NDE lights

"I'm not confident that "The neural system doesn't work during cardiac arrest"..."

No, I'll bet you're not, Malf. Anything ..(even suggesting that non functioning brains still function)  however far-fetched that maybe... is always better.

Even if a brain goes through a completely "non-functioning" spell (whatever that really means in terms of global cell activity) there are periods either side of that spell of compromised brain function.

I'm not confident that "The neural system doesn't work during cardiac arrest"... But sure, this may not be a great fit for all NDE reports (as I've said all along).

Malf, I was more with you than Tim initially in that I thought it reasonable for you to say that other explanations need to be considered. However, upon thinking about it, Tim does have a point. It is lazy scepticism to just claim that hospital lights can explain some cases. In sceptical circles that would be viewed as "that dismisses some, now to find equally mundane explanations for the rest". Without specific examples of cases where the patient has confirmed an NDE experience to be befuddled mistaking of overhead lights for some kind of profound spiritual experience, I repeat: lazy scepticism.

It seems to me that the sceptics - in NDE cases and elsewhere - like to isolate individual parts of the experience and come up with some plausible alternative. This is the approach of Ben Radford (a particularly lazy sceptic) in this 2010 article:

https://www.livescience.com/11010-death-...ation.html

Here he merely repeats the ideas of Susan Blackmore first suggested way back in 1993 and since dismissed on multiple occasions by researchers.

https://iands.org/ndes/about-ndes/key-nd...ml?start=3

There's a comprehensive critique of Blackmore's book here:

https://www.near-death.com/science/artic...heory.html

Yet she still persists with her stance despite admitting that she is completely out of touch with the research (see her Skeptiko interview).

Blackmore continues, “… I gave up all of this stuff so many years ago…if you are a researcher in the field it behooves you to read as much as you can of the best work because otherwise you can’t be a researcher in the field. I’m not a researcher in the field. I have not been for a long time.”

Nevertheless, any casual search for "NDE" will inevitably bring up several pages of sceptical assertions citing or parroting Blackmore.

The same happens when they isolate other parts of the experience and propose other factors such as Ketamine to explain the euphoria and induce hallucinations. Again, this theory has been criticised widely. Here's a few relevant comments on the Ketamine theory.

https://www.doctorabel.us/near-death-exp...brain.html

Several objections can be made to Jansen's ketamine model of the NDE. As David Fontana has pointed out, ketamine does not 'reproduce NDEs or any other mental state' (2005: 398), but it may eventually facilitate the conditions under which these states can occur. However, this is not the same as 'reproducing them'. Thus even if glutamate inhibition (or any other abnormal, chemically induced brain process) is present during the NDE, it is too strong to say that it has caused or created it. It may merely be a facilitating condition. Another observation emerges from the fact that out-of-body experiences, which sometimes occur as part of an NDE, do not involve an excessive release of glutamate, and they can occur when the individual is perfectly well both physically and mentally (ibid.: 399). The same is true of some mystical experiences that are phenomenologically very similar to NDEs, but which again can occur when there is no sign of any physical or psychological trauma (Marshall 2005: 95-6).

However, rather than entirely reducing this phenomenon to a neuro-biological event, Jansen has been prepared to consider a wide range of hypotheses in his book Ketamine: Dreams and Realities (2001). For example, he does not dismiss suggestions that 'the brain can act as a transceiver, converting fields beyond the brain into features of the mind, in a manner similar to the way a television converts waves in the air into sounds and vision' (ibid.: 92). From this particular perspective, only one of several that he explores, the effect of 'ketamine on the brain can be seen as a metaphorical "mental modem", which can potentially "connect" the mind to "everything else", allowing a peek behind the curtain at the inner workings of this and other realities' (ibid.: 44).

But my main point is that the sceptics seem willing to stitch together any and all speculative theories to come up with a comprehensive approach whereas, in reality, NDEs occur in such a variety of ways that a the individual explantions such as anoxia just don't apply. For example, the light is seen by people in conditions where anoxia can be completely ruled out. The various dying brain theories struggle to explain why an NDE can take place when the person might believe they are in danger but nothing physical happens and the brain is not under any kind of trauma. Also, it is hard to explain away lights or detailed visions seen by those who have been blind since birth. 

This kind of sceptical arrogance is all too easy to find and is offered as reassurance to other sceptics and the public at large by professionals too eager to repeat the same old, same old.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/309454.php

No doubt, NDEs are a complex phenomenon with a myriad of mechanisms behind them. From a lack of oxygen affecting the visual system to a brain struggling to make sense of strange emotions; from the drug-like triggering of reward pathways and a host of cultural expectations. Being close to death (or believing that you are) is a unique physiological and psychological experience. It is little wonder that it produces such a confusion of sights and sounds.

The precise nature of each NDE will not be unraveled for many years. After all, catching them in action, at one of the most critical points of an individual's life is no easy task, and the ethics of experimental interventions could prove tricky.

One thing is for sure, NDEs are fascinating and are (probably) nothing to do with the afterlife.

Even if a brain goes through a completely "non-functioning" spell (whatever that really means in terms of global cell activity) there are periods either side of that spell of compromised brain function.

So it's back to the "just before"... or "just after" explanation. There's no point in me explaining (again) the faulty reasoning behind that argument, you've heard it all before and it never makes any difference. The explanation you satisfied yourself with, for the 'Lloyd Rudy case,' is a prime example of the lengths you're willing to go to, Malf.

So... does L.E.D. really mean, light emitting deity?

So it's back to the "just before"... or "just after" explanation. There's no point in me explaining (again) the faulty reasoning behind that argument, you've heard it all before and it never makes any difference. The explanation you satisfied yourself with, for the 'Lloyd Rudy case,' is a prime example of the lengths you're willing to go to, Malf.

Speaking of faulty reasoning Tim it's faulty to reason (to assume) nde's are unmitigated proof in the afterlife and argue backwards to that first principle assumption, when in fact no one knows a damn thing about the true nature of the near death experience. Now Tim or anyone else: does anyone know the true nature of the near death experience?

Good point. The effects of drugs and medications should not be overlooked. These could also influence some reports.

Come on Malf you must have read some research on the subject lol

They are usually bunk, and this one probably is to, but what about the explanation that what experiencers are seeing are hospital lights?

Just a single example here, which describes a light which is not explainable as a hospital light.
http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1carlos_c_nde.html

There was a six-foot wall at the edge of the lawn that divided our house from our neighbor's. On this wall, I saw a light starting to grow. It was like a brilliant golden egg that was expanding, creating a tunnel of light.

It would be easy to find others.

I'd be curious to see for comparison an NDE which is definitely explainable as a hospital light. I request that it must definitely be attributable to that cause, not mere speculation.

Just a single example here, which describes a light which is not explainable as a hospital light.
http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1carlos_c_nde.html

It would be easy to find others.

I'd be curious to see for comparison an NDE which is definitely explainable as a hospital light. I request that it must definitely be attributable to that cause, not mere speculation.

Anecdotes. You know what folks like me think of them. They're interesting, but tell us nothing. I noticed he learnt all about the universe and yet the questioner wasn't  the least bit interested in a followup question. No doubt the nde is a moving experience, but why argue it's more than that?

Speaking of faulty reasoning Tim it's faulty to reason (to assume) nde's are unmitigated proof in the afterlife and argue backwards to that first principle assumption, when in fact no one knows a damn thing about the true nature of the near death experience. Now Tim or anyone else: does anyone know the true nature of the near death experience?

You keep saying that, Steve but I've never said NDE's are proof of an afterlife. You can't prove there's an afterlife. What they are is a strong pointer, a big hint that consciousness continues. As Pim Van Lommel has said, "They could hardly be anything else."