Dr Eben Alexander's new book

I do sympathize with Alexander's view on reality and other things, but I've been on quite a fence about his experience. As obviously the opinion on him is split amongst proponents alone. Leaves you wondering what to think about the guy in general. 

But hey, one more guy pushing to expand upon the public knowledge of NDEs and non local consciousness whole heartedly is a-okay in my book. Better then another pseudo skeptic

And another question, did that Dittrict fellow who wrote the Esquire article ever respond to the IANDS rebuttal? I doubt it, as I definitely would've seen something about it as this whole debacle was 5 years ago. But I gotta ask.

Then again, why would he care? He's made his hit, got his check in the mail, and rolls on

And another question, did that Dittrict fellow who wrote the Esquire article ever respond to the IANDS rebuttal? I doubt it, as I definitely would've seen something about it as this whole debacle was 5 years ago. But I gotta ask.

Then again, why would he care? He's made his hit, got his check in the mail, and rolls on

No, the coward never replied.

The IANDS rebuttal of Dittrich's nonsense was also placed in our book The Self Does Not Die.

BTW - I wholeheartedly agree with Tim's postings re Alexander.

And, honestly, I am fed up with the perpetual questioning of Alexander's character.

As for making money out of his book and all that, it appears to me that such is typical American.
If I had been in his position, I would never have done that, but that is typical Dutch.

Smithy

No, the coward never replied.

The IANDS rebuttal of Dittrich's nonsense was also placed in our book The Self Does Not Die.

BTW - I wholeheartedly agree with Tim's postings re Alexander.

And, honestly, I am fed up with the perpetual questioning of Alexander's character.

As for making money out of his book and all that, it appears to me that such is typical American.
If I had been in his position, I would never have done that, but that is typical Dutch.

Smithy

Thanks Smithy!

I doubted that he did. Guy sastified the skeptics and those who just don't know any better, and moved on. We all know his deal, and that's better then nobody. 

My thing really never was about his character, he seems a very respectful human being in the way he goes about things. It's more or less the discussion of his experience in general. As some have pointed out, it's definitely a stand out amongst the usual NDE, even other very transcendental ones. I forget exactly what, but just a couple of the details. Obviously there are overlaps, such as the peak in Darien experience.

As some have pointed out, it's definitely a stand out amongst the usual NDE, even other very transcendental ones.

I'm not sure it is.

Sometimes I've read through numerous written accounts of NDEs, looking for one that could be called "typical". But the the more I study, the more it seems that each one is unique, and there is no such thing as a typical example.

As for making money out of his book and all that, it appears to me that such is typical American.

Sorry, but that's just a hand wave.  There are myriads of examples of Americans doing altruistic work for little to no commercial gain.

The lack of correlation between commercial enterprise and altruism almost seems to make the absence of one, evidence for the presence of the other.

Of course I am being hyperbolic there, but there is some directional truth in this sentiment for me.  Doesn't mean I don't believe him, but makes it a bit harder to grant the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, but that's just a hand wave.  There are myriads of examples of Americans doing altruistic work for little to no commercial gain.

The lack of correlation between commercial enterprise and altruism almost seems to make the absence of one, evidence for the presence of the other.

Of course I am being hyperbolic there, but there is some directional truth in this sentiment for me.  Doesn't mean I don't believe him, but makes it a bit harder to grant the benefit of the doubt.

Which parts are "commercial enterprise" which are not also done by prominent figures on the sceptic side? Are they also considered beyond the pale as a result?

British neurosurgeon Henry Marsh wrote a best selling book, "Do no harm." Of course, because he doesn't believe in any "heaven" tosh (he regards such notions as absurd) and is a materialist atheist, he is excused any criticism. 

Marsh can be both self-effacing and boastful, sometimes in the same sentence. At one point he talks of "disconcertingly large" royalty cheques that are now coming in from American book sales like he might be embarrassed of this fact, which clearly he isn't. Or that somehow he feels he doesn't deserve the acclaim, which I don't believe for one second. He snickers, "Bearing in mind I've had psychotherapy in the past."

https://www.esquire.com/uk/life/fitness-...rosurgeon/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/m...rsh-review

His opinion carries great weight with the guardians of rationality, he is revered and respected even though he's spent time in a psychiatric institution. That's not a criticism, of course that can happen to anyone and it's nothing to be ashamed of. The point I'm making is that if Alexander had admitted to that, it would never have been allowed to drop. Marsh has also admitted to accidently maiming some of his patients.

You'd probably have to classify Marsh not as a pessimist but certainly an unblinking realist. A long career of staring intently at brains — and specifically the effect of frontal-lobe damage to an individual's moral and social nature — has disavowed him of any hope for life after death or an immortal soul. This, sorry to say, is it: "Dead is dead," he concludes.

Marsh is allowed to get away with making ridiculous statements like this one above. What did he actually expect to see when he opened up their skulls ? The "soul" nestled inside...maybe like a little bird housed in one of the temporal lobes ? What a load of nonsense!

Alexander on the contrary, is ridiculed for saying the opposite even though he's had an experience which showed him otherwise.

I'm stil looking into Alexander's mishaps BTW but it seems to me that there definitely are double standards.

Which parts are "commercial enterprise" which are not also done by prominent figures on the sceptic side?  Are they also considered beyond the pale as a result?

I don't get the questions, sorry.  Did I somehow position this as proponent versus sceptic?  Any commercial enterprise, in my view, creates the potential for conflicts of interest in areas such as these.  Whether its a "proponent" (e.g., Alexander) or his/her sceptics (author of the OP's article).

Not many will have seen this 2013 Alexander interview with a Dutch journalist who like all Dutch, are able to speak very good English (credit due) Worth a look for those interested.  At 14.40 he deals with some relevant points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YfuYYJv-Vk&t=40s