Brains can't explain NDEs and medium research

"Other evidence challenging the materialistic assumption of mind-as-brain," physicist Dean Radin writes, "comes from studies of near-death experience (NDE) and mediums,. In the first case, most orthodox interpretations of NDEs are explained as side effects of a failing brain (Greyson et al., 2012).

"Those explanations are countered by the remarkable vividness and long-lasting memories associated with NDEs, as opposed to the vague memories and dulled cognition associated with brains starved for oxygen (Greyson, 2013). In addition, NDEs can result in dramatic and positive personality changes; this is not the case for those afflicted with hallucinations caused by brain damage (Greyson, 1993).

"When all of the pro versus con arguments are judged, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the NDE represents an unusual state of awareness that transcends current models of brain functioning (Khanna & Greyson, 2014).

"In the case of mediums, double and triple-blind controlled experiments have shown that mediums can obtain verifiably correct information about their clients (Beischel et al., 2015; Kelly & Arcangel, 2011; Delorme et al., 2013). Such experiments are designed to eliminate all known biases and information leakage paths, including any form of direct or indirect contact between the mediums and the clients. Mediums interpret the information they receive as from coming from the deceased, which may or may not be so, but the fact that the information is correct beyond chance expectation raises a problem for brain-based explanations.

The accumulated evidence in favor of the existence of psychic abilities was already persuasive to many academics in the 1950s. But by the second decade of the 21st century, the weight of evidence has become overwhelming to all but the most entrenched skeptics.

Dean Radin, “Reductive Materialism Explains Everything, Except for Two Small Clouds,” Beauregard, Mario; Dyer, Natalie; Woollacott, Marjorie, editors. Expanding Science: Visions of a Postmaterialist Paradigm, (p. 327-341). AAPS. Kindle Edition.

Beischel, J., Boccuzzi, M., Biuso, M., & Rock, A. J. (2015). “Anomalous information reception by research mediums under blinded conditions II: Replication and extension.” Explore (NY), 11 (2), 136-142.

Delorme, A. Beischel, J., Michel, L., Boccuzzi, M., Radin, D., & Mills, P. J. (2013). “Electrocortical activity associated with subjective communication with the deceased.” Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 834.

Greyson, B., Holden, J. M. & van Lommel, P. (2012).  “There is nothing paranormal about near- death experiences.” Trends in Cognitive Science, 16 (9), 445; author reply 446.

Greyson, B. (2013). Greyson, B. (2013). “Getting comfortable with near death experiences: An overview of near-death experiences.” Missouri Med, 110 (6), 475-481.

Greyson, B. (1993). “Varieties of near-death experience.” Psychiatry, 56 (4), 390-399.

Kelly, E. W., & Arcangel, D. (2011). “An investigation of mediums who claim to give information about deceased persons.” J Nerv Ment Dis, 199 (1), 11-17.

Khanna, S. & Greyson, B. (2014). “Near-death experiences and spiritual well-being.” J Relig Health, 53 (6), 1605-1615.