NDE: A skeptic neurosurgeon experienced this!

[sees]

This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!


I was just listening to The Unexplained by Howard Hughes (a regular Sunday evening broadcast on Talk Radio at 10 p.m in UK) when I heard about a fascinating case of NDE because it not only involved a skeptic but a neurosurgeon who dismissed such experiences as fantasies.


Then HE himself had an NDE (during a coma brought on by having meningitis).    Read about his experience here.


https://ndestories.org/dr-eben-alexander/

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, sees said:

This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!


I was just listening to The Unexplained by Howard Hughes (a regular Sunday evening broadcast on Talk Radio at 10 p.m in UK) when I heard about a fascinating case of NDE because it not only involved a skeptic but a neurosurgeon who dismissed such experiences as fantasies.


Then HE himself had an NDE (during a coma brought on by having meningitis).    Read about his experience here.


https://ndestories.org/dr-eben-alexander/

Yes, that is an old story but it is fascinating the research he has done since.  A lot on this forum will tell you he is unreliable but I suspect it is their fear talking.  Don't take any of the so called skeptics seriously, some of them are reasonable but most are just bored and think it is fun to denigrate people.   

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, that is an old story but it is fascinating the research he has done since.  A lot on this forum will tell you he is unreliable but I suspect it is their fear talking.  Don't take any of the so called skeptics seriously, some of them are reasonable but most are just bored and think it is fun to denigrate people.   

Why on earth would anyone be 'afraid' if NDEs are what some people think they are, what's to fear?  Isn't wanting there to be some kind of an afterlife, in reality, a fairly common desire?  Isn't your specific accusation of 'bias' concerning skeptics just a big hypocritical and biased in itself, I count no less than three books on the link that this 'skeptical neurologist' is trying to hawk?

Also, where can I find the 'research' he's done?  In the long interview he makes the revealing comment, " A lot of these experiments and studies, how you interpret them will depend a lot on what your prejudices are going in.". Sounds like the experiments and studies aren't that great or compelling then, well-structured experiments specifically try to minimize or eliminate this 'prejudice' involved in the 'interpretation'.

 

[+Desertrat56]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Why on earth would anyone be 'afraid' if NDEs are what some people think they are, what's to fear?  Isn't wanting there to be some kind of an afterlife, in reality, a fairly common desire?  Isn't your specific accusation of 'bias' concerning skeptics just a big hypocritical and biased in itself, I count no less than three books on the link that this 'skeptical neurologist' is trying to hawk?

Also, where can I find the 'research' he's done?  In the long interview he makes the revealing comment, " A lot of these experiments and studies, how you interpret them will depend a lot on what your prejudices are going in.". Sounds like the experiments and studies aren't that great or compelling then, well-structured experiments specifically try to minimize or eliminate this 'prejudice' involved in the 'interpretation'.

 

My comment about fear is based on the vitriol that some posters use when disputing or denigrating someone else's experience or ideas.  What, if not fear, would trigger such strong reactions to someone expressing something.  A normal person would just state opinion and move on but there are some on this forum who react angrily and rudely to anything paranormal. 

Because I have had my own experiences, I tend to believe that Eben Alexander did experience something.  I have no attachment to how he interprets that experience, but I do find it interesting.  I only read his first book and have not bothered with this subject much but you asking questions is at least reasonable, though your tone might be bit reactionary, though I understand it is not reactionary to the subject as much as to my post.  I'm sure if you really want to find the research you can.  Based on a video I saw years ago called "What the bleep do we know" there are several scientist involved in this kind of study.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Desertrat56

[sees]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, that is an old story but it is fascinating the research he has done since.  A lot on this forum will tell you he is unreliable but I suspect it is their fear talking.  Don't take any of the so called skeptics seriously, some of them are reasonable but most are just bored and think it is fun to denigrate people.   

Thanks for your reply and understanding.

Yes I rarely come here now since I found that this forum is not open to spirituality and is overly top heavy with those adhering to materialistic limitations of scientism.  Scientism is the view that science has a monopoly on human knowledge and that only things that are “scientific” are true. This misconception is not a result of science, but of scientism, the peculiar school of thought that places around science a halo of “omniscience.” However, scientism itself is unscientific!   

 

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, sees said:

Thanks for your reply and understanding.

Yes I rarely come here now since I found that this forum is not open to spirituality and is overly top heavy with those adhering to materialistic limitations of scientism.  Scientism is the view that science has a monopoly on human knowledge and that only things that are “scientific” are true. This misconception is not a result of science, but of scientism, the peculiar school of thought that places around science a halo of “omniscience.” However, scientism itself is unscientific!   

 

Yep, I have said the same thing using different words.  I use the term "science acolyte" as someone who declares "science proves" when they have no idea how scientific thought and research work.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, sees said:

This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!

Actually, this is well known guy in the NDE world and since it seems to be such a strong case,  the skeptic/materialist crowd has already put him in their rifle crosshairs for years now.

[+Liquid Gardens]

42 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

My comment about fear is based on the vitriol that some posters use when disputing or denigrating someone else's experience or ideas.  What, if not fear, would trigger such strong reactions to someone expressing something.  A normal person would just state opinion and move on but there are some on this forum who react angrily and rudely to anything paranormal. 

I can think of lots of things other than fear:  anger, fatigue, history with the poster, 'you're on the internet', etc.  Even if one was to believe that there is some reliability to psychological diagnoses based on anonymous internet comments from non-experts like the above, why point this psychological analysis one way?  You can't think of anything that may bias NDE believers?

47 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Because I have had my own experiences, I tend to believe that Eben Alexander did experience something.

I know of virtually no skeptics who dispute that NDErs experienced something.

[+Desertrat56]

33 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I can think of lots of things other than fear:  anger, fatigue, history with the poster, 'you're on the internet', etc.  Even if one was to believe that there is some reliability to psychological diagnoses based on anonymous internet comments from non-experts like the above, why point this psychological analysis one way?  You can't think of anything that may bias NDE believers?

I know of virtually no skeptics who dispute that NDErs experienced something.

I have seen posters on this forum accuse people of being off their meds or crazy so virtually is the correct word to use since that means "like, not in fact".  On this forum people claiming to be skeptics often dispute that NDE's, Ghosts, etc. were merely imagination or made up.   

[sees]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually, this is well known guy in the NDE world and since it seems to be such a strong case,  the skeptic/materialist crowd has already put him in their rifle crosshairs for years now.

Why am I not surprised!  Ha!  Too threatening to their established, closed mindset no doubt....never mind.

 

[sees]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I can think of lots of things other than fear:  anger, fatigue, history with the poster, 'you're on the internet', etc.  Even if one was to believe that there is some reliability to psychological diagnoses based on anonymous internet comments from non-experts like the above, why point this psychological analysis one way?  You can't think of anything that may bias NDE believers?

I know of virtually no skeptics who dispute that NDErs experienced something.

Yes skeptics just dismiss that what occurred is fantasy....until it might occur to them i.e. just in this case that I described.

Edited November 9, 2020 by sees

[Rlyeh]

4 hours ago, sees said:

This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!

Why do you think this is a good example?

 

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, sees said:

Why am I not surprised!  Ha!  Too threatening to their established, closed mindset no doubt....never mind.

 

Oh definitely. Also, I think the veridical NDE’s where the patient calmly knows mundane details even at some distance during times of no higher brain functioning is even more challenging to the materialist/skeptic.

Another thought Sees is that I consider the idea that skeptics like @Liquid Gardens above acknowledge the more positive life affirming aspects of a beautiful afterlife plane BUT they’re too guarded from disappointment to become believers.

[+Liquid Gardens]

23 minutes ago, sees said:

Yes skeptics just dismiss that what occurred is fantasy

Fantasies and 'mere imagination' are still experienced.  Skeptics, in general, accept that NDErs had these experiences, what they disagree with is the interpretation of them, such as by the author noted in the OP.

 

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Another thought Sees is that I consider the idea that skeptics like @Liquid Gardens above acknowledge the more positive life affirming aspects of a beautiful afterlife plane BUT they’re too guarded from disappointment to become believers.

Hahaha, huh?  "I consider the idea that true believers like papageorge may be honest in their assessment of the validity of NDEs but he's too frightened of death to not cling for emotional reasons to poorly evidenced ideas like this".  If I believe in NDEs, where does the opportunity for 'disappointment' come in?  The usual alternative to an afterlife is nothingness/real death, so if I were to believe in NDEs, at what point in time is there the opportunity to be disappointed?  Can't be disappointed if you're dead after all, and since you phrase it as a 'beautiful afterlife plane' we are clearly seeing how much you want NDEs to be true.

"Skeptics are just biased" is a pretty weak and hypocritical charge on something like this, it works the exact opposite of the way it's intended, it just highlights that there's no good evidence as that's what would be discussed instead of inexpert psychological assessments if there was any.  Ask skeptics here what their NDE skepticism is based on and you'll get some details - all of it, especially the 'veridical' ones, are based on mere stories; it should be no surprise that dying brains result in odd experiences; how these experiences have been 'timed' with supposed times when the brain was 'dead' are unevidenced; etc.  Turn around and ask a believer like papageorge for the very best evidence or argument for their belief in NDE and you'll get the vague and disappointing, 'if you read all the stories it becomes more compelling....'. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

 "I consider the idea that true believers like papageorge may be honest in their assessment of the validity of NDEs but he's too frightened of death to not cling for emotional reasons to poorly evidenced ideas like this". 

I objectively have been converted by the evidence. I was once a materialist. I don't agree with your claim that this is poorly evidenced. I believe it is strongly evidenced but proof would be impossible.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If I believe in NDEs, where does the opportunity for 'disappointment' come in?  The usual alternative to an afterlife is nothingness/real death, so if I were to believe in NDEs, at what point in time is there the opportunity to be disappointed?  Can't be disappointed if you're dead after all, and since you phrase it as a 'beautiful afterlife plane' we are clearly seeing how much you want NDEs to be true.

The possible disappointment I was referring to would not come after death but during life if science were to prove or conclusively show that the NDE is not evidence for life after death. That's what I meant.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

"Skeptics are just biased" is a pretty weak and hypocritical charge on something like this, it works the exact opposite of the way it's intended, it just highlights that there's no good evidence as that's what would be discussed instead of inexpert psychological assessments if there was any.  Ask skeptics here what their NDE skepticism is based on and you'll get some details - all of it, especially the 'veridical' ones, are based on mere stories; it should be no surprise that dying brains result in odd experiences; how these experiences have been 'timed' with supposed times when the brain was 'dead' are unevidenced; etc.  Turn around and ask a believer like papageorge for the very best evidence or argument for their belief in NDE and you'll get the vague and disappointing, 'if you read all the stories it becomes more compelling....'. 

A collection of 'mere stories' analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency can flip my view on how reality works. I'm fine with mainstream science being agnostic on the final meaning of the NDE. That answer is currently outside science's reach, but maybe someday. But my concern in all this beyond what can be proved scientifically is, what makes the most sense to believe in with all things considered. And for me the NDE phenomena is added on to a variety of other so-call paranormal phenomena suggesting the afterlife, spirit worlds and intelligence without a physical brain.

Edited November 9, 2020 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The possible disappointment I was referring to would not come after death but during life if science were to prove or conclusively show that the NDE is not evidence for life after death. That's what I meant.

...

I'm fine with mainstream science being agnostic on the final meaning of the NDE.

To your first sentence this is of course not a concern from what I've read of your position, because there is no way science can 'prove' that an NDE isn't evidence for life after death.  I find this analogous to your response on many paranormal topics such as ghosts:  yes, you fully and correctly accept that people misremember and misperceive things, you just believe there are some stories that this explanation is not adequate for.  If science proved then that an NDE is just a result of a squirt of certain brain chemicals, and we could induce NDEs at will by maybe administering those same chemicals to living people, then I don't think your position would budge a bit, just like with everything else this just is an explanation for some cases.  You know full well that there is no possible science that is going to be able to disprove your 'veridical' scenarios, because there is no evidence to evaluate or analyze other than what you and others heard from someone somewhere.

That's just an FYI, I of course don't think the same way, and we've already talked before about how and why I think our memory persisting after death is as 'scientifically disproven' as creationism and for similar reasons.  But 'scientifically disproven' doesn't have to mean 'impossible' so I'm ultimately agnostic, which you seem to imply above is a reasonable position given the evidence.  So I don't know where or why this weird assertion that maybe I don't want to there to be an afterlife because I don't want to somehow be disappointed comes from.  That's a pretty specific psychological motivation you think you can glean from anonymous internet comments from people you'll never meet.  Let's hope there's a lot stronger rational foundation supporting the accuracy your papameter readings.

 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, sees said:

This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!


I was just listening to The Unexplained by Howard Hughes (a regular Sunday evening broadcast on Talk Radio at 10 p.m in UK) when I heard about a fascinating case of NDE because it not only involved a skeptic but a neurosurgeon who dismissed such experiences as fantasies.


Then HE himself had an NDE (during a coma brought on by having meningitis).    Read about his experience here.


https://ndestories.org/dr-eben-alexander/

As others have pointed out, it's an old story 

I don't see anything that actually is convincing regarding Dr Alexander's alleged pre skepticism. 

He wasn't dead. That's a biggie that really dents his claim.

If anyone is interested, Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody debate Steve Novella and Sean Carroll about life after death, and Eben's alleged experience.

Seems to me he is just another snake oil salesmen peddling hopes and dreams. IMHO, he ought to be ashamed of himself. 

 

 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, sees said:

Thanks for your reply and understanding.

Yes I rarely come here now since I found that this forum is not open to spirituality and is overly top heavy with those adhering to materialistic limitations of scientism.  Scientism is the view that science has a monopoly on human knowledge and that only things that are “scientific” are true. This misconception is not a result of science, but of scientism, the peculiar school of thought that places around science a halo of “omniscience.” However, scientism itself is unscientific!   

 

You're don't understand science is why. Neither does dessertrat or pg.

It's not a book of answers. It's a book you write answers in. If one is capable of understanding that much, you would understand the validity of the sciences. 

If you think it's a book of answers, your always going to take the misleading direction you have done in the post I quoted. 

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To your first sentence this is of course not a concern from what I've read of your position, because there is no way science can 'prove' that an NDE isn't evidence for life after death.  I find this analogous to your response on many paranormal topics such as ghosts:  yes, you fully and correctly accept that people misremember and misperceive things, you just believe there are some stories that this explanation is not adequate for.  If science proved then that an NDE is just a result of a squirt of certain brain chemicals, and we could induce NDEs at will by maybe administering those same chemicals to living people, then I don't think your position would budge a bit, just like with everything else this just is an explanation for some cases.  You know full well that there is no possible science that is going to be able to disprove your 'veridical' scenarios, because there is no evidence to evaluate or analyze other than what you and others heard from someone somewhere.

Actually chemicals like DMT and hallucinogens can indeed cause some mildly similar experiences to the NDE because they cause some disassociation between the physical and astral/mental bodies. In the NDE a temporary complete disassociation occurs. But that's another subject. 

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's just an FYI, I of course don't think the same way, and we've already talked before about how and why I think our memory persisting after death is as 'scientifically disproven' as creationism and for similar reasons.  But 'scientifically disproven' doesn't have to mean 'impossible' so I'm ultimately agnostic, which you seem to imply above is a reasonable position given the evidence.  

Actually memory storage is held to be non-local (Akashic records) in Vedic and Theosophical wisdom traditions. The memory areas of the brain facilitate the specific retrieval. But that's another subject.

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

So I don't know where or why this weird assertion that maybe I don't want to there to be an afterlife because I don't want to somehow be disappointed comes from.  

 

I'm not sure why you are still misunderstanding that point. I am saying many materialist-skeptics would like there to be life after death but there is sometimes disinclination to embrace the belief to guard against 'getting ones hopes up' and later being proven wrong by science.

Edited November 10, 2020 by papageorge1

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Why on earth would anyone be 'afraid' if NDEs are what some people think they are, what's to fear?  Isn't wanting there to be some kind of an afterlife, in reality, a fairly common desire?  Isn't your specific accusation of 'bias' concerning skeptics just a big hypocritical and biased in itself, I count no less than three books on the link that this 'skeptical neurologist' is trying to hawk?

Also, where can I find the 'research' he's done?  In the long interview he makes the revealing comment, " A lot of these experiments and studies, how you interpret them will depend a lot on what your prejudices are going in.". Sounds like the experiments and studies aren't that great or compelling then, well-structured experiments specifically try to minimize or eliminate this 'prejudice' involved in the 'interpretation'.

 

Humans are evolved to be afraid of the unknown and unpredictable.

it is why many people seek shelter in a  construct of a  predictable materialist world with no uncertainties and no unknowns.

  Others seek shelter and predictability in their mental constructs of belief and faith. 

His comment is valid when applied to those who review or critique such experiments  

All such reviews and critiques will have some bias   It is true that such prejudices or biases will influence how  a person perceives the results.

  Some may be overly skeptical, others overly naive. 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

As others have pointed out, it's an old story 

I don't see anything that actually is convincing regarding Dr Alexander's alleged pre skepticism. 

He wasn't dead. That's a biggie that really dents his claim.

If anyone is interested, Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody debate Steve Novella and Sean Carroll about life after death, and Eben's alleged experience.

Seems to me he is just another snake oil salesmen peddling hopes and dreams. IMHO, he ought to be ashamed of himself. 

 

 

Yep, we should all be ashamed of anyone offering hope to others.  We can't have tha t .  

[psyche101]

Just now, Mr Walker said:

Yep, we should all be ashamed of anyone offering hope to others.  We can't have tha t .  

Lies aren't hope.

You know, like eBay definitions aren't dictionary definitions. 

Go away, you bore me.

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Yep, we should all be ashamed of anyone offering hope to others.  We can't have tha t .  

No. Let's just lie to each other to make ourselves feel better because some people are incapable of dealing with the fact that dead is dead.

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Lies aren't hope.

You know, like eBay definitions aren't dictionary definitions. 

Go away, you bore me.

The problem is that, no matter what you believe, and what you hope;  the things that people invest belief and faith in cannot be proven to be false. Indeed there are billions of humans who have lived experiences which suggest the hopes are based on a truth.

  Thus the y are logical and rational until you (or anyone) can prove them to be false   

Even more convincing, hope and faith (whether invested in truths or non truths)   improve human health, longevity, and well being, because that is what they have evolved to do. ie protect us  

Nothing wrong with dictionary definitions but they are not the final arbiter of language.

USAGE determines the meaning of words.

Dictionaries catch up, later on  

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No. Let's just lie to each other to make ourselves feel better because some people are incapable of dealing with the fact that dead is dead.

Agreed.  Lets  It might stop them from anxiety attacks,  suiciding, mental breakdown, inconsolable grief, and emotional trauma

We dont actually know for certain what happens to our consciousness at death, although i believe it ceases to exist, unless recorded and stored 

And so it is not a lie to believe that we might live on.  

You believe it is. i tend to agree with you   Others do not believe it is a lie, but a truth. I have no evidences or desire to prove me right and them wrong 

Until you can prove them wrong, it is  just as logical to believe, as it is to disbelieve    And yes of course it is better for people to feel good/happy/ hopeful

 They then live longer, and more adjusted lives, with better physical and mental health.

What sort of evil person would want others to be unhappy, afraid  and filled with despair /grief etc.?   oh yeah right, the sort of person who would like us to stop telling kids that there is a father christmas  

I dont need a belief to be unafraid and confident, but most humans do.

It is  how our minds have evolved  to cope with our knowledge and understanding of inevitable death, pain, suffering, grief, loss etc.