Deceased encounters: Mays excerpt #20

The Mays write: The encounters with deceased persons during an NDE involve more than simple recognition. Generally there is a full encounter and conversation with the deceased persons, in which they give details about who they are and exhibit characteristic aspects of their personality and their relationship to the NDEr. The exchange with the deceased loved one can even involve the resolution of a regret or a strained relationship with the deceased person. Here is an example of such an encounter from Laurelynn’s NDE during surgery:

“[N]ext I felt a presence approaching from my right, upper side. I was feeling even more peaceful and happy, especially when I discovered it was my thirty-year-old brother-in-law who had died seven months earlier. Although I couldn’t see with my eyes or hear with my ears, I instinctively knew that it was him. He didn’t have a physical form, but a presence. I could feel, hear, and see his smile, laughter, and sense of humor. It was as if I had come home, and my brother-in-law was there to greet me. I instantly thought how glad I was to be with him because now I could make up for the last time I had seen him before his death. I felt bad about not taking the time out of my busy schedule to have a heart-to-heart talk with him when he had asked me to. I felt no remorse now, but total acceptance and love from him about my actions.”

The skeptical explanations for encounters with deceased persons—that they are due to expectation, wishful thinking, imagination, or a lucky guess—don’t hold up for these particular types of cases:

The NDEr can’t be expecting or wishing to meet someone whom they know is still alive or whom they don’t know exists. There appears to be some other influence that draws particular deceased persons to the NDEr—usually a strong familial connection or a close friend relationship; less frequently, it can be the need to give the NDEr a message to living persons.

The unusual and unexpected—yet precise—nature of the veridical information received from the deceased person can’t be the result of the NDEr’s imagination or a lucky guess.

These cases are strong indications of actual contact with those who have died and therefore that the minds of deceased persons continue after physical death. 

 

Furthermore, in these cases, the deceased person seeks contact with living people in order to convey information to them, which suggests that the deceased person is aware of and cares for those still living on Earth. The reality experienced by deceased persons appears to be a shared reality with human beings living on Earth.

 

 

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.

Evidence from the deceased: Mays excerpt #19

Encountering deceased persons is an important element in NDEs. Nearly half of NDErs report seeing or sensing the presence of someone in their NDE who had died earlier; none of the NDEs in Greyson’s collection involved an NDEr mistakenly thinking a person still alive had died. Frequently the focus of the NDEr’s encounter with deceased relatives involves sorting out family relationships. The NDEr may later recognize the deceased relatives in old family photographs.

For example, in Ken Leth’s NDE at age eight in 1963, he was met by many relatives on the Leth (pronounced “Let”) side of the family:

“The people who stood out the most were two older couples, but there were many others with them. All of them were very nice, and they wanted to tell me who they were. But first they needed to know who I was. I felt incredibly small and overwhelmed when I said my name. ‘I am Kenneth Leth,’ I said with my tiny eight-year-old voice. A few of them recognized the Leth name; it got their attention. Then someone asked who my father was. ‘Lyle,’ I said. Many of them gasped when they realized they knew my father, ‘Oh, you’re Lyle’s son.’ I was a little boy, so I didn’t understand all of the sudden thoughts that flooded into my head when they telepathically tapped into our family history.

“Two of the older women introduced themselves as my father’s grandmothers. ... I was quickly introduced to a lot of departed souls from my earthly family. Both of my great-grandmothers on my father’s side of the family came to me and introduced me to my great-grandfathers, their husbands. ...

“I’m rather proud of two oval framed photos that currently hang on the walls of my home. They are of my great-grandparents, whom I met back in 1963 in the far reaches of Heaven. The photos were taken in the early 1900s, and I immediately knew who they were when my living grandmother showed them to me many years after my NDE.”

The encounter with deceased relatives, friends, or acquaintances generally involves:

• The person may be recently deceased or they may be a relative or childhood friend who died years before.

• The NDEr may see the person in full figure, may see only their face, or may merely sense their presence.

• The NDEr generally recognizes the deceased loved one for who they are. They in turn recognize and acknowledge the NDEr. They may also give details about who they are, as Ken Leth’s relatives did.

• The NDEr’s encounter with the deceased loved one may include a resolution of a regret or a strained relationship with the person.

• Typically, the message to the NDEr from the deceased loved one is “It’s not your time. You must go back.”

• The loved one or acquaintance may also give the NDEr a message to bring back to someone still living.

Skeptics can object that these experiences are really due to the NDEr’s expectation of meeting deceased loved ones because they realize they have died. Or the experience is due to wishful thinking or pure imagination. Any veridical information received from the deceased person is just a lucky guess.

How can we check that the deceased person is real and is the person they appear to be to the NDEr? There are two situations in encounters with a deceased person that provide strong evidence.

Persons known to the NDEr but not known to have died

For one thing, if the NDEr recognizes the deceased person and receives veridical information during the encounter that they did not know at the time but is later verified after the NDE, this is strong objective evidence that the deceased person was actually the person known to the NDEr.

The case of 9-year-old Eddie Cuomo

Physician K. M. Dale related the case of 9-year-old Eddie Cuomo, whose fever finally broke after nearly 36 hours of anxious vigil on the part of his parents and hospital personnel. As soon as he opened his eyes, at 3:00 in the morning, Eddie urgently told his parents that he had been to heaven, where he saw his deceased Grandma Cuomo, Auntie Rosa, and Uncle Lorenzo. His father was embarrassed that Dr. Dale was overhearing Eddie’s story and tried to dismiss it as feverish delirium.

Then Eddie added that he also saw his 19-year-old sister Teresa, who told him he had to go back. His father then became agitated, because he had just spoken with Teresa, who was attending college in Vermont, two nights earlier; and he asked Dr. Dale to sedate Eddie. Eddie began to cry. “Is Teresa going to stay in heaven with Grandma and Auntie Rosa and Uncle Lorenzo? Does that mean she won’t be home for Christmas time? I don’t want her to stay with them. I want her home with us!”

Later that morning, when Eddie’s parents telephoned the college, they learned that Teresa had died instantly in an automobile accident just before midnight, and that college officials had tried unsuccessfully to reach the Cuomos at their home to inform them of the tragic news.

Eddie’s sister Teresa died just three hours before Eddie woke up from his coma. The objective fact of Teresa’s death was not known to anyone in Eddie’s family until after he had reported meeting her in his NDE.

The case of Jack Bybee

NDEr Jack Bybee was hospitalized with severe pneumonia with periodic seizures at age 26 in Cape Town, South Africa. He was cared for by a nurse named Anita who had taken time off on the weekend to celebrate her twenty-first birthday. Jack had his NDE on that weekend.

“In my NDE, I met Nurse Anita on the other side. ‘What are you doing here, Anita?’ I asked. ‘Why, Jack, I’ve come to fluff up your pillows, of course, and to see that you are all right. But, Jack, you must return, go back. Tell my parents I’m sorry I wrecked the red MGB. Tell them I love them.’ Then Anita was gone—gone through and over a very green valley and through a fence, where, she told me, ‘there is a garden on the other side. But you cannot see it. For you must return, while I continue through the gate.’

“When I recovered, I told a nurse what Anita had said. This girl burst out into tears and fled the ward. I later learned that Anita and this nurse had been great friends. Anita had been surprised by her parents, who loved her dearly and had presented her with a red MGB sports car. Anita had jumped into the car, and in her excitement raced down the highway, De Waal Drive, along the slopes of Table Mountain, into ‘Suicide Corner’ and a concrete telephone pole. But I was ‘dead’ when all that happened. How could I possibly know these facts? I knew them as stated above. I was told by Anita in my experience.”

Note that Anita requested a message be given to her parents. Also note that the details of Anita’s statements to Jack about the red MGB were verified as objective facts by Anita’s friend. This case was not due to wishful thinking because Jack had no desire to see nurse Anita on her weekend off.

Persons not known to the NDEr

If the deceased person is not known to the NDEr at the time of the NDE but is later verified as the person they presented themselves to be, this is another form of strong evidence that the deceased person was objectively real.

The case of the man who looked at me lovingly

The unknown deceased person can later be verified through photographs, as Ken Leth did when his grandmother showed him portraits of his four great-grandparents.

“During my NDE following a cardiac arrest, I saw both my dead grandmother and a man who looked at me lovingly but whom I didn’t know. Over ten years later my mother confided on her death-bed that I’d been born from an extramarital affair; my biological father was a Jewish man who’d been deported and killed in World War II. My mother showed me a photograph. The unfamiliar man I’d seen more than ten years earlier during my NDE turned out to be my biological father.”

The case of the unknown sister Rietje

The unknown deceased person can later be verified by name and the circumstances of their death.

“When I was five years old I contracted meningitis and fell into a coma. ‘I died’ and drifted in a safe and black void where I felt no fear and no pain. I felt at home in this place. ... I saw a little girl of about ten years old. I sensed that she recognized me. We hugged and then she told me, ‘I’m your sister. I died a month after I was born. I was named after your grandmother. Our parents called me Rietje for short.’ She kissed me, and I felt her warmth and love. ‘You must go now,’ she said. ... In a flash I was back in my body. I opened my eyes and saw the happy and relieved looks on my parents’ faces. When I told them about my experience, they initially dismissed it as a dream. ... I made a drawing of my angel sister who had welcomed me and repeated everything she’d told me. My parents were so shocked that they panicked. They got up and left the room. After a while they returned. They confirmed that they had indeed lost a daughter called Rietje. She had died of poisoning about a year before I was born. They had decided not to tell me and my brother until we were old enough to understand the meaning of life and death.”

Cases of this sort can’t be due to expectation or wishful thinking, because the deceased person was completely unknown to the NDEr at the time.

 

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.

Review of NDE evidence: Mays excerpt #18

Robert G. Mays

The Mays write: We first presented the evidence from NDEs that (1) the human being consists of a nonmaterial “mind” and a physical body. (2) Although the mind is intimately integrated with the body, it is an independent, objectively real aspect of the person that can separate from the body during an NDE. (3) All of the person’s cognitive faculties reside in the mind, not in the brain. However, while in the “in-body” state, the mind is dependent on brain activity for normal cognitive activity. And (4) the nonmaterial mind interacts with the brain to produce conscious awareness. The mind’s interactions with the brain involve a point of contact and a two-way force of interaction between the mind and the brain.

In Section 2, we presented strong evidence (a) that the NDEr’s experiences in the physical realm are real; (b) that the NDEr’s mind or consciousness separates from the body during the NDE; and (c) that the mind operates independent of the body.

In Section 3, we presented strong evidence (a) that the NDEr’s mind acts as a cohesive unit and (b) carries the essence of the person. (c) The NDEr is the same person when out-of-body as within their physical body. (d) The NDEr realizes that their out-of-body mind is significantly expanded and enhanced than when in the physical body and that their physical body is not their real self.

In Section 4, we presented strong evidence (a) that the mind entity itself is objectively real; and (b) that the NDEr’s out-of-body mind is objectively present to others. Therefore, (c) the NDEr’s mind entity itself is an objectively real thing, a real being. The separate mind entity really exists.

In Section 5, we presented the mind entity hypothesis: (a) the human being consists of a nonmaterial “mind” that is spatially coextensive and intimately integrated with the physical body. (b) There are two states of consciousness: an “in-body” state, whereby the mind is dependent on brain activity for normal cognitive functions, and an “out-of-body” state whereby the mind is separated and can function completely independent of the brain and body. Given the evidence in Sections 2–4, (c) the mind entity hypothesis is a plausible picture of the human being.

In Section 6, we presented the evidence (a) that the nonmaterial mind is able to interact with physical processes; (b) that a subtle, previously unrecognized two-way interactive force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions; and (c) that the mind can interact specifically with neural electrical processes—both to sense and to trigger neural electrical activity. Finally, we presented (d) a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain.

In Section 7, we presented responses to the philosophical challenges to our interactionist dualist mind entity theory, showing (a) that the nonmaterial mind is in the same category as physical objects; (b) that the mind entity theory addresses the “causal pairing problem” and (c) satisfies the “causal closure of the physical.”

In Section 8, we presented other explanations that scientists have proposed to explain NDEs and show that they fail. (a) To be acceptable, neurological, physiological, or psychological interpretations should be able to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience. (b) Explanations that rely on ad hoc hypotheses to explain NDEs ultimately are unscientific because they fail to account for multiple cases in a single coherent framework. (c) There is strong evidence that there must be some unifying factor which comes to bear in all NDEs—whether in life-threatening situations or not—that is, some immediate or proximate cause that applies in all NDEs. (d) Therefore, other explanations fail because they don’t address all situations in which NDEs arise.

Thus, the convergence of strong NDE evidence presented up to this point supports the fact—beyond any reasonable doubt—that the mind of a person can separate from the physical body and operate independent of it. There is a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain which successfully answers the philosophical challenges to interactionist dualism. Other explanations of NDEs that have been proposed—for example that NDEs are caused by various physiological or neurological processes—fail, because they do not apply to all NDEs and do not provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience.

However, skeptics can still argue that NDErs may have been near to death but they did not actually die, so NDEs do not provide credible evidence of survival of physical death. 

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.

 

 

NDE common proximate cause: Mays excerpt #17

Suzanne B. Mays

The Mays write: NDEs were first noticed in cases in which the person was close to death or in a state of extreme psychological or physical distress. In fact, NDEs occur in people who are not near death or in distress. For example:

In a case we described earlier, Vicky recounted her father tickling her under the chin when she was an infant. “It made me laugh so hard I would fly up through the top of my head and out of my body. From the ceiling I’d look back at my little body on the couch.” These near-death-like experiences (NDLEs) can occur even when the person is not near death but, in fact, is completely healthy. Nonetheless, they score as valid NDEs on the NDE Scale.

Another case we described earlier was the 10-year-old NDEr’s experience during sleep. Even though she was not near death, her experience included being out-of-body, being surrounded by a bright light, having feelings of peace and calmness, being filled with a feeling of love, wanting to be immersed in the light, having veridical perceptions that she later verified as accurate, and finally being snapped back to her body in bed. Her NDLE would score at least 10 on the NDE Scale.

In a study at the University of Liège, Belgium, researchers compared NDE reports resulting from life-threatening events to NDE-like experiences occurring after non-life-threatening events, such as during sleep, fainting, meditation, drug or alcohol use, etc. Surprisingly, the results showed no significant difference in either NDE content (e.g., feelings of peace, separation from the body, a brilliant light) or NDE intensity between the near-death-like experiencers (NDLErs) and the so-called “real” NDErs. The average NDE score in the study was 16 for “real” NDErs and 17 for NDLErs.

This finding means that neither the proximity to death nor specific physiological or psychological factors proposed by skeptical theorists influenced the actual content or intensity of the NDE.

Thus, NDEs cannot be distinguished whether the person was perfectly healthy or in cardiac arrest: They are the same experience. The results of the study suggest that there is no physiological or psychological explanation that can account for all NDEs. Rather, they strongly suggest that NDEs are a common altered state of consciousness that can be triggered by many different types of prior conditions or may indeed have no apparent triggering event. So the altered state of consciousness in all NDEs—feeling separated from the body, seeing a brilliant light, entering an unearthly world—suggests that there is a common proximate or immediate cause of the experience.

A life-threatening condition may occur—such as cardiac arrest—but if the proximate cause is absent, no NDE occurs. Conversely, a non-life-threatening condition—such as meditation or sleep—may trigger the proximate cause, resulting in an NDLE that is indistinguishable in content and intensity from NDEs occurring in near-death circumstances (35).

In light of very strong evidence that NDEs occur in non-life-threatening circumstances—in normal, perfectly healthy individuals—the physiological and neurological explanations described earlier cannot apply to all NDEs, let alone provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience.

What could be the unifying factor that comes to bear in all NDEs? What is common in all of these NDE and NDLE cases?

Nearly 80% of NDErs report feeling separated from their body. Therefore, we propose that the common proximate cause of all NDEs is in fact the separation of the mind from the physical body. Various physiological and psychological conditions can trigger the separation of the person’s conscious mind from the body, or the separation can occur with no apparent prior condition.

The question still remains why, under seemingly identical circumstances, some people’s minds separate from their bodies and others’ do not. Nevertheless, our separation hypothesis remains consistent with the evidence regarding the occurrence of NDEs and NDLEs. 

 

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.

 

Skeptical "explanations"? Mays excerpt #16

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.

Objections to mind entity theory: Mays excerpt #15

The Mays write: Most philosophers and scientists reject interactionist dualist theories, like our mind entity theory, because it would be impossible for a nonmaterial mind to interact with a physical brain. The predominant view, physicalism, considers consciousness and the mind to be purely the result of physical brain processes.

Philosophers reject dualist theories because they are “obscure” and “mysterious”. Philosopher John Martin Fischer commented on nonphysical mechanisms of consciousness:

"[I]t is mysterious how these [nonphysical mental] mechanisms are supposed to work, and, specifically, how they would interact with the physical world. ... Causation implies a mechanism, understanding causation implies understanding the mechanism, and the mechanism of interaction across the physical and nonphysical realms is obscure—perhaps essentially so."

However, there is strong evidence that the out-of-body mind interacts with physical processes giving rise to subjective phenomenal sensations in the NDEr’s mind. And there is evidence that a subtle, previously unrecognized two-way force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions.

Furthermore, the proposed mechanism for mind-brain interactions involves:

A point of contact for the mind to interface with the brain—in the apical dendrites of the outer layers of the cortex, and

A push-pull force at the mind-brain interface—(a) the mind triggers neural action potentials by opening dendritic ion channels to impress mental content on brain regions, and (b) backward propagation of action potentials brings sensory and mental content to awareness.

Three specific challenges to interactionist dualism

The notion that the mind as a “thing” is a category error

British philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously objected to the notion that the mind is a thing or substance that can unite with the brain and body (as a “ghost in the machine”), arguing that it is an error to treat the mind as an object because the “mind” is simply the collection of a person’s dispositions and capacities resulting from brain activity. As such, minds are in a different category from physical objects like brains.

However, NDEs provide strong empirical evidence that the mind entity is an objectively real thing. In particular, the NDEr’s nonmaterial out-of-body mind can be seen by others. While out-of-body, all of the NDEr’s dispositions and capacities are embodied in the mind and are even enhanced—independent of the physical brain and body. Furthermore, NDErs consistently report reuniting with the physical body and existing within it. Therefore, the nonmaterial mind is in the same category as physical objects—the mind is an objectively real thing and unites with the brain and body. The NDEr’s dispositions and capacities are not the result of brain activity but are embodied in the mind, both “in-body” and “out-of-body.”

The causal pairing problem

An important objection to interactionist dualism comes from the original description of the mind by René Descartes. For Descartes, the mind is an immaterial thing that does not exist in physical space and has no dimensions. The “pairing problem” questions how a nonmaterial mind that exists outside physical space can causally interact with a physical object (like a brain). Any causal interaction must occur in spatial relation to the physical object.

In contrast to Descartes’s theory, the mind entity theory holds that a nonmaterial mind is an extended three-dimensional object in physical space which can merge fully and pair with a physical brain and body. The mind and brain are located in intimate spatial relation to one another and exert direct causal interaction with each other. The mind entity theory thus addresses the objections posed by the “causal pairing problem.”

In philosophy, “physical causal closure” states that all physical states have pure physical causes or that physical effects have only physical causes. If one traces the “causal ancestry” of a physical event, one need never go outside the physical domain.

In our theory, the mind is nonmaterial but interacts with physical processes and thus takes part in physical causation. In particular the mind interfaces with the brain at specific points of contact in the apical dendrites at the surface of the cortex. A two-way push-pull force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions. The mind triggers neural action potentials to open dendritic ion channels and senses the backward propagation of action potentials. Therefore, the mind entity theory satisfies the “causal closure of the physical.”

A skeptical philosopher can argue that the mind entity is not a physical entity, that is, it is not recognized by current physics theory. More specifically, the mind entity embodies mental properties, which are dubious as physical properties. In both cases, we respond that the domain of physical reality and specifically the domain of physics need to be extended to include the existence of mind entities and their properties.

We suspect that many philosophers and scientists fear that any departure from physicalist explanations of NDEs jumps directly to supernaturalism. On the contrary, the mind entity theory is hardly a leap into supernaturalism. The insights derived from NDE phenomena lead to a generalized, coherent explanation of NDEs and in-body neurological processes. We will show that our theory permits the development of a theory that extends the current physicalist naturalism to include nonmaterial entities, forces, and interactions.

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.

Mind-brain interactions: Mays excerpt #14

The Mays write: First, there is strong evidence that the out-of-body mind interacts with physical processes such as light, sound waves in the air, and solid matter, giving rise to subjective sensations in the NDEr’s mind. The NDEr later reports accurate veridical perceptions in the physical realm. There is no reasonable explanation for these veridical perceptions except that the out-of-body nonmaterial mind was able to interact with physical processes at the time of the events, resulting in the accurate perceptions.

Second, there is evidence that a new force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions. A subtle, previously unrecognized push-pull force seems to exist when the out-of-body mind entity passes through solid matter, giving rise to the subjective sensation of resistance or increased density in the NDEr. NDEr Howard felt the densities of the insulation as he rose up through the ceiling, the 10-year-old NDEr felt resistance as she pushed through the door, and Raymond Moody’s patient felt his arm to have a “very rarified gelatin” consistency when she passed her out-of-body “hand” through his arm. In addition, a physical object can interact with the NDEr nonmaterial “body,” as happened when the man ran through Laszlo and “wafted” his out-of-body shoulder.

The interactive force works both from the mind “pressing” through a solid object and feeling its resistance and from a solid object passing through the mind’s “body” and causing a distortion of the body’s form. Both forms of interaction suggest a subtle two-way interactive force exists between the nonmaterial mind and matter. Therefore, it is very plausible that the mind can interact causally—not just receptively—with physical matter to produce an effect.

Third, there is evidence that when NDErs interact with another person’s physical body, the mind can interact specifically with neural electrical processes. Raymond Moody’s out-of-body patient passed her hand through his arm and felt an electric current running through it, apparently sensing the neural electrical activity in the arm muscles as Moody inserted the IV needle. Jerry Casebolt tickled the old lady’s nose with his out-of-body “finger” and caused her to sneeze three times. The interaction of the finger with the woman’s nose apparently stimulated a tickling sensation by triggering neural activity causing the sneezing. These cases suggest that causal interactions specifically between the mind and neural electrical processes are plausible, both to sense neural “action potentials” and to trigger action potentials. Thus, it is plausible that the mind can both sense and trigger electrical brain activity.

Most skeptical philosophers and scientists will say it’s fine to show that it’s possible—and even plausible—that the nonmaterial mind entity can interact with the brain, but it’s also necessary to present a plausible mechanism how this can actually work. How does the mind entity actually work with the brain to produce phenomenal awareness?

The mind entity hypothesis is a form of “interactionist dualism” that holds that the mind and brain are separate entities that causally interact with one another to produce awareness. As part of this hypothesis, it’s important to include a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain.

In a series of experiments in the 1970s, neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet established that one’s conscious awareness of anything requires a minimum duration of neural electrical activity—typically 300–500 milliseconds, up to about half a second. Libet concluded that this process of “coming to awareness” applies to all mental content, whether the content of awareness is a perception, a thought, an intention, or a memory.

Libet’s “time on” requirement becomes important when we consider the mental content the mind generates internally, such as thoughts, plans, daydreams, etc. In order for internally generated mental content to come to awareness, the mind must first trigger neural activations in appropriate brain regions which then bring the internal content to awareness. This seems paradoxical—how the mind must first impress its content on specific brain regions to bring that content to awareness. However, this process explains why most NDErs experience their thoughts to be speeded up while out-of-body and subsequently dulled down when returning to ordinary consciousness. Also, if brain function is somehow impaired (e.g., with alcohol), the process of coming to awareness can be hindered or blocked.

In our theory, the physical interface between the nonmaterial mind and the brain is in the gray matter—the outermost 2–4 mm portion of the cortex, including in all the folds of the brain. The mind entity interfaces with the apical dendrites, the dendritic structures that project vertically to the surface of the cortex.

The mind interface works in two ways:

The brain-to-mind interface (for sensory input) occurs when neural activations occur in sensory neural areas. When a sensory neuron “fires,” its action potential propagates upwards from the cell body throughout the entire dendritic structure (58). When a large number of neurons fire together in a brain region, these “backward-propagated” pulse-like activations are detected by the mind, bringing the sensation to awareness.

The mind-to-brain-to-mind interface (for internal mental content) occurs when the mind induces neural activations in a brain region to impress a specific mental content on it, for example a concept or image from the mind. The mind-induced neural activations are then detected by the mind, bringing the mental content to awareness. The neural activations act as a kind of mirror to reflect the mental content back to the mind.

How does the nonmaterial mind actually induce neural activations? We propose that the mind can alter the molecular configuration of the “ion channels” in the apical dendrites. When these ion channels open, an action potential is triggered in the neuron. The energy required to open an ion channel is very small, on the order of the subtle force of interaction between the mind and physical matter.

In both cases, neural activations are necessary to bring sensations or mental content to awareness. When united with the brain and body, the mind cannot become aware of its own sensory or mental content without these neural activations. This view of mind-brain interactions is consistent with the close correlation of all in-body mental states with brain activity and with Libet’s findings that a minimum of neural activity is needed for both sensory and mental content to come to awareness.

Our proposed mind-brain mechanism is plausible because NDE evidence strongly suggests (a) that a previously unrecognized force of interaction exists between the NDEr’s mind and solid matter, and (b) that the nonmaterial mind can interact with neurons to both sense and trigger action potentials.

 

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.