never in my life experienced a sense of rebirth.
7. There is almost certainly a psychological explanation - which is far more likely to be accurate than an article for which you have Googled with one sole aim - of your desire not to discover the truth but to pursue your destructive scepticism…

 

[tonyrey]

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

Then it wouldn’t be an NDE!

Does that mean that you think Dr. Alexander proved the existence of an afterlife?

I believe it is further evidence that the mind does not depend on the brain for its existence.

A request: I don’t edit your posts by removing bolding, italics or underlining that you might use to emphasize certain phrases or words and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do so with mine. Thanks in advance.

I have no objection to your doing the same if it helps me to focus on a particular word or phrase rather than having to reread the whole sentence.

 

[Al_Moritz]

He attacks you because his mind has been primed to view all natural inferences as an attack against the supernatural or his faith.

Sharp observation. The very same also holds for my assertions in past discussions that his biological ID position is not supported by scientific facts, which also appeared to threaten Tony’s beliefs about frequent divine intervention.

See also Tony’s assertion in this thread:

One thing is certain. A God who rarely intervenes is not to be found in the teaching of Jesus!

Of course, nobody claims that God rarely intervenes, but the interventions are not necessarily in ways Tony imagines and wishes for.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Then it wouldn’t be an NDE!

You wrote:

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

If persons who experienced NDEs didn’t die *, as you admit, then I don’t see how NDEs could possibly be convincing evidence that we survive after death. That’s like saying that the fact that I didn’t go to Bullfrog Hollow is convincing evidence that I went to Bullfrog Hollow!

• It’s actually much worse than simply not dying. As already noted, there isn’t any way to determine if reported NDE experiences occurred when the brain was actually at its lowest functioning level – or after it began regaining competence – or was completely fabricated days or weeks later.

I have no objection to your doing the same if it helps me to focus on a particular word or phrase rather than having to reread the whole sentence.

I haven’t a clue what you’re on about here, but if you’re agreeing to not edit my posts, then thanks for that.

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s like saying that the fact that I didn’t go to Bullfrog Hollow is convincing evidence that I went to Bullfrog Hollow!

Indubitably.



Sarah x

 

[Linux]

You wrote:

If persons who experienced NDEs didn’t die *, as you admit, then I don’t see how NDEs could possibly be convincing evidence that we survive after death. That’s like saying that the fact that I didn’t go to Bullfrog Hollow is convincing evidence that I went to Bullfrog Hollow!

• It’s actually much worse than simply not dying. As already noted, there isn’t any way to determine if reported NDE experiences occurred when the brain was actually at its lowest functioning level – or after it began regaining competence – or was completely fabricated days or weeks later.

I haven’t a clue what you’re on about here, but if you’re agreeing to not edit my posts, then thanks for that.

…I think this debate is over.

 

[tonyrey]

…I think this debate is over.

You are mistaken!

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you. He has a subjective interpretation of an odd experience. He attacks you because his mind has been primed to view all natural inferences as an attack against the supernatural or his faith. Some people idolize reported supernatural occurrences or experiences that appear supernatural because it gives them hope and strength and a sense of being “special”; and therefore cannot allow the possibility of there being a natural explanation.

Remarks about another member of the forum are not only in bad taste but in this case false and require an apology.

I note that you have failed to refute the objective facts I listed:

1. I was not depersonalised but intensely aware of myself.
2. I was not motivated by fear of death but the thought of my mother.
3. Reality was not integrated because I wasn’t concerned about my own survival.
4. There was no “mystical elaboration of the phenomenon” because at no time did I pray, think of God or expect life after death.
5. I have never attached spiritual or religious significance to my experience.
6. I have never in my life experienced a sense of rebirth.
7. There is almost certainly a psychological explanation - which is far more likely to be accurate than an article for which you have Googled with one sole aim - of your desire not to discover the truth but to pursue your destructive scepticism…

It would be far more to the point to address these points than “idolise reported natural occurrences or experiences that appear natural because it gives them hope and strength and a sense of being “special”; and therefore cannot allow the possibility of there being a supernatural explanation”. Your assertion is a two-edged sword…

 

[Linux]

You are mistaken!

Tony. I know this is hard for you. Ive been there. But your opponent has pretty much brought in to serious **doubt **any and all reasons you had for believing that near death experiences are in fact good evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

I am not saying there cannot be good reasons for thinking there is an afterlife; but near death experiences are not one of them.

 

[Linux]

Remarks about another member of the forum are not only in bad taste but in this case false and require an apology.

I was criticizing your attitude towards other peoples rebuttals, and your criticisms were full of Ad hominem attacks. You have made similar remarks in the past and recently. You just don’t like it when they are directed at you. I am not sure why i need to apologize.

1. I have never attached spiritual or religious significance to my experience.

But you clearly have, you are claiming that these experiences are evidence of an after life, a spiritual reality of sorts.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

OK, I have no idea how you can possibly say this seriously.

If there’s a place that is claimed to exist, but every person who supposedly goes there has completely different experiences, and more than that, contradicts the experiences of others … well, I’d have a hard time being convinced of the existence of such a place.

Some are met by Jesus. Some are met by relatives. One guy I had heard of was met by Moses. Some see beautiful gardens and endless fields. Some see fluffy clouds and butterfly wings (referring to the subject of this thread), some see gold-paved streets (see the book, 90 Minutes in Heaven), people completely outside of western culture have seen completely different things. In Hindu culture, NDEs are commonly reported as though the “gods” had made a mistake and retrieved the wrong person, so they are sent back. No beauty or anything of the sort of those experiences.

Now, I believe in an afterlife. I’m going to repeat that again, in case you want to call me a materialist. I believe in an afterlife.

BUT … if my only reason to believe rested solely on NDEs, well … I would not believe.

 

[tonyrey]

Sharp observation. The very same also holds for my assertions in past discussions that his biological ID position is not supported by scientific facts, which also appeared to threaten Tony’s beliefs about frequent divine intervention.

Remarks about another member of the forum are not only in bad taste but in this case false and require an apology unless you can produce evidence to the contrary…

I note that you have also failed to refute the objective** facts** I listed:

1. I was not depersonalised but intensely aware of myself.
2. I was not motivated by fear of death but the thought of my mother.
3. Reality was not integrated because I wasn’t concerned about my own survival.
4. There was no “mystical elaboration of the phenomenon” because at no time did I pray, think of God or expect life after death.
5. I have never attached spiritual or religious significance to my experience.
6. I have never in my life experienced a sense of rebirth.
7. There is almost certainly a psychological explanation - which is far more likely to be accurate than an article for which you have Googled with one sole aim - of your desire not to discover the truth but to pursue your destructive scepticism (with regard to the individual to whom I was replying).

See also Tony’s assertion in this thread:
Of course, nobody claims that God rarely intervenes, but the interventions are not necessarily in ways Tony imagines and wishes for.

You need to explain how you have privileged insight into divine interventions which entitles you to make such an assertion…

 

[tonyrey]

I was criticizing your attitude towards other peoples rebuttals, which were full of Ad hominem attacks. You have made similar remarks in the past and recently. You just don’t like it when they are directed at you. I am not sure why i need to apologize.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony. I know this is hard for you. Ive been there. But your opponent has pretty much brought in to serious **doubt **any and all reasons you had for believing that near death experiences are in fact good evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

I am not saying there cannot be good reasons for thinking there is an afterlife; but near death experiences are not one of them.

I have refuted your assertions in my previous post.

BTW You have failed to refute the points I made.

 

[tonyrey]

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

You are misrepresenting me! I did not state that persons who experienced NDEs didn’t die. Neither I nor anyone else is in a position to judge whether everyone who experiences an NDE has or has not died. Probably some haven’t died, others have died before returning to life and yet others have died for once and for all. I have never even considered whether I was dead but now I think about it I may well have been asphyxiated by the large quantity of seawater I swallowed.

Nor is it evident from such an experience how long we survive after we are dead. It is possible, although I think it is unlikely, that the mind ceases to exist after a certain period of time. From a philosophical point of view there is no way of being absolutely sure about what occurs after death.

It’s actually much worse than simply not dying. As already noted, there isn’t any way to determine if reported NDE experiences occurred when the brain was actually at its lowest functioning level – or after it began regaining competence – or was completely fabricated days or weeks later.

If my brain was at its lowest functioning level by what mechanism do you explain my state of extreme lucidity?

 

[Bradski]

There is almost certainly a psychological explanation…

An exquisite pleasure had invaded my senses, something isolated, detached, with no suggestion of its origin. And at once the vicissitudes of life had become indifferent to me, its disasters innocuous, its brevity illusory – this new sensation having had on me the effect which love has of filling me with a precious essence; or rather this essence was not in me it was me. … Whence did it come? What did it mean?

Tony, what do you think? A possible NDE or at least something equally supernatural. How can you explain it? In fact, is it at all possible to explain it in materialistic terms without confronting the mind/body conundrum?

Or is it just someone eating a biscuit…

 

[seeker_of_God]

An exquisite pleasure had invaded my senses, something isolated, detached, with no suggestion of its origin. And at once the vicissitudes of life had become indifferent to me, its disasters innocuous, its brevity illusory – this new sensation having had on me the effect which love has of filling me with a precious essence; or rather this essence was not in me it was me. … Whence did it come? What did it mean?

Tony, what do you think? A possible NDE or at least something equally supernatural. How can you explain it? In fact, is it at all possible to explain it in materialistic terms without confronting the mind/body conundrum?

Or is it just someone eating a biscuit…