A Harvard neurosurgeon's evidence for life after death

[tonyrey]

This is indeed an undeniable truth.

This statement is a case of selective bias, you read into my statement something that was not there. I did not state that I know that “absent such a brain we experience nothing”… What I actually said was…This would, to any logical observer, indicate that these phenomena require a live and functioning brain, and that absent such a brain we experience nothing.

I did not say that we could know, I said that it would indicate this to a logical observer. But as with NDE’s, people see what they want to see. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Your phrase “to any logical observer” implies that it is** illogical **to believe otherwise - which is equivalent to knowledge…

 

[The_Revelator]

Your phrase “to any logical observer” implies that it is** illogical **to believe otherwise - which is equivalent to knowledge…

I’m sorry, but attempting to obfuscate the point is a very poor rebuttal. Logic and knowledge are two completely different things.

You are now moving toward denial. A common tactic when one is faced with an argument that one cannot refute.

 

[seeker_of_God]

A possibility is hardly a reason for not explaining how brain activity explains such experiences…

tonyrey, I’m not convinced that you are actually reading my posts. What I see is rapid-fire posts from you without really reading and understanding the content of such posts.

Here’s what I said:

1. 
   *]NDEs are possible.
   *]Just because they are possible, does not mean that every single one is true.
   *]We must use discernment and critically think about each one to determine whether or not it might be true.
   *]This particular case strikes me as untrue for the reasons I stated in my original post.
   
   If you want to reply to me, please put forth more effort than one sentence in replying to my points, as right now I am not convinced that you actually understand what I am saying.

 

[tonyrey]

Logic and knowledge are two completely different things.

 

[tonyrey]

1. 
   *]NDEs are possible.
   *]Just because they are possible, does not mean that every single one is true.
   *]We must use discernment and critically think about each one to determine whether or not it might be true.
   *]This particular case strikes me as untrue for the reasons I stated in my original post.

1. 1. You concluded the book was completely untrue even though you read only a part of it:

   This guy has a book that I partially read recently. I had to stop, because, honestly, I didn’t believe a word of it.
   .

   1. You implied that human personality is entirely dependent on brain function:

   First of all, he never died, to my understanding; he was simply in a coma. While in that coma, the parts of his brain that had to do with human personality were destroyed.

   1. How would you justify this assertion:

   In the story that follows, the character of it is such that it is obvious that he is simply experiencing through the remaining portion of his brain.

   ?

 

[atheistgirl]

Three neuroscientists’ opinions on Dr. Alexander’s experience:

Colin Blakemore

Sam Harris

Steven Novella

---

A skeptical critique of NDEs in general

A fairly comprehensive resource on NDE/OBEs

Gotta love Sam Harris

Sarah x

 

[The_Revelator]

The Revelator;10367327:

Do you really believe genuine knowledge is illogical?

Really, this is the argument that you wish to put forward? A debate on the semantics of the word knowledge. Next you will want to debate what the definition of “is” is.

This is a perfect example of how people see what they want to see and then put forth any argument in order to avoid admitting the fact that they were wrong. This is what everyone does, they get an idea in their head and they will go to any length to deny and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Even to the point of arguing about issues that are completely beside the point.

Here a discussion on NDE’s has devolved into a debate about the semantics of the word “knowledge” when the real argument is about the fact that people see what they want to see, and deny and ignore any evidence that contradicts their position. Until you can get beyond this point you will never be able to see any truth that does not agree with the “truth” that you believe you already have. We are all subject to the same practice of denying the evidence that is right in front of our eyes, out of the fear that we might have to admit that we are wrong.

You are in essence blind, but unfortunately your blindness is self-imposed, and there is nothing that any of us can do to change that. Hopefully there are others here who recognize this potential fault in themselves and will have the integrity and strength of character to accept and change it.

One can only hope. There is no fault in having faith, except when it blinds you to the truth.

 

[tonyrey]

Even though it’s a long time ago I remember distinctly how I felt when I very nearly drowned. The tide was going out and the sea was choppy. I went under several times, swallowed a lot of water and was on the point of panicking. Then I seemed to be detached from my body, looking down at myself and just wondering what my mother would say when she heard I was dead. It all happened in an instant but the thought alone gave me the power to force myself to swim, poor swimmer though I was, against the tide to the beach…

 

[seeker_of_God]

Very well, finally we have something to reply to.

1. You concluded the book was completely untrue even though you read only a part of it:

Have you read any of it? It is pretty obvious even to the casual observer that it is inauthentic. What reasons do you have to believe in its authenticity?

1. You implied that human personality is entirely dependent on brain function:

I never implied that all personality is dependent on brain function, though even if it is who cares? We are both body and soul, and our personality can come from either, or both.

What I said is that the doctor admitted that the part of his brain to do with humanness (emotionality, personality, etc), was completely “offline.” Then he had an experience that completely lacked any human element or personality. Hmmmm.

1. How would you justify this assertion:
   ?

See above. The part of his brain that is “human” was supposedly destroyed, and then his experience lacked any sense of personality, time, where he came from, even memory of his condition.

The first part of his experience can easily be explained in this way. The latter part can be explained by the effects of drugs such as DMT.

Can you give me one good reason why we should believe his account?

 

[tonyrey]

Really, this is the argument that you wish to put forward? A debate on the semantics of the word knowledge. Next you will want to debate what the definition of “is” is.

This is a perfect example of how people see what they want to see and then put forth any argument in order to avoid admitting the fact that they were wrong. This is what everyone does, they get an idea in their head and they will go to any length to deny and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Even to the point of arguing about issues that are completely beside the point.

Here a discussion on NDE’s has devolved into a debate about the semantics of the word “knowledge” when the real argument is about the fact that people see what they want to see, and deny and ignore any evidence that contradicts their position. Until you can get beyond this point you will never be able to see any truth that does not agree with the “truth” that you believe you already have. We are all subject to the same practice of denying the evidence that is right in front of our eyes, out of the fear that we might have to admit that we are wrong.

You are in essence blind, but unfortunately your blindness is self-imposed, and there is nothing that any of us can do to change that. Hopefully there are others here who recognize this potential fault in themselves and will have the integrity and strength of character to accept and change it.

One can only hope. There is no fault in having faith, except when it blinds you to the truth.

Your irrelevant remarks evade the points I made and the questions I asked:

1. You concluded the book was completely untrue even though you read only a part of it:
2. You implied that human personality is entirely dependent on brain function.
3. How would you justify this assertion:

In the story that follows, the character of it is such that it is obvious that he is simply experiencing through the remaining portion of his brain.

?

1. Do you believe genuine knowledge is illogical? If so why?

 

[tonyrey]

Have you read any of it?

I don’t need to read his book to judge whether his article is an authentic account of his experience.

It is pretty obvious even to the casual observer that it is inauthentic.

Give one good reason.

What reasons do you have to believe in its authenticity?

A neurosurgeon wouldn’t risk his reputation and expose himself to ridicule if he weren’t sure of his facts.

I never implied that all personality is dependent on brain function, though even if it is who cares? We are both body and soul, and our personality can come from either, or both.

The statements “While in that coma, the parts of his brain that had to do with human personality were destroyed” and “In the story that follows, the character of it is such that it is obvious that he is simply experiencing through the remaining portion of his brain” make no allowance for anything but the brain.

What I said is that the doctor admitted that the part of his brain to do with humanness (emotionality, personality, etc), was completely “offline.” Then he had an experience that completely lacked any human element or personality. Hmmmm.

See above. The part of his brain that is “human” was supposedly destroyed, and then his experience lacked any sense of personality, time, where he came from, even memory of his condition.

Having experienced a similar timeless, impersonal view of reality I can understand his objectivity.

The first part of his experience can easily be explained in this way. The latter part can be explained by the effects of drugs such as DMT.

“can” is not a sound basis for a categorical rejection of the neurosurgeon’s account and interpretation of his experience.

Can you give me one good reason why we should believe his account?

I have experienced a similar experience of emotional detachment when I nearly drowned and I know it is not fictitious.

 

[seeker_of_God]

I don’t need to read his book to judge whether his article is an authentic account of his experience.

right. So why did you criticize me for not reading the entire book, when what I read was doubtless longer in length than the article you read? Yet you feel you can declare authoritatively that it was authentic?

Give one good reason.

I have been doing exactly that. Read all of my previous posts.

A neurosurgeon wouldn’t risk his reputation and expose himself to ridicule if he weren’t sure of his facts.

This is an appeal to authority. Lots of people say things because they truly believe in them, but it does not mean it is accepted by the scientific community, which this book certainly is not.

I have no doubt that he believes what he is saying to be true. But did you read the articles someone else posted earlier? There are clearly many problems with his account.

The statements “While in that coma, the parts of his brain that had to do with human personality were destroyed” and “In the story that follows, the character of it is such that it is obvious that he is simply experiencing through the remaining portion of his brain” make no allowance for anything but the brain.

Do you dispute that the part of his brain that was supposedly destroyed is not responsible for human personality and emotions?

There are countless accounts in the literature of people’s brains who were damaged in this area, and they subsequently had a complete change in personality. You are going against a fair bit of scientific evidence to say that the personality is not controlled by this area.

Having experienced a similar timeless, impersonal view of reality I can understand his objectivity.

Experience is subjective and not suitable evidence. Why else do you think the Church is so careful about apparitions, miracles, and other such experiences? Experience can be caused by anything from illusion, psychosis, brain defects or injury, demon influence, and the like. To say, “I had this experience, and thus it is true,” is simply not proof of anything.

“can” is not a sound basis for a categorical rejection of the neurosurgeon’s account and interpretation of his experience.

And yet an appeal to authority, as well as to subjective, personal experience, is enough reason to accept it? This is all you have given so far. I, and others, have given reasons why it might not be authentic. Your foundation isn’t very sound.

I have experienced a similar experience of emotional detachment when I nearly drowned and I know it is not fictitious.

See above. Personal experience is not proof of anything. It sounds like a nice experience, but it doesn’t support anything.

Hindus experience apparitions of their gods. Hindu near-death experiences have no mention of Christ, or even heaven or hell. Yet their experiences are just as “real” as NDEs in the west.

In the Church, we are not encouraged to believe personal experience until and unless it is told to a spiritual director, who can give further guidance. An experience such as yours can be personally encouraging, but it doesn’t mean it is true; we cannot know. But an experience such as the neurosurgeon’s, since it is public and to be believed by many, should be put to scrutiny. And, thus far, it appears to fail.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Imagine showing a television to a lost tribe of people who have had no contact with the outside world. Now try explaining to them that the picture and sound of the television comes from broadcasting companies. The tribal people would probably look at you like you were nuts, insisting that the sound and picture were originating from within the television set itself.

Now, rethink where inner voices come from? Might it be that these voices to are originating from afar, and not a product of our brain?

It’s interesting to note that human beings make great television antennas. I do not think this is coincidental.

 

[cornbread_r2]

It is noteworthy that all your “authorities” are atheists who have a vested interest…

The three people I cited all have PhDs in neuroscience and, as such, are likely to know more about brain function than a neurosurgeon.

Given that Christians are actually commanded by God to convert the whole world, would I be justified in automatically discounting/ignoring any Christian investigator’s opinion because she might appear to have an even greater potential vested interest?

 

[tonyrey]

The three people I cited all have PhDs in neuroscience and, as such, are likely to know more about brain function than a neurosurgeon.

 

[tonyrey]

right. So why did you criticize me for not reading the entire book, when what I read was doubtless longer in length than the article you read? Yet you feel you can declare authoritatively that it was authentic?

Please cite my “authoritative” statement.

This is an appeal to authority. Lots of people say things because they truly believe in them, but it does not mean it is accepted by the scientific community, which this book certainly is not.

1. Where is the evidence for that assertion?
2. Who are the scientific community?
3. Do they have privileged insight into the nature of the mind?

Do you dispute that the part of his brain that was supposedly destroyed is not responsible for human personality and emotions?

Since I am not a materialist I certainly do.

There are countless accounts in the literature of people’s brains who were damaged in this area, and they subsequently had a complete change in personality. You are going against a fair bit of scientific evidence to say that the personality is not controlled by this area.

“affected” is a more accurate term. “controlled” implies that we do not have free will.

Experience is subjective and not suitable evidence. Why else do you think the Church is so careful about apparitions, miracles, and other such experiences? Experience can be caused by anything from illusion, psychosis, brain defects or injury, demon influence, and the like. To say, “I had this experience, and thus it is true,” is simply not proof of anything.

All knowledge is based on subjective experience. Don’t you regard your experiences as proof of anything?

And yet an appeal to authority, as well as to subjective, personal experience, is enough reason to accept it? This is all you have given so far. I, and others, have given reasons why it might not be authentic. Your foundation isn’t very sound.

Your “reasons” are opinions which are insufficient to justify a dogmatic conclusion.

See above. Personal experience is not proof of anything. It sounds like a nice experience, but it doesn’t support anything.

It is ridiculous to describe an experience of almost drowning as “nice”.

NB Without personal experience there is no proof of anything.

Hindus experience apparitions of their gods. Hindu near-death experiences have no mention of Christ, or even heaven or hell. Yet their experiences are just as “real” as NDEs in the west.

You are assuming their NDEs are not authentic.

In the Church, we are not encouraged to believe personal experience until and unless it is told to a spiritual director, who can give further guidance. An experience such as yours can be personally encouraging, but it doesn’t mean it is true; we cannot know. But an experience such as the neurosurgeon’s, since it is public and to be believed by many, should be put to scrutiny. And, thus far, it appears to fail.

In your opinion…

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

When was the last time someone had an NDE involving HELL?

Or, for that matter, anything negative?

I’ve never heard of it.

 

[tonyrey]

When was the last time someone had an NDE involving HELL?

Or, for that matter, anything negative?

I’ve never heard of it.

Why do you regard that fact - if it is a fact - as significant?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Why do you regard that fact - if it is a fact - as significant?

It’s just a curiosity. Perhaps many people have experienced it, I’ve just never heard of it. It seems unusual to me, especially since I was taught that few people were supposed to go to Heaven.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s just a curiosity. Perhaps many people have experienced it, I’ve just never heard of it. It seems unusual to me, especially since I was taught that few people were supposed to go to Heaven.

Then you have been misinformed by individuals who do not realise the extent to which God loves His children - but that is a topic for another thread…