Neuroscience And Near-Death Experiences

[noel00]

DanP once argued with me that LDS scriptures and NDEs pointed to the existance of the spirit in the body(contra Plato). It seems that slowly the evidence (neuroscience)is supporting the physicalist position. I have kept an open mind about NDEs. However I found this interesting paper on the issue.

http://www.livescience.com/38817-electrical-activity-surges-in-dying-brain.html

So much of our behaviours come from brain activity. Some examples of people who previously nice individuals suddenly after some brain damage turn into horrible people

There is one case of a man who was engaged in porn and hitting on his stepdaughter. The mother reported him to the police. At the station he complained about having a bad headache and he was taken to the hospital where a tuma was discovered on his frontal lobe. After it was removed the previous behaviour stopped until it started growing again and the previous behaviour started again...

[rodheadlee]

When I died, I just hovered around the room above my body. I'm sure my spirit brain was more active than my physical brain.

[Robert F. Smith]

See Kevin Christensen’s post # 3, Sept 4, 2011, on MDDB, at http://www.mormondia...nias-research/m

I wrote "Nigh Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon" for JBMS 2/1. http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=16

The Mormon connection goes back much further. A couple years before Moody published Life after Life, Duane Crowther published Life Everlasting. Moody's second book mentions Mormon NDE stories. His third, The Light Beyond, describes the Mormons as the most prominent of the Western Religions to accept the NDE as a gateway to the next world. He attributes some interesting teachings to "LDS Leaders," but I think he should have specified Brigham Young, who it seems to me, had an extensive NDE at Winter Quarters. When Jeddy Grant reported an NDE to Heber C. Kimball, he commented, "Why it was just as Brigham has told us many times." If you read the Spirit World chapter of the Brigham Young manual, you get the idea. He is teaching from experience, not tradition or scripture. There are lots of Mormon NDE accounts, and investigators, and books.

See Sam Parnia, M.D., What Happens When We Die? A Groundbreaking Study into the Nature of Life and Death (HayHouse, 2006),

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

My favorite book on NDEs remains Carol Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys, which attemps a cross cultural look at after life stories. I quoted it several times in "Nigh Unto Death," and could have done much more.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

DanP once argued with me that LDS scriptures and NDEs pointed to the existance of the spirit in the body(contra Plato). It seems that slowly the evidence (neuroscience)is supporting the physicalist position. I have kept an open mind about NDEs. However I found this interesting paper on the issue.

http://www.livescien...ying-brain.html

..............................................

As the article you cite points out, we not only don't know how this rat research might apply to humans, "the study can't explain how people can correctly recollect what happened to them minutes after their brain activity has flatlined and CPR has been started, Parnia said."

One of the most important books on this subject is psychiatrist George C. Ritchie's personal account (Return from Tomorrow, 1978) of what happened to him at age 20, when he was a pre-med student drafted to serve in the U.S. Army during WW II, transferred to Texas for training, where he got pneumonia and died -- at least temporarily. One can hem and haw all day long about what in fact caused his subsequent NDE. There are plenty of moot points on which to disagree, and there is nothing at all new about assertions that it is all attributable to special brain activity at death. The question should be rather, how could we prove that an NDE was real, not imaginary?

One suggested method is to place posters with pictures and information on top of high shelves or platforms in the OR, which are only visible from the ceiling, where so many NDE claimants say they hover and watch. If so, presumably they could read and see the pictures and info while out of body and report on it later.

Another mode of confirmation was reported by Professor George Ritchie: While dead, he made a fast journey in the spirit across the USA from Texas to his home in North Carolina (if I recall correctly), where he was able to view his family. En route he encountered places he had never visited before. Afterward, he was able to confirm the actual existence of those specific places (bars, for example). His view of the spirit world was particularly interesting and memorable.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[noel00]

Does you spirit have a brain? When you die where do all those memories go? There is supposed to be a section of the brain that expresses empathy, Some say psychopaths lack this? You have not responded as to why some people's behaviour can be affected by brain damage.

[Robert F. Smith]

Does you spirit have a brain? When you die where do all those memories go? There is supposed to be a section of the brain that expresses empathy, Some say psychopaths lack this? You have not responded as to why some people's behaviour can be affected by brain damage.

We could compare the brain to the CPU (central processing unit) of a computer. Indeed, we could even say that our brain is our on-board computer. It uses electro-chemical means of internal communication, and it has biochemical sensors throughout the body which provide information to the brain: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, etc. The brain controls legs, arms, toes, and fingers, and can manipulate its surroundings just as a Mars Rover can. Some say that, within the next decade, computers will achieve the same capacity that the human brain now has. This is termed an "event horizon," after which everything will ever after be quite different.

Will such computers be conscious and self-reflective in the same way that humans are? Will they get rid of the humans due to human limitations and imperfections? Will those computers believe themselves to be sentient beings with a spirit, and will they obtain their endowments and continue temple work for the dead?

[strappinglad]

Dr.Ebin Alexander , a neurosurgeon , has had his own NDE. Can be seen on youtube.

[Calm]

One of them:

[mfbukowski]

There are serious problems with physicalism, and usual I trot out some Nagel around this time. Physicalist descriptions will never be able to fully describe or be logically equivalent to descriptions of any experience- there is more going on in the description of a "red car" than can be described by brain activity- indeed such descriptions are talking about entirely different categories, they are about different subjects entirely.

In effect there are category mistakes happening in physicalist descriptions.purporting to describe experience.

Another problem: does the experience cause the brain state or the brainstate cause the experience?

[noel00]

http://www.religiond...uching_a_nerve/

Interesting insight

"Could the new sciences of the brain be so powerful that we needn’t go looking elsewhere for insights into the human condition? Does the brain encompass an individual in totality, leaving no room for a transcendent soul? This is the thesis of Patricia Churchland, whose Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain furnished the brain science in my opening ditty"

Edited August 15, 2013 by noel00

[Storm Rider]

Does you spirit have a brain? When you die where do all those memories go? There is supposed to be a section of the brain that expresses empathy, Some say psychopaths lack this? You have not responded as to why some people's behaviour can be affected by brain damage.

Noel, this is just my initial thoughts...The natural position of the spirit is just that spirit. It is a whole being in the sense that it has exactly what our bodies have except that it remains a spirit. The spirit is united to the body for mortality where the two must become integrated. It is this submission of the passions to the will of the spirit that demonstrates our willingness to follow Christ. I would expect just as the spirit enlightens the body, i.e. has an impact, I would assume that when the body is harmed that there is an impact on our spirit. I would not guess to what extent these things are done, but I would acknowledge there some degree of impact that goes both ways. I would also assume that where we have no choice we have no responsibility for our actions. Does that make sense?

[ZelphtheGreat]

What I have difficult time with is The Brethren seemingly ignoring this whole topic. Betty Eadie, an LDS member had an experience and wrote a book about it. She travels giving talks about it. LDS Leadership not only ignores it but some have been said to disbelieve and even deny what she says she experienced. WHY? I would think they would welcome any and all experiences, listen and pray for guidance as to what happened to the individual.

[LordUther]

What I have difficult time with is The Brethren seemingly ignoring this whole topic. Betty Eadie, an LDS member had an experience and wrote a book about it. She travels giving talks about it. LDS Leadership not only ignores it but some have been said to disbelieve and even deny what she says she experienced. WHY? I would think they would welcome any and all experiences, listen and pray for guidance as to what happened to the individual.

I wasn't aware that it was The Brethren's job to act as a barometer for every spiritual experience, maybe they feel that they have enough to deal with and as each of us has the gift of the Holy Ghost we can find out the truth of these things ourselves, thereby increasing our own spiritual experiences and bringing ourselves closer to God.

[rodheadlee]

Does you spirit have a brain? When you die where do all those memories go? There is supposed to be a section of the brain that expresses empathy, Some say psychopaths lack this? You have not responded as to why some people's behaviour can be affected by brain damage.

It must, when I died my physical brain was mush.

[CV75]

a tuma was discovered on his frontal lobe

...and Jerry Lewis had a tuna in his chest in "Hook, Line and Sinker (1969)"

[CV75]

Does you spirit have a brain? When you die where do all those memories go? There is supposed to be a section of the brain that expresses empathy, Some say psychopaths lack this? You have not responded as to why some people's behaviour can be affected by brain damage.

I was thinking about this the other day. The spirit has no memories, just a very keen sense of "what is," at least to the extent God hasn't blocked it for that spirit. The memories come in the resurrection when we have a brain again (Alma 11:43), and a linear temporal reference once again has a meaning. At some point, both senses are inseprably connected and expanded to teh extent we can tolerate it (D&C 93:33; 88:32). Edit: this is how I take mfb's observation copied below:

there is more going on in the description of a "red car" than can be described by brain activity- indeed such descriptions are talking about entirely different categories, they are about different subjects entirely.

Edited August 15, 2013 by CV75

[Stone holm]

I was thinking about this the other day. The spirit has no memories, just a very keen sense of "what is," at least to the extent God hasn't blocked it for that spirit. The memories come in the resurrection when we have a brain again (Alma 11:43), and a linear temporal reference once again has a meaning. At some point, both senses are inseprably connected and expanded to teh extent we can tolerate it (D&C 93:33; 88:32). Edit: this is how I take mfb's observation copied below:

This view of the mental condition in the spirit world is inconsistent with Mormon doctrine as to the spirit world being a very active place where preparation and missionary work is being pursued with an urgent focus.

[CV75]

This view of the mental condition in the spirit world is inconsistent with Mormon doctrine as to the spirit world being a very active place where preparation and missionary work is being pursued with an urgent focus.

Please explain how.

[Tacenda]

The NDE that has always endeared me to it was one by a woman who said that when she died the realm or heaven consisted of loved ones, doing or worshipping exactly as they always had. And everyone in heaven is doing basically the same thing they did on earth that is familiar. Maybe she didn't venture on to see more progression of things since she came back to earth. Maybe seeing heaven like that is less shocking to the system.

[cinepro]

Is it just me, or is the likelihood of someone believing in NDE's directly correlated to the degree to which the NDE's reflect that person's religious views?

In other words, if you believe in NDE's and if someone came back and said they learned the LDS Church wasn't true and we should be Catholic, would that be enough to get you to leave the Church?

After all, everyone loved Betty Eadie, until they didn't.

[Nofear]

Dr.Ebin Alexander , a neurosurgeon , has had his own NDE. Can be seen on youtube.

There's some controversy about the neurosurgeon's account (see for example http://www.dailygrai...-Eben-Alexander). For me personally, his account is moot. There is plenty of other evidence suggesting that there is something to NDE.

Is it just me, or is the likelihood of someone believing in NDE's directly correlated to the degree to which the NDE's reflect that person's religious views?

Yes. But that confirmation bias is present should by no means be surprising. Indeed, it would be shocking if it wasn't present. What is interesting, however, is that there doesn't seem to be strong correlation between what the individuals expected from the afterlife and what they experience. Atheists experience NDE's and Christians can have negative (rare though they be) NDE's.

For the record, while I am willing to concede the "reality" of NDE's, I am not persuaded of their physicality. For me the majority seem to be a kind of transitory experience as our spirit mind readies itself to assume full sensory input from the spirit body after being tethered to the sensory inputs of the physical body for so long. This "transition" experience can be quite individualistic and not necessarily reflect physical/spiritual reality.

[Stone holm]

There's some controversy about the neurosurgeon's account (see for example http://www.dailygrai...-Eben-Alexander). For me personally, his account is moot. There is plenty of other evidence suggesting that there is something to NDE.

Yes. But that confirmation bias is present should by no means be surprising. Indeed, it would be shocking if it wasn't present. What is interesting, however, is that there doesn't seem to be strong correlation between what the individuals expected from the afterlife and what they experience. Atheists experience NDE's and Christians can have negative (rare though they be) NDE's.

For the record, while I am willing to concede the "reality" of NDE's, I am not persuaded of their physicality. For me the majority seem to be a kind of transitory experience as our spirit mind readies itself to assume full sensory input from the spirit body after being tethered to the sensory inputs of the physical body for so long. This "transition" experience can be quite individualistic and not necessarily reflect physical/spiritual reality.

Well its either a preview peek of the next life or the mind's way of saying good-bye to existence. If it turns out to be former we can be happy that our beliefs were confirmed and our faith affirmed, if the latter we will never know otherwise. So it seems like a win win situation to me.

[Calm]

After all, everyone loved Betty Eadie, until they didn't.

Not everyone:

http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/188237102X

(don't know why the title doesn't match, but this is the link that has reviews)

cannot find the original so the commentary on the commentary must do:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15606349/Commentary-on-Embraced-by-the-Light-Betty-J-Eadie

Edited August 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I was thinking about this the other day. The spirit has no memories, just a very keen sense of "what is," at least to the extent God hasn't blocked it for that spirit. The memories come in the resurrection when we have a brain again (Alma 11:43), and a linear temporal reference once again has a meaning. At some point, both senses are inseprably connected and expanded to teh extent we can tolerate it (D&C 93:33; 88:32). Edit: this is how I take mfb's observation copied below:

An interesting pov - if it works for you go for it.

My point was more about philosophy and the entire prospect of defining phenomenology in a physicalist sense. I suppose this is a more specialized point than this thread will deal with, but trust me, the direction of argumentation I have seen so far is not going to solve the "mind-body problem" which is an old one and has fascinated some of the greatest minds of our time. One was Thomas Nagel:

"If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view."

Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

Logically, my point is that subjective statements can never be equated with objective, physicalist, statements.

"I see a red car" will never be logically equivalent to "Bukowski's brain is showing electical activity (at some specific location)

If I am right, then "I see a red car" cannot be said to be the SAME as the brain electrical activity. The subjective phenomenological experience IS NOT observable by someone observing my brain- and that is roughly Nagel's point as well.

Of course brain activity correlates with experiences, but one does not describe the other, and descriptions are all we can know of reality. If the descriptions are different the "reality" being explored is different- it is in a different category of description.

One can never be reduced to the other logically- it's impossible.

Another way of saying it is that a statement like "I am hungry" is not the same as a description of my blood sugar levels etc. yes, they may be correlated, but that does not make one reducible to the other. Something is always lost in the "translation" and what is lost is the most important element.

I should probably point out that Nagel was an atheist- he was not pushing a religious point of view, but a logical one.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

An interesting pov - if it works for you go for it.

My point was more about philosophy and the entire prospect of defining phenomenology in a physicalist sense. I suppose this is a more specialized point than this thread will deal with, but trust me, the direction of argumentation I have seen so far is not going to solve the "mind-body problem" which is an old one and has fascinated some of the greatest minds of our time. One was Thomas Nagel:

Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

Logically, my point is that subjective statements can never be equated with objective, physicalist, statements.

"I see a red car" will never be logically equivalent to "Bukowski's brain is showing electical activity (at some specific location)

If I am right, then "I see a red car" cannot be said to be the SAME as the brain electrical activity. The subjective phenomenological experience IS NOT observable by someone observing my brain- and that is roughly Nagel's point as well.

Of course brain activity correlates with experiences, but one does not describe the other, and descriptions are all we can know of reality. If the descriptions are different the "reality" being explored is different- it is in a different category of description.

One can never be reduced to the other logically- it's impossible.

Another way of saying it is that a statement like "I am hungry" is not the same as a description of my blood sugar levels etc. yes, they may be correlated, but that does not make one reducible to the other. Something is always lost in the "translation" and what is lost is the most important element.

I should probably point out that Nagel was an atheist- he was not pushing a religious point of view, but a logical one.

Maybe I’m too intuitive in my approach and means of expression, but what you’ve said here is what resonates (to me, anyway) with what I proposed.

For example, someone who challenged my pov referred to spirits having a “mental condition” in the spirit world—but I don’t see how there can be a mental condition without a brain. Likewise, the spirit world being very active place—a spirit’s activity level can’t have anything to do with a brain-encased memory if it has no brain; and preparation and missionary work in the spirit world can be accomplished in a spiritual setting without the aid of physical memory such as a resurrected being possesses.

There is no associative mechanism without elements to make the connections. The elements are only available if there is a body. So a post-mortal spirit’s sense and use of his mortal experience in a post-mortal setting has to be a spiritual phenomenon that takes things for what they really are, in other words, in a way that reflects what that spirit has become.

So, understanding and acting on his mortal life in the spirit world has to do with how much light that spirit can deal with, not how much memory he has. As a spirit, he is capable of simultaneously synthesizing past, present and future just like God does (only God is better at it), but only to the extent his righteousness allows. For example, someone addicted to alcohol during mortality would suffer gaps in his synthesis once in the spirit world, and would have to be rehabilitated through faith prior to the resurrection.

Another example: does a dead man in the spirit world remember his wife who is still living, or does he know her? I would say he knows her to the extent there is no veil imposed upon his knowledge, which depends on how much light he can receive. In the resurrection, if he’s in good shape, he will have no guilt to remember with his brain, and only the most essential things would remain for him and his wife to know together.

All these things, as you pointed out, have a subjective character.