Neurosurgeon Has Out-of-Body Experience; Believes In Afterlife Now

here...I'll play the devils advocate...I'll cite a scientific paper

What the brain stem tells the frontal cortex. I. Oculomotor signals sent from superior colliculus to frontal eye field via mediodorsal thalamus.

I'm presenting evidence..after I've read the book of course...and will cite various peer reviewed scientific papers as to possible causes..staying away from the metaphysical.

I'm not here to judge the Doctor's character..ascertain his career and motives...denigrate religious beliefs...I'm here to present a logical counter-argument to the metaphysical...

I assert the brainstem signals influenced the doctor's frontal cortex and the resultant halluciinatory activity....

Obviously, I'm not a scientist...but this is the scientific method...so if you're going to preach it...use it...

The man's character...and religious beliefs are incidental to offering counter arguments based on the empirical.

The goal is not to impugn relgious beliefs, the goal is to offer an explanatioin...is it not?

 

Scientific method is a half failure because there are and always there will be things that cannot be explained ( what is the meaning of evolution otherwise? ). I'm not saying science is a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing because thanks to it we have medicines, vaccines, technology, but it becomes a bad thing when you pretend to apply scientific method to everything, like it is some kind of all powerful tool, but it is NOT.

In the instant you pretend to apply classic scientific method to everything, you have just made science your own god, a little, empty and cold god wich leads to nihilism, another monster.

 

I'll admit I have not read the book, mainly because this is the first time I have heard of this neurosurgeon. Even before having read it I can make a judgement call, I have heard many of the claims posited by those who say they saw the bright light and I and the majority of the scientific community find them lacking. The problem with claims of NDEs is that they rely too much on people's credulity, It may be that what these people experienced was indeed supernatural, but there are much better and simpler explanations for these claims. Another problem I can immediately see with his claims is that if he wanted to be taken seriously he should have had his experiences published in a medical journal, instead he wrote a book; a move that has little to no impact in the scientific and medical communities and one that is considerably more lucrative. With all this combined I have a hard time taking his claims seriously; though if he created a study on NDEs with proper scientific protocols and had it published and peer reviewed, I would be very interested in seeing what it would say.

 

I admit also.
A. I have not read the book
B. I am not a scientist.
C. I am Catholic

So I have cultural bias towards defending the religious...I admit that....

However, intellectually I try to keep an open mind...if a logical and empirical explanation better suits a cause and effect, this is the better alternative to the metaphysical.

Bernoulli's principle applied to flight science for example..as opposed to "invisible fairies."

I do not think we have a complete understanding of the mind and body relationship...I'm open to suggestions..
if I did read the book it would be providing anecdotal evidence...and not actual proof...but I wouldn't completely dismiss it all as fabrication either.

Even Catholics approach miracles with the scientific method...all known causal explanations are researched thoroughly prior to labeling something as beyond human understanding and into the realm of God.

I do not think we have enough understanding to make any claim about death and consciousness as proved..

Maybe I'll read the book and see what is has to offer in the debate.

I personally have had no spiritual revelation..."proving" God exists...I rely upon faith and a "gut" feeling there is more to existence beyond what we can observe....the fact there is consistency and physical laws...to me anyway...strenghthens the notion of an intelligence imparted on the Universe and not mere random chance...again though, we are far from proving or disproving anything in the realm of the metaphysical. We're smarter than we used to be...we shouldn't be afraid of the shadows and think the "Gods" control our fate...but we're not as smart as we think we are...we certainly don't know everything.

 

No, but it does weaken his argument, because... well...

http://www.near-death.com/muslim.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/buddhism02.html
http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html

For some reason, people's reported near-death experiences overlap nearly perfectly with their pre-existing religious beliefs. Why is that?

I also believe that his beliefs are sincere. However, someone being a "man of science" has little influence on their beliefs. Kenneth Miller is a man of science, and one of the foremost modern evolutionary biologists. He also happens to be a devout evangelical Christian. Do you sincerely think he applied the same thought process to his belief in god that he did to his explorations in science? That this man had a near-death experience and found it credible is interesting, but let's not pretend that just because a person is a scientist, they apply the scientific method to each and every part of their lives.

But we're not arguing based on reputations. Nobody's arguments here amounts to "trust me, I know my (*)(*)(*)(*)". It's about a basic failure of rigor. It's about the fact that "he said" is not good enough. What we have here is hearsay. A man was put into a medical coma, and woke up claiming to have seen things. I see no real reason to doubt that he believes what he's saying, but I see no reason why that belief alone should lend credence to his claims.

Come on, you're smarter than this.

Actually, science is completely capable of explaining all things within the natural realm. There are no natural phenomena which cannot be described or explained by science. Anything which "cannot be explained" by science lies outside of the natural world - outside of what we can observe. And I cannot justify believing in the existence of any such thing. Please, by all means, name me one thing whose existence can be justified but which cannot be explained by science, then justify its existence.

 

You don't get it... science can only explain that part of the all that can be seen or thought by humans. It is a proven fact, by science, that men only perceive a small part of what exists, all scientists agree on this. And so theories like dark matter, multiple layer dimensions are born.

But actually, no scientist has yet proven the existence of dark matter, nor extra dimensions .

They are just theories, some scientists believe them, some do not, and those that believe are just like religious people: they believe but never they will give a proof, because they cannot.

Last but not least, after many studies, theories, going deep and deeper into knowledge, some scientists have become believers. They say little science take you away from god, enormous science tend to reunite with god. And you, as many many others, fall in the first cathegory.

You and all the others saying that everything existing beyond science and empyrical method are just lies and fairy tales, are just people with very small knowledge, narrow minds, but great arrogance. A real scientist never excludes the possibility of something, wich includes the existance of an all powerful driving force of all, or god if you want to call it so.

 

My thread was moved!

Anyway. . .

Let's all establish two facts:

1. OBEs and NDEs are not understood by science yet. (That's not my opinion; it's a simple fact.)

2. There have been several theories put forth, but each can be countered with one or more examples. (One popular claim is that these experiences are hallucinogenic, yet people have reported having them during times when the EEG machines that they're hooked up to produce a flatline readout. The skeptics are left to question either the integrity of the machine or the accuracy of the patient.)

 

To ease the transition. If a devout, bible thumping Christian was greeted by Allah, it would be a cause of a lot of unnecessary stress. When we cross over, we see what we expect to see to reduce that stress, but soon enough, those illusions are shown as illusions and the reality is explained. Read Michael Newton if you really want some insight.

 

That's rationalisation, not insight. If that were true, it follows that no religion is the "correct" one, and all or none can ensure "salvation".

 

There are a lot unknowns on the quantum level...for example entanglement....Einstein thought this was local but Bell's theorem indicates it is indeed non-local...meaning once entangled...quantum particles, regardless ot their separation and distance act as one particle. I'm simplifying the concept, but I do not believe that science has a firm grasp on what is actually going on at the quantum level as states exist as probabilities until observed...the act of observing brings the particle to a known state.

I do agree that applied mathematics is the language of the Universe and the only true way to define a reality....the realm of metaphysics is not a mathematical construct Again though, the fact the Universe can be defined mathematically is indication of intelligence imparted in the creation process. It seems to be an inherent trait in the Universe itself....yet on the quantum level, it presents a whole new set of rules we have not, as yet, decoded fully. Maybe one day, someone will develop a theorem for God Himself...perhaps God is defineable mathematically...we just have not advanced to that level of intelligence....so in the meantime God exists in the realm of the metaphysical..the undefineable...we impart human like qualities to better understand what God might be...Love, forgiveness...wrath....these sort of traits...when in reality...God may be far more complex than that which can be defined in human terms or human emotions.

 

In fact, no religion is the "correct" one. Source is nothing like what religions have described "God" to be. "Salvation" is a completely misguided concept, we are all on a journey towards enlightenment, and we will all accomplish it. Some of us quicker than others, but nonetheless, it is the destiny of all of us. PS... It's not something I just made up to make the data fit my philosophy, rather my studies of NDE's, past and between life regressions, and reincarnation have led me to that information. At the risk of being repetitive, buy Michael Newton's books and read them, they will provide you with a great deal of insight as to the true nature of spirituality. They're a great starting point. But they're just that... A starting point.

 

With regards to dark matter, you're mistaking the description of an observed phenomenon with what it actually means. Dark matter is not a theory looking for proof, it's a descriptor for observed phenomenon. There's clearly something there we're not observing, so we'll call it dark matter. Ideas like multiple layer dimensions are just that - ideas. Unverified hypotheses that are treated as such. What's more, you're confusing "cannot currently be observed" with "cannot be observed in principle".

The former is a descriptor given to an observation, the latter's existence has never been justified. Try again.

I certainly don't exclude the possibility. I'm open to proof of god. But having an open mind means being willing to entertain ideas, not being willing to believe anything. I expect evidence before accepting an idea as fact.

Only in the same way speaking in tongues is not understood by science - for the most part, they can almost all be explained by normal bodily functions and the brain reacting oddly.

Or, you know, the existence of that report. Citation, please?

That seems like a pretty weak rationalization when you consider that most major world religions have a pretty strict "no entry" policy for those of other religions. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that this happens because these people are having hallucinations and their brains are filling in the blanks?

Maybe I should have clarified. When I said "cannot be explained by science", I meant in principle. Not just something we haven't explained yet, but something which science simply fails at a fundamental level at explaining.

See, there we go - "in the meantime". If something is temporarily inexplicable and undefinable, then it is not necessarily metaphysical - it's just something we can't explain or define given our current toolset. You know, like Gravity back in the dark ages.

 

If you operate under the assumption that what I wrote is simply something I plucked from my arse, you'd be right, but it's not, it's very extensively researched. It appears that "most major world religions" are wrong about their "no entry" policies. Which, considering religion is a tool of the elite designed to keep the peasants in their place, makes sense.

 

No offense, dude, but that sounds like researching the type of fabric on the emperor's new suit. I don't really know how'd you "research" something like that in such a manner at all.

 

Start with Michael Newton's work. Then move on to any one of dozens of sources regarding NDE's. Then you can move on to Thomas Campbell's "My Big TOE". In between start reading quantum physics whitepapers until it sinks in... Our physical world is an illusion... a simulation. We live in the matrix, and it was created for a reason.

 

I was gonna say something along the lines of "links would be nice", but then I read this:

Yeah, no. Not debating with a solipsist.

 

No, not solipsism. Hard core physics. Read and learn, young padawan:

http://randommusingsbykevin.blogspot.com/2013/03/reality-isnt-what-you-think-you-live-in.html

 

Well, whatever it is, I'm not debating it. You hold an opinion akin to "Obama is a lizard man". Just... Not that interested. Sorry.

 

Did you read my paper? Does evidence scare you? Like I said, it's pure science, and written in such a way to be understandable to most people. But, if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore actual scientific evidence staring you straight in the face, that's your prerogative.

 

Kinda.

Nope, just not interested in wasting my time. I got about to the second page where you don't even come close to making a point, and decided that my time would be better spent dicking around in Act 3 with my Explosive Arrow build. It's a longwinded diatribe which seems to be building up to a tired, boring old point we've all heard before: "Physics is weird, therefore <unfalsifiable, usually hilariously stupid hypothesis here>."

EDIT: wow, I only had to read the next paragraph.

Someone get that phone, because I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing called it. Dude, what you have is essentially a gigantic argument from ignorance. "This doesn't make sense, therefore X". And it's not even particularly smart, because you're appealing to common sense in particle physics. Buddy, hate to break it to ya, but common sense is to particle physics the way Josef Fritzl is to the "Best Parents Ever Club" or Jeff Dunham is to the Nuanced Comedy Hall of Fame.

 

Uncle Ferd says he has dreams o' meetin' womens inna long, dark tunnel alla time...

Surge of Brain Activity May Explain Near-Death Experiences
August 13, 2013 > Reports of bright lights, feelings of levitation and other near-death experiences reported by those who have been clinically dead and later resuscitated may, after all, be grounded in science.

 

Even though great strides have been made in equating various aspects of experience such as such as memory and learning with the underlying biochemistry of neural processes, we are a long way from the reductionist goal of explaining subjective consciousness (and yes, that includes "NEAR DEATH" experiences) in terms of the underlying molecular machinery.

In the words of Columbia University's great Eric Kandel, the Nobel prize winning pioneer in such reductionist efforts in the areas of memory and learning,

The underlined "for now" is my own emphasis, for I believe that such a reduction will occur. The problem isn't the "mystery" - it's the complexity. However, my reductionist, deterministic tendencies have been modified as of late by the following Stanford neuroscientist's (William T. Newsome) lecture and the book (Explaining the Brain - Carl F. Craver) that influenced him.

Neuroscience, Explanation, and the Problem of Free Will.

[video=youtube;Jzn2msnmPso]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzn2msnmPso&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind presents:
William T. Newsome
Department of Neurobiology, Stanford and Howard Hughes Medical Institute

 

The world we see around us we see because of our human physiology. Because we have much the same physiology from individual to individual we will each perceive the world in a like manner. It could be that the world is, in actuality, more or less different from how we perceive it. But since we can't sense it, if it is different I mean, then we won't know from our subjective sense-experience. That's where science comes in handy. If we are able to objectively identify, without the primary identification process requiring our physically limited human senses, then we may begin to understand the reality of our world.

In practical terms though the reality we see is sufficient for our survival as individuals, those folks who didn't possess the necessary senses to survive didn't reproduce sufficiently to still be here. Perhaps some sort of deficient human species, different from homo sapiens or most of its ancestors, didn't make it.

For the moment though it seems to me that our brains are receiving sensory information and processing it for us to survive the here and now and since we have the same brains, as I suggested, we share the same interpretations of the external reality.

 

Reading between the lines I think he is an imposter**.

According to him he had a very rare kind of meningitis. After one week of treatment the physicians considered to stop therapy, which gave him his spiritual "enlightenment".

1. In such rare diseases one week is nothing to find the accurate diagnosis and specific treatment.
2. Even if the accurate diagnosis would have been found after 5 minutes, NOBODY, I repeat: NOBODY in his dreams would consider ending therapy after a treatment period of less than 7 days. That is ridculous. In such a case 7 month is closer to reality. In a healthy patient of his age ending therapy after 7 days would be highly unethical, possibly even criminal. The fact being neurosurgeon allegedly from the same hospital gives him another bonus. In those cases physicians tend to extend therapy even when it is no more wise to do so. Possibly the infection caused some damage making him confabulate.

(I was as physician 2 years in neurosurgery, 2 years in neurosurgical ICU and 25 years in all kinds of ICUs. A few years ago I have contributed my country's national standpoint for a multi-country scientific publication about ethical problems in end-of-life decisions).

** sorry if I'm wrong

 

I agree. I think it just more pseudo-scientific hype by imposters at worst or wishful thinkers at best.

I'm more into the the bio-molecular mechanics of Memory and Learning, ala the genius, Eric Kandel, and his Nobel winnin discovery of the particular molecular signaling pathways that's involved in new protein synthesis and which correlates well to LTP in the hippocampus. I first got turned on to Kandel from his classic tome-textbook, Principles of Neural Science (now at around 1700 pages! - but a real jewel!, nontheless!) Love that old guy! What a mentor - what an example!