A Harvard neurosurgeon's evidence for life after death

[ellzeena]

Unfortunately not undeniable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case#Summary_of_Woerlee.27s_Criticism

That’s wonderful though about the experiences you’ve had. I do believe that NDEs are possible, but I also think we have to be critical and discern whether any particular case is true or not.

That Wikipedia article doesn’t in any way invalidate her experience. No one has been able to do that, and believe me they’ve tried. There are people who cannot, for whatever reason, allow the possibility of consciousness apart from biology. The thought of God must terrify them. The thought of ultimate responsibility for their actions must also be terrifying. There’s no other way to explain their stubborn intransigence and the absolute need to deny anything “spiritual”, or “supernatural” (if you will, which simply means outside of known nature, not voo doo or other such demonology). They are those of whom Jesus spoke:
Luke 16:31
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[seeker_of_God]

Please cite my “authoritative” statement.

You cite mine as “dogmatic,” yet I never stated that it was authoritative or dogmatic. This seems like a double standard to me.

1. Do they have privileged insight into the nature of the mind?

You can do your own research on the first two. As for the third, um…yes? They are the scientific community. Again, someone posted links to prominent neuroscientists who study the brain in depth. They certainly know more than either you or me.

YOu reject them saying they have a bias. Don’t you have a bias? Do you ever refer to atheists?

Since I am not a materialist I certainly do.

YOu don’t have to be a materialist to realize that the brain affects, and even dictates, a lot of who we are as people. The body is composite with the soul, so there is no problem believing this.

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

When a person has dementia, do they have free will to be able to think clearly? When a person is clinically depressed, is it their fault for this state? The brain certainly does control a lot about us.

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

Yes, I did for three years, and it got me into a lot of trouble. Namely, deeper into the occult and New Age, believing ridiculous things about myself and about reality, etc. Personal experience is not reliable evidence in the least.

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

I never said it was dogmatic. I said there’s good reason to believe it is inauthentic.

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

I was speaking of your detachment and getting out of the close call. I was trying to be polite.

NB Without personal experience there is no proof of anything.

Again, it can get you into a lot of trouble.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

That Wikipedia article doesn’t in any way invalidate her experience. No one has been able to do that, and believe me they’ve tried. There are people who cannot, for whatever reason, allow the possibility of consciousness apart from biology. The thought of God must terrify them. The thought of ultimate responsibility for their actions must also be terrifying. There’s no other way to explain their stubborn intransigence and the absolute need to deny anything “spiritual”, or “supernatural” (if you will, which simply means outside of known nature, not voo doo or other such demonology). They are those of whom Jesus spoke:
Luke 16:31
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Ellzeena, you clearly have some information that I am not privy to. If you have to have stubborn intransigence to reject supernaturalism, then surely there must be boatloads of evidence for it out there beyond subjective, self-fulfilling ‘experiences’, yes? Why don’t you share? Please share a clinical study by someone that isn’t a wack-a-loon of an exorcism, a magic spell, a summoning, or another supernatural event?

 

[seeker_of_God]

That Wikipedia article doesn’t in any way invalidate her experience. No one has been able to do that, and believe me they’ve tried. There are people who cannot, for whatever reason, allow the possibility of consciousness apart from biology. The thought of God must terrify them. The thought of ultimate responsibility for their actions must also be terrifying. There’s no other way to explain their stubborn intransigence and the absolute need to deny anything “spiritual”, or “supernatural” (if you will, which simply means outside of known nature, not voo doo or other such demonology). They are those of whom Jesus spoke:
Luke 16:31
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

I’d love to agree with you, but I can’t.

First of all, the criticism in that article did a pretty good job, I thought, of at least introducing some doubt into the account.

Secondly, the nature of things is that there is always room for doubt. No experience will ever be 100% proof of God, of an afterlife, etc, because that would take away our free will. Even St. Thomas, who put his hand in Jesus’ wounds, could have chalked it up to some illusion; even then it took some faith.

I think you are mischaracterizing the skeptics a bit. I don’t think “ultimate responsibility for their actions” even enters into their minds. They just simply don’t believe it.

 

[The_Revelator]

tonyrey, there has been presented to you plenty of evidence, and reasonable explanations, as to why NDE’s are not conclusive evidence of an afterlife. You have however, chosen to summarily dismiss each and every one of these arguments. To question evidence is the wise and prudent thing to do, but to dismiss it without acknowledging its credibility is foolish. You should at least admit that there are reasonable explanations for NDE’s that have nothing to do with an afterlife, or God. Any man who will not admit the potential of his own fallibility is not worth listening to. You appear to be such a person.

There is a difference between blind faith, and faith that blinds.

The ultimate truth is this, people believe what they want to believe. What matters to God isn’t whether you are right, but whether you have the humility to admit that you might be wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey, there has been presented to you plenty of evidence, and reasonable explanations, as to why NDE’s are not conclusive evidence of an afterlife. You have however, chosen to summarily dismiss each and every one of these arguments. To question evidence is the wise and prudent thing to do, but to dismiss it without acknowledging its credibility is foolish. You should at least admit that there are reasonable explanations for NDE’s that have nothing to do with an afterlife, or God. Any man who will not admit the potential of his own fallibility is not worth listening to. You appear to be such a person.

There is a difference between blind faith, and faith that blinds.

The ultimate truth is this, people believe what they want to believe. What matters to God isn’t whether you are right, but whether you have the humility to admit that you might be wrong.

I have** not** stated nor implied in any of my posts that there is conclusive evidence. You should consider whether **you **might be mistaken rather than imply that I regard myself as infallible - which is not only nonsense but also an infringement of the forum conduct rule of courtesy.

NB you have still failed to answer the question:

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

 

[The_Revelator]

NB you have still failed to answer the question:

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

I have not answered this question because I believe it to be off topic, but seeing as you are the original creator of this thread I will indeed answer it, if you can clarify for me what you mean by “genuine knowledge”.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Neuroscientists do not have privileged insight into the nature of the mind.

I never claimed or implied that they did. Neuroscientists are, however, uniquely qualified to point out the apparent mistakes that the apparently less-informed Dr. Alexander makes on the subject of brain science.

Christians are just as capable of objective reasoning as sceptics - in whose ranks there are notoriously prejudiced scientists like Richard Dawkins whose self-imposed mission is to persuade everyone to reject religion as a pernicious superstition.

I’ll take that as your roundabout way of conceding that you had no good reason to object to my reviewers just because they’re atheists. (And before you assert that being an atheist automatically and necessarily prejudices someone against the possibility of un-embodied consciousness, I invite you to reread Sam Harris’s review and the work of Susan Blackmore.) Regardless of whatever other opinions those reviewers (and not Richard Dawkins) may or may not have on the subject of religion or the existence of God is irrelevant to the substantive criticisms they made of Dr. Alexander’s understanding of what can and can’t be said about a comatose human brain.

Is it a coincidence that your choice of authorities corresponds to your own scheme of things?

By all means feel free to cite anyone with comparable, relevant credentials in the field of neuroscience who refutes the science-based criticisms of Dr. Alexander’s book.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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

Colin Blakemore

Sam Harris

Steven Novella

Thanks for this. I found Steven Novella’s reasoning overwhelmingly convincing. I had always been skeptical of NDEs, and he provides ample reasons why. If my Catholic faith would hinge on something like NDEs I would be a poor slob indeed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I never claimed or implied that they did. Neuroscientists are, however, uniquely qualified to point out the apparent mistakes that the apparently less-informed Dr. Alexander makes on the subject of brain science.

I’ll take that as your roundabout way of conceding that you had no good reason to object to my reviewers just because they’re atheists. (And before you assert that being an atheist automatically and necessarily prejudices someone against the possibility of un-embodied consciousness, I invite you to reread Sam Harris’s review and the work of Susan Blackmore.) Regardless of whatever other opinions those reviewers (and not Richard Dawkins) may or may not have on the subject of religion or the existence of God is irrelevant to the substantive criticisms they made of Dr. Alexander’s understanding of what can and can’t be said about a comatose human brain.

By all means feel free to cite anyone with comparable, relevant credentials in the field of neuroscience who refutes the science-based criticisms of Dr. Alexander’s book.

 

[tonyrey]

I have not answered this question because I believe it to be off topic, but seeing as you are the original creator of this thread I will indeed answer it, if you can clarify for me what you mean by “genuine knowledge”.

Scientific knowledge is one example that should appeal to you!

 

[tonyrey]

Neuroscientists do not have privileged insight into the nature of the mind.

Neuroscientists are not qualified to pontificate on what persons experience subjectively…

Christians are just as capable of objective reasoning as sceptics - in whose ranks there are notoriously prejudiced scientists like Richard Dawkins whose self-imposed mission is to persuade everyone to reject religion as a pernicious superstition.

I’ll take that as your roundabout way of conceding that you had no good reason to object to my reviewers just because they’re atheists. (And before you assert that being an atheist automatically and necessarily prejudices someone against the possibility of un-embodied consciousness, I invite you to reread Sam Harris’s review and the work of Susan Blackmore.) Regardless of whatever other opinions those reviewers (and not Richard Dawkins) may or may not have on the subject of religion or the existence of God is irrelevant to the substantive criticisms they made of Dr. Alexander’s understanding of what can and can’t be said about a comatose human brain.

You are assuming the mind is inactive (or non-existent) when the brain is comatose. Can you justify that assumption?

Is it a coincidence that your choice of authorities corresponds to your own scheme of things?

By all means feel free to cite anyone with comparable, relevant credentials in the field of neuroscience who refutes the science-based criticisms of Dr. Alexander’s book…

I have already pointed out that scientists are not qualified to pontificate on what persons experience subjectively - either before or after death. They only have privileged insight into the nature of the mind from a materialist’s point of view - which is a hopelessly inadequate interpretation of reality…

 

[seeker_of_God]

Thanks for this. I found Steven Novella’s reasoning overwhelmingly convincing. I had always been skeptical of NDEs, and he provides ample reasons why. If my Catholic faith would hinge on something like NDEs I would be a poor slob indeed.

Yes. It seems sometimes like some believe they have to agree with such experiences just because they appear to prove supernatural phenomena. That’s why atheists can discredit many of us so much — because we often choose to believe anything and everything that appears supernatural at first glance.

We still have to use reason. We still have to be skeptical until it is definitively, or at least reasonably, proven. If it’s not Church doctrine, then we don’t have to believe it.

 

[The_Revelator]

Scientific knowledge is one example that should appeal to you!

Forgive me, I do not mean to be argumentative or evasive, but I must ask for further clarification.

Let me be specific. What do you mean by knowledge?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes. It seems sometimes like some believe they have to agree with such experiences just because they appear to prove supernatural phenomena. That’s why atheists can discredit many of us so much — because we often choose to believe anything and everything that appears supernatural at first glance.

We still have to use reason. We still have to be skeptical until it is definitively, or at least reasonably, proven. If it’s not Church doctrine, then we don’t have to believe it.

Indeed. While we should strive to be deeply religious, we need to be careful to avoid superstition.

As for atheists, I am skeptical of their rationality also for the reason that, in reversal of your phrase, they often choose to dismiss anything and everything that appears supernatural (or non-naturalistic).

The keyword here is wilfully choose to, even when there are no obvious rational reasons to do so, and the only reason is entirely dogmatic adherence to the idea that there must be naturalistic explanations for everything.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, talking about superstitions, according to a study by Baylor University deeply religious people tend to believe less in UFOs than the average population at large. At least for me, no surprise here.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Neuroscientists are not qualified to pontificate on what persons experience subjectively…

They can, however, demonstrate empirically that human memory – the subjective stuff of which NDEs are made – is notoriously unreliable, even in brains performing optimally. In addition, since NDE experiences are never reported in real time – and sometimes not for days and even weeks after the experience – it is impossible to determine if the experience actually occurred at a time when the brain was at its most compromised state, as Dr. Alexander and others have claimed.

You are assuming the mind is inactive (or non-existent) when the brain is comatose. Can you justify that assumption?

I make no such assumption. What I question is whether or not it routinely flies to the gates of Heaven and back. Given the disparate descriptions of full-blown NDE experiences – which seem to be largely dependent on cultural and individual personality factors – it would seem the odds do not favor that proposition.

 

[tonyrey]

Forgive me, I do not mean to be argumentative or evasive, but I must ask for further clarification.

Let me be specific. What do you mean by knowledge?

You are obviously having difficulty in explaining how scientific knowledge can be illogical!

The astonishing degree of mathematical accuracy attained by scientific research enables us to understand, predict and control physical events with such remarkable success that it has transformed our lives.

Does that answer your question?

 

[tonyrey]

Neuroscientists are not qualified to pontificate on what persons experience subjectively…

There is far more to subjective experience than the memory yet even the inability to recall events is not evidence that memory is an entirely physical process. If an instrument is seriously damaged it is obviously incapable of producing successful results. Do you believe your brain is the sole factor in all your mental activity?

You are assuming the mind is inactive (or non-existent) when the brain is comatose. Can you justify that assumption?

I make no such assumption.

What I question is whether or not it routinely flies to the gates of Heaven and back. Given the disparate descriptions of full-blown NDE experiences – which seem to be largely dependent on cultural and individual personality factors – it would seem the odds do not favor that proposition.They can, however, demonstrate empirically that human memory – the subjective stuff of which NDEs are made – is notoriously unreliable, even in brains performing optimally. In addition, since NDE experiences are never reported in real time – and sometimes not for days and even weeks after the experience – it is impossible to determine if the experience actually occurred at a time when the brain was at its most compromised state, as Dr. Alexander and others have claimed.

Would you agree that the time factor is not an essential feature of existence? In other words is it possible for the mind to transcend physical limitations? Our ability to understand the meaning of abstract principles and concepts like infinity, eternity and existence demonstrates that we are not restricted to sense data. There seems no reason why the validity of an experience should be rejected because it does not conform to scientific expectations (unless we are just biological machines!).

 

[Bradski]

As for atheists, I am skeptical of their rationality also for the reason that, in reversal of your phrase, they often choose to dismiss anything and everything that appears supernatural (or non-naturalistic).

The term atheist refers specifically to a lack of a belief in gods. However, a large proportion of atheists do not believe in the supernatural, period. Personally I can’t see how one could accept certain supernatural occurrences yet reject the possibility of gods.

So personally speaking, my atheism is just one aspect of my disbelief in the supernatural. I must stress however that I try very hard indeed not to reject anything out of hand. But Occams Razor generally gets a good work out.