Could be promising and be a good kick start to help study obe's and nde's. I did find the bit about western nde's being different from eastern nde's. I always thought that they were very similar.
Source:http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/feature/6442698560/story.html
QuoteTORONTO – What happens in your brain during an out-of-body experience? Would an afterlife be boring or would it be worthwhile to live forever? If you've ever pondered these questions, a California study dubbed The Immortality Project is looking for the same answers that you are, and more.
A US $5-million grant from the John Templeton Foundation has been awarded to University of California at Riverside philosopher John Martin Fischer to fund research on aspects of immortality.
Fischer is organizing competitions, selecting judges and consulting with potential (and actual) recipients of research grants, though won't be conducting the research himself. Funding for grants will be distributed as follows: $2.5 million for scientific studies and $1.5 million for theology and philosophy projects.
Participants will consist of carefully selected top scientists, philosophers, and theologians from around the world, though proposals must be submitted in English.
The Immortality Project is officially underway, and advertising for the first competition for science research proposals will begin Sept. 1.
So what kind of ideas is Fischer expecting?
On the phone from Germany, he explained that one possibility is taking past reports of near-death experiences and comparing them across countries like the Canada, the U.S., Japan, India and Africa.
Fischer says in the West, people often report seeing a dark tunnel with a bright light at the end when describing near-death experiences, while people in Japan describe tending a garden.
He points to the fact that in most western cultures we have the saying 'there's a light at the end of the tunnel' while in Japan there's a story of how to keep in touch with loved ones as you age by buying a garden and tending it together.
"It's pure speculation, but maybe somehow, psychologically, when there's a tremendous threat to us and it feels like we're about to die, we can somehow reach for that comfort zone or that idea that there's light at the end of the tunnel." Or a garden with friends, if you're Japanese.
He says another possibility would be simulating so-called out-of-body experiences to test whether people can really 'see themselves' from different viewpoints, as is often reported.
In the realm of neuroscience, studies could test if there are features of the brain that predispose people to believe in an afterlife, or if there are scans that can reveal brain phenomena when people are having out-of-body experiences. All experiments using people would have to be approved by ethics committees.
An additional area of study is cataloguing people's beliefs about the afterlife and finding links to their behaviour e.g. finding out if people who believe in hell are less likely to commit crimes, as some empirical studies have suggested.
In the philosophy and theology realms, the project would support sabbaticals for winners to write articles and books on topics such as whether the conceptions of heaven, hell and purgatory are philosophically defensible, or whether or not it would even be desirable to live forever.
Fischer believes the project came together now because of increasing interest among scientists in the possibility of increasing the human lifespan, but notes that we've always been interested in the possibility of defeating death, as evidenced by stories that began with Adam and Eve.
"Even to the present where we have this fascination with vampire literature – the vampires seek a kind of immortality by taking other people's blood," he says. "Throughout religion, science—the history of both Western and Eastern science—and literature, we've been seeking this kind of fountain of youth."
Fischer admits that he would be surprised to find definitive answers on the various aspects of immortality, but aims to make progress on what we do know about death. He emphasizes that the primary focus isn't just near-death experiences, and hopes that by thinking about immortality, we can learn what we value in our finite lives.
While he says he's "not a religious believer," he remains open-minded about the possibility of an afterlife.
"My father, who passed away recently, was a cardiologist and my brother is a cardiologist and they both treat patients who are very sick and sometimes die," he says. "Maybe when I was young I was thinking about these issues, because I saw that my father would really try and help people, and sometimes he couldn't, and so maybe that got me started."
Nice find Kirkland.
Dr Jeffrey Long is always saying that NDEs are broadly culture independent, but the Japanese garden thing rings a bell somewhere.
However, if it is true that the Japanese don't experience a tunnel, then that drives a coach and horses through the standard critics' assertion that the tunnel effect is caused by oxygen deprivation in the visual system, resulting in neurons misfiring causing a bright tunnel effect. Presumably in Japanese people the visual system misfires in the pattern of a pretty garden....
Here is Susan Blackmore being very smug and insufferable about the tunnel. If the Japanese do not experience a tunnel, then she is clearly completely wrong, although like most skeptics she is supremely confident and misrepresents her opinions as proven scientific facts.
Watch from 5.12 to 6.01:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsvkJeX5OE0
I can't watch her... I simply can't.
But that is very true.
NDEs also can't be an evolutionary brain trait... It's impossible.
Well I think that most of the current skeptic explanations kind of lack any proof of any kind at the end of the day we know very little about human consciousness and the brain. The thing that really disproves most skeptical views to me is the fact that people who have been blind from birth have nde's and are able to describe instruments etc around them in hospitals. Surely they wouldn't be able to even see something (produced by the brain) if they do not have a developed visual cortex.
Yeah, whether it's a tunnel, a garden, a heaven, or a hell, the experience is all dependent upon one's beliefs. And what is this afterlife they speak of? :roll: What exactly is after Life? If you look at it from an atheist perspective where you no longer exist beyond this realm, then the term afterlife is irrelevant anyway. If you look at it from a spiritual perspective where you believe life continues after the body expires then the term is still irrelevant, LOL. Given that there is life beyond this realm, is there anything other than life? That's like saying everytime I get out of my car I have just entered the afterlife. :lol: It doesn't make much sense. :| But yeah, I understand why the term exists. I'm just pointing out the silliness of the word. :-P
Also, it's somewhat entertaining to observe scientists obsessively try to come up with the fountain of youth, or to extend life as long as possible - and not just scientists, but has been the dreams or vanity of many people throughout many cultures because they fear this event that the global society refers to as "death". I mean I guess from an atheist point of view where they believe life ends, or from a materialistic point of view where they fear to lose their possesions, I can somewhat understand the fear. But wanting to live forever within this reality here on Earth is like wanting to stay in kindergarten forever, bleh. :-o Eventually you must move on or else you will reach a point where you will cease to progress. Where's the fun in that. Talk about monotony to the extreme, hehe. :-o
Also, the brain is basically a receiver, a receptor, a regulator, a tuner, and a filter. Memories, dreams, and beliefs are not stored in the brain. Information is not stored in the brain. Images are not stored in nor do they originate in the brain. So when the brain is being deprived of oxygen when the physical body is expiring, the neurons firing off DO NOT create the images we see when we move on beyond this reality, or not, A.K.A "die". There are many things we still don't know about the brain, but one thing is for certain, the brain does not create any images, illusions, halucinations, and it does not store information. It accesses. Again, it's much like a receiver or an antenna. It accesses information that already exists, and the information we receive is based upon the input request from the programmer - You. It is an input/output device. So when events happen, such as "death", sudden head trauma, drugs, "halucinagens", etc., the brain is being altered to access or tune into information in a way that is not normally done in a normal, average conscious state, so anomolies happen, such as the so called "halucinations", but they are not halucinations. They are realities the brain is temporarily tuning into that is outside our normal experiential reality. There is no such thing as halucinations. That is just a term we coined to explain this event because many do not understand what is happening when part of our brain is tuning into a reality where our beliefs and perceptions can immediately become part of our reality. Even when the so called halucinations have no physical effect or do no physical harm, which is most often the case, it does not make the experience any less real.
So 5 million dollars eh? Well, sounds like fun I guess. It'll be interesting to see what they discover and what conclusions they come up with.
QuoteNDEs also can't be an evolutionary brain trait... It's impossible.
To play devil's advocate, why do you feel that?
I have read strong arguments to support your statement, and my own experiences somewhat support it, but I would be interested to hear your angle.
Quote from: Bedeekin on August 24, 2012, 16:31:21
I can't watch her... I simply can't.
Haha, I feel so with you. :-D I feel exactly the same about all those Blackmoores, Shermers, Wisemans and Randis of this world. If s.o. links a video to them I just cannot stand these watching these 'experts' spreading their half-truths anymore. (It's not that I didn't for a while up to some time ago).
Yes, it sounds arrogant maybe, but I somehow "evolved" out of this state that I feel no need or will anymore to intellectually deal with their beliefs and positions. It's like talking with some first graders of an elementary school about the alphabet (even though there is nothing to "discuss") although you are already enrolled in an English literature class ready and prepared to discuss works of poetry or prose.
I really wish in a forum like this we wouldn't talk about those strange self-proclaimed 'sceptics' anymore at all.
I don't mind those skeptics in the world but I think they should realise that it works both ways they can't expect everyone just to listen to them. They should be able to objectively listen to other people's opinions without turning it into something where they just try to aggressively humiliate people with differing opinions.
In saying that I'm a skeptic just I am someone who does not exactly know what I think yet (22 so still young:D) hence why I am here trying to see if anything here resonates with my experiences.
Quote from: Bedeekin on August 24, 2012, 16:31:21
NDEs also can't be an evolutionary brain trait... It's impossible.
Well actually, there may be an evolutionary mechanism. People who survive NDEs tend to continue life with a much more positive attitude and presumably lower stress levels. I'm guessing this leads to a healthier and longer life, and therefore higher chance of passing on those NDE genes!
Weak, I know, but the forces of evolution are in fact very weak. It remains a mystery why we should have evolved the complicated sequence of events which typically make up an NDE. Rick Strassman, the scientist who investigated DMT, made the same observation, namely, why are NDEs so sophisticated, an what evolutionary mechanism could possibly have led to this?
Quote from: Kirkland on August 25, 2012, 08:07:27In saying that I'm a skeptic just I am someone who does not exactly know what I think yet (22 so still young:D) hence why I am here trying to see if anything here resonates with my experiences.
It wasn't intended to be directed at s.o. here. Just a more general statement about the pro skeptics. I think you are an open-minded skeptic (which I am partly myself) and no close-minded (such as Blackmoore et al.) - that is what makes a vital difference. :-)
Quote from: Bedeekin on August 24, 2012, 16:31:21
I can't watch her... I simply can't.
Hehe, yeah I can understand how you feel. But from another perspective the Blackmores, the Randis, and others have been great for my own learning opportunities, and I'll explain why. There were times when I was entertained by Susan and Randi's comments because whenever I would listen to their comments my ego would kick in and I couldn't help but get the serious giggles. :lol: And to the other extreme I would catch myself watching shows like the Jack Van Impe show and find myself getting the biggest laugh. Then later I would search myself and examine why I would be entertained by what I perceived to be so amusing. I soon discovered that it was nothing more than my ego taking control combined with my own belief systems - a VERY powerful combination. I then turned this into my own little project. Attachments can be quite a challenge to let go of, and there are many many attachments. So I would keep watching these shows while practicing letting go of more attachments to my own deeply embedded beliefs. The more you explore your beliefs the more you surprisingly realise how many there are. Some are so extremely subtle yet so extremely powerful it can take an entire lifetime on Earth to free yourself from them all.
It's important to keep in mind that there are no right or wrongs. Just as every snow flake is unique, and each individual has their own unique finger prints, each and every individual has their own unique perceptions and their own unique learning experiences and their own unique reality that has nothing to do with any other individual in their own path of self realization. I eventually started watching these shows and listening to these individuals without any judgement or bias and without being attached to most if any other beliefs that I am consciously aware of, and I can honor and deeply respect anything they feel to be true for their own reality.
Anytime I experience an event and I feel a nudge, whether positive or negative, I realize that there is an attachment somewhere that is causing the resistence.
Well, I linked Susan Blackmore just to show how foolish she was. Like the other evangelical skeptics, she expresses her own personal opinion as scientific fact. This is something which NDE researchers (eg Long, Van Lommel, Parnia, Greyson, Ring, Sabom) do not do. They are usually quite circumspect when it comes to their own personal theories and do not make arrogant assertions.
In the clip I linked, Blackmore made a fool of herself by stating that NDE symptoms such as the tunnel are caused by oxygen starvation. A significant number of NDE experiencers (maybe 20%) do not experience a life threatening situation, they ony believe they do. They certainly do not experience hypoxia, yet they describe typical NDEs. Similarly, the majority of hypoxia sufferers (eg cardiac arrest sufferers) do not experience any NDE symptoms. There is clearly no correlation between hypoxia and NDE symptoms.
So when Blackmore says that oxygen starvation causes this NDE symptom, and it explains that symptom, she is clearly barking up the wrong tree. Yet she is so arrogant and smug about things she is clearly mistaken about. Something which Jeffrey Long, Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia are not.
Quote from: catmeow on August 25, 2012, 15:09:58So when Blackmore says that oxygen starvation causes this NDE symptom, and it explains that symptom, she is clearly barking up the wrong tree. Yet she is so arrogant and smug about things she is clearly mistaken about. Something which Jeffrey Long, Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia are not.
Just if you're interested: Already years ago I collected these two bookmarks on her. One is a good rebuttal and dissection of her unsubstantial 'brain(dead)'-book from many years ago, the other is on her "scientific research" when she was still a parapsychologist before she became the skeptic society's wh... *oops*, I didn't say anything ... :roll: :wink:.
I think it's really worth the longer read,so here we go:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Anomali/skeptic_research.html
:-)
Hi,
Another read from a name we all know.
http://research.obe4u.com/nde-simulating-experiment/
Enjoy.
QuoteRick Strassman, the scientist who investigated DMT, made the same observation, namely, why are NDEs so sophisticated, an what evolutionary mechanism could possibly have led to this?
Think about how complicated our protein-machinery inside cells are... hundreds of thousands of different protein machines per cell, pumping, acting as 1-way gates for specific substances, shipping and receiving centers, assembly and demolition units...
If there is a way for what can only be called a bio-robotic factory to evolve in the shape of cells (and that is truly what it is, if you understand how complicated functional proteins are), then something as simple as a programatic series of mental images should be childs-play for evolution.
And there are good reasons for it... humans are the only animal we know of that are strongly conscious of their own mortality (some other mammals might be too). Anything that eases humans of debilitating fears might give an evolutionary advantage, and thus be more likely to be passed on.
Quote from: Stillwater on August 25, 2012, 18:04:17
If there is a way for what can only be called a bio-robotic factory to evolve in the shape of cells (and that is truly what it is, if you understand how complicated functional proteins are), then something as simple as a programatic series of mental images should be childs-play for evolution.
Well it's more than just a series of hallucinations...
Floating out of the physical body, observing it and the activities taking place around it
Travelling through the tunnel towards the Light
Feeling of safety and unconditional love in the light
Meeting deceased relatives
Meeting a being of light
Telepathic communication
Feeling of knowing all the secrets of the universe
The life review
Decision whether to stay or return to the physical
Strong psychological after effects, increased compassion, decreased aggression and competitiveness
This is a very sophisticated set of core experiences to have evolved, especially without any one of them having much obvious survival value. In the case of the bio-robotic protein factory, I suspect there are obvious direct survival advantages attributable to each stage of the evolution of the mechanism. I don't see direct survival advantages in the evolution of the NDE core set. In fact the only direct survival implications are negative (see later):
Quote from: Stillwater
And there are good reasons for it... humans are the only animal we know of that are strongly conscious of their own mortality (some other mammals might be too). Anything that eases humans of debilitating fears might give an evolutionary advantage, and thus be more likely to be passed on.
Alternatively there might be an evolutionary disadvantage; The certain promise of a blissful after life, would make the experiencer less concerned about his physical safety, increasing the likelihood of death and removal from the gene pool. Also, strong after effects, including reduced aggression and competitiveness would similarly be a direct survival disadvantage.
I'm finding it hard to see an evolutionary mechanism that might have resulted in the NDE core set. The thing is, this core set is not a sequence of unrelated hallucinations, it's an organised collection of experiences, which are entirely consistent, individually and collectively, with a similarly organised after life. I just don't see the direct survival advantage which would be needed for these things to be hallucinations.
It's rigged.
The true test on NDE's would be to compare the NDE experiences of the current compared to the NDE experiences of the past (pre-1900's) and see how they match up with consistency. If anyone has compared these, please let me know. Thanks.
We should not forget that the afterlife experience is seemingly shaped differently relying heavily on the expectations and preconditions of the individual, involving cultural, psychological, religious, historical, etc. background.
That does not mean it is not real. The opposite is the case, it is very real because these adaptations are integral to the process.
During a transition period everything is done to make the individual feel comfortable and find ease in the process. If the individual expects a garden they will find a garden and maybe be with angels or helpers that guide them there. If they expect to find a guy named Jesus they might be in for a meeting with him.
On the other hand, if they cannot adjust properly and expect due to a rigid belief system that they have to end up in hell, they will find themselves for some time in hell. Hence we have the little amount of 'hellish' NDEs. If they think that they have to sleep til ascencion day they when they will be awoken by heavenly trumpets, then they will put themselves in hibernation mode accordingly. Etc. pp.
Just been skimming through Radruga's 'dream-NDE'-project "research": It is pretty laughable in my view. Of course you can play through your own fantasies in an AP. You can do programming, even with dreams. And of course I have also flewn through tunnels in OBEs. You can fly through them all the time. It is a common mode of navigation. You also are a creator. If you want to create a rose-red elephant with wings you might be able to do so with some skills. Same applies to flying against some source of light or whatever. But that does not make sth 'unreal' at all. It is real because your experience and creation on Astral level makes it real.
So, this does prove or disprove nothing about NDEs (or OBEs) at all. Most of all since most NDErs do it involuntarily and have never heard of OBEs before. Secondly you cannot e.g. 'mimic' the feeling of bliss that you encounter, I couldn't do it in an OBE, you might in mystic experiences of the rare kind though.
And then they rely on the unproven assumption that REM-sleep is dreaming and is only experience 'in your head' (instead of being a mind projection like anything else, too), and thereby also deliberately ignoring all scientific evidence in serious NDE-literature stating that no brain activity takes place. And then ignoring all the validations that are constantly made during NDEs, etc. pp.
This is pseudo-research relying on the accounts of biased experiencers and then some "expert" analysing it with even more bias in their mind, imv.
Quote from: catmeow on August 25, 2012, 13:04:12
Well actually, there may be an evolutionary mechanism. People who survive NDEs tend to continue life with a much more positive attitude and presumably lower stress levels. I'm guessing this leads to a healthier and longer life, and therefore higher chance of passing on those NDE genes!
Weak, I know, but the forces of evolution are in fact very weak. It remains a mystery why we should have evolved the complicated sequence of events which typically make up an NDE. Rick Strassman, the scientist who investigated DMT, made the same observation, namely, why are NDEs so sophisticated, an what evolutionary mechanism could possibly have led to this?
Yes... I have thought this also.. .that maybe it got passed on from it being a positive experience... but.. .then not all NDEs are positive and not everyone who clinically dies has a NDE. Also NDEs are a 'more' modern phenomenon because of the ability to bring somebody back from a point of no return.
Quote from: Bedeekin on August 26, 2012, 07:24:03
Yes... I have thought this also.. .that maybe it got passed on from it being a positive experience... but.. .then not all NDEs are positive and not everyone who clinically dies has a NDE. Also NDEs are a 'more' modern phenomenon because of the ability to bring somebody back from a point of no return.
I've argued both for and against the evolutionary hypothesis on this thread, but really my position is more against than for. I agree with you, how can the same evolutionary factors which might give rise to a comforting NDE also give rise to a hellish one?!
Evolution isn't goal-oriented though.
It has the tendancy of passing on traits which increase survivability, but the particular trait only needs to increase survivability in more individuals than it descreases; a sucessful trait can both help some and harm others, if there is a net positive outcome; for instance take sickle-cell allele: if an individual has one copy of it, they have strongly-increased resistance to getting malaria, and if they have two, then they get sickle-cell anemia.
So it is entirely possible that the NDE can have a genetic background if it helps more people survive than it hinders.
The interesting thing about all of this though is that the metaphysical explanation of NDE and the evolutionary one are not mutually exclusive. It is very possible that both sides of them evolved in tandem. In fact, if the metahphsyical explanation is true, this is more likely to be the case than not, since evolution would have needed to select for it somehow in the physical in order to justify its existence there.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with! I don't mind skeptics either, as long as they're open-minded and willing to change the paradigm if the evidence calls for it. And I can't really blame them for going for what they perceive as the most reasonable explanation... As long as they're not obnoxious about it I don't mind listening to it, and on the positive side some skeptics make very good points and can actually be helpful :-) Many of them are trying the best they can with what they have.
To be honest I think the only way these kinds of subjects will really reach the masses and be taken seriously is if they're studied properly (with results, mind you) and that the research is publicized enough... It can actually help a lot of people consider it in a different way than if it's seen as New Age nonsense...
Quote from: Stillwater on August 26, 2012, 17:32:14
The interesting thing about all of this though is that the metaphysical explanation of NDE and the evolutionary one are not mutually exclusive. It is very possible that both sides of them evolved in tandem. In fact, if the metahphsyical explanation is true, this is more likely to be the case than not, since evolution would have needed to select for it somehow in the physical in order to justify its existence there.
Not getting this point at all. ??? Evolution is a physical theory involving genes, it has nothing to do with metaphysics.
If the metaphysical explanation is true (ie NDEs are "real") then it could not be "selected into the physical experience". Because it wouldn't be a physical experience. It would be a metaphysical experience we have after the physical body dies. i.e. the series of non physical events which happen after our physical body has stopped working.
Not necesarly; it is entirely plausible to me that NDE could have developed entirely by evolution, but arose as a situation where metaphyscial experiences may be had.
For example, the anecdotal reports people have of experiecing perspectives they couldn't have from their body, and retrieving information from these perspectives could be claimed as partial support for those claiming metaphysical aspects. But the programatic archetypes that recur and seem to deal with universal human fears and uncertainties strongly point to evolutionary development of the experience too. In my mind the idea that part of it could be meatphysical does not erase the need to explain parts of the expeiences that strongly invoke evolutionary psychology.
For instance, many here claim that dreams and dreaming have a metaphysical component; we also know though that dreams have very strong physicalist explanations too though; if both explanations my simultaneously hold in that altered state, the altered state of NDE seems like it could be a similar candidate.
Quote from: Stillwater on August 26, 2012, 22:44:27we also know though that dreams have very strong physicalist explanations too though
how and why? because a certain Ms. Blackmore tells us so? :wink:
Stillwater, do you think that what people experience as a typical NDE (tunnel, light, being of light, deceased relatives, life review etc) is the same set of events that occur in an actual death experience (ADE)?
Greetings all
Bedeekin, Catsmeow and Vorgerle
Regarding Susan Blackmore. This person is an enigma to me. Many years ago she used to be very open-minded, even supportive, about OBEs and NDEs. Now she seems to be a rabidly close-minded skeptic. Even to the point of creating absurd and ridiculous theories to explain away well reported phenomena. So at some point (I conjecture) she must have had some epiphany (or anti-epiphany) that convinced her that all OBEs and NDEs were but delusions> (?) :| :?
Regards :-)
Grey
Greytraveller,
I learnt a lot about what happened to her by reading this link, provided by Volgerle
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Anomali/skeptic_research.html
Initially, she was spurred on by a drug-induced, elaborate OBE, which she believed to be real. Initially enthusiastic, she then did a PhD on parapsychology, performing studies and trials into ESP. She spent a couple of years, but her trials didn't yield many positive ESP results. So presumably her PhD was a failure. I'm guessing if you put all this work into your PhD, and it fails, you're going to feel quite bitter, and academically a bit of a failure.
So in order to restore her academic credibility, I guess she put a lot of energy into debunking ESP. This would then be a way of getting value out of her failed PhD. Her consistent position has been that she has spent "20 years" investigating parapsychology and in all those years didn't find any evidence of ESP. In actual fact she only spent 2 years performing experiments, and she did have successes.
But in order to strengthen her anti-ESP position, 2 years has become 20, and 7 successful experiments out of 21 has become "no successful experiments". I simply believe her anti-ESP stance is her way of turning her perceived failed PhD into a success.
Celia Green is another terribly embittered parapsychology researcher. She started the Institute of Psychophysical Research, in the 1960s, and conducted research into Lucid Dreams and OBEs. She published her results, and whilst these were ground breaking, other authors jumped onto the bandwagon (eg Stephen LaBerge) and being much more successful at self promotion, took Credit which Celia Green felt she deserved. Celia Green fell out of favour in academic circles, lost funding and became increasingly isolated and bitter. Today she is reduced to writing a strange blog, publishing the bizarre letters she has written to institutes, she believes, owe her a job, money or both.
So it seems that the path of parapsychology research has claimed a few casualties, Susan Blackmore and Celia Green, counting amongst the injured. Interestingly, they are both somewhat critical of each other.
Hi,
It would appear they both got a plumber to do the electrics.
Quote from: catmeow on August 27, 2012, 14:01:08
Stillwater, do you think that what people experience as a typical NDE (tunnel, light, being of light, deceased relatives, life review etc) is the same set of events that occur in an actual death experience (ADE)?
If the combined evolutionary-metaphysical model I have been entertaining here is true, my guess is that the NDE and ADE would be more-or-less identical, until some particular moment of death, at which point the ADE may take a new course, that is not tied to biology and its archetypes any longer. It also seems possible to me that a handful of the people who have had NDE actually passed this point, and somehow came back from the edge.
So the archetypal NDE may be presenting itself for as long as neurons have anything to say, but after they lack enough oxygen to function, it would seem what came after would be purely metaphysical.
So the beginning of most experiences under this model would be programmatic, but could diverge from this later.
Quote from: Stillwater on August 27, 2012, 20:33:03
If the combined evolutionary-metaphysical model I have been entertaining here is true, my guess is that the NDE and ADE would be more-or-less identical, until some particular moment of death, at which point the ADE may take a new course, that is not tied to biology and its archetypes any longer. It also seems possible to me that a handful of the people who have had NDE actually passed this point, and somehow came back from the edge.
So the archetypal NDE may be presenting itself for as long as neurons have anything to say, but after they lack enough oxygen to function, it would seem what came after would be purely metaphysical.
So the beginning of most experiences under this model would be programmatic, but could diverge from this later.
So, your combined evolutionary-metaphysical model is really a physical model, making use of neurons, and then at some point changes to a metaphysical model, which does not make use of neurons. The first part, which makes use of neurons, I would say was purely physical, and you would say is combined physical and metaphysical. This is where we potentially disagree. The second part, which does not make use of neurons is clearly purely metaphysical, I hope you agree?
So the crux of the matter is whether the first part, which makes use of neurons, is purely physical, and has no metaphysical aspect, or whether it not purely physical but also has a metaphysical aspect. If the former is true, then the evolutionary and metaphysical explanations of NDE are mutually exclusive. If the latter is true then they are not mutually exclusive.
Now I can see your argument a little. There are some aspects of the NDE which might be mitigated, or partially mitigated by the physical body. Perhaps the tunnel construct is the result of DMT release by the pituitary, as Strassman says, and is not a real construct. In fact that's the only aspect that I see as a real candidate, mainly because some NDErs describe an instantaneous transition to the Light, skipping the tunnel.
Most of the other elements, e.g. the Light, telepathic communication, sense of all knowing, seem to be completely native to the non physical state, and are absolutes, independent of any physical body we may or may not have. I don't see these as being anything other than purely metaphysical. The Life Review? well I wonder. This relates to physical memories, but is also so transcendental, of time, consciousness, and normal experience, that it seems hard to classify this as anything other than metaphysical.
Let's assume that someone is disintegrated, by an atomic explosion. Clearly they are instantly deprived of a physical body, so their ADE must consist of only metaphysical components. Which do you think these are? Floating above the physical scene? The tunnel? The Light,? The Being of Light? The life review? The telepathic communication? The sense of all knowing? Or none of these?
For me, there are lots of complexities to this issue, and it is very muddy (both with doubt, and in the explanations). The reason I speak of the moment when neurons are fully deprived of oxygen, is that it guarantees that if something is reported (and it truly happened in the moment it was percieved to, and not just before or after, it must have been metaphysical in nature, and this is the one time I think we can exclude physical explanations.
Throughout the rest of NDE time, it way well be that the metaphysical and the physical sort of intermingle, in a complimentary relationship. The physical is there (because well, we are having a physical experience for the moment, and the body won't go anyplace till we die, so it will have its say in one way or another), and the metaphysical side may perhaps introduce itself because the opportunity strongly presents itself (because it is a moment of profound sensory-disconnect, similar to the sleep paralysis state that so facilitates OBE for us).
Even during an OBE, we still have influence on our psyche of the physical; we may hear sounds or experience sensations of the physical body; in this experience, the physical and metaphysical appear to comingle- this is the type of situation I am suggesting, albiet with stronger physical input.
The Nuclear blast situation... sounds like a cop-out in how I explain it, but I would suspect that the individual would skip the sensations of the NDE that relate to a dying brain, such as the tunnel-experience you mention, and procede directly to whatever part of the experience has no physical basis ( there is no ultimate way for me to sort out which are which, although I would suspect you could start to identify which experiences may be physical by catologuing which seem to occur most often towards the beginning of an NDE, or which experiences individuals of a certain genetic lineage seem to have exclusively to themselves, regardless of the culture they find themselves in.)
Hi Stillwater. Well it is a very muddy and unclear subject. I do actually understand what you are getting at, and accept that there might be some sort of intermingling of the physical and metaphysical aspects of NDEs. This means that evolution may have played a part in constructing the experience, although I really question how much influence evolution may have exerted. I know that mind and brain interact, so I can't deny there is already a metaphysical/physical interaction. How much this pervades the NDE is questionable, because I believe that many of the NDE elements are absolute parts of the non physical state, and have nothing to do with the physical. But I see your essential reasoning. So I have gone from "I really don't get this" to "I cautiously do get this". Mainstream dogmatists may be harder to persuade!