Succinct yet exhaustive list of arguments for NDEs as evidence for life after death

[Ninshub]

I don't know if anybody here is interested in doing this with me, maybe a collaborative effort.

Through looking for a Bruce Greyson video or someone else's summarizing the science of near-death experiences, from a proponents' perspective, I thought I might like to put together a succinct but exhaustive list of the facts and arguments for NDEs as evidence for survival of consciousness after bodily death. I've long become a "believer" through that data, but I usually don't have at the tip of my (mental) fingers al of the arguments in a way, say, some like @tim seems to.

So as I find the time, I'll try to list the arguments here. Included in those arguments would be summarizing the rebuttals to all of the skeptical or materialist/physiological hypotheses furnished over the years.

If anyone is interested in helping with this, just jot down the arguments as you see them in this thread.

I'd like to eventually articulate them in the most succinct, accurate and elegant way as possible. That can become a good tool then to memorize them for one's self and communicate them to open-minded people who may have heard superficially about NDEs but think they've been explained away as, for example, an endogenous DMT trip in the brain for the last 15 minutes.

Maybe I'll start with Jeffrey Long's lines of evidence, summarize them, and then go from there to adding through the Chris Carters, Bruce Greysons et al. of this world.

I don't know if anybody here is interested in doing this with me, maybe a collaborative effort.

Through looking for a Bruce Greyson video or someone else's summarizing the science of near-death experiences, from a proponents' perspective, I thought I might like to put together a succinct but exhaustive list of the facts and arguments for NDEs as evidence for survival of consciousness after bodily death. I've long become a "believer" through that data, but I usually don't have at the tip of my (mental) fingers al of the arguments in a way, say, some like @tim seems to.

So as I find the time, I'll try to list the arguments here. Included in those arguments would be summarizing the rebuttals to all of the skeptical or materialist/physiological hypotheses furnished over the years.

If anyone is interested in helping with this, just jot down the arguments as you see them in this thread.

I'd like to eventually articulate them in the most succinct, accurate and elegant way as possible. That can become a good tool then to memorize them for one's self and communicate them to open-minded people who may have heard superficially about NDEs but think they've been explained away as, for example, an endogenous DMT trip in the brain for the last 15 minutes.

Maybe I'll start with Jeffrey Long's lines of evidence, summarize them, and then go from there to adding through the Chris Carters, Bruce Greysons et al. of this world.

This paper by Enrico Facco and Christian Agrillo should be helpful: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00209/full

They list several materialist hypotheses and criticize them. Here is their list:

>The main hypotheses for NDE interpretations on a scientific basis  are: (a) periphery-to-fovea retinal ischemia as a cause of tunnel vision; (b)systemic acidosis and ion shift;(c) temporal lobe dysfunction and epileptic discharges; (d) glutamate-dependent excitotoxic damage and its endogenous modulators (such as agmatine); (e) other neurotransmitter imbalances (including noradrenaline, dopamine, endogenous opioids ,serotonin); (f) analogies between NDEs and effects of hallucinogens; (g) REM-sleep intrusion sand/or multisensory breakdown involving the right angular gyrus for (OBEs); (h)psychological hypothesis of afterlife expectation.

Also this paper by Michael Nahm and Adrian Weibel: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...xperiences

>The physiological and psychological underpinnings of near-death experiences (NDEs) are not yet understood. In this article, we show that for "critical" NDEs reported after cardiac arrest, two different neurophysiological models have been proposed that, in the literature so far, have not been adequately distinguished from each other. In the real-time model, it is postulated that during critical NDEs, residual activities in the cerebrum were sufficient to generate NDEs in real time. In the reconstruction model, it is assumed that due to severe oxygen deficiency, critical NDEs could not have occurred at the time in question but were reconstructed later during the regeneration phase of the brain. To assess the plausibility of these two models, we analyzed the phenom-enology of the view of one's own body from above (autoscopy) that frequently occurs in the beginning of NDEs. In addition to the available literature, we used original descriptions of autoscopies obtained in an online survey conducted in 2015. We found that the reconstruction model is not supported by empirical findings and that some findings even speak against it. We therefore conclude that future discussions of explanatory models of NDEs should focus primarily on the neurophysiological real-time model and a third alternative according to which autoscopies and NDEs occur in relative independence from the prevailing neuro-physiological processes in the brain.

[Ninshub]

Thanks RV.

Again if other people want to help write or co-write this thing feel free, jump ahead of me, no problem!

"...arguments for NDEs as evidence for survival of consciousness after bodily death."

From a broad brush summary standpoint, I would list the following four main categories, with some overlap between them:

1. The existence of many veridical NDEs in which details of the experiences recorded in the accounts by NDErs have been independently verified by investigators, details concerning such things as observations of resuscitation teams working on the body, encounters with deceased persons not known to be deceased by the NDEr, and encounters with living witnesses great distances from the NDEr's body. And where there was no normal way the information could have been known by the NDEr. All of these phenomena are directly implied by the NDEr's distinct impression of having separated from his/her body as some form of mobile center of consciousness, a precursor of the after-death state.

2. Evidence obtained by investigators that in many cases the NDEr was conscious and aware and able to observe while his/her brain was dysfunctional.

3. Evidence obtained by investigators that some NDErs have long-lasting deep and powerful spiritual/emotional personality changes subsequent to their experiences, changes that correlate with the claimed spiritual content of the NDEs. 

4. The continued failure of materialist neuroscience to explain how disorders of the physical brain can produce all the features of NDEs, especially including the veridical ones.

2.2.2. “I Should Have Done Better”: Reliving an Educational and Meaningful Recording of Life

In this section, we will examine what may arguably be considered to be the most remarkable and important aspect of the experience of death. This relates to what has traditionally been referred to as a “Life Review” (as first proposed by Moody in 1975). However, this term and the way it is often presented as a sort of “flashing of your life past you”, doesn’t do the highly meaningful dimension of this feature of the experience justice. A more appropriate description based on our studies would be to refer to this as a “reliving of a recording of life”. This is because it reflects a meaningful evaluation of every detail in each person’s life; people describe that all their actions, thoughts and intentions towards others are recorded in their own self (or consciousness) and become apparent to the individual. The person then relieves every moment of his/her life from his/her own perspective, but also the perspective of others (who had been involved in the events), as well as from what is described as a higher perspective – what one person termed “the truth of the matter”.

What is the Best Available Evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death? By Sam Parnia MD, PhD and Tara Keshavarz Shirazi BS. New York University School of Medicine

[Ninshub]

That's interesting, although for myself it's not the most remarkable (that's a matter of personal opinion of course) and it doesn't seem to happen in every NDE, and definitely not to the extent that it's described there. Am I wrong here?

Increased cognitive abilities (compared to normal), while the brain is (heavily) compromised no less (!), which I think is one of Jeffrey Long's lines of evidence, is one that usually pops in my mind the first as a key piece of evidence.

That's interesting, although for myself it's not the most remarkable (that's a matter of personal opinion of course) and it doesn't seem to happen in every NDE, and definitely not to the extent that it's described there. Am I wrong here?

Increased cognitive abilities (compared to normal), while the brain is (heavily) compromised no less (!), which I think is one of Jeffrey Long's lines of evidence, is one that usually pops in my mind the first as a key piece of evidence.

I don't consider life review the most remarkable feature of the NDEs either. I merely thought it should be added to this list. Personally, I prefer the lines of evidence nbtruthman already mentioned in this thread.

Life review certainly doesn't seem to happen in every NDE, and not to the extent it's described in the article, but when it happens, it can be quite remarkable:

There is a sense of being in other peoples’ shoes and experiencing their perspective of events. One person explained: “I could examine [my experiences] from multiple perspectives, such as the people they affected.” One other person said: “I was re-experiencing [my life] from the other people’s points of view and that was a stunner, because you feel their pain, you feel the sting, you feel the hurt.”

 

The point of re-experiencing things from the perspective of others is very prominent in the recollections that people have of this phase of their experience. One other person stated: “Many events in my life I experienced, but not from how I remembered it, but from the point of view, I experienced it from how [others] experienced it around me… It was very apparent that every single thought, word and action affects everything … In the life review we judge ourselves… with no ego left and no lies, we can't hide from what we have done and feel remorse and shame, especially in the presence of this love and light.”

What is the Best Available Evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death? By Sam Parnia MD, PhD and Tara Keshavarz Shirazi BS. New York University School of Medicine

And there are shared-death experiences (SDEs). 

SDEs and NDEs share many common traits, such as encounters with spirit beings, perception of a transcendent light (often described as much brighter than any earthly light), life reviews, and feelings of unity. The presence of a tunnel or gateway as well as a border or boundary that the person can’t (yet) cross are also reported in both experiences. Unfortunately, like with NDEs many of these features of SDEs aren't directly verifiable by independent investigators so as to constitute veridical evidence.

However, strong indirect evidence for the survival of consciousness would be suggested by remote SDEs, in that remote SDEs often occur in people unaware of the imminent death of the subject. This sort of occurrence could be independently checked and constitute veridical evidence.

And SDEs support non-local consciousness since many cases are remote.

[Ninshub]

encounters with deceased persons not known to be deceased by the NDEr

We could add another element here.

In (re-)watching the beginning of Bruce Greyson's presentation in the 2018 University of Virginia's Department of Perceptual Studies panel discussion moderated by John Cleese, Greyson distinguishes 1) meeting deceased loved ones you thought were still alive, and 2) meeting deceased people you don't know but later find out, e.g. through photographs, are family members/relatives.