Question about the whole NDE concept and Dr. Jeffrey Long

[Violeta-1998]

I am currently an agnostic, and I do believe in evolution, the big bang, I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, Laurence Krauss, Hawking, just to name a few atheists. I think that for the most part, science does its job when explaining the universe, and the world in general. However, the concept of Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences cause me to scratch my head. Recently, Dr. Jeffrey Long published a book where he analyzed 1600 cases of NDEs and he claimed that they were all strikingly similar, regardless of cultural differences. For example, many people reported seeing a bright light, feeling a lot of love, meeting deceased relatives, having a life review. I am wondering if anyone on this site ever read the Dr. Jeffrey book proof of afterlife? In his book, he even debunks the ideas of the brain hallucinating, and the idea of chemicals being released in the brain to cause these experiences. About 95% of participants thought that these experiences felt more real than real life, and hallucinations cannot feel that real. Also, many claim to see A god, but without a particular title. If 1600 experiences are very similar, would you say that it could mean that these are in fact snapshots of an afterlife? I just don't know how they can be so consistent, and how they can be so life changing if they are not real. 
People, please go easy on me! This is my first day and I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. I just want to know your opinion on Dr. Jeffrey Long, and on NDEs and OBEs in general!
Thanks,
Violeta :-)

[Alex K]

Welcome Violeta! Have you done an intro thread yet?

The fact that they are similar regardless of culture (if indeed they are and the claim is reliable) is most easily and obviously explained by the fact that we are all the same species with roughly the same physiology I don't understand why it should be surprising that we experience similar phenomena in similar conditions.

I am willing to bet that Mr. Long has not convincingly debunked that NDEs are hallucinations in the widest sense. Can you give a short summary of his argument concerning this point so we have something to discuss?
That "hallucinations cannot feel that real" is just an arbitrary assertion. When the brain is under extreme conditions, all kinds of things can happen that you don't know in normal day to day life. The NDE is very different from a normal hallucination too in that the experience is likely not in real time but constructed after the fact, only seemingly spanning the period of time when the brain was down, because its internal clock assigning a relative time to experiences is not working properly.

[robvalue]

Welcome to the forum

I remember reading there is a very good explanation for the "bright light" a lot of people see, but I can't remember where I read it.

Your brain hallucinates under extreme conditions. That seems to be the most likely explanation. As Alex said, we're all very similar so similar experiences aren't that surprising. Where details do come in, such as religious stuff, it tends to be the mythology the person has been most exposed to.

There's no need to make statements like, "Nothing else at all is going on here". Science doesn't work like that. Science deals with what we can test. If a coherent, testable hypothesis is formed regarding anything else that might be happening during these experiences, then people will be all over it I'm sure. But just reading anecdotes and coming to conclusions through those is hopelessly unreliable. It's well known the brain is not experiencing just real things already, at this stage.

Science doesn't "know everything", but that's not a license to make stuff up, as woo-style people tend to do. If their methods of finding out what they claim to know are rigorous, then they too are science.

[Violeta-1998]

Welcome Violeta! Have you done an intro thread yet?

The fact that they are similar regardless of culture (if indeed they are and the claim is reliable) is most easily  and obviously explained by the fact that we are all the same species with roughly the same physiology  I don't understand why it should be surprising that we experience similar phenomena  in similar conditions.

I am willing to bet that Mr. Long has not convincingly debunked that NDEs are hallucinations in the widest sense. Can you give a short summary of his argument concerning this point so we have something to discuss?
That "hallucinations cannot feel that real" is just an arbitrary assertion. When the brain is under extreme conditions, all kinds of things can happen that you don't know in normal day to day life. The NDE is very different from a normal hallucination too in that the experience is likely not in real time but constructed after the fact, only seemingly spanning the period of time when the brain was down, because its internal clock assigning a relative time to experiences is not working properly.

Thank you for your answer! Unfortunately I don't have the book with me right now. I read it about 2 years ago. Also, it is interesting that you mention that the "experience is likely not in real time but constructed after the fact". I do remember that Long's book does nothing to challenge that. There are many possible gaps that pro NDE people try to fill- the fact that the current "natural" explanations we have for NDEs are false. There are two big "gaps" that these people never seem to address. Firstly, the idea that Near-Death is not actual death. Secondly, the fact that these experiences could theoretically be taking place either before or after the stage of clinical death or when the brain is functioning at its lowest level. I wish I knew the exact methods used for taking these NDE experiences.

---

Welcome to the forum

I remember reading there is a very good explanation for the "bright light" a lot of people see, but I can't remember where I read it.

Your brain hallucinates under extreme conditions. That seems to be the most likely explanation. As Alex said, we're all very similar so similar experiences aren't that surprising. Where details do come in, such as religious stuff, it tends to be the mythology the person has been most exposed to.

There's no need to make statements like, "Nothing else at all is going on here". Science doesn't work like that. Science deals with what we can test. If a coherent, testable hypothesis is formed regarding anything else that might be happening during these experiences, then people will be all over it I'm sure. But just reading anecdotes and coming to conclusions through those is hopelessly unreliable. It's well known the brain is not experiencing just real things already, at this stage.

Science doesn't "know everything", but that's not a license to make stuff up, as woo-style people tend to do. If their methods of finding out what they claim to know are rigorous, then they too are science.

Thank you very much for your answer, and your time. I really appreciate your answer and I agree. Many of these experiences are anecdotes at best. Also, there have been some (not a huge amount) of NDEs recorded where there is a particular religious figure involved. I do know that one man named Howard Storm (atheist who reported seeing hell, then converting to become a Christian minister of some kind) who claimed that he saw Jesus. I have also heard of People in India who practiced Hinduism and saw Yamraj or other deities which depict the Hindu faith. The only reason I thought that Dr. Long might have a point is because he used so many experiences with consistency to make his arguments. However, I agree that it could be biology, as well as some expectation.

[The Grand Nudger]

 If 1600 experiences are very similar, would you say that it could mean that these are in fact snapshots of an afterlife? I just don't know how they can be so consistent, and how they can be so life changing if they are not real. 

I doubt that NDEs are a snapshot of an afterlife.  I'd avoid tacking superstition onto the unknown.  They're only consistent if you count the hits and ignore the misses.  Lord of the Rings is life changing for some people.

[robvalue]

You're very welcome

Yes, the life changing element tells you nothing about the origin of the experience.

Human memory is extremely unreliable at the best of times, and even more so when trying to recall experiences under extreme stress. Given so many people know what they "should" experience, it's quite possible they modify/invent memories, perhaps without even knowing it, in order to conform. And really, the story the person tells is going to be an extremely bad model of what actually happened to their brain in reality. If we want to study anything, it has to be objectively, which will probably mean going directly to the brain.

There is a whole stupid equivocation thing going on with what "death" actually means, as well. Does it mean:

(1) Cannot come back to life

Or

(2) A set of criteria by which a person is judged to be "dead"

If we use definition 1, then anyone who is still alive did not die. If we use definition 2, there is no reason to think anyone cannot come back from being "dead" because it's purely an arbitrary human judgement. We don't know everything about the human body. People try and conflate the two, to make our human judgement counts as definition 1, then this gets defied by the person doing "the impossible" and coming back to life. It's the same kind of nonsense as when people try to define "supernatural" and such.

[Whateverist]

You'll find some folks here interested in OBE's but I think a majority would assume that NDE's are just noise in the system as you get NEAR death but well before you actually crap out. I personally think OBE's simply plug into dream/hallucinatory states.

As for your being agnostic, me too. In fact the great majority here are the same. But here we define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in gods. Someone who, in addition to not holding a positive belief in the existence of gods, also believes that gods do not exist we'd call something else. As an agnostic do you hold any provisional belief in gods? If not then by the local standard we'd say you're an atheist too. Doesn't mean you have to call yourself that of course.

[Alex - I've moved my comment from the other thread over here so you can go ahead and shut it down.]

[chimp3]

I am a nurse. Once, I was assessing a patient when he was being transfered from ICU to the rehab unit. I was obtaining his personal history and getting vital signs etc. He began to tell me about his NDE. I pretended I did not hear him and asked the next question. That is how compelling the NDE experience is to me.

[chimp3]

What of this possible scenario: 

You live in a small town. There was a murder 5 years ago. The crime is unsolved. A person in your community has an illness and is admitted to the hospital. They have a heart attack. The medical team performs CPR and they are saved. Kept on a medically induced coma for a few days. When they awake they ask to speak to the police. This person reports that while they were in the coma they viewed the Akashic  records and saw you commit this unsolved murder. The police arrest you and you are put on trial. You have no alibi since you live alone and no one can vouch for you on that fateful day. You are convicted. 

Is this fair? Why not? There is an eyewitness? 

Not fair? Perhaps the eyewitness is not credible because they were in a coma? 

Of course the eyewitness is not credible. They were in a coma!

[Alex K]

I am a nurse. Once, I was assessing a patient when he was being transfered from ICU to the rehab unit. I was obtaining his personal history and getting vital signs etc. He began to tell me about his NDE. I pretended I did not hear him and asked the next question. That is how compelling the NDE experience is to me.

Everyone knows that nurses are evil gaslighting monsters