Despite Christof Koch’s claims at Scientific American, says neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, NDEs are radically different from any mental experience caused by brain impairment. And that’s not all:
After amassing an extraordinary body of data about the brain over the past two centuries, we still have no clue as to how three pounds of brain meat gives rise to the mind. The Hard Problem of the mind-brain relationship—the problem of explaining mental phenomena as wholly the consequence of the brain—remains completely unsolved, despite the fact that mental phenomena are the salient characteristics of consciousness.
It’s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate. It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe; or medical science failed to tell us anything about health and disease; or geology failed to tell us anything about rocks. Neuroscience has told us nothing— nothing—about how the brain gives rise to the mind. The Hard Problem, after two centuries of neuroscience and a vast trove of data, remains utterly unsolved.
Michael Egnor, “Neuroscience can’t dismiss near-death experiences” at Mind Matters News
See also:
Do near-death experiences defy science? NDEs do not defy science. They sometimes challenge human senses, which are based on our biology. For example, if the human eye’s usual limitations were not a factor, previously unknown colors—which we KNOW from science to exist—might be perceived.
and
Why medical scientists take near-death experiences seriously now. Today, we know much more about what happens to people when they die—and what we are learning does not support materialism. Near-death experiences are generally seen as real, even among hardcore skeptics and research focuses on how to account for them.
Nobody dismisses NDEs as reported experiences but interpreting them as drive-by visits to heaven is another matter.
Egnor, meanwhile, in a clear breach of his own Ninth Commandment, misrepresents the field of neuroscience. No, there is no physical theory of consciousness yet, but to claim that, in two hundred years, neuroscience has made absolutely no progress in learning how the mind and brain function is not true.
Seversky @ 1
Think about what you wrote to sum up. “neuroscience has made absolutely no progress in learning how the mind and brain function is not true.” You admit that the mind is not an illusion and does exist apart from the brain.
As to scientifically establishing the reality of NDE’s, it is interesting to note that the reality of NDE’s, or more specifically, the reality of a immaterial ‘soul’ that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies, plays right into the main debate between Darwinists and ID advocates.
In particular, the transcendent nature of ‘immaterial’ information, which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature as well as the physical reality of the soul.
But first, to the consternation of atheists, the evidence for the reality of Near Death Experiences is far more robust than the supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution is. As Dr. Egnor noted, “Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a single protein/gene, or of a single molecular machine), which is never.,,,”
In fact, the main point of debate between ID advocates and Darwinists is over the fact that unguided material processes have never been shown to produce non-trivial amounts of information, yet we know from first hand experience that our minds can produce vast amounts of non-trivial information. I’m producing far more, (hopefully non-trivial 🙂 ), information right now as I write this post than has ever been observed to be generated by unguided material processes.
The thing about information that forever prevents material processes from ever giving us an adequate account of it is its immaterial nature.
As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains in this following video, information is immaterial in its fundamental nature and therefore, by its very nature, is beyond the scope of, and is therefore irreducible to, any possible materialistic explanation.
Moreover, on top of the ‘classical sequential immaterial information in DNA and proteins, (the classical sequential information in DNA that has been the source of endless debate among Darwinists and ID advocates), there is also now found to be quantum information that is ubiquitous within life. (within every important bio-molecule). For instance,
The interesting thing about quantum information is that it is non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, and that it is also conserved, i.e. it cannot be created nor destroyed.
The obvious implication of finding ‘non-local’, (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule of our material bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have very strong physical evidence directly implying that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.
As Stuart Hameroff states ‘it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
But to go further than just establishing the fact that, via quantum biology, we do indeed have a transcendent component to our being that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies, I would also like to touch upon the physical reality of heaven.
Specifically, the evidence from Special Relativity, (which is currently one of our most powerful theories in science), strongly supports the physical reality of a timeless eternity and of a heavenly dimension that exists above this temporal dimension.
As to a timeless eternity, we now know from special relativity, that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop for a hypothetical observer travelling at the speed of light.
To grasp the whole concept of time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the very same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity. Here is a short clip from a video that gives us a look into Einstein’s breakthrough insight.
That time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, and yet light moves from point A to point B in our universe, and thus light is obviously not ‘frozen within time, has some fairly profound implications as to verifying the reality of eternal, i.e. timeless, dimension.
The only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional nature of time than the temporal time that we are currently living in. If this were not the case, then light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ to our temporal frame of reference.
And indeed that is exactly what we find. “Hermann Minkowski- one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space.”
One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exist in is for us to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light.
In the following video clip, at around the 2:40 minute mark, (a video which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors), we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
Interestingly, as was visualized at the 3:00 minute mark of the preceding video, (i.e. all of the light concentrating into the direction of travel, i.e. the light visualized at the ‘end of the tunnel’ in the video), is termed to be the ‘headlight effect’
Now that we have outlined the basics of what we know to be physically true from special relativity, It is very interesting to note that many of the characteristics found in heavenly Near Death Experience testimonies are exactly what we would expect to see from what we now know to be physically true about Special Relativity.
For instance, many times people who have had a Near Death Experience mention that their perception of time was radically altered. In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.
And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body during their NDEs.
As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel:
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, (besides being able to ‘miraculously” see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience), Vicki also gives testimony of going through a tunnel at a ‘horrifically’ rapid rate of speed:
And in the following quotes, the two Near Death Experiencers both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher heavenly dimension that is above this three-dimensional world, and that the reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences actually felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
That what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDEs is, needless to say, powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension, that they experienced first hand, and that they say exists above this temporal dimension.
I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who, in all likelihood, know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete scientific verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies.
Verses:
Seversky @1
Some obfuscation and word play here.
What Dr. Egnor actually said was, ” Neuroscience has told us nothing— nothing—about how the brain gives rise to the mind. The Hard Problem, after two centuries of neuroscience and a vast trove of data, remains utterly unsolved.”
The essence of the mind is consciousness. Please explain how Dr. Egnor’s statement is not true.
Certainly neuroscience has made a lot of progress in understanding how the brain works, but how it supposedly produces consciousness – zilch. Not surprising, since it doesn’t – it’s a transceiver to use a rough analogy from telecommunications.
BobRyan @ 2
No, the mind can be conceived of as the sum of the brain’s activity and the fact remains that, when the brain ceases to function, the associated consciousness is irretrievably lost. No brain, no mind.
seversky:
That’s your evidence-free opinion, anyway.
Bornagain77 @ 3
There is no credible evidence for the reality of an immaterial soul. There is not even clear agreement on what the “soul” is.
What definition of “information” are you using in this case?
Both you and Dr Egnor set a very low standard for what constitutes “robust” evidence. Research indicates that millions of people have experienced lucid dreams in which they have flown unaided at will. Is that evidence, robust or otherwise, that they actually flew unaided or have the capacity to fly unaided in real life? No, it is not.
In other words, you are saying that information is a property of the conscious mind which is doing the perceiving, not the thing being perceived. At least on that, we agree.
What do you understand by “classical information” and “quantum information” and how they differ?
So quantum information is eternal? It must have existed before the Big Bang, including information about us? So, in that sense, we are also eternal? But if I’ve always existed, how come I can’t remember any of it? My earliest memories only go back a few decades.
Doubter @ 5
First, once again, I agree that the Hard Problem of consciousness as articulated by David Chalmers is a hard problem and we don’t yet have a materialist/physicalist account of how the mind arises from the brain.
But neuroscience has made considerable advances in mapping brain functions and understanding how they interact. More specifically, there is evidence from transcranial EM stimulation and stimulation by directly implanted electrodes that various memories and experiences can be elicited which are components of our overall conscious experience. That’s far from being a materialistic account of consciousness but it suggests we are moving in the right direction.
The transceiver analogy is speculation that’s been around for a while but, as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t moved on from being just that.
Seversky
Speaking of the 9th commandment.
Dr Egnor stated: “Neuroscience has told us nothing— nothing—about how the brain gives rise to the mind.”
You creatively re-wrote that he claimed, ” … neuroscience has made absolutely no progress in learning how the mind and brain function”
Seversky: There is not even clear agreement on what the “soul” is.
According to Bary Ehrman, at the time of Jesus the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul. Check this out:
https://inquiring.show Listen to the episode entitled “A history of the Afterlife”.
Silver Asiatic at 9. Touche!
As to Seversky’s attempted rebuttal of my posts at 8.
Flap-doodle may be too generous of a characterization of his response to me.
Regardless of whatever derogatory adjective best describes Seversky’s evidence free response to my post, I’ll let the empirical evidence that I presented in post 3 for the reality of the soul, and even the empirical evidence I presented in post 4 for a heavenly dimension above this temporal dimension, speak for themselves.
Unbiased readers can decide for themselves who is being scientific and who is engaging in evidence free rhetoric.
Seversky@9
“But neuroscience has made considerable advances in mapping brain functions and understanding how they interact. More specifically, there is evidence from transcranial EM stimulation and stimulation by directly implanted electrodes that various memories and experiences can be elicited which are components of our overall conscious experience. That’s far from being a materialistic account of consciousness but it suggests we are moving in the right direction.”
Moving in the right direction? Wilder Penfield was the pioneer in brain surgery for epilepsy and made a number of key observations on the effects of direct brain stimulation. These key observations have never been refuted and pointed clearly and directly toward dualism as the correct theory of mind/body relationship. Note the bolded below:
From the discussion of Penfield’s work at https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield/ :
seversky:
It will never get any lower than yours.
So often, Seversky says things like: “No, the mind can be conceived of as the sum of the brain’s activity and the fact remains that, when the brain ceases to function, the associated consciousness is irretrievably lost. No brain, no mind.”
I’d like to see if Seversky would be willing to try to support that assertion of “fact”.
Or this one: “There is no credible evidence for the reality of an immaterial soul. There is not even clear agreement on what the “soul” is.”
There is an enormous amount of evidence that consciousness survives death. Credibility, of course, always lies within the mind of the observer.
The soul phone project, along with other research groups, have established ongoing contact with the dead. Contact with the dead was established in modern times by William Crookes in the early 1900’s. The research into it has been ongoing at the University of Arizona and other places. The Scole Experiments, for example. A researcher in Brazil has successfully established the capacity to get pictures and video from the dead. There is little doubt among those who have looked over the evidence with an open mind that consciousness survives death, and that what we call “the afterlife” exists.