How NOT to introduce people to NDE and consciousness survival research

You could call this thread a sequel to 'Doesn't this just piss you off?' when it comes to misinformation online making it more difficult for people to take NDEs and related evidence seriously.[url=https://psiencequest.net/forums/index.php][/url]

I've honestly had about enough of this type of content I see getting millions of views despite the clickbait titles, content and equally idiotic comments who either didn't pay attention to what little truth there is to these videos or start spouting off speculation again (say it with me folks, "iT's DmT iN tHe BrAiN!!!".

This channel have posted 2 videos this year alone about evidence for life after death, and they're all incredibly poorly worded and lazily summarised. They don't bring anything new to the table, and flat out contradict others videos they've made and statements they make like 'consciousness is undoubtedly a product of the brain', which they proceed to contradict anyways:


Even as a proponent/believer these videos are misleading as hell and clickbaity. They'll not be able to linger long since this channel churns out these videos at a fast rate, but they're infuriating when you want the evidence to be taken seriously.

The first video is a reference to Sam Parnia's AWARE study, exaggerating and making inaccurate claims. And since the video is clickbait, the topic won't be taken as seriously. Consequently, I expected most comments to react with mixed responses which was very likely the case, including the usual "it's DMT" folk who think Joe Rogan is right about everything U_U

The second video mentions things like terminal lucidity and isn't quite as bad, but again, unless you're making a documentary or a much longer video I feel like the evidence should always be handled with caution. For example, they very briefly mention the work of Raymond Moody, but not many other researchers. 

The trouble with these videos is that they discourage some people from looking up further information for themselves about those involved in the research. Honestly though I've never understood this mentality and why people assume that this video is really going to list ALL of the 'best evidence' for the afterlife. The funnier part is that DMT or hallucinations has got very little to nothing to do with terminal lucidity, but of course I guarantee you people will have still preached that in the comments. 

Speaking of which, the fact that they use animations means they're more likely to be appealing to a younger audience (which a very very quick glance through a few comments strongly indicates this). Am I wrong in thinking this isn't a great way to introduce people to the topics?

Hopefully their content hasn't put too many off, especially considering they present it as if atheists can't believe in the continuation of consciousness. As if misleading articles weren't bad enough.

Again, I feel like you're a bit too hooked into this stuff. Take a step back and stop looking for things otherwise you're gonna be trying to prove or defend the afterlife until you're dead.

On the other side, this is par for the course. This is why we have to be skeptical of things in our own group of interest. You've got people who outright deny evidence, then you've got people who overstate it or use it poorly to get their own message across.

this type of content I see getting millions of views

Posting a link to that content here and commenting on it seems a good way to increase the number of views for that video. I'm sure the originator will be very grateful for your help. Your spreading their message like this flatters their vanity as well as bringing them new fans.

Posting a link to that content here and commenting on it seems a good way to increase the number of views for that video. I'm sure the originator will be very grateful for your help. Your spreading their message like this flatters their vanity as well as bringing them new fans.

I'm hardly spreading their message though, I'm trying to demonstrate that this isn't the way to go about introducing people to topics like these. Sensationalism/clickbait means people will take it less seriously. 

To counteract this, I'd recommend the documentary 'Science of the Soul' on YouTube from last year that sits at over 4 million views:

I'd argue this is a MUCH better introduction. It features people like Peter Fenwick, Jim Tucker and even Stuart Hameroff.

I'm not sure what to think about that first video, Omni. I thought it was going to be a debunking exercise. Presumably they aren't being sarcastic ? I'm suspicious of it because it would appear to reasonably accurately describe the state of play, if maybe overstating it too confidently. 

There is a mistake at 1.04 about patient's brains remaining active for hours etc after their heart has stopped. They've misunderstood Parnia, there. They should have said that the brain cells (may) remain viable many hours after the heart has stopped (depending on the conditions the temperature etc). Viable is not the same as "active". I'm not an expert of course but I think that is broadly correct. 

There's an awful lot of work gone into the graphics of it, I would have thought. Who is it that provided the funding for it, would you happen to know off the top of your head ?

Edit: Someone styled infographics

The information is sensationalised no doubt and not entirely accurate, especially since it misrepresents the AWARE study. Still, I can't imagine it will encourage people to take it seriously if it's been paraphrased like this. They aren't being sarcastic, just sensationalising evidence.

And like I said, don't be surprised by the mistakes. They contradict themselves in one of these videos by implying that consciousness is probably produced by the brain only to spend the rest of the video seemingly debunking that.

Heres another example of a rather misleading video but admittedly probably won't sway people too seriously. I won't be surprised if many here are familiar with it given it currently has nearly 10 million views:

So right off the bat you can probably tell what kind of video this is. It's obviously targeted towards a younger audience and the channel itself apparently admits to being more of a 'pop science' and 'pop philosophy' channel that try to summarise research they find often in under 10 minutes. This one is interesting, since it makes me wonder if Kastrup watched it and wrote his article for IAI criticising the idea that consciousness has evolved in response. 

The video is just under 10 minutes long and they have cited the sources used in the video, which are also interesting: https://sites.google.com/view/sources-consciousness

Christof Koch is credited, and most of the citations are from 2018 and the book for the claims made in this video by a guy called Rupert Glasgow. 

Feeling confident that the comments wouldn't bother me since most were just jokes or compliments about the animation or people clearly barely understanding what's going on or that the video is based on a theory, not fact, I decided to look for some critical comments. Low and behold, there were. Multiple people pointed out that they throw around the word 'probably' when in reality it should be 'could be' or 'might have'. After all, they do reference panpsychism at the start in a simplified manner. 

The trouble with this video that many agreed on is not only the language used, but also that much of the video isn't based on hard science. It's based on speculation and some assumptions leaning towards materialism. 

If anyone has any further information or criticism about the video and these sources I'll be interested to hear, but here's also Kastrup's article I mentioned from February this year: https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-ca...-auid-1302

Again, I feel like you're getting too much into this. If you just keep looking and pointing out things that missrepresent stuff you're gonna go mad.

Right now at least, you seem like the guy that nervously keeps reassuring himself that he's right. This party is gonna be great, right guys? We're all enjoying ourselves right? This is so much fun isn't it. Go do somethin else and relax, this ain't doing yourself any favours.

Isn't this something that belongs in the Skeptic forums, since it's a lot of bad proponents videos and some skeptic videos?

I don't understand the need to keep posting reviews of other parts of the internet. If I think a resource has value I post it, as something that IMO at least is not a waste of time to check out.

Just found that this Infographics channel have also released a very confusing and very frustrating video on 'what happens to your brain' when you're dying that almost completely contradicts their previous videos. At the 3:00 minute mark, they start talking about NDEs.

They then, rather stupidly, claim that 'doctors say this (may) be a result of lack of oxygen to the brain'. This false statement is then followed by another one, claiming that 'many people who report NDEs are often deeply religious'. If they're implying this was before the experience, then again, that is false. They reference the Heaven Is For Real fraudulent NDE story, as well as an account I've not heard of before, about some guy slipping into a coma after being shot an experiencing a hellish NDE. 

At, 6:08, they claim that there was a study from 2018 reporting that there was brain activity detected for up to 10 minutes after 4 terminally ill patients had their life support turned off and they were declared dead. One of their EEGs still showed activity akin to a deep sleep, and there was no pulse and unresponsive pupils. They later try to argue that there's a 'theory' claiming that serotonin (not DMT surprisingly) was found increasing in dying rats or something, and the euphoric expressions of those dying may be evidence of this in humans and explains why they lose their fear of death? There's plenty of holes in that 'theory' needless to say, mainly that to my knowledge increased serotonin doesn't cause deathbed visions.

The bizarre thing is that they then reference what sounds like the AWARE study again at the 8:00 minute mark and veridical reports following cardiac arrest. But they try to claim this could suggest it's the brain 'outliving the body', showing a blatant misunderstanding of cardiac arrest and the conditions during the first AWARE study.

Finally, they go into yet another 'deathbed' account at the 9:00 minute mark that I have not heard of before, that of Velma Thomas. She was a 59-year-old pronounced brain dead after succumbing to a heart attack. But 17 hours later, just as they were about to take her off life support, she apparently started moving but didn't report anything while 'dead'. They then use this to conclude that the brain 'is actually quite active' at the moment of death unless they have had a brain injury and NDEs are probably caused by hallucinations from hypoxia blah blah blah...If anybody has anything more to add about this Velma Thomas I'm all ears.

This video is baffling to me considering how much this contradicts their previous videos on NDEs and 'evidence for the afterlife'. Did they just read the cynical, negative comments on those and decided to do a complete 180 and spout speculations and misinformation as a consensus in order to appease them?