At Mind Matters News: Claim — “Evolution” explains near-death experiences

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 18, 2021

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The problem is, there is no evolutionary reason to believe the claim

Some researchers believe that near-death experiences are a biological mechanism like the fight-or-flight response, a means of pretending death to avoid a predator. They call it thanatopsis: …
Two problems arise from this analysis:
➤ Implausibility: Most of the people who have survived to tell of near-death experiences are not “death-feigning.” They are clinically — and, in most cases, involuntarily — dead.
Modern medicine can bring people back from actual states of death or even induce such states, for surgical purposes. That’s why we hear so many reports of near-death experiences these days.
There is no physiological basis for the belief that, in general, humans can just “play dead” when it suits us, as can marsupials like opossums. Many might wish we could but we can’t. …
News, “Claim: “Evolution” explains near-death experiences” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Humans who have near-death experiences are not “playing possum”; they really are clinically dead but can be resuscitated by modern medicine.

See also: Do only Western religious people have near-death experiences? Even famous atheist philosopher A. J. Ayer had a near-death experience. Near-death experiences occur across cultures and the description differs but the outcomes are similar: a changed emphasis in life is the most common.

Comments

MikeW@19 Full of barbiturates and in a deeply hypothermic coma with no auditory brainstem response, and her brain was still consciously aware? And this during cardiac arrest. Please. And I notice that you didn't engage with the issue of the veridical features of the NDE.doubter_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Doubter@18, there’s no way for Saborn or Spetzler to know that Reynold’s brain activity was “nearly nonexistent” or “nonfunctional” or “completely absent”. If Spetzler testified that EEG burst suppression is “incompatible with anesthetic awareness”, then he apparently is unaware of the latest research in that area. From the article referenced below: “The neurophysiological dynamics of large-scale cortical circuits during burst suppression are therefore not well understood.” “The state of burst suppression itself could occur in a limited cortical region while other areas exhibited ongoing continuous activity.” Perhaps Spetzler is a competent neurosurgeon, but his neuroscientific abilities are suspect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3754454/MikeW_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

MikeW@17 Skeptic materialist Gerald Woerlee says Reynolds experienced anesthesia awareness, in which a person is conscious but can't move. He figures that back in 1991, that happened in 1 out of every 2,000 operations. That didn't convince cardiologist Michael Sabom (who extensively investigated the case) or neurosurgeon Robert Spetzler (who actually performed the operation). They believed the combination of anesthesia and the sluggish or nearly nonexistent brain activity caused by hypothermia meant that Reynolds could not form or retain memories for a significant part of the operation. At the very least, Sabom has said, Reynolds' story raises the possibility that consciousness can function even when the brain is offline. "Is there some type of awareness that occurs from a nonfunctional, physical brain?" Sabom asks. "And if there is, does that mean that there's a soul or spirit?" And the anaesthesia awareness theory ignores the extraordinary confirmed veridical elements of Reynolds' experience of being out of her body, in particular her apparently sighted perception of the unusually shaped Midas Rex bone saw. Woerlee comes up with supposed "explanations" for all these features, but they are unsatisfactory. In the case of the Midas Rex, surgeon Spetzler testified that Reynolds' description was remarkably accurate, and that she was under EEG burst suppression (a clear sign that the brain is not active but in a state of deep unconsciousness), which is incompatible with anaesthetic awareness. Another veridical feature: from her vantage point behind and above Spetzler's shoulder Reynolds "saw" her body jump twice when during the rescusitation after the excision of the aneurism the surgeons had to administer two shocks to clear the ventricular fibrillation her heart had gone into. So Reynolds was somehow aware during cardiac arrest and an additional hypothermic coma, still full of barbiturates and no auditory brainstem response, indicating complete absence of brain activity. It is not remotely reasonable to suggest that she could have had normal brain-bound consciousness in that state.doubter_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Doubter@16, what Pam Reynolds experienced sounds like a case of anesthesia awareness, followed by an active imagination that caused her to imagine hovering above the proceedings. That explanation is actually one of the possibilities given in the Criticisms section of the article you cite. I’ve commented on anesthesia awareness before, but below is another reference: https://www.asahq.org/madeforthismoment/preparing-for-surgery/risks/waking-up-during-surgery/ One of the findings of conscious EM theory is that the brain’s conscious EM field is too weak and localized to be detectable by most outside devices. That’s why normal operating room equipment can’t detect it, and why no device can unambiguously measure for “a complete shutdown of brain and body functions”. That’s also why anesthesiologists no longer guarantee full unconsciousness, but rather they “suppress consciousness”. They know that unresponsiveness does not necessarily imply unconsciousness. https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/116/4/946/13106/Unresponsiveness-UnconsciousnessMikeW_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

MikeW It would be interesting to learn how you deal with some of the excellent evidential veridical NDE cases. For instance, that of Pam Reynolds. Paraphrased from the Psi Encyclopedia at https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/pam-reynolds-near-death-experience : Pam Reynolds Lowery, from Atlanta, Georgia, was an American singer-songwriter who, in the late 80s or early 90s, went to her physician with a complaint that she was experiencing severe dizziness, loss of speech, and difficulty in moving parts of her body. She was subsequently referred to a neurologist, who, after a CAT scan, revealed that she had a large aneurysm in her brain, very close to the brain stem, affecting her overall abilities. Because of the aneurysm’s position and its sheer size, Pam was told that she might not survive an operation. In 1991 it was decided to perform a rare and complex operation using special techniques, to try to safely excise the aneurism. Dr. Robert F. Spetzler, a neurosurgeon in Phoenix, Arizona, performed a rare procedure known as the hypothermic cardiac arrest while simultaneously removing the aneurysm. During the operation, Pam’s body temperature was kept at 60°F, her eyes were taped shut, the blood from her head had been entirely drained, and small plugs were placed in her ears emitting a loud clicking sound used to monitor brain activity and confirm flatline. This generated noise was loud enough to drown out any voices in the operating room, aside from the fact that Reynolds was completely out anyway from (first) the general anaesthetics, and then from the hypothermic cardiac arrest. Clinically, she was dead during the major part of the operation. And yet, when she woke up, Pam could describe everything that happened in the operating room with eerily accurate detail. Pam, 35, reported that sometime during the operation, she heard a sound that seemed to pull her out of her physical body and allowed her to float in the air above so that she could see what was going on. She said she felt more aware and that her eyesight was clearer than ever, but the strangest part for her was not seeing the unfamiliar instruments being used on her (which she did, in particular the special Midas Rex bone saw used by Spetzler); it was witnessing her deceased relatives. According to Pam, even though she didn’t want to return, her uncle brought her back to her body and pushed her inside once again. To summarize, the experience occurred during a complete shutdown of her brain and body functions that had been instigated purposely to allow delicate surgery on a brain aneurysm. It included accurate views of the operating room and equipment, hyper-awareness, visions of light, and interactions with deceased relatives. Her case is regarded by many as convincing evidence of survival, since her vital signs were monitored continuously, providing certainty that she was clinically dead at the time.doubter_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

It’s interesting how much Darwinists and conscious dualists have in common. Both use after-the-fact just-so stories and appeals to authority to support their theories. Both use strawmen, ad hominem attacks, and name-calling against their critics. And both are being effectively challenged by modern scientific theories. In the case of Darwinism, ID theorists like Stephen Meyer use abductive reasoning to show how ID is the best cause currently in operation to explain complex biological codes. From that theory, IDers are able to make verifiable predictions that are being confirmed today, e.g. that the breeding of wolves and foxes into domestic dogs can only devolve the wolf and fox genomes, that the devolved antibiotic-resistant bacteria genomes in hospital environments will not compete successfully in normal environments outside the hospitals, and that research like the ENCODE project will continue to find functionality for sections of the genome that Darwinists have dismissed as "junk". In the case of consciousness, EM theorists like JohnJoe McFadden use abductive reasoning to show how the EM field is the best cause known to be in operation today to explain consciousness. From that theory, EMers are able to make verifiable predictions that are also being confirmed today, e.g. that consciousness is always associated with endogenous EM field fluctuations, that TMS-trained patients experience EM field mediated motor control as their conscious actions, and that the conscious visual color qualia space exhibits spherical symmetries similar to the symmetries of other EM properties (e.g. EM spherical charge distribution). https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2020/1/niaa016/5909853MikeW_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Doubter@11, I notice you changed my statement on OBEs to your own statement on NDEs, and then continued your argument against that strawman. That is a common tactic of believers in pseudoscience (e.g. Darwinists). No one argues that NDEs aren’t vivid and life-changing. The argument is whether NDEs are caused by OBEs. Most conscious dualists that I’ve encountered attribute the OBE part of the experience to a “soul”. Even if you don’t, then whatever personal ability you attribute it to doesn’t change the argument against OBEs. Your constant appeal to Occam’s Razor is mystifying (if not “mystical”). If all conscious thoughts can be explained by the material brain, that is clearly simpler and more straightforward than any paranormal explanation, at least IMO. (Even mathematically, monism is simpler than dualism in the same way that 1 is simpler than 2.)MikeW_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Doubter said:
This reasoning of course also applies to other psychical phenomena such as verified reincarnation memories and confirmed mediumistic communications.
A lot of this has been the subject of considerable research, including scientific research, for the past couple of hundred years, but really taking off in the past 40-50, especially with the internet/information age where people can congregate and express their experiences, and research can be more easily found.
And imposition of a false experience by the soul or deceiving spirits or friendly spirits is considerably more elaborate and complicated a hypothesis than the simple assumption that people’s life-changing NDEs are what they were vividly experienced as. The Occam’s Razor principle or principle of parsimony militates strongly to adopt the simplest explanation.
Exactly. If you just look over the evidence without characterizing or categorizing it via some a priori ideological bias, it paints a very rich and deep picture of our existence within a much larger and much more diverse experiential arena that includes an amazing assortment of locations and conditions available for exploration. But, common to all of these experiences, every single one, is that we continue on after we die and consciousness/identity is not limited to any particular physical substrate. Basically, we find ourselves somewhere else, in somewhat different conditions, and those locations and conditions are not identical by any stretch.William J Murray_{July 20, 2021
July
07
Jul
20
20
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Doubter, the lurking issue is death transition experiences, where there is no coming back. KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

MikeW@10
None of the OBE cases can be systematically verified and replicated...
You state this as a matter of principle. It is more a matter of the fact that NDEs are relatively rare and occur only spontaneously usually in life-threatening health crises and trauma, or incidences of accidental close shaves with death, etc. Accordingly it is extremely unlikely that such an experience will happen in the lab or in a hospital under observation with recording equipment. That is an entirely unreasonable burden of evidence. Because of their very nature NDEs occur spontaneously in everyday life away from labs and hospital rooms and cannot be recorded in detail or replicated at will. These characteristics of NDEs certainly don't show that they are fundamentally "unscientific". This reasoning of course also applies to other psychical phenomena such as verified reincarnation memories and confirmed mediumistic communications.
As with other paranormal activities, even if an OBE could be confirmed, it would be impossible to determine if the cause was an individual’s own soul, a friendly spirit, or a deceiving spirit.
As I have said, such a claim lays open the possibility that the results of any scientific experiment could be manipulated by religious or paranormal or psychical forces to produce false results as desired by these powerful nonmaterial beings. Magic. The end of science as we know it, since modern science depends on the assumption of reductionist materialist naturalism, that all causal forces operating in an experiment are physical. And imposition of a false experience by the soul or deceiving spirits or friendly spirits is considerably more elaborate and complicated a hypothesis than the simple assumption that people's life-changing NDEs are what they were vividly experienced as. The Occam's Razor principle or principle of parsimony militates strongly to adopt the simplest explanation.doubter_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Doubter@6&7 and AD@8, I agree that NDE’s and SDE’s are real experiences, that they occur often, and that they can be life-changers. But van Lommel’s 2001 Lancet article and his 2010 book (Consciousness Beyond Life) mainly document the fact that the NDE’s occurred. His evidence that they are caused by OBE’s is weak and after-the-fact. None of the OBE cases can be systematically verified and replicated, which is confirmed by the only other peer-reviewed article that I’ve seen referenced on this site. The same is true for the evidence I've seen from any of the sites that discuss SDE’s. As with other paranormal activities, even if an OBE could be confirmed, it would be impossible to determine if the cause was an individual’s own soul, a friendly spirit, or a deceiving spirit. So OBE’s will always by explainable by some or all of the 4 causes I outlined above, and they will never be established beyond speculation and wishful thinking, as has been the case for over a century now.MikeW_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Hey Animated...where can we read studies and resources on this? I'd love to read upzweston_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Nice try, Mike @5. There are now peer-reviewed studies on NDEs and veridical experiences that are independently verified are plentiful. Thanks for playing. Start with Dr. Pim van Lommel as your first search. You also need to Google Shared Death Experience. Where have you been hiding? 1859?AnimatedDust_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

This new research is yet another clueless mainstream materialist neuroscience attempt to "scientifically" explain and debunk NDEs, to reduce them to some sort of physical phenomenon with neurological and evolutionary origins. Of course this must (and does indeed) complacently ignore as worthlessly anecdotal any and all veridical features of NDEs, regardless of the voluminous empirical evidence revealed by careful investigation. There is also the obvious absurdity of trying to claim an evolutionary origin to NDEs when there is no survival and reproduction value to having a supremely joyful transcendental experience ending usually in death.doubter_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

MikeW@5
"NDE’s are definitely real experiences. But since they all can be explained from (1) anesthetic semi-awareness, (2) active imaginations, (3) con artists, and/or (4) deceiving spirits, then from Occam’s Razor, there’s no need to postulate any out-of-body consciousness. "
What is apparent is that this, though stated as a fact, is actually your opinion as a believer as a matter of faith in Biblical fundamentalism, and (somewhat paradoxically) a believer in a materialist interpretation of consciousness. The rest of us can't depend on holy books + a form of materialism to define our reality, a reality which in the case of NDEs includes very many experiences having veridical features investigated and confirmed by numerous experts, like Dr. Bruce Greyson. To claim that this large body of evidence is manufactured by mischievous spirits out to deceive us to draw us away from the true spiritual (Biblical) path is extremely implausible to me and to very many others. For one thing, it is the end of science since any scientific data or evidence can easily be denied on the same grounds, as spirit interference or deception, making a joke of the scientific method and procedure of generating a hypothesis, testing of hypothesis, formulation of theory, test of theory, and so on. And your dismissal of NDEs as experiences of a higher spiritual reality (presumably because they conflict with certain religious precepts) runs into known facts about the experiences found through extensive investigations, for instance the fact that in many deep transcendental NDEs involving experiences such as encounters with a transcendent Light, visits with dead loved ones, sometimes life reviews, and other joyful and/or illuminating features, there are pronounced long-term positive changes in personality on the part of the experiencer, including loss of fear of death and becoming a much more loving person - basically a transformation into a more spiritual consciousness.doubter_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

NDE’s are definitely real experiences. But since they all can be explained from (1) anesthetic semi-awareness, (2) active imaginations, (3) con artists, and/or (4) deceiving spirits, then from Occam’s Razor, there’s no need to postulate any out-of-body consciousness. And since NDE’s generally can’t be verified and replicated by neutral observers, it is difficult to impossible to develop any useful technologies from them. https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2004/09000/The_Incidence_of_Awareness_During_Anesthesia__A.36.aspxMikeW_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

This seems to be another case of people who have no idea what they are talking about, and have done zero research, spinning a narrative that is convenient to their pre-existing ideology. When you actually research NDEs, you find out researches have explored a wide variety of explanations from the physical/materialist perspective, only to come up entirely empty. These are not hallucinations, dreams, or otherwise figments of imagination because of the startling evidence, such as meeting dead relatives they did not know at the time were relatives or dead. Bringing back verified information they had no material/physical access to. There have been shared NDE's and death experiences with rooms full of people. This is a cross-cultural phenomena, with many similar and many uniquely cultural elements. One of the common elements is that the experiences rate the "realness" of the experience as the equal of, or greater than, their normal "this world" experiences. These experiences have life-changing effects, and they are clearly, accurately remembered years later in follow-up studies. NDE's do not fit the profile of hallucinatory events, dreams or drug-induced phenomena. And, again, the actual evidence has led researchers to begin theorizing that consciousness does actually survive death and is not confined to the physical body substrate. It's interesting that the development of this evidence is coinciding with the development of so many other lines of evidence that indicates the primacy of consciousness.William J Murray_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

In other words; like everything else Darwinists can't explain, which is everything, they simply try to find something in nature. Some animals can play dead, but most cannot. Considering the amount of prey in nature, you would think all of them would have the ability to do just that. Why would so few evolve the ability? Humans are not prey. We are predators. Have they found any species of predators who play dead?BobRyan_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Another beautiful example of a darwinsplain This one is so tight not even BA77 can rationalize it away. The Chuckdarwin must be bouncing around his house in glee from such rock solid darwinsplaining scienceAaronS1978_{July 19, 2021
July
07
Jul
19
19
2021
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

Fool a predator????? How many predators have access to the internal thoughts of their prey? After a cat kills a mouse, does the cat's stomach interrogate the mouse's brain about its experiences during the process of digestion?polistra_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply