I am a two-time near-death experiencer whose life was radically and permanently altered by what I experienced. Even so, I encourage scientific research into NDE. I want to know what science thinks.
Science has yet to demonstrate that the brain produces consciousness, called "the hard problem". So to base any theory on a physiological cause of NDEs is already questionable at the foundation. What we DO know is that 96% of the Universe is invisible ("dark" matter and energy combined). That's a pretty big question mark, and a good indication of something else beyond the veil of physical reality. Not to mention that every NDE report I've ever heard of has described something more real than this world, not dream-like, and many times these individuals witness and can accurately recount events even miles away from the body during their flatline. What are these materialist "scientists" so afraid of? I'm guessing these people are corporate shills or atheists (who are btw often the most dogmatic and fanatical of fundamentalists) hired to brainwash and propagandize the public into accepting materialist-only views of reality in order that corporate law and the investors they serve can continue to run roughshod over our shared environment for profit. If everything is conscious, or if souls have to experience actual karma for their deeds in life (ie life review) the corporate-ruled kleptocracy that currently exists would crumble.
"If everything is conscious, or if souls have to experience actual karma for their deeds in life (ie life review) the corporate-ruled kleptocracy that currently exists would crumble." That's optimistic and not guaranteed. Some percentage of people are still likely to misbehave in service of worldly ends without regard to the consequences of a post-bodily conscious life.
Primarily, conscious "personhood" would open up the floodgates for lawsuits against corporate abuses. Psychologically, if people were to accept the karmic nature of life as a given, it would go a long way toward encouraging people to behave better.
If medical research ultimately leads to the conclusion that NDEs are the product of the brain's response to extreme distress and that such brain activity frequently leads to long-term changes in behavior and beliefs, do you foresee circumstances in which physicians - or other actors - would attempt to induce or advocate for inducing such changes through pharmacological means in the hope of causing such long-term changes in a subject? Are medical ethicists participants in this field of research?
The primary obstacle to effective NDE research seems to be a lack of vision, both by scientists and the public at large. To illustrate, consider this example:
During the Apollo program we sent people in to space, deliberately risking their lives, so as to ambitiously explore an environment that is new to us. Even today, every trip in to space is still a roll of the dice, and we accept this risk as being a necessary part of space exploration. Two crews of the Space Shuttle did all die, and still, we continued.
Is there anyone working on NDE research that has suggested we take a similar approach to studying death? Why can't trained experts take people over the edge in to death, and then bring them back, as was explored fictionally in the film Flatliners.
Space is extremely interesting, but if humans had never gone to space life would have continued much as it had for thousands of years. Space exploration is optional.
On the other hand, every human being without exception is going to die some day. Thus, risking lives to explore our ultimate destination seems considerably more justified than risking lives exploring space.
And yet, we take it for granted that lives will be risked exploring space, but consider risking lives to explore death to be totally unacceptable. Why??
It seems to me NDE research will never be a truly serious enterprise until we overcome this hurdle.
PS: Finally, we might be wary of any scientists telling us that because they've found a mechanical explanation for NDEs, that means that the spiritual realm described by NDE experiencers is a hallucination. This is the sloppiest form of logic. Finding a mechanical explanation for NDEs tells us nothing about whether a spiritual realm may exist or not. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is myself, and neither do they.
I am a two-time near-death experiencer whose life was radically and permanently altered by what I experienced. Even so, I encourage scientific research into NDE. I want to know what science thinks.
Science has yet to demonstrate that the brain produces consciousness, called "the hard problem". So to base any theory on a physiological cause of NDEs is already questionable at the foundation. What we DO know is that 96% of the Universe is invisible ("dark" matter and energy combined). That's a pretty big question mark, and a good indication of something else beyond the veil of physical reality. Not to mention that every NDE report I've ever heard of has described something more real than this world, not dream-like, and many times these individuals witness and can accurately recount events even miles away from the body during their flatline. What are these materialist "scientists" so afraid of? I'm guessing these people are corporate shills or atheists (who are btw often the most dogmatic and fanatical of fundamentalists) hired to brainwash and propagandize the public into accepting materialist-only views of reality in order that corporate law and the investors they serve can continue to run roughshod over our shared environment for profit. If everything is conscious, or if souls have to experience actual karma for their deeds in life (ie life review) the corporate-ruled kleptocracy that currently exists would crumble.
"If everything is conscious, or if souls have to experience actual karma for their deeds in life (ie life review) the corporate-ruled kleptocracy that currently exists would crumble." That's optimistic and not guaranteed. Some percentage of people are still likely to misbehave in service of worldly ends without regard to the consequences of a post-bodily conscious life.
Primarily, conscious "personhood" would open up the floodgates for lawsuits against corporate abuses. Psychologically, if people were to accept the karmic nature of life as a given, it would go a long way toward encouraging people to behave better.
Having spent decades in the legal profession I am considerably more skeptical of that than you are. But it would remain to be seen.
If medical research ultimately leads to the conclusion that NDEs are the product of the brain's response to extreme distress and that such brain activity frequently leads to long-term changes in behavior and beliefs, do you foresee circumstances in which physicians - or other actors - would attempt to induce or advocate for inducing such changes through pharmacological means in the hope of causing such long-term changes in a subject? Are medical ethicists participants in this field of research?
The primary obstacle to effective NDE research seems to be a lack of vision, both by scientists and the public at large. To illustrate, consider this example:
During the Apollo program we sent people in to space, deliberately risking their lives, so as to ambitiously explore an environment that is new to us. Even today, every trip in to space is still a roll of the dice, and we accept this risk as being a necessary part of space exploration. Two crews of the Space Shuttle did all die, and still, we continued.
Is there anyone working on NDE research that has suggested we take a similar approach to studying death? Why can't trained experts take people over the edge in to death, and then bring them back, as was explored fictionally in the film Flatliners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatliners
Consider the reasoning.
Space is extremely interesting, but if humans had never gone to space life would have continued much as it had for thousands of years. Space exploration is optional.
On the other hand, every human being without exception is going to die some day. Thus, risking lives to explore our ultimate destination seems considerably more justified than risking lives exploring space.
And yet, we take it for granted that lives will be risked exploring space, but consider risking lives to explore death to be totally unacceptable. Why??
It seems to me NDE research will never be a truly serious enterprise until we overcome this hurdle.
PS: Finally, we might be wary of any scientists telling us that because they've found a mechanical explanation for NDEs, that means that the spiritual realm described by NDE experiencers is a hallucination. This is the sloppiest form of logic. Finding a mechanical explanation for NDEs tells us nothing about whether a spiritual realm may exist or not. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is myself, and neither do they.