Yet Another Attempt to Explain Away NDEs

[Laird]

I'd advise people to read the paper as well, the articles are pretty bare bones

https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/adva...32/6307709

Good call. I've just read it. I think your own comments are for the most part very good (and there's no reason a labourer can't be as intelligent and insightful as a researcher). I'll add a few comments of my own in response to some direct quotes from the paper, given that David has just resurrected this thread:

Under the broad heading "Discussion", the authors write:

We hypothesize that the greater sophistication of the human brain and the acquisition of language enabled humans to record and share their experiences in detail with others, thereby transforming these events from relatively uniform tonic immobility into the rich perceptions that form NDEs and extend to non-predatory situations.

Like you, Smaw, I don't see the logic in this sort of suggestion. Feigning death doesn't entail "rich perceptions", and it is unclear why a mere "greater sophistication of the human brain and the acquisition of language" would cause "rich[er] perceptions" in this scenario. There is probably even an argument against such a thing: in a dangerous situation in which as a last resort a being feigns death, that being needs to be as in the moment as possible, rather than "off with the fairies", so to speak, so as to best be ready to flee when the opportunity arises.

Under the sub-heading (of "Discussion"), "Thanatosis and the benefit of survival", the authors write:

Awareness is necessary to be able to react when the chance to escape from imminent danger suddenly comes, against all odds

As I suggested above, it is not clear how this is helped by being aware only of an apparently spiritual world, rather than of the immediate reality. How does one become aware of a chance to escape an imminent physical danger when one is instead focussed on a life review, or on a tunnel of light, or on the appearance of dead relatives, etc etc?

Under the sub-sub-heading, "The link between thanatosis and NDEs", the authors write:

[W]e suggest that the survival benefit of NDEs is limited to predatory situations and that NDEs in non-predatory situations may have no such purpose. Corroborating this idea, the human behavioural repertoire comprises a variety of behaviours which are phylogenetically highly preserved but whose benefits are restricted to certain situations. Examples include yawning and laughing when being tickled.

Summing up my thoughts above: I don't see how NDEs confer any survival benefit even in predatory situations. I don't see how transferring one's awareness to a non-physical realm (even if only imaginary) helps one monitor and survive a physical threat.

Of course, this is all academic anyway, given that, as we all well know, this hypothesis utterly fails to account for such features of NDEs as veridical perceptions - as nbtruthman pointed out right at the very start of the thread.

[Laird]

@David001 just as a reminder: the discussion of political topics and socio-politically controversial science not within the remit of this board (parapsychology; the paranormal; consciousness; etc) such as global warming is per this forum community's decision limited to the opt-in forums, as made clear in our rules (see the last rule). For further information, see here.

I offer you a choice then:

1. Edit out the content related to global warming science/politics from your post.
   
2. Move that content into a new thread in the opt-in forums.
   
3. Do nothing and/or ignore this post, in which case I'll edit that content out of your post for you.
   

@David001 just as a reminder: the discussion of political topics and socio-politically controversial science not within the remit of this board (parapsychology; the paranormal; consciousness; etc) such as global warming is per this forum community's decision limited to the opt-in forums, as made clear in our rules (see the last rule). For further information, see here.

I offer you a choice then:

1. Edit out the content related to global warming science/politics from your post.
   
2. Move that content into a new thread in the opt-in forums.
   
3. Do nothing and/or ignore this post, in which case I'll edit that content out of your post for you.
   

Sorry - that was a total goof on my part! As you no doubt noticed, my comments were also unconnected with what went before - and were in fact meant for a totally different discussion on a different site. I have removed the global warming comment.

[Ninshub]

This must be what was behind a news item on a local, French-speaking radio talk show program as I was driving my car to work early this week - they were just announcing the next segment coming up, à la "Science now can explain near-death experiences". I didn't bother listening to it and went back listening to my reggae CD...

I'd just like to add to the above above, that from my experiences at Skeptiko, I wholeheartedly agree that it really doesn't work to mix psi stuff with politics, so I fully endorse the rule that I accidentally broke.

There are obviously connections between all sorts of psi subjects and politics, but it is like opening the door to a gorilla - getting him out again isn't easy!

[Laird]

Thanks for your understanding, David. It's good to get your agreement with our approach to political subject matter. I hope my message didn't come across as overly frosty or imperious, and I accept that you simply goofed.

Good call. I've just read it. I think your own comments are for the most part very good (and there's no reason a labourer can't be as intelligent and insightful as a researcher). I'll add a few comments of my own in response to some direct quotes from the paper, given that David has just resurrected this thread:

Under the broad heading "Discussion", the authors write:


Like you, Smaw, I don't see the logic in this sort of suggestion. Feigning death doesn't entail "rich perceptions", and it is unclear why a mere "greater sophistication of the human brain and the acquisition of language" would cause "rich[er] perceptions" in this scenario. There is probably even an argument against such a thing: in a dangerous situation in which as a last resort a being feigns death, that being needs to be as in the moment as possible, rather than "off with the fairies", so to speak, so as to best be ready to flee when the opportunity arises.

Under the sub-heading (of "Discussion"), "Thanatosis and the benefit of survival", the authors write:


As I suggested above, it is not clear how this is helped by being aware only of an apparently spiritual world, rather than of the immediate reality. How does one become aware of a chance to escape an imminent physical danger when one is instead focussed on a life review, or on a tunnel of light, or on the appearance of dead relatives, etc etc?

Under the sub-sub-heading, "The link between thanatosis and NDEs", the authors write:


Summing up my thoughts above: I don't see how NDEs confer any survival benefit even in predatory situations. I don't see how transferring one's awareness to a non-physical realm (even if only imaginary) helps one monitor and survive a physical threat.

Of course, this is all academic anyway, given that, as we all well know, this hypothesis utterly fails to account for such features of NDEs as veridical perceptions - as nbtruthman pointed out right at the very start of the thread.

And, since these are not universal for everyone who dies and is revived, it isn't something universal and is likely a similar crashing of brain networks when the oxygen and blood supply are cut off.
I've died and been brought back a few times (not on purpose). And nothing, no memory, no tunnel, etc. So if it were something we ALL get or experience, the data must be faulty or what?

[Ninshub]

And, since these are not universal for everyone who dies and is revived, it isn't something universal and is likely a similar crashing of brain networks when the oxygen and blood supply are cut off.
I've died and been brought back a few times (not on purpose). And nothing, no memory, no tunnel, etc. So if it were something we ALL get or experience, the data must be faulty or what?

Hi again Durward,

Just a friendly reminder since you are new here. We have specific rules pertaining where to post certain opinions. If I am reading you right and you are skeptical of any non-materialist explanation of NDEs as such, this isn't the subforum where you should posting such an opinion.

See forum rules:

7. Policy on the skeptic/proponent divide

This forum is open to both proponents and those who are traditionally called "skeptics". Said skeptics are allowed to participate on all the forums and sub-forums. However, when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum, and when the intent is strictly to "debunk", that type of post should be reserved for the Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions sub-forum (or at least kept out of the ECP forum), so that proponents can have space to have discussions that extend beyond the "is it real or not real?" variety without unwanted and derailing interventions.

To be a bit more specific: in general, if a skeptic wants to engage a discussion at a “proponent vs. skeptic level”, then it would be better to do so in the Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions sub-forum. Again, that does not mean "skeptics" cannot post on the ECP forum, for example to discuss a specific case or article, but not if the discussion's objective - let's say it's about NDEs - is to argue from there that extended consciousness is not involved in NDEs in the first place. That kind of post would best be suited to the Skeptic vs.[i]Proponent Discussions sub-forum.[/i]

Hi again Durward,

Just a friendly reminder since you are new here. We have specific rules pertaining where to post certain opinions. If I am reading you right and you are skeptical of any non-materialist explanation of NDEs as such, this isn't the subforum where you should posting such an opinion.

See forum rules:

That might take some getting used to. 
Color coding? Awareness of thread types? How are we to tell where that applies? The title of the thread "attempt to explain away" is a challenge, yet no challenges allowed? 
Not sure I could follow the fuzzy logic.
As said, will take some getting used to unless something clearly denotes opinion section, don't rock the boat section, opinion welcome section.
I didn't see how they are clearly defined when reading the rules.
I will take a look and see if it makes sense. Otherwise, I can't see the point.

[Ninshub]

That applies to the Extended Conscious Phenomena (ECP) forum.