The Mays write: Many skeptics assert that NDE phenomena are merely the brain states of a dying brain, which can explain all of its main elements: feelings of peace, feeling separated from the physical body, passing through a tunnel, seeing a bright light, having a life review, etc.
A number of physiological and neurological factors are generally cited in these explanations of NDEs. However, none of these factors, alone or in combination, is adequate to explain NDEs, because (a) the reported experiences bear only slight resemblance to NDEs, (b) many NDEs occur under conditions without the suggested factor, and/or (c) in cases where the physiological or neurological factor is present, NDEs are not reported in even a large percent of cases. For example:
Altered blood gas levels is the most frequently cited cause of NDEs. Cerebral hypoxia or anoxia (too little or no oxygen), as well as hypercarbia (elevated carbon dioxide) do sometimes involve NDE features (tunnel vision, bright lights, sense of floating, brief fragmented visual images). However, their primary features include symptoms not found in NDEs—jerking movements, compromised memory, tingling sensations, confusion upon wakening, etc. Moreover, NDEs occur in conditions without hypoxia or anoxia (non-life- threatening illnesses, falls, etc.) and in patients where measured blood levels do not reflect lowered oxygen or elevated carbon dioxide levels. In fact, NDEs are shown to be associated with increased oxygen levels, or with levels the same as those of non-experiencers. No study has ever shown decreased levels of oxygen during NDEs. Finally, NDEs occur in only 10-20% of cardiac arrest cases where anoxic conditions are very likely to occur.
Other factors that are cited include neurochemical factors (the release of endorphins or other neurochemical substances), and abnormal brain electrical activity (temporal lobe seizure or other abnormal activity).
All of these factors suffer the three shortcomings noted above. In addition, these explanations cover only a few NDE features—being out-of-body, a tunnel, a brilliant light, and so on. However, as NDE researcher Ken Ring pointed out more than 40 years ago:
“Any adequate neurological [or physiological] explanation would have to be capable of showing how the entire complex of phenomena associated with the core experience (that is, the out-of-body state, paranormal knowledge, the tunnel, the golden light, the voice or presence, the appearance of deceased relatives, beautiful vistas, and so forth) would be expected to occur in subjectively authentic fashion as a consequence of specific neurological events triggered by the approach of death. ... A neurological [or physiological] interpretation, to be acceptable, should be able to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience.”
Most skeptics focus on only one or two aspects of an NDE account in order to “explain away” that account. Once several NDE accounts have been rationalized in this fashion, the skeptic claims that NDEs have now been fully explained in purely physical terms.
For example, in cases of veridical information which the NDEr reports having obtained during their NDE, a skeptic would claim that the NDEr actually got the information just before losing consciousness or sometime after regaining consciousness. So, in some of the cases cited above, a skeptic might propose the following explanations:
Before his cardiac arrest, Laurin Bellg’s patient Howard overheard two nurses discussing the nurse-training center located on the floor above and subconsciously incorporated it into his NDE.
After his recovery, Tony Meo believed he had traveled to his home in Florida during his surgery and deduced that the mail would most likely be strewn on the dining room table. He made a lucky guess that there was a Danish office supply catalog there.
In their book, philosophers John Martin Fischer and Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin engaged in this form of rationalization to explain different aspects of four different NDE accounts in purely physical terms. In each of these accounts, they crafted the rationalization to fit the specific details of each NDE.
The problem with such speculations is that they apply only in specific cases but not in other similar cases. These explanations are called ad hoc hypotheses, that is, explanations for specific cases that are introduced to save the physicalist explanation of NDEs from being disproven or “falsified.”
There are several problems with Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin’s analysis of NDE cases:
 |
| First reported Reynolds NDE |
They failed to explain all anomalous aspects of the NDE cases. For example, they explained how NDEr Pam Reynolds later accurately recalled overhearing a conversation about her vein size that took place during her operation, because, according to Fischer, the conversation registered somewhere in her brain while under anesthesia. But they did not explain how she was able accurately to describe the shape of the bone saw that was used while she was anesthetized and her eyes were taped shut; or how she reported having observed—accurately—that her body needed two shocks to restart her heart).
They failed to validate their explanations of NDE cases with the facts of the case. For example, an NDEr with dentures was able to recognize the nurse who had removed his dentures and placed it on a shelf of a cart, because, according to Fischer, he became familiar with the faces of the medical staff after his recovery. In fact, the man immediately recognized the male nurse on first seeing him a week later after his recovery from coma.
They failed to develop general explanations that can be applied to different cases with similar characteristics. For example, in the Pam Reynolds case, they explained the ability to accurately recall auditory experiences while under anesthesia. But it would be a stretch to explain Al Sullivan’s ability to recall unusual visual experiences—the surgeon “flapping” his arms—with Sullivan under anesthesia, his eyes taped shut and his head behind a surgical drape.
The repeated reliance on ad hoc hypotheses to explain NDEs indicates that the physicalist theory lacks coherence. One of the aims of science is to find models that will account for as many observations as possible within a single coherent framework.
Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA, “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.
No comments:
Post a Comment