Explaining the near-death experience

I think they have some valid points. A 61-year-old suddenly needing to publicly report an experience she had at 21 is not evidence of anything other than a need for attention. That's why primarily reports from prospective trials can be used to draw conclusions about NDEs. Reports conducted by medical professionals from retrospective trials can be great for hypothesis generation; the rest is just like FTL UFOs crashing in the American desert in terms of evidential value.

I think that is to do a disservice or misrepresent what might or might not be a motivation for speaking out.

If we look back forty years, that takes us to 1984. In those days there was no internet, social media, facebook or youtube. Such topics as NDEs appeared in a few books and some fringe magazines. It wasn't necessarily something one could readily bring up in conversation. Whether with a marriage partner or work colleagues, speaking up could be risky.

I'm not particularly aiming to support the Daily Mail, they print some utter nonsense - on all topics - but occasionally it is one of the few outlets which gives more than a dismissive coverage of the more interesting, to me at least, aspects of life. Not all their articles are good, but not entirely bad either.

As for the original post, the author of the linked article gave such a cursory and superficial coverage that it hardly was worth writing. For example, the phrase 'deeply unpleasant' is used to describe cardiac arrest. Yes, that may be so. But it might also be something far from that, which is to say not unpleasant at all. The materialist 'this physical world is all there is' attitude pervades the text, with the perhaps uncomfortable truth not mentioned that if it were so, we would not be conscious at all.

I think they have some valid points. A 61-year-old suddenly needing to publicly report an experience she had at 21 is not evidence of anything other than a need for attention. That's why primarily reports from prospective trials can be used to draw conclusions about NDEs. Reports conducted by medical professionals from retrospective trials can be great for hypothesis generation; the rest is just like FTL UFOs crashing in the American desert in terms of evidential value.

I agree there are attention seekers out there that muddy  the waters but regarding your statement 
"the rest is just like FTL UFOs crashing in the American desert in terms of evidential value. "
Do you really believe that if what you would call "real evidence" was or has been discovered that your "reality checkers" would have access to it and be able to openly display it for public scrutiny?

I agree there are attention seekers out there that muddy  the waters but regarding your statement 
"the rest is just like FTL UFOs crashing in the American desert in terms of evidential value. "
Do you really believe that if what you would call "real evidence" was or has been discovered that your "reality checkers" would have access to it and be able to openly display it for public scrutiny?

Yes, I believe certain aspects of NDEs can be objectively investigated. The methodological studies by Bruce Greyson, Pim Van Lommel, and others have already debunked a range of skeptical refutations, such as the classic claim that NDEs are caused by hypoxia.

Similarly, I believe the claims of veridical perception being obtained during the OBE part of an NDE can be objectively investigated (and indeed multiple attempts have been made).

This is “real evidence” in my book, and with more information obtained, it will also slowly change the discourse about NDEs (for example, nobody is writing that they are caused by hypoxia any longer).

I think they have some valid points. A 61-year-old suddenly needing to publicly report an experience she had at 21 is not evidence of anything other than a need for attention. That's why primarily reports from prospective trials can be used to draw conclusions about NDEs. Reports conducted by medical professionals from retrospective trials can be great for hypothesis generation; the rest is just like FTL UFOs crashing in the American desert in terms of evidential value.

Many people who have NDEs think they have gone mad, or that others will think they have gone mad - that is their reported reason for being so reluctant to speak about their experiences.

A few years ago, I was helping with some political (i.e. the subject was not in any way related to what followed) leafletting, and the four of us went to a cafe for a snack to keep us going for a few hours more.

The conversation started with them all making statements that were dismissive of anything non-physical. I was the only one to disagree, and I tentatively introduced the subject of NDEs and OBEs.

This triggered an amazing response. One of them described a strange experience when he was 4. His grandma was taking him into a shop, and he felt light-headed and found himself looking down on his grandma. It lasted a few seconds and then he 'awoke' to find his grandma shaking him and looking rather scared. Both the others had stories to tell, and only I had nothing first-hand to report.

Obviously 'fresh' NDE reports are best from a scientific perspective, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of delayed reports.

David

Many people who have NDEs think they have gone mad, or that others will think they have gone mad - that is their reported reason for being so reluctant to speak about their experiences.

A few years ago, I was helping with some political (i.e. the subject was not in any way related to what followed) leafletting, and the four of us went to a cafe for a snack to keep us going for a few hours more.

The conversation started with them all making statements that were dismissive of anything non-physical. I was the only one to disagree, and I tentatively introduced the subject of NDEs and OBEs.

This triggered an amazing response. One of them described a strange experience when he was 4. His grandma was taking him into a shop, and he felt light-headed and found himself looking down on his grandma. It lasted a few seconds and then he 'awoke' to find his grandma shaking him and looking rather scared. Both the others had stories to tell, and only I had nothing first-hand to report.

Obviously 'fresh' NDE reports are best from a scientific perspective, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of delayed reports.

David

A friend once when we were talking privately, grudgingly admitted that he had had a startling out of body experience years before, when he had spontaneously (not in response to any apparent sudden trigger) become light-headed and was suddenly jerked out of his body, and then watched himself below from a considerable height. It was very real to him and terrified him, and after a few seconds he returned to his body. He had never forgotten this experience. It turned out that he had had several other psychical experiences since then, and had learned to accept them. He was interested that I wasn't surprised or scornful, could explain a little about it and that OBEs are well-known real experiences occuring during NDEs. We just had never gotten into this subject before.

A friend once when we were talking privately, grudgingly admitted that he had had a startling out of body experience years before, when he had spontaneously (not in response to any apparent sudden trigger) become light-headed and was suddenly jerked out of his body, and then watched himself below from a considerable height. It was very real to him and terrified him, and after a few seconds he returned to his body. He had never forgotten this experience. It turned out that he had had several other psychical experiences since then, and had learned to accept them. He was interested that I wasn't surprised or scornful, could explain a little about it and that OBEs are well-known real experiences occuring during NDEs. We just had never gotten into this subject before.

Yeah I've talked to people from all sorts of diverse backgrounds. There are definitely stories I am skeptical of, where the person seems to be looking for attention or waiting for people to believe so they can drop the gotcha.

But many people are so reluctant, or so accepting of my disbelief, that they feel credible to me. They don't gain anything and are likely expecting ridicule.

I just can't see all of them being liars or fools.

Similarly, I believe the claims of veridical perception being obtained during the OBE part of an NDE can be objectively investigated (and indeed multiple attempts have been made).

Near Death Experiences under Anesthesia during Cardiac Arrest. The Little Known Temporal Connection...

Near Death Experiences under Anesthesia during Cardiac Arrest. The Little Known Temporal Connection...

This correlation between the time period of brain dysfunction due to trauma such as cardiac arrest and the time period when an NDEr experiences what he experiences (whether or not it be considered hallucinatory) is well known. This indicates that during the NDE consciousness in some form continues during the period when the brain was dysfunctional, and directly contradicts by evidence the physicalist neurological "established wisdom" that consciousness is a product of the massively organized interactions of billions of neurons in the brain.

Therefore this time correlation confirms the strong implication of the other strange or paranormal aspects of many NDEs, that the experience is really of the spirit separating from the body as a mobile center of consciousness and subsequently observing veridical facts of the world that the NDEr could not have known conventionally.

Of course materialist skeptics have attempted to explain this away as a confabulation or illusion of some sort where the NDEr's experience actually occured in compressed time during the very initial stages of the cardiac arrest when the brain was still active, or that it actually occured after the period of drastically reduced brain activity. The evidence contradicts this, however, in particular the "strange" time correlation pointed out in the OP.