(2021-02-04, 02:36 PM)Typoz Wrote: For me, it means any satisfactory explanation of NDES must be able to satisfy both types of scenario with equal ease. That's why it is dangerous to omit the healthy-brain scenarios, it means proposed explanations may not be adequate.
I don't disagree with that, Typoz but I would just add this. You say "an NDE still occurs" (agreed and good point) but you can't "prove" you've had an NDE by telling someone that you've had one. That is informing a researcher "I had an NDE!" They could all be making it up in theory, at least. I mean of course, no one believes that is reasonable anymore, but nevertheless a report is just a report, I saw this, I saw that etc. But there is no way to demonstrate it, is there ?
With the veridical aspect in cardiac arrest patients, there is the possibility to "prove" that the person has had a real experience because they were able to observe events when their brain wasn't functioning.
I suppose researchers could continue the experiments with people who's brains are obviously functioning, to see if they can see what is going on in the other room so to speak, like Alex Tanous, and Keith (Blue) Harary. The problem is and has been that even when they get hits, the sceptics put it down to telepathy.