Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[George-ananda]

LOL!
No, you clearly cannot grasp it. I already laid it out for you once.
I guess I can do it again:

1.

YOU: ↑
Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced an NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.​

​

ME (quoting and linking to a review of one of his books):
Dr. Michael Sabom
"And he scrutinizes near-death experiences in the light of what the Bible has to say about death and dying, the realities of light and darkness, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Hmmm.... seems like a devoted supernaturalist seeking ways to prop up his spiritual beliefs...​

2. You respond:

Lol. And who pray tell said that about the good doctor?
​

3. I reply:

A person that favorably reviewed one of his books.
Didn't you look into him? Or did you just believe him? Lol!
I mean, Google exists for more than looking for ways to prop up a belief. Like checking on the reliability of sources.​

To sum up so far -
YOU claim Sabom did this 'excellent study' on OBE
I reply with a quote from a review of one of his books, praising him for, in effect, "interpreting" the results through his bible beliefs, which I interpret as tainting his objectivity. Seems obvious.


4. Then, after apparently not clicking the link to the quote, and thus misinterpreting the quote, you wrote:

And further are we to assume that the skeptical quote is that important as opposed to just being skeptical suspicion raising? Next shouldn't we then be 'skeptical of the skeptics' too?
I see, so do you think it is reasonable to expect one to review everything ever said by anyone that reviewed a book of someone who I discuss,
Even individuals from that oft-maligned group called 'Christians' I feel can be competent to do quality NDE studies myself. I'm sure you would agree also that materialist/atheists should also be considered for a wish not to believe.​

Holy lack of comprehension, Batman! Talk about missing the point!

5. I respond:

"Skeptical"? The quote SUPPORTED him!
​

6. You reply - and this is where it gets even better:

Huh, I'm confused. Not that it matters, but the quote I was referring to was intended to cast skeptical doubt on Sabom's ability to be objective.​

So, you admit to being confused, but then you go on to try to 'blame' me for... something...

7. I write:

I guess you are confused. The quote I offered was from a review of his book that was SUPPORTIVE of it , but referred to Sabom's evangelicals beliefs. IOW - he is witnessing.​

Yes, I do not feel that Sabom is being objective, for he puts a bible-spin on it, and it clearly appeals to the evangelical-type. But you can't have that:


8. You reply:

To claim 'he is witnessing' is not a supportive point even if the overall tone of the review is supportive.
And the NDE as presented by people like Sabom is not something that supports any narrow religious view so the point doesn't seem to be important.​

Wow. You really do seem to have an issue with comprehension, and I say that as a conclusion and not an insult. It is as if you think I was still quoting or something. I - ME - I think he is witnessing, not the positive review! Which you could have easily seen if you had just clicked the link if you were uncertain.

Not only that, but you seem to have walled-off from your psyche the fact that your hero Sabom IS, in fact, an Evangelical-type who couches his NDE/OBE "research" in a Christian framework - as acknowledged by the original quote I provided!!!

Absolutely amazing...

And that brings us up to today, wherein you again try to foist your comprehension deficits and misinterpretations onto me.

My case is "documented" well enough - the quote that I provided (as well as the gist of Sabom's book) shows that he presents his NDE/OBE stuff within a pro-bible framework; I infer that this makes his stuff less than objective; you cannot seem to keep quotes and forum posts distinct in your mind and cannot accept your error in interpreting what I wrote.

I'll not respond to you on this specific subject again, as your obtuseness is absurd and sad.

All that to distract attention from my simple question (that apparently you don't have an answer to):

What in the NDE as presented by Sabom supports evangelical Christianity?

 

[George-ananda]

LOL!
No, you clearly cannot grasp it. I already laid it out for you once.
I guess I can do it again:

1.

YOU: ↑
Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced an NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.​

​

ME (quoting and linking to a review of one of his books):
Dr. Michael Sabom
"And he scrutinizes near-death experiences in the light of what the Bible has to say about death and dying, the realities of light and darkness, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Hmmm.... seems like a devoted supernaturalist seeking ways to prop up his spiritual beliefs...​

2. You respond:

Lol. And who pray tell said that about the good doctor?
​

3. I reply:

A person that favorably reviewed one of his books.
Didn't you look into him? Or did you just believe him? Lol!
I mean, Google exists for more than looking for ways to prop up a belief. Like checking on the reliability of sources.​

To sum up so far -
YOU claim Sabom did this 'excellent study' on OBE
I reply with a quote from a review of one of his books, praising him for, in effect, "interpreting" the results through his bible beliefs, which I interpret as tainting his objectivity. Seems obvious.


4. Then, after apparently not clicking the link to the quote, and thus misinterpreting the quote, you wrote:

And further are we to assume that the skeptical quote is that important as opposed to just being skeptical suspicion raising? Next shouldn't we then be 'skeptical of the skeptics' too?
I see, so do you think it is reasonable to expect one to review everything ever said by anyone that reviewed a book of someone who I discuss,
Even individuals from that oft-maligned group called 'Christians' I feel can be competent to do quality NDE studies myself. I'm sure you would agree also that materialist/atheists should also be considered for a wish not to believe.​

Holy lack of comprehension, Batman! Talk about missing the point!

5. I respond:

"Skeptical"? The quote SUPPORTED him!
​

6. You reply - and this is where it gets even better:

Huh, I'm confused. Not that it matters, but the quote I was referring to was intended to cast skeptical doubt on Sabom's ability to be objective.​

So, you admit to being confused, but then you go on to try to 'blame' me for... something...

7. I write:

I guess you are confused. The quote I offered was from a review of his book that was SUPPORTIVE of it , but referred to Sabom's evangelicals beliefs. IOW - he is witnessing.​

Yes, I do not feel that Sabom is being objective, for he puts a bible-spin on it, and it clearly appeals to the evangelical-type. But you can't have that:


8. You reply:

To claim 'he is witnessing' is not a supportive point even if the overall tone of the review is supportive.
And the NDE as presented by people like Sabom is not something that supports any narrow religious view so the point doesn't seem to be important.​

Wow. You really do seem to have an issue with comprehension, and I say that as a conclusion and not an insult. It is as if you think I was still quoting or something. I - ME - I think he is witnessing, not the positive review! Which you could have easily seen if you had just clicked the link if you were uncertain.

Not only that, but you seem to have walled-off from your psyche the fact that your hero Sabom IS, in fact, an Evangelical-type who couches his NDE/OBE "research" in a Christian framework - as acknowledged by the original quote I provided!!!

Absolutely amazing...

And that brings us up to today, wherein you again try to foist your comprehension deficits and misinterpretations onto me.

My case is "documented" well enough - the quote that I provided (as well as the gist of Sabom's book) shows that he presents his NDE/OBE stuff within a pro-bible framework; I infer that this makes his stuff less than objective; you cannot seem to keep quotes and forum posts distinct in your mind and cannot accept your error in interpreting what I wrote.

I'll not respond to you on this specific subject again, as your obtuseness is absurd and sad.

And to add Sabom is a scientist who understands the importance of remaining objective. A claim of slanted interpretation needs support.

 

[Lekatt]

It wasn't the first time he'd sat at a piano nor the first time he played any music. He ability to recall and replay all sorts of music was (and remains, I believe) amazing and remains not fully understood or explained. That doesn't mean there is any reason at all to assume that there is anything other than the workings of his brain involved. We know that other people are similarly capable of playing beautiful music from memory after all and it could well be that the limitations of his damaged brain happened to allow this particular skill without the distractions and conflicts within a fully healthy brain.

There is certainly absolute zero evidence to even propose the involvement of anything outside his brain being involved. This doesn't help your case in any way what-so-ever. If anything, it just supports the idea that the human brain alone is capable of much more than we might imagine (ironically ).

He played without taking any lessons flawless music. Does that mean the brain can do music without having to learn how to do it. NO, the music is coming from a source outside the brain. It is obvious that anything can be explained by nonsense like "it is mysterious, unexplained, not understood, but we know it came from the brain, when you do not know it came from the brain. The brain is only an interface between spirit and body. It is only a theory, that the brain causes the music, nothing more than that. Scientists have studied the brain for over 100 years and found nothing. No memory, no emotions, not hidden data, nothing. When I was young I read that a scientist said in a few years if someone needed to know math, for instance, they would be given a shot in the arm and then they would know math. It has not happened and never will, neither will memory ever be found because it is not there.

This video is only one of numerous videos showing Savants doing what appears to be amazing, but is really only things their spirit has done in past lives. Science should approach these things with an open mind, and a desire to find out what i going on instead of locking themselves in the closet and ignoring them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He played without taking any lessons flawless music. Does that mean the brain can do music without having to learn how to do it. NO, the music is coming from a source outside the brain. It is obvious that anything can be explained by nonsense like "it is mysterious, unexplained, not understood, but we know it came from the brain, when you do not know it came from the brain. The brain is only an interface between spirit and body. It is only a theory, that the brain causes the music, nothing more than that. Scientists have studied the brain for over 100 years and found nothing. No memory, no emotions, not hidden data, nothing. When I was young I read that a scientist said in a few years if someone needed to know math, for instance, they would be given a shot in the arm and then they would know math. It has not happened and never will, neither will memory ever be found because it is not there.

This video is only one of numerous videos showing Savants doing what appears to be amazing, but is really only things their spirit has done in past lives. Science should approach these things with an open mind, and a desire to find out what i going on instead of locking themselves in the closet and ignoring them.

So you're just going to make the same claims again, and still no evidence or explanation? No response to my questions about those claims?
Sorry, but bare claims aren't convincing to me. If we don't know then we need to say "I don't know" instead of making up an explanation not in evidence.

 

[Lekatt]

So you're just going to make the same claims again, and still no evidence or explanation? No response to my questions about those claims?
Sorry, but bare claims aren't convincing to me. If we don't know then we need to say "I don't know" instead of making up an explanation not in evidence.

Bare claims is what you are making with no evidence or explanations of how the brain does that. Are you saying "I don't know" now. So scientific theories carry no more weight than any other theories. At least the phenomenon can be explained by spirit. Scientists are far outnumbered by those who believe in the spirit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bare claims is what you are making with no evidence or explanations of how the brain does that. Are you saying "I don't know" now. So scientific theories carry no more weight than any other theories. At least the phenomenon can be explained by spirit. Scientists are far outnumbered by those who believe in the spirit.

No, the bare claims are yours.
I'm challenging your claims and asking for evidence.

I made claims about the brain that I backed up with evidence. You ignored them and continued making bare claims not in evidence.
And still .... nothing. Despite all the questions.

Just saying "spirits" did it, isn't an actual explanation of anything. You're just taking a mystery and positing another mystery as some sort of explanation that actually has no explanatory power whatsoever. Like I said, you'd first have to demonstrate that spirits exist. I could just as easily say "snerflebergs did it" and we'd both be on the same playing field without evidence.

 

[Lekatt]

No, the bare claims are yours.
I'm challenging your claims and asking for evidence.

I made claims about the brain that I backed up with evidence. You ignored them and continued making bare claims not in evidence.
And still .... nothing. Despite all the questions.

Just saying "spirits" did it, isn't an actual explanation of anything. You're just taking a mystery and positing another mystery as some sort of explanation that actually has no explanatory power whatsoever. Like I said, you'd first have to demonstrate that spirits exist. I could just as easily say "snerflebergs did it" and we'd both be on the same playing field without evidence.

If you see deer tracks in the woods, you would say there are deer around here, If a person dies then brought back to life and can tell you what happened while they were dead. It certainly was not the brain. It was the person who remained alive after their body died. Now you can call it a spirit, soul, or snerflebergs. I don't care what you call it, the brain was dead and had nothing to do with it.

In the dark ages the church told people what to think, and if they didn't there were consequences. Science came along and challenged the church. Soon science was telling people what to think, but lately people have been rebelling and refusing to believe science. So in the future science will be replaced by a newer belief, one that understands the spiritual nature of us humans and also works to improve our journey through the physical.

 

[HonestJoe]

He played without taking any lessons flawless music.

He had no formal lessons at that point but did have experience of playing piano with his foster mother. Also, how truly "flawless" his playing was in that first incident is entirely down to the interpretation of his foster parents since they were the only ones who heard. He certainly became an amazingly accomplished musician despite his mental capacity but that doesn't automatically mean there is anything supernatural involved.

Does that mean the brain can do music without having to learn how to do it.

Plenty of people can replay music they've just heard. It is an impressive skill but only one of the countless impassive skills different people can be capable of. Again, in itself this isn't evidence of any specific external force.

It is obvious that anything can be explained by nonsense like "it is mysterious, unexplained, not understood, but we know it came from the brain, when you do not know it came from the brain.

That isn't what I'm saying though. The specifics are a mystery. You are the one claiming to have a specific answer for that mystery, that there is some form of external spiritual involvement. The problem is that you have literally zero evidence to back this up. You've not even presented a detailed hypothesis you're just making open statements.

You declaring you know it comes from the sprit is no better than someone saying they know it comes from the brain.

The brain is only an interface between spirit and body. It is only a theory, that the brain causes the music, nothing more than that. Scientists have studied the brain for over 100 years and found nothing. No memory, no emotions, not hidden data, nothing.

Rubbish. Studies in to the structure and workings of brains (human and other animals) have resulted in vast amounts of information and understanding. There remains plenty we still don't know or aren't entirely clear of but to say we've learned nothing is simply a lie.

One this that hasn't been found in all these decades of study is any evidence of any kind of interface with "spirit" (or any external force that ahs actually been formally defined).

Science should approach these things with an open mind, and a desire to find out what i going on instead of locking themselves in the closet and ignoring them.

This statement would carry more weight if you weren't trying to establish your preferred conclusion as the definitive truth without any evidence or logical reasoning. Can you open your mind to the possibility that the spirit you believe in doesn't actually exist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

'Acceptable authority' = evidence, not a person.
Anecdotes and strongly-held beliefs are not evidence.

Ok, I accept your position.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What you do not understand is that even between those people the subjective experience cannot be conveyed. You may believe it has been, but there is no objective way to support that belief.

Ok, I accept your position.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And that's your belief.
So now what?

We can agree.

 

[Lekatt]

The main point is that clinically dead people have witnessed the happenings in their surroundings while their bodies were dead. Then this information was verified by surgeons and doctors present that testified what the person witnessed was indeed during the time their body was clinically dead. That is evidence that people do live after the death of their body. They can hear and see without their brain. this is evidence that has convinced those in attendance to change their minds about the brain and human spirituality. As for myself I have experienced it, and I know it is real. Very real to me and to all those who also experience it. That is the truth of the matter believe it or not.

People know when they experience things, a good meal, a beautiful sunset, an out of body, and all other things. Hallucinations and brain farts have nothing to do with NDEs. There is estimated over 10 million people in the U.S. have had the experience. There are many web sites devoted to NDEs and carry thousands of them on the net. Please do not tell me they are figments of my imagination, or some other nonsense. The problem is anti-spiritual scientists have not read or researched the subject to any extent. They only assume they know the answers, but they don't. One lesson I learned when my experience woke me up was to study those things that you don't agree with more than those you do. This has open a whole new world to me.

Brain science is mostly limited to behavior studies and imaging the brain to see what part does what even if it is not the same in all people. No memory, no emotions, no data, not much of anything in the way the brain stores learning and knowledge and uses the storage to operate the body.

This video is a good example, there are hundreds of other examples on YouTube and the Net.

 

[HonestJoe]

The main point is that clinically dead people have witnessed the happenings in their surroundings while their bodies were dead. Then this information was verified by surgeons and doctors present that testified what the person witnessed was indeed during the time their body was clinically dead. That is evidence that people do live after the death of their body. They can hear and see without their brain.

Why do you assume it can't be the physical brain involved in these experiences, just in a way we haven't (yet) detect or measure? The fundamental issue here is that you're taking an unexplained phenomena and jumping to a single, specific conclusion with no rational basis.

If you're stepping in to entirely speculative supernatural explanations, there are a literally infinite range of options beyond your preferred one; It could be demons teasing the near-dead with false memories, cross-dimensional aliens trying to communicate with unencumbered minds or the Great Intelligence beginning to upload the patients memories to the Universal Computer too eagerly... no hypothesis any more or less valid than everyone having some kind of spiritual aspect that continues to exist after physical death.

 

[Lekatt]

Why do you assume it can't be the physical brain involved in these experiences, just in a way we haven't (yet) detect or measure? The fundamental issue here is that you're taking an unexplained phenomena and jumping to a single, specific conclusion with no rational basis.

If you're stepping in to entirely speculative supernatural explanations, there are a literally infinite range of options beyond your preferred one; It could be demons teasing the near-dead with false memories, cross-dimensional aliens trying to communicate with unencumbered minds or the Great Intelligence beginning to upload the patients memories to the Universal Computer too eagerly... no hypothesis any more or less valid than everyone having some kind of spiritual aspect that continues to exist after physical death.

It can't be the physical brain because it is dead. No brain activity, no nothing from the brain. That it is not the brain is a completely logically assessment. The phenomenon is not unexplained, it is perfectly explained. I am not jumping to conclusions, people have been aware of their spiritual nature since caveman days.

NDEs are not supernatural, they are the natural result of dying. There are no demons, devils, or hell. The word demon was originally used to define sickness. A person had a demon, that was before the germs were discovered. I am sorry but I have to laugh at aliens paying tricks on us humans. It is what it is!

 

[HonestJoe]

It can't be the physical brain because it is dead. No brain activity, no nothing from the brain.

It's clearly not completely dead since the patients subsequently survive and just because there is no brain activity detected (and that presumes brain activity is even being monitored, which often won't be the case) doesn't mean the brain couldn't possibly be doing something. The point is that you can't entirely dismiss this option out of hand just as nobody can entirely dismiss your ideas out of hand.

I am not jumping to conclusions, people have been aware of their spiritual nature since caveman days.

"Believed in", not "been aware of". There remains literally zero concrete evidence for any kind of "spiritual" nature and not even any formal hypothesis to apply any evidence too anyway. And even if there was, you've presented nothing beyond your assumption to link that to NDEs. Even if some kind of "spirit" existed, NDEs could still be entirely physical.

I am sorry but I have to laugh at aliens paying tricks on us humans. It is what it is!

How come you get to just laugh off the idea of aliens, something lots of people claim we've long "been aware of" when you would object to anyone just laughing off your beliefs? I thought you started this thread wanting to address things scientifically. Part of that involves treating ideas equally and without bias, however ridiculous you might think they sound.

 

[Lekatt]

It's clearly not completely dead since the patients subsequently survive and just because there is no brain activity detected (and that presumes brain activity is even being monitored, which often won't be the case) doesn't mean the brain couldn't possibly be doing something. The point is that you can't entirely dismiss this option out of hand just as nobody can entirely dismiss your ideas out of hand.

"Believed in", not "been aware of". There remains literally zero concrete evidence for any kind of "spiritual" nature and not even any formal hypothesis to apply any evidence too anyway. And even if there was, you've presented nothing beyond your assumption to link that to NDEs. Even if some kind of "spirit" existed, NDEs could still be entirely physical.

How come you get to just laugh off the idea of aliens, something lots of people claim we've long "been aware of" when you would object to anyone just laughing off your beliefs? I thought you started this thread wanting to address things scientifically. Part of that involves treating ideas equally and without bias, however ridiculous you might think they sound.

The brain was not only dead, but all the blood had been drained from the brain so an aneurysm could be fixed. Now that would have been super supernatural if the brain were still able to "see" because the eyes were taped shut. Another important thing is position of the brain, it would have to fly out of the body in order to observe the instruments that were described. So, yes, I can dismiss your ideas of what happened.

You just have been given concrete evidence of the spiritual nature of us humans. There is no way an NDE can be physical, no way at all. The physical part is dead, kaput, finished. There was no physical part of anything, only spirit.

I don't care if you laugh off my beliefs, that changes nothing. It was a friendly laugh. I am addressing things scientifically. What I have written is logical and believable. I think it would be great to not treat ideas with bias. Your idea just didn't hold up under scrutiny.

Now let my say this again. I know some are very frightened of death and what might happen to them. No one has anything to fear from death and the afterlife. There will be no judgments or punishments. It is a loving, caring place this spirit world.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The brain was not only dead, but all the blood had been drained from the brain so an aneurysm could be fixed. Now that would have been super supernatural if the brain were still able to "see" because the eyes were taped shut. Another important thing is position of the brain, it would have to fly out of the body in order to observe the instruments that were described. So, yes, I can dismiss your ideas of what happened.

You just have been given concrete evidence of the spiritual nature of us humans. There is no way an NDE can be physical, no way at all. The physical part is dead, kaput, finished. There was no physical part of anything, only spirit.

I don't care if you laugh off my beliefs, that changes nothing. It was a friendly laugh. I am addressing things scientifically. What I have written is logical and believable. I think it would be great to not treat ideas with bias. Your idea just didn't hold up under scrutiny.

Now let my say this again. I know some are very frightened of death and what might happen to them. No one has anything to fear from death and the afterlife. There will be no judgments or punishments. It is a loving, caring place this spirit world.

You are just declaring it spiritual without benefit of demonstrating it is. No one knows what physical process results in an NDE. You might as well claim phantom limbs are spiritual.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gaps. Fill the gaps with what you want to believe with conviction. Once that is done, no amount of evidence will dislodge someone from a gap.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you see deer tracks in the woods, you would say there are deer around here,

Yes, because we all know deer exist, that they live in the woods and what their tracks look like. Plus a whole bunch of other things about them, all of which are verifiable by anybody coming into contact with a deer. The deer's properties are demonstrable and measurable.

If a person dies then brought back to life and can tell you what happened while they were dead.

It's been pointed out by other posters that many people who had "near-death" experiences didn't actually die. You haven't responded to that point yet.
Or to my example of my grandfather's heart stopping on the operating table and his recollection to me that "being dead" was just like sleeping. He didn't see his dead loved ones.

We also know a ton of things about the physiology and psychology of human nature and human brains. We know we can hallucinate. We know we can dream. We know we can be mistaken about things. We know we are pattern seeking creatures who sometimes see patterns where there aren't any. Our brains do all kinds of things we're not even aware of.

It certainly was not the brain.

Certainly? Says who? All of the things discussed above are things that happen in the brain.
And you never did respond to another point I made about how our brains are tied into our personalities and how the mind becomes damaged when the brain becomes damaged. That doesn't jibe with any of this stuff you're saying here.

It was the person who remained alive after their body died.

How does that makes sense?

Now you can call it a spirit, soul, or snerflebergs. I don't care what you call it, the brain was dead and had nothing to do with it.

You are calling it a spirit. I'm not calling it anything because I don't have any belief that such a thing even exists.
So our spirit is us, minus our bodies? Where does this spirit go when it leaves our bodies? How does such a thing exist and what are it's properties? Why bother with bodies then at all?
I mean, essentially what you are saying is that there are disembodied minds floating around all over the place.

In the dark ages the church told people what to think, and if they didn't there were consequences. Science came along and challenged the church. Soon science was telling people what to think, but lately people have been rebelling and refusing to believe science. So in the future science will be replaced by a newer belief, one that understands the spiritual nature of us humans and also works to improve our journey through the physical.

Science doesn't tell people what to think. Science is a tool for investigating reality. It's the best tool we've got and has produced all the knowledge we currently hold about the world around us. It is demonstrable, testable, repeatable. Why on earth would we replace it with something else where nothing is verifiable, testable or demonstrable - we have to just take peoples' word for it? Why, we'd have to believe every single thing anybody ever told us about anything if we used that method. That's not going to get us anywhere.

Here's the thing. You just assert there are spirits. You just assert there is a spirit world. You just assert that disembodied minds exist everywhere. All of this without any demonstration of any of it. Just assertions and beliefs. Just videos that don't show disembodied spirits flying around. And all of this while ignoring all evidence that doesn't support your beliefs. No wonder you want to throw out the scientific method.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The main point is that clinically dead people have witnessed the happenings in their surroundings while their bodies were dead. Then this information was verified by surgeons and doctors present that testified what the person witnessed was indeed during the time their body was clinically dead. That is evidence that people do live after the death of their body. They can hear and see without their brain. this is evidence that has convinced those in attendance to change their minds about the brain and human spirituality. As for myself I have experienced it, and I know it is real. Very real to me and to all those who also experience it. That is the truth of the matter believe it or not.

People know when they experience things, a good meal, a beautiful sunset, an out of body, and all other things. Hallucinations and brain farts have nothing to do with NDEs. There is estimated over 10 million people in the U.S. have had the experience. There are many web sites devoted to NDEs and carry thousands of them on the net. Please do not tell me they are figments of my imagination, or some other nonsense. The problem is anti-spiritual scientists have not read or researched the subject to any extent. They only assume they know the answers, but they don't. One lesson I learned when my experience woke me up was to study those things that you don't agree with more than those you do. This has open a whole new world to me.

Brain science is mostly limited to behavior studies and imaging the brain to see what part does what even if it is not the same in all people. No memory, no emotions, no data, not much of anything in the way the brain stores learning and knowledge and uses the storage to operate the body.

This video is a good example, there are hundreds of other examples on YouTube and the Net.

So people can describe things that were in the room that they were physically in?
How is that remarkable?

I'm curious, how can one "see" without eyeballs, optic nerves, or a brain to interpret it, etc.? That's a pretty lofty claim.
Also, how does one "hear" without an actual ear, and eardrum or a brain to interpret what they're hearing? That's a pretty lofty claim.

How do you know that hallucinations or the just the workings of a dying brain aren't occurring in these NDE's? I mean, you keep asserting it, but without any evidence.

Thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Do you we have to believe them without any evidence whatsoever, or do we recognize we're making the logical fallacy of appeal to numbers like you're doing here?

What is an "anti-spiritual" scientist? Are there scientists somewhere who have tested, measured and demonstrated the existence of spirits? If so, that seems like something everyone would know about given that nobody has been able to do so as of yet and if they did manage to do so, would probably win a Nobel Prize.

You don't have any explanation or mechanism to explain any of this. Just beliefs and assertions about spirits and spirit worlds that aren't in evidence.

I've already pointed out at least twice that emotions, memories, etc. can be measured as occurring within the brain. They are all products of human brains. If the brain becomes damaged the mind becomes damaged. I've seen this firsthand when my father and my grandmother both had strokes. That alone should be enough for you, right? I mean, since we just believe everyone's personal testimonies and all.

These videos you keep putting up aren't evidence and in fact, are pretty useless. Unless you've got one that managed to capture a disembodied mind floating around or something.