Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

[Nakosis]

In an article in the Atlantic last December, Sacks explains that the reason hallucinations seem so real “is that they deploy the very same systems in the brain that actual perceptions do. When one hallucinates voices, the auditory pathways are activated; when one hallucinates a face, the fusiform face area, normally used to perceive and identify faces in the environment, is stimulated.” Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

The subconscious mind is fully capable of creating a religious experience.
Does this rule out supernatural explanations? No, but it provides an alternate explanation which doesn't require the involvement of supernatural agents.

While I don't doubt the religious experience, the sense of reality of the experience that comes with them. I can't help but question the source.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's pretty clear cut NDEs have everything to do with brain activity.

Most near-death experiences occur whenever the person is regaining consciousness, and brain activity ramps up or the converse, or when the brain gets distressed in some manner like oxygen deprivation.

 

[Kemosloby]

"The kingdom of heaven is within you" So maybe even though he didn't go there he caught a glimpse of it.

 

[shunyadragon]

"The kingdom of heaven is within you" So maybe even though he didn't go there he caught a glimpse of it.

Pure speculation.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If such is the case, then isn't the line between reality and hallucination somewhat arbitrary?

 

[shunyadragon]

If such is the case, then isn't the line between reality and hallucination somewhat arbitrary?

No.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And how then do you tell, shun, what is a hallucination and what is real? What road of madness would one tread, when they can't even trust their own perceptions?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In an article in the Atlantic last December, Sacks explains that the reason hallucinations seem so real “is that they deploy the very same systems in the brain that actual perceptions do. When one hallucinates voices, the auditory pathways are activated; when one hallucinates a face, the fusiform face area, normally used to perceive and identify faces in the environment, is stimulated.” Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

The subconscious mind is fully capable of creating a religious experience.
Does this rule out supernatural explanations? No, but it provides an alternate explanation which doesn't require the involvement of supernatural agents.

While I don't doubt the religious experience, the sense of reality of the experience that comes with them. I can't help but question the source.

Its interesting. Around 17ish I had two outer body experiences. Four years ago, I experienced an unseen force that saved my life of a car crash. Ive heard people scream in my ear saying STOP! though no one was present. I had a full thirty or so min convo with a student in our tutoring lab to find out she/he wasnt there and no one of the four in the small room heard me talk with anyone.

Come to find out the right temporal lobe (I have seizures and surgery there) causes memory gaps and rare auditory hullucinations. It causes one to feel "out of there body" and weirdly that area can cause high religious obession among other symptoms specific to my type of epilpsy and location.

The only thing I couldnt explain was the force that knocked me backwards.

Purelly psychological. Near death experience is said to happen in the temporal lobe. Religious association a self fullfilling prophecy. I had a paraylzing life/death seizure and I didnt think of god. I drowned in panic in a dream, no god then. Could be predeposition in addition to what you guys already mentioned.

All real experiences. Attribution of them to a religious source is psychological.

 

[Nakosis]

If such is the case, then isn't the line between reality and hallucination somewhat arbitrary?

To the person hallucinating, it's impossible to differentiate. It's just rationally you have to question the reality of the experience.

However if your rationality includes an acceptance of ghosts, or deities, you have little reason to question the reality of the experience.

 

[George-ananda]

In an article in the Atlantic last December, Sacks explains that the reason hallucinations seem so real “is that they deploy the very same systems in the brain that actual perceptions do. When one hallucinates voices, the auditory pathways are activated; when one hallucinates a face, the fusiform face area, normally used to perceive and identify faces in the environment, is stimulated.” Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

The subconscious mind is fully capable of creating a religious experience.
Does this rule out supernatural explanations? No, but it provides an alternate explanation which doesn't require the involvement of supernatural agents.

While I don't doubt the religious experience, the sense of reality of the experience that comes with them. I can't help but question the source.

A key point against the hallucination hypothesis are cases where people return with verifiable knowledge they could not have learned through normal channels.

People See Verified Events While Out-Of-Body

 

[shunyadragon]

And how then do you tell, shun, what is a hallucination and what is real?

There are generally accepted understandings of hallucinations as experiences with no parallel to reality to repeatable tangible experience.

Reality is that which is confirmed over time with objective verifiable evidence.

You of course may object based on the belief, but I am comfortable with a reasonable reality that can be separated from Hallucinations.

NDE's are real subconscious experiences at 'near death' and I do not believe they are hallucinations as such. There is no objective evidence that would justify them as anything more than products of the mind which is the product of the brain. The rest is speculation.

What road of madness would one tread, when they can't even trust their own perceptions?

The madness detached from any reasonable perception of reality that prevents one from form perceiving and functioning in society in a reasonable way.

 

[Nakosis]

A key point against the hallucination hypothesis are cases where people return with verifiable knowledge they could not have learned through normal channels.

People See Verified Events While Out-Of-Body

There are cases of blindsight. Where the eyes can function and relay information to the subconscious mind but this information is not passed onto the conscious awareness. This could explain how some of this information is known.

The subconscious mind could have heard a passing nurse report the death of the sister.

The subconscious mind could explain some of the extra-ordinary information. The information was there just not part of conscious awareness.

Also when we go back to the telling of the experience, some information known at this later time could be added to fill in the gaps in the memory of the experience.

I know this seems hyper skeptical but these other possible explanations need to be ruled out.

 

[George-ananda]

There are cases of blindsight. Where the eyes can function and relay information to the subconscious mind but this information is not passed onto the conscious awareness. This could explain how some of this information is known.

The subconscious mind could have heard a passing nurse report the death of the sister.

The subconscious mind could explain some of the extra-ordinary information. The information was there just not part of conscious awareness.

Also when we go back to the telling of the experience, some information known at this later time could be added to fill in the gaps in the memory of the experience.

I know this seems hyper skeptical but these other possible explanations need to be ruled out.

One point is that things are also known remtely like the sister in the waiting room or gym shoe on the roof. In the Pam Reynolds’ case the brain was shut-down.

I don’t know that ‘proof’ is possible in the strictest use of the word ‘proof’ as consciousness can not be directly observed.

 

[sayak83]

In an article in the Atlantic last December, Sacks explains that the reason hallucinations seem so real “is that they deploy the very same systems in the brain that actual perceptions do. When one hallucinates voices, the auditory pathways are activated; when one hallucinates a face, the fusiform face area, normally used to perceive and identify faces in the environment, is stimulated.” Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

The subconscious mind is fully capable of creating a religious experience.
Does this rule out supernatural explanations? No, but it provides an alternate explanation which doesn't require the involvement of supernatural agents.

While I don't doubt the religious experience, the sense of reality of the experience that comes with them. I can't help but question the source.

I too am skeptical, as one is in no condition to properly assess an experience when one is near death. Why not dreams then?

 

[socharlie]

In an article in the Atlantic last December, Sacks explains that the reason hallucinations seem so real “is that they deploy the very same systems in the brain that actual perceptions do. When one hallucinates voices, the auditory pathways are activated; when one hallucinates a face, the fusiform face area, normally used to perceive and identify faces in the environment, is stimulated.” Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

The subconscious mind is fully capable of creating a religious experience.
Does this rule out supernatural explanations? No, but it provides an alternate explanation which doesn't require the involvement of supernatural agents.

While I don't doubt the religious experience, the sense of reality of the experience that comes with them. I can't help but question the source.

it is much more complicated issue, e.g.: Research in 'near-death' experiences reveals awareness after brain shuts down | Daily Mail Online

 

[shunyadragon]

A key point against the hallucination hypothesis are cases where people return with verifiable knowledge they could not have learned through normal channels.

People See Verified Events While Out-Of-Body

To a certain extent NDEs and Out of Body experiences represent unknowns in the realm of the human journey. NDEs are better known in relation to the brain, but remain not completely explained. Arguments for these experiences to be a witness of substantial evidence for beliefs is minefield of conjecture and 'arguing from ignorance.'

Arguing 'we do not know, therefore' . . . is fool's quest for certainty.

I believe in God, the soul, and the human spiritual journey which may be in our body or not, but I do not believe that I can appeal to the anecdotal and subjective nature of these experiences for illusive evidence for these beliefs.

In my belief I do not consider the soul to have boundaries in space and time, and could possibly have an intimate relationship with other souls past present and future.

 

[socharlie]

"The kingdom of heaven is within you" So maybe even though he didn't go there he caught a glimpse of it.

that what Baptism of John was about.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

There are generally accepted understandings of hallucinations as experiences with no parallel to reality to repeatable tangible experience.

And then there are hallucinations that are quite parallel to common events, such as seeing people or hearing a voice. How do you know that the person before you is actually a person, and not a spirit or hallucination? Such things (seeing people, hearing voices) are common within reality, yet sometimes they are deemed as "not real" because other people can't hear or didn't see. If you and I are in the same room and I smell a fart but you don't, did someone really cut the cheese?

You of course may object based on the belief, but I am comfortable with a reasonable reality that can be separated from Hallucinations.

Because you are devoid of beliefs? When you hear your god speak to you, how do you know it's real? If everything - hallucinations and perceptions alike - are products of the brain, then how do you determine between the two without relying on "the norm"?

 

[shunyadragon]

And then there are hallucinations that are quite parallel to common events, such as seeing people or hearing a voice.

Yes, they do occur, but they do not have a long term reality with normal common events. Actually, many of these experiences are associated with neurological abnormalities.

How do you know that the person before you is actually a person, and not a spirit or hallucination? Such things (seeing people, hearing voices) are common within reality, yet sometimes they are deemed as "not real" because other people can't hear or didn't see. If you and I are in the same room and I smell a fart but you don't, did someone really cut the cheese?

Hallucinations being common is lame excuse that they are in reality differentiated from the reality of everyday experiences.

You are trying to create a 'high fog index' about much about nothing.

Because you are devoid of beliefs?

I am not devoid of beliefs.

When you hear your god speak to you, how do you know it's real?

God does not speak to me. If God did I would seriously question it and consider it a hallucination.

If everything - hallucinations and perceptions alike - are products of the brain, then how do you determine between the two without relying on "the norm"?

The 'norm' is not standard of of hallucinations and valid perceptions of reality. Being products of the brain is not a problem. I would consider perceptions over a period of time in the everyday world combined with the collective experience of the objective nature Methodological Naturalism to sort things out in our physical existence, no problem.

You are seriously neglecting the history of human existence and the diverse nature of the real human experience across many religions and cultures. This does mean any one is not real and true and even based on facts. There are of course possible human hallucination experiences involved in religious beliefs and claims. The likelyhood is there is no single belief nor belief system that true.

The bottom line is I will give science the edge with Methodological Naturalism in comprehending our physical reality without the possible distortions of hallucinations on an individual and group basis.

 

[George-ananda]

To a certain extent NDEs and Out of Body experiences represent unknowns in the realm of the human journey. NDEs are better known in relation to the brain, but remain not completely explained. Arguments for these experiences to be a witness of substantial evidence for beliefs is minefield of conjecture and 'arguing from ignorance.'

Arguing 'we do not know, therefore' . . . is fool's quest for certainty.

I believe in God, the soul, and the human spiritual journey which may be in our body or not, but I do not believe that I can appeal to the anecdotal and subjective nature of these experiences for illusive evidence for these beliefs.

In my belief I do not consider the soul to have boundaries in space and time, and could possibly have an intimate relationship with other souls past present and future.

Well, in my beliefs at death our astral/mental body separates from the physical. In the NDE, there is a return. In death, there is not.

My views come from eastern (Hindu) and esoteric western wisdom traditions that I have come to respect. To physical science, these things are ‘unknowns’, yes.