Talk:Near-death experience/Archive 2

What about centrifuges?
Pilots passing out in centrifuges describe the same symptoms as NDEs. -Iopq 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's true. This article could at least use a distinct "criticism" section, if not a note in the introduction that this, like just about all other "paranormal" issues, has been mostly debunked. --Jammoe 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

These are studies where they used Navy Airmen in G-Force stress tests that caused the blood in the heads of the individuals to drain, inducing a state of simulated clinical death, in which NDEs were reported. These do not conflict with the NDE Phenomenon, as the persons were essentially put into a state of simulated clinical death when the blood drained from their heads, and they had an NDE. 75.74.232.12 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Nautica8075.74.232.12 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they describe similar, but not the same, impressions. "People close to death are more likely to perceive deceased persons than are people who are not close to death: the latter, when they have waking hallucinations, are more likely to report seeing living persons (Osis & Haraldsson, 1977). For example, Whinnery (1997) reported that healthy fighter pilots exposed to acceleration-induced anoxia to the point of loss of consciousness (G-LOC) typically report hallucinations of living friends and family. One 20-year-old pilot reported his G-LOC experience: "I was home. . . saw my mom and my brother. . . . I got to go home [by dreaming] without taking [military] leave!"" "Cosmological Implications of NDEs" http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness129.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.38.82 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The joke known as Wikipedia
"...many studies which confirm the experience as having taken place during clinical death." "...sometimes reported by persons who have been revived after being pronounced clinically dead."

"(1). In one well documented case of a paranormal NDE, that of Pam Reynolds, the very surgical procedure ensured that there was no measurable brain activity whatsoever. If we take this case seriously, we have to admit that no area of her brain (nor her brain taken as a whole) could have been sufficiently active to account for her NDE. Even if her paranormal perception of surgical preparations were not accompanied by a flat EEG, the rest of her NDE took place while she was brain-dead in the broadest possible sense. Her neurosurgeon Dr. Spetzler, admitted that he could not explain her experiences by normal mechanisms.

(2). Consciousness uses residual brain energy during clinical death Perhaps consciousness still exists during clinical death because it works like a battery. In that case, it might have enough energy left to continue functioning for a limited amount of time. After death this energy might finally be lost resulting in the extinction of consciousness. This is a very strange theory, because according to physicalism, consciousness is directly, from moment to moment, caused by the brain. There is no empirical evidence for a hypothetical storage of energy in consciousness nor is there any plausible account of how consciousness should store such energy. In other words, this theory amounts to pure speculation without any empirical or logical basis.

(3). Death does not equal clinical death This argument is a variation on (1) and it may be discounted in a similar manner. It is obvious that death is irreversible and ends with the total decay of the corpse, but this is simply irrelevant for the question considered here. As far as we know, there are no relevant physiological differences (in this context) between death and the functional cessation of cortical brain activity."

"The flat electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain activity during cardiac arrest, and the high incidence of brain damage afterwards both point to the conclusion that the unconsciousness in cardiac arrest is total. You cannot argue that there are ‘‘bits’’ of the brain that are functioning; there are not." -Greyson

So tell me, why does Wikipedia's definition of clinical death consist of "measurable" brain activity stopping within 20 to 40 seconds." Oh let me guess, Wikipedia "authors" have to leave everything open to protect their precious Science. "Well, maybe we can't measure the brain activity that causes NDEs at clinical death." As you can see, that is false. And I love the fact that Wikipedia's definition of clinical death as revolving around "measureable" brain activity has a citation that leads to an article about observing death in dogs by clamping their hearts. Wikipedia, you've done it again!

Is this not proof enough for what lies after death? That's right...think about it. Reach into the inner struggle you humanists/agnostics/atheists face and realize what your true essence wants you to realize.

Here's the sad part: Wikipedia's brigade of secular humanists and atheism advocates would never allow this material in the article. I'll be surprised if this entry right here stays for more than 2 hours.


 * How do you know the true essence of people wants them to realize this? If what you believe is true, the opposite conclusion should be drawn: we have the veil, forgetfulness of previous life.  Everything is arranged to keep us from realizing this fully.  Who did that?  Why?  Whoever or whatever it was wants us not to know. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know we have this veil in life? Are you claiming that whatever thing you're trying to talk about doesn't want us to know something? Are you all-knowing? Have you lifted this veil you speak of? Nah, you're just another Wikipedia fanboi/slave.


 * Tsk. Don't contrbute to Wikipedia if you can't be rational and civil.  Such assumptions about another person show that you are in slavery yourself. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You attacked his secondary conclusion, but you in no way addressed his first. Maybe his first conclusion wasn't clear. Let me elucidate. In fact, let me redirecting into a blatant question. How can our brain create vivid "hallucinations" and the such, when there is absolutely no electrical brain activity in many NDE scenarios, such as those of persons who experience cardiac arrest (EEG goes completely FLAT)?  Can our brain function without any energy?  Furthermore, are you suggesting that it could function unimpaired and to such a great degree that it can create such a strong and memorable, often life-changing experience?  Are you suggesting that we cam even formulating memories while having absolutely NO brain activity? You can't say you worship the reason and logic behind scientific explanations, but yet hold fast to contra-scientific assertions such as that "brain function without brain activity" idea.  I know that atheists and the like would like to deny the existence of the soul.  That's fine.  But then I repeat:  How can our brain create such vivid and memorable "hallucinations," when there is absolutely no brain activity? COice6 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

John Wren-Lewis
Anybody know who John Wren-Lewis is? I removed an uncited section but think it may be of interest in another article if it could be cited. I'll paste the section here :

NDE's can also lead to long-lasting spiritual effects (as evidenced by the many studies which confirm the experience as having taken place during clinical death). The mathematician John Wren-Lewis (1985), after his NDE, felt himself in a more or less permanent state of equanimity, feeling contact with the void and with no separate existence from the whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Godfinger (talk • contribs).

Hello, I can say a few things about John Wren-Lewis. He is mentioned in Blackmore's book Dying to Live. Here is one link:    or perhaps this link is better: . There are a couple of other things that he has written that used to be out there and are getting harder to find:  NDEs - is there an afterlife? &  A terrible beauty. Wren-Lewis is difficult to categorize. He is "somewhere in the middle" I feel but he mostly agrees with Blackmore. However, he feels her writing lacks sufficient acknowledgement of what he refers to as the "Eternal Infinite Aliveness". For Wren-Lewis, I think it is accurate to say that paradise is to be found in the here and now, and it doesn't really matter about an afterlife. He describes himself as an agnostic somewhere. Hope this helps. In fact it would be great if he had a Wikipedia entry of his own but I wouldn't know where to begin. He certainly had a career before his NDE. He was a physicist and a member of the "Death of God" movement, if I recall correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omvegan (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have started the article on him now: check out John Wren-Lewis. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In light of Blackmore and Wren-Lewis...
Hello, In light of what Blackmore and Wren-Lewis have written, I feel this topic should not be categorized as paranormal. The bottom line seems to be that NDEs are hallucinations, but that this fact does not detract from their spiritual significance for the individual experiencer. However the experience is strictly subjective. Then again, so is all of reality, apparently, according to the cognitive psychologists. I think it is accurate to say that "Something happens inside the (human) brain". This something sometimes transforms the experiencer but does not by any means constitute proof of an afterlife, and this is what Blackmore is saying. On the other hand, what Wren-Lewis is saying is that nobody has a license to say to individual experiencers, "nothing happened to you, shutup about it." Something happened to them, the question is what. What Wren-Lewis is saying is that for him at least, he had a moment of "time-stop" and lost "all anxiety for the morrow." Blackmore gives a very clinical scientific explanation for all of this, leaving out the emotional and spiritual impact, which results in a rather dry text. Wren-Lewis points this out, even though he appreciates and compliments her writing. For me at least, Wren-Lewis provides resolution for the conflict between the believers and the skeptics. A good writer could read everything he has written and use some of it as a basis for a complete rewrite for this entire article. Thanks, Dean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omvegan (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because some scientists say NDEs are hallucinations doesn't mean they are. Plenty of other scientists (yes, real scientists also say that they are very puzzling and that they may just be of some significance in seeing whether there is continued existance after physical death. But either way, I agree with you about the paranormal categorization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.138 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say much about Wren-Lewis, but Susan Blackmore's dying brain hypothesis has been definitely proven wrong during the AWARE study and I think in another independent study as well by checking the oxygen levels in the blood of the patients - nothing unusual was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallup poll
In the introduction: "According to a Gallup poll, approximately eight million Americans claim to have had a near-death experience."

In "Variance in NDE studies": "According to the Gallup and Proctor survey in 1980-1981, of a representative sample of the American population, data showed that 15% had an NDE"

In 1980 there were 226,545,805 people living in USA, 15% of that would be 34 millions, not 8 millions. Please check the sources someone, or clear it up, if 8 millions of those who participated in the poll experienced NDE. Tiredtime (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is Psychology Today (James Mauro, "Bright lights, big mystery".Psychology Today, July 1992), and the sentence reads: "Barbara Harris is like the eight million other Americans who, according to a recent poll by George Gallup, Jr., claim to have had a near-death experience (NDE)." The article was originally published in 1992. If the poll was a recent poll in 1992, it means that it was probably published in the early nineties. I have not been able to locate this poll on the web, but maybe there is an archive of old polls somewhere.--Hawol (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The George Gallup, Jr. -- William Proctor poll was conducted from early 1980 to September 1981, in face-to-face interviews of Americans 18 and older, and was published as a book in 1982 . The key question was: "Have you, yourself, ever been on the verge of death or had a "close call" which involved any unusual experience at that time?" The overall response was yes=15%, no=83%, not sure=2%. Many of the respondents (60% of the 15% responding yes) included a description of the serious illness or accident as part of the "unusual experience" and a smaller percentage included "mystical elements" such as life review, being in a different world, out-of-body sensation, acute visual perceptions, and presence of a special being or beings.


 * Gallup concluded (p. 6) "If you project our findings into the national population, about 23 million people have had a verge-of-death or temporary death experience, and of that number about eight million have experienced some sort of mystical encounter along with the death event." Eight million represented about 5% of the population of people 18 years old and older at the time. Hopefully that explains the difference. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal Experiences
The section on Personal Experiences contains some highly subjective statements (e.g. "extraordinary experience) and seems to be written from a Christian perspective. It seems necessary to edit this section. I did so, but my edits were unfortunately undone by SatuSuro. The article suggests that NDEs often reflect the cultural background and values of the victim/survivor. Moreover, an individual's testimony about his/her NDE may not be accurate. These points should be sufficient grounds for a thorough revision of the "Personal Experiences" section, which seems rather uncritical. Nanapush (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Nanapush
 * See the last 100 edits to this article, they have occured from September 2010 until now in that time Nanapush has made one edit, User:SatuSuro has made no edits to this article please provide evidnece with links of these edits or appologise and refrain from making further personal attacks Gnangarra 02:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

NDEs will always reflect the cultural background and values of a person - because they reflect the content of the individual memory. But NDEs are in a contradiction to the Christian believe: We can come to god after we have died. But persons which can tell of NDEs were not dead nor in an afterworld. Death is not reversible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.193.114 (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Therefore NDEs are accepted by the Christian churches as a reality - but a supernatural or afterworld content of NDEs is denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.236.105 (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be entitled Near-death experience
As it can't be moved by me, can someone with greater powers please do so? It is frankly an embarrassment as it stands. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While we cant do a google search which differentiates between the two forms, a search through the scholarly works and books shows a fairly even split. I dont think the non hyphenated version needs to be changed, but it would be more consistent. I wouldnt call it an embarrassment, though i think i do see the value of the hyphen in more closely tying near to death. The major articles associated with the term (and the organizations they discuss) all use the hyphen: Near-death studies, Journal of Near-Death Studies, International Association for Near-Death Studies, and many of the sections of articles focused on this do as well. If this article didnt get so much attention, i would just make the change. If no one objects, i will do so eventually.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed.
I took out hte opening paragraph. I tried to salvage it but was not possible using its current terming. I shall do my best to explain: There is no such thing as evidence for the afterlife. there CANT be, because an afterlife is a supernatural construct, and hence, not in the same realm as science, which is understanding natural constructs. An opinion is not a fact. If any scientist believes it AND tries to prove it, he's already failed like, 2 or 3 of the basic steps of the scientific method. If anyone would like to post a link to something besides anecdotal evidence, id love to see it.

It doesnt matter what any number of americans think is true. Consensus does not decide reality, and as such, the words are poinltess without backing. But I could let that slide...Except then the paragraph goes on to conclude that scientists are "scared" to admit it. Thats the bright red flag with the fireworks going off. Pre-emptive attack on science is not helpful, nonconstructivie criticism is not helpful, and using that many "some say" without actually writing "some say" is also rather blatant.

So Ive deleted the lede almost utterly. Cutting and pasting would leave its wording mangled even moreso than it is on its own. Im sure whoever wants them up there can find a better place to accuse scientists of blackmail/bribery/lying/etc than in the lead of this article. Cause the entire thing was nonsense. In addition, what does it even mean to say "A lot of NDE are reported from non-threatenng conditions." well, then they arent really near death experiences if they were never near death. Ill leave it in for now, but I also have no idea what "A presence of a light" means, and since people cant sense the "presense" of light in real life, how can it be attested to the experience? I really think the source of such a vision should be indicated, due to the exceedingly bizarre descriptions.

Seems like a brain filling in blank spots with hallucinations. Like it does all the time you run out of air. And please do not post to books claiming to give people magical powers. Unless it has the anti-entropy formula, its lying. I will happily withdraw this complaint, should such a thing be there. But since theres no one imortal right now, its rather dubious.

I really dont want to have to scrub this page for every time magic is put in place as if it were fact. Maybe it should start a "NDE in Religious Philosophy" or something. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All these criticisms of yours have already been adequately met and refuted, and I would urge you to read the following essay: http://anti-matters.org/articles/8/public/8-8-1-PB.pdf You say that an afterlife is a supernatural construct, and not natural, and that science therefore cannot study it. But how can that be the case, when the very definition for something being "natural" means that it exists, and for "supernatural" that it doesn't exist? It's total circular logic and unjustified pre-exclusion of anything we arbitrarily deem supernatural a priori. Or am I missing something? At any rate, Neal Grossman explains how the NDE can be and is studied using the scientific method, and how science doesn't have to explain every finding with materialism, as materialism is just another paradigm and not a necessary and eternal framework that every scientific discovery has to be explained in terms of. Lynnettian (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that these sentences of the old intro should be kept:


 * According to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should fairly and proportionately represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The views that NDE's are an evidence of an afterlife and that they are hallucinatory have been published by reliable sources. If you can find some published sources supporting your opinion that there can't be any evidence for the afterlife, you can add it to the article.


 * I concur, but it seems to be now have been modified. I will change it back to something more appropriate. Someone is not a "paranormal specialist" just because they investigates these issues. In fact, most people studying NDEs are cardiologists or related to medicine in some other way. It's demonstrably false to say that there aren't mainstream scientists and philosophers who have been convinced by the NDE data. Lynnettian (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no "reliable" source for NDEs being evidence of an afterlife.
 * They can't be evidence, as they occur to living people whose brains are being deprived of oxygen and because their contents vary depending on culture and religious beliefs of the patient.
 * It is not possible to provide proof against a non-falsifiable position based on something that is merely interpreted as evidence which is itself based on religious texts and "Christian-Science" source material. This whole passage regarding an afterlife should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.122.210 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can not see where "the paragraph goes on to conclude that scientists are "scared" to admit it", "accuses scientists of blackmail/bribery/lying/etc" and so on. It seems to be neutral enough.--tired time (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this change because it violates WP:NPOV. The reasons given above for removal of the sourced information are really quite biased and incoherent! --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Brains can function without giving off electrical activity!?
How can our brains create such long and vivid "hallucinations," when there is absolutely no electrical brain activity in many NDE scenarios, such as those of persons who experience cardiac arrest (--EEG goes completely FLAT)? Can our brain function without any energy? Furthermore, are you suggesting that it could function unimpaired and to such a great degree that it can create such a strong and memorable, often life-changing experience? Are you suggesting that we can even formulating memories while having absolutely NO brain activity? You can't say you worship the reason and logic behind scientific explanations, but yet hold fast to contra-scientific explanations such as that "brain function without brain activity" idea. I know that atheists and the like would like to deny the existence of the soul. That's fine. But then I repeat: --How can our brains function to create such vivid and memorable "hallucinations," when there is absolutely NO brain activity? COice6 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NDEs happen to people whose brains are in the process of dying, not ones that already are dead. "Braindead" is defined as the irreversible cessation of brain function, so saying someone has been braindead and was later revived to tell about an NDE does not make sense.
 * Cardiac arrest means stopped blood flow on account of the heart not being able to pump it. This doesn't imply a ceasing of brain activity.
 * Lastly, NDEs potentially being life-changing or strong experiences has nothing to do with them being evidence of anything. You are preaching unresearched information.


 * A person who was in the process of dying - is then a corpse. This state is not reversible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.192.190 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, many people who experience NDEs--cardiac arrest patients, particularly--are clinically dead when they have their NDE. And if you do research on it, you will find that all electrical activity in the brain ceases within 10-20 second after cardiac arrest.  Thereafter, "brain oxygen levels are then depleted within approximately 2 minutes and if the blood flow is not restarted to the brain, the cells start to undergo changes which will ultimately lead to cell damage and then cell death." That's an excerpt from the Horizon Research Foundation, and many other studies regarding those facts concur (if you wish, I may list them for you).  So the individual is indeed momentarily clinically dead, though revived.  Many cardiac arrest survivors nevertheless have brain damage.  Yet there are even people who have had cardiac arrest for over a half hour and revived with no significant degree of brain damage whatsoever (after having NDE experience). This is simply inexplicable.  Anyways, due to the lack of electrical activity, it is impossible for these cardiac arrest patients to dream or hallucinate, yet they have an NDEs nonetheless.
 * He are two parts of a video documentary discussing a scientific study in which an NDE and OBE at a time when it was impossible for the brain to create them.
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q7fR1isrGo&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SBscOE2zBA&feature=related
 * I am still waiting for an explanation. COice6 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

When there was no brain damage, then there was still enough oxygen, glucose,etc. for the nerves in the blood. Dying is only, when the neurons will be destroyed by a lack of nourishment - and is not defined by the display of a measuring instument. (E.g. the assistant of my doctor has declared me as dead - she had forgotten to switch on the pulse meter.) When the equipment of the doctor does not show any activity during a NDE, then is this only a technical problem - bad equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.215.129 (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

With Google you can find the article for Lancet(in German) ´Interview mit Pim van Lommel´  by Judith Krischik. van Lommel said himself(!) that no(!) EEGs were used but only EKGs, when the heartbeat stopped to measure and to declare a person as dead. This means, the brain activity was not under control but only the heart-beat activity. Van Lommel is one of the leading NDE-´researchers´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.125.142 (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you do research on it, you will find that electrical activity within the brain ceases within 10-20 second after cardiac arrest. I just explained this in my last post. In other words, cardiac arrest triggers the cessation of electrical activity within the brain. It is a natural fact of what cardiac arrest does to an individual, and has been cited as fact numerous times in other studies.  You don't need equipment at the time of the cardiac arrest in order to verify this.  Past studies already have.  If you need me to, I can list for you a few of those such studies.  Oxygen (CPR) can prevent cell death (and consequently brain damage) but there is still no electrical activity within the brain. The loss of cerebral electrical activity comes prior to and is independent of the loss of oxygen levels within the brain.  Without cerebral electrical activity, it is impossible for a person to dream or hallucinate.  So those are still inadequate explanations for their NDEs. COice6 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claim?
A paragraph in the lede states, "Popular interest in near-death experiences was initially sparked by Raymond Moody's 1975 book Life After Life", and cites the book, itself. Personally, I have some Buddhist friends that would take exception to that claim.

This is not reliable sourcing (see WP:RS). While the book may be used as a source to confirm the existence of the book, it may not be used to confirm a sweeping claim of "popular interest" being started (world-wide, by implication).

Does anyone know of a reliable source for this claim, other than the book itself? The source would have to be well-respected to pass muster. If it cannot be sourced, it should be removed (and will be).

Anyone have any thoughts? &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 14:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The term ´Near-Death Experience´ was introduced by Mr. Moody 1975 in his book ´Life after Life´, chapter one, and became very popular with this book (more than 20 000 000 copies), with quotations of this book and with ´research´ which is based on this book - although Mr. Moody said himself that the content of his book has no scientific value (Chapter six).
 * The ´Tibetian book of the death´ is of buddhistic origin already several hundred years ago - but there you can not find the term ´NDE`. Thus Moody´s book is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.193.159 (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I added this reference to support the statement: Duane S. Crowther (2005). Life Everlasting Cedar Fort, p. 19. "Life After Life ... caught the attention of the nation, became a national best-seller, made the subject popular, and opened numerous studies." --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But, "caught the attention of the nation" is very US-centric, no? It seems rather parochial not to consider the rest of the world, its cultures, history, and beliefs, I think.


 * And it seems that, just because something wasn't called its modern name doesn't mean it didn't exist. The term NDE is of recent origin, but the concept has been known for a much longer period.


 * Lastly, just because a term isn't found in one book doesn't make another book a reliable source. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see the logic in this assertion.


 * I believe it would make sense to tone down the "ignited a worldwide movement" verbiage. Sure, Moody's book was important, but it didn't introduce a brand-new concept to the world.


 * Thoughts? &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

NDEs are seen mainly in industrialized nations as important with people of esoteric background. E.g. the christian theology will accept NDEs as real - but they are not seen as spiritual experiences of the next world; because death is not reversible for us. Moody has developed no theory or statement about NDEs, therefore he had no concept - only the term ´Near-Death Experience´ was developed by him. And this is fact - even when the concept was not new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.220.252 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The concept of NDEs is known since several thousand years - but they were seen as dying experince, dreams, visions or hallucination. It was Moody who invented the term ´NDE´ and who split up the NDE-experiences in key-elements, which he described in his book ´Life after Life´. With these key-elements the NDE-phenomenon was accessible to an explanation (Kinseher) and is to distinguish from dream- or hallucinatory-structures. Therefore we should separate these topics here in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.254.252 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although the concept has been known about (although only vaguely and loosely identified) for thousands of years, many people considered them as just dreams or hallucinations or some personal exprience (perhaps even delusion). There was no great "popular interest" although they were known about in a vague sense. They were not distinguished in the way that Moody has done--separating it from dreams and hallucinations, and elucidating their core nature.  After Moody refined the concept of NDEs, diagnosing their key elements, NDEs were then accessible to attempts at explanation (with hundreds of scientific studies/debate around the world, mostly in the US and Europe, attempting to explain NDEs).  This book was the stimulus for that sudden uprise of talks/discussions and other media coverage regarding NDEs.  It makes sense to say that popular interest was sparked by his book, especially granted that a whopping 20 million copies of his book were sold, and granted that--as I said--it was the stimulus for much scientific research/debate as well as media discussion regarding NDEs. COice6 (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, scientific research was not stimulated! Up to now scientists did not analyze the structure of NDEs (Moody´s key elements) and they did not develop a scientific theory. e.g. In ´Life after Life´ there are examples where a person was alive and not hurt while a NDE was experienced (e.g. truck driver in chapter ´The Review´). Several persons reported that they could observe/perceive the surrounding while they had a NDE (Chapter ´The Being of Light´). This means, that those persons where alive in a state of awareness while they had a NDE. But NDEs are up to now only observed as a dying-/hallucinatory-experience - the idea that NDEs are the result of ´normal´ brain activity, was never analyzed! A scientist has to consider and analyze all(!!!) possibilities -if not, then this is not a scientific behaviour. Stucture of key-elements not analyzed, no theory about NDEs developed, not considered that NDEs can be the result of ´normal´ brain acitvity - this is no scientific research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.238.235 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said that that book analyzed any scientific research. I said that it stimulated scientific research. In other words, it has lead to modern scientists' attempts to understand NDEs and OBEs.  And they have indeed analyzed the idea of whether NDEs are the result of "normal" brain activity, and more.  If you want, I can send you links to some of such studies.  But I was not asserting that the book in itself contained any scientific quality. COice6 (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Editing Talk here is not for private discussion - but to improve the article. When you know some NDE-research where NDEs are analyzed as the result of a normal brain activity, then it would be nice to add this to the topic ´Research´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.252.86 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deathbed visions
I am thinking of creating a new section on this article titled "Deathbed visions". This is what the NDE was originally known as, and is an important for the history of the NDE. Psychical researchers such as Barrett, Bozzano, and Hyslop published on deathbed visions. It was revived by Karlis Osis. You can briefly read about it here link see also here Link 2

Agree or disagree? GreenUniverse (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

NDEs have usually the same structure (core elements) but deathbed visions are more hallucinatory - without the same kind of structure. This is an important difference. Structures can be used for scientific analysis to explain all phenomenons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.123.32 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

More References
Ok I have some references here, but not quite sure where to place them:

Various neurophysiological hallucinations have been proposed for the NDE:

Seizures in the temporal lobes of the brain:


 * Carr, D. (1982). Pathophysiology of stress-induced limbic lobe dysfunction: A hypothesis for NDEs. Anabiosis, 2, 75–89.
 * Persinger, M. A. (1983). Religious and mystical experiences as artifacts of temporal lobe function: A general hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 1255–1262.

Lack of oxygen to the brain


 * Rodin, E. A. (1980). The reality of near-death experiences: A perceptual perspective. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 168, 259–263.

Release of endorphins in the brain:


 * Shaver, P. (1986). Consciousness without the body. [Review of Flight of mind.] Contemporary Psychology, 31, 647.
 * Blackmore, S. J. (1993). Dying to Live.  Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Random firing of cells in the visual cortex of the brain:


 * Blackmore, S. J. (1991). Near-death experiences: In or out of the body? Skeptical Inquirer, 16, 33–45
 * Blackmore, S. J. (1992). Glimpse of an afterlife or just the dying brain? Psi Researcher, No. 6., 2–3.
 * Siegel, R. K. (1980). The psychology of life after death. American Psychologist, 35, 911–931.

GreenUniverse (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You should read Dr. Moody´s book ´Life after Life´; e.g. chapter ´Hearing the news´: NDEs were usually started when people hear that they were pronunced dead (by doctors or other persons) - or when they thought by themselves that they will die. A person who can hear/think is in a state of consciousness/awareness, the brain is working as usual as it works always - this is neither a hallucination nor a dying process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.211.174 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be correct, but that is not the way wikipedia works. Wikipedia relies on the accepted scientific view on things like this, and the scientific view is that they are hallucinations relating to brain activity, thats what the scientists say. GreenUniverse (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All NDE-research is mainly based on Moody´s book ´Life after Life´. And there you can read, that to hear/think of dying will start the NDE. Additional you can read (e.g. in chapter ´The being of light´, that it is possible to see clearly the surrounding area in details - parallel to the NDE. This is the result of a undisturbed mind and not of a hallucination.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.228.64 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 217 I understand that Moody's book was an important book, and it did make the concept of the NDE popular to the general public but mainstream science does not take his views seriously. Moody himself believes he has had 9 past lives etc. His beliefs may be popular by new agers but when it comes to science it is not taken seriously. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

More possible sources:




 * reviewed 1 (positive)


 * reviewed 2 (critical)















Just trying to contribute to an advance in the topic. Smkolins (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of these sources are not reliable. Of course we can have a section on the article explaining what the "new age" or "metaphysical" view of NDE's is etc, but we also need to explain the scientific view. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that sectioning is perfectly valid for all the information that supports the phenomena. Not to say it is established fact but it's debated in more than one place. The more biologically driven the researcher the more biologically driven are the interpretations of the phenomena but it is not the only predilection in explanation out there. So for reliability... care to be specific in your complaint of not reliable? I'm not saying they are all of the same reliability but I don't see anything simply failing reliability. Smkolins (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is down to the fact that some of those papers you cited are from parapsychology journals, we of course need to present the accepted scientific view, but the psychical view could also be discussed. Parapsychologists have published some interesting papers, see here for example A Search for the Truth of Near Death Experiences but adding many of these and you could be accused of pushing a fringe view. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One should not "push" anything. I'm not aware there's been enough inquiry to decide an accepted scientific view. Certainly there are materialists who accept nothing without measurement and much of NDE escapes measurement. But apparently more than 80% of the universe defied measurement until very recently. This isn't to just make stuff up and say wow - this is to be a bit humble in our determinations of what is true. Earnest investigation unblinded by presumptions of all kinds is surely in order. Smkolins (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:GreenUniverse has been blocked as a sock of banned User:BookWorm44. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - well - aside from that then.... another ref to consider including:


 * Smkolins (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Glutamate receptors and NDEs
Something very interesting worth mentioning in this article is the neurotransmitter glutamate. Glutamate antagonists, espicially NMDA receptor antagonists, are strongly associated with NDE-like experiences in people who use those sort of drugs(floating from the body,interacting with "superior" beings, etc). Many proponents who claim NDEs are proof of an afterlife often point to studies in which cardiac arrest patients(who lack electrical activity in the brain) report near death experiences. Glutamate antagonists are known to temporarily stop electrical activity in the brain. Not saying these means NDEs are absolutely biological experiences but it's something worth mentioning http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/Sabo.html Poppurrpop (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bosch Picture.
Please see Talk:Parapsychology for discussion of use of the Bosch image as a depiction of an NDE thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dissociatives
I would be glad to see somebody add a mention about how some studies have shown that such dissociative substances as ketamine and PCP trigger experiences similar to those of near-death experiences, including out-of-body experiences. This article has already come close to it by citing works where the fact is mentioned. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of body experiences are already explained and understood. Good literature to the topic ´lucid dreaming´ even offers instructions for those experiences; included flying to remote places and movement through doors/walls. And experiments demonstrate that OBEs are only a mental construction of our mind: see e.g. body swap illusion, rubber hand illusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.126.125 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of OBEs: WE are a virtual simulation (like an avatar) - we are a mental creature which is created by our mind/brain. By the perception of our physical body (kinesthesia), by vision and the sense of equilibrium and with contact to our environment we feel us then as a real person in a real body. But when the contact to the physical body is disturbed (e.g. during sleep, or with drugs), then the brain is free to send the virtual avatar wherever it will - then we have the illusion to move out of the body/to fly. But in reality the brain can use only the contents/knowledge of the own memory, to send us away. In Dr. Moody´s book ´Life after Life´, chapter ´Out of the Body´, he used the term ´spiritual body´ - this is the same as ´avatar´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.219.5 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Melvin Morse and his personal life
I reverted a note about NDE researcher Melvin Morse being arrested for allegedy having waterboarded his 11 year old stepdaughter. The relevance for his NDE research during the 80's is not clear and besides that, the full truth about the incident not yet known. See this thread at the sceptical JREF forum for example, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=241579 where this link is given: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018887761_apusdoctorsdaughterwaterboarding3rdldwritethru.html?syndication=rss "Hurley, the attorney, said the 11-year-old has some "opposition issues" and had complained to her parents several years ago about being abused by a half-sibling. He said the parents contacted authorities and the half-sibling was arrested, but that the girl confessed months later that the incident never happened and that she just didn't want the half-sibling living in the house." Besides, Mr Morse doesn't have his own page here, does that mean he isn't considered a prominent researcher enough, or is it because nobody has bothered to do it? According to BLP, A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Hepcat65 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Victor Egger
Hi. This edit by IP user 91.180.143.6 was just reverted by SkepticalRaptor due to the fact that it was improperly sourced. The editor used a primary source. However, there are plenty of secondary sources that support this contention, a sample of which include:   Would it not have been better to allow the content to stand and simply added reliable sources? The excised content is as follows:

Also, I assume it wouldn't be problematic to add a source to support the statement that Plato's Myth of Er contains the first known account of NDE? Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd probably adjust the paragraph to something like, 'The cognate term 'Expérience de mort imminente' (experience of imminent death) was proposed by the French philosopher and psychologist ...' FiachraByrne (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I can only speak for myself, I would not oppose the addition. My problem was the unexplained addition of this material without proper sourcing. I do not think it's fair for someone to add something to an article and expect SkepticalRaptor—or another editor—to clean it up. The original editor seems to prefer to edit-war rather than discussing the situation here, which is gonna invite trouble if he's not careful.


 * I hope it doesn't come to that. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Uncle Bubba (why do I feel so weird writing that?) I appreciate what you're saying but I presume the other editor is new to Wikipedia and, from the terms used above, a non-native English speaker. Anyhow, I'm trying a gentler approach. It may not work but we'll see. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fiachra, I hope it works—I really do. I spend most of my time doing recent-change patrolling and that does tend to color my outlook on things. I hadn't noticed that his IP is allocated to a Belgian ISP, so you're probably right about the language thing. Thanks for pointing it out.


 * I'm from the U.S. state of Georgia, by the way, where the nickname "Bubba" is very common. I used this handle some years back when playing video games with my nephews, and it stuck—they call me Uncle Bubba to this day. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Revue Philosophique" is secondary source dating from the 19th century, not a primary source! The content of my adding is exact and must not be delete according of the mood of SkepticalRaptor.  If he judge that this adding is incorrectly sourced, he can add a tag like {Verify source} and dispute it before deleting.--91.180.143.6 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lay off. I wasn't the only one reverting your efforts. You edit warred without any effort to discuss. You're lucky I didn't feel like having you blocked for 5RR or whatever you were at. You're still not discussing your effort, you're just accusing people of shit. I don't have time to clean up every edit I see, especially on an article like this one, where people just throw stuff on here. So, do you want to clean up your one edit that you've done? Or do you just want to continue this inane conversation? Or do you want to delete conversations with which you don't agree again? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that 91.180.143.6 has attempted to remove a substantial number of other users' comments from this page, which is not allowed by WP policy (see WP:TPO). I've attempted to reverse the damage; if I've made a mistake, please correct it or let me know. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 05:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the diffs match up well. You done good. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're at 5RR with the IP editor. Someone needs to take him out to the woodshed with the 24 hour block. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right but, since he's on a dynamic IP (Belgian ISP), he can easily get a new address, so I requested semi-protection of the page, instead (see ) L8R! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 05:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's go a little easy here, please. May I suggest that this addition is properly sourced with an additional reference, and suggest that it be included with the following adjusted wording:


 * The cognate French term 'Expérience de mort imminente' (experience of imminent death) was proposed by the French psychologist and epistemologist Victor Egger as a result of discussions in the 1890s among philosophers and psychologists concerning climbers' stories of the panoramic life review during falls. These experiences were popularized with the work of psychiatrist Raymond Moody in 1975 as the Near-Death Experience (NDE). Moody was unaware of the expression earlier used by Egger.

A word to the wise for our IP user, who is probably a newbie, should be all that it takes. How about a little WP:AGF. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed—it should be, but it's obviously not (read the histories on the various pages). You could WP:AGF yourself, you know, by familiarizing yourself with the pertinent facts of a case before making pronouncing judgement on other editors' conduct. The IP has now been blocked for 24h for disruptive behavior. 'Nuff said. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'am agree with the addition of IP user 91.180.143.6 and the modification proposed by EPadmirateur--Cayau qui bique (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my naivety and irrational optimism in human nature, Uncle Bubble BUBBA and SkepticalRaptor. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, this change was made by a sock evading a block. And the new account above, User:Cayau qui bique, doesn't count, because all I have to do is submit a sock puppet request, and I'm sure that will be another blocked sock evasion, so that doesn't count for any consensus. But EPadmirateur's change is sufficient for me.
 * Semantically 'near death' or 'imminent death' has the same meaning. I don't aggree with the idea that Moody was unaware of the original french expression. The expressions 'near death experience' and 'imminent death experience' are too close to be due to chance. But, I don't want to be drawn into an argument on this issue.  I made a choice between objectivity and consensus.--91.180.186.235 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fiachra, I'm not quite sure what the "bubble" thing means, but my previous reply was in response to EPadmirateur's message, not yours. Nevertheless, I'm OK with EPadmirateur's proposed addition; it seems properly sourced and has been explained. I am not OK with sockspuppetry, though, but I'll not accuse anyone without asking, first, so: Cayau qui bique, are you the same person as either 91.180.143.6 or 91.180.186.235? &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 02:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Bubba. The typing of Bubble was a typo - hence my strike-through and correction. My previous comment was in relation to my naive initial response to the IP user who is now blocked. No, I'm not a sock-puppet. I've been editing on and off here for since about 2007 - and with this account from about 2009 (?) I think - you can check my previous user account on my user page. This page is on my watch list so I probably made some kind of edit here some time ago but it's likely that was merely adding a category to it (which would be a psychiatric one - as I normally edit history of psychiatry pages) or perhaps the article interested me at the time, I don't know. But I have no strong interest in this article or any particular interpretation of NDE. In fact, I'm not sure why a page like this would have such a sock puppet problem unlike more controversial articles. Anyhow, please go ahead and ask for an investigation of whether I'm sock. I'd prefer that to be resolved as conclusively as possible than for you to think otherwise. My opinion on the edit is that it is fine. FiachraByrne (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry--we're misunderstanding each other and I think I made it worse by not splitting my last post into two paragraphs. The question about the sock was directed, not at you, but at Cayau qui bique. I apologize for any confusion I caused by not inserting a paragraph break; it was not my intent to accuse you of anything. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 14:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah that's ok ... probably my latent paranoia played a role too. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good Evening, as was said above, I have a dynamic IP address. It changes every time I turn off my computer. The two IP addresses are mine but I am neither Caillaux qui bique nor EPadmirateur or FiachraByrne. I have only one goal, to provide relevant documented information. This is the case of my adding about Egger and Moody. Sketicraptor and UncleBubba are reached so inoportune and robustly because they didn't want to check in advance the information I provided. Special thanks to EPadmirateur who have made ​​the effort to attach more importance to substance over form.--91.180.186.235 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear the original source used to support the addition of Victor Egger was primary (Egger Victor, « Le moi des mourants », Revue Philosophique, 1896, XLI : 26-38). That is, primary for any statement about Victor Egger as it was an article by Victor Egger. A secondary source would be a source by an author other than Victor Egger writing about Victor Egger. An article by Victor Egger to support an addition about Victor Egger does not become secondary because it was published in a periodical (why would it after all?). FiachraByrne (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for this additional information, it is a primary source but still a reliable source.--91.180.186.235 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not advocating for its removal so long as its coupled with a secondary source. However, the use of primary sources is circumscribed on WP. Basically, their use is merely descriptive and illustrative; interpretation must come from reliable secondary sources. If you look at the original edit it contains two components in particular that would have required support from a secondary source. One is the equation of NDE with expérience de mort imminente. You may think it likely that these terms, one a late 19th century French term of philosopher-psychologist and the other coined by an American popular author writing in the 1970s, are equivalent.You may be able to convince me of that through your knowledge of these texts. However, that is necessarily an interpretation of the primary literature which constitutes original research. Original Research is verbotten on WP (WP:OR. You require a secondary source to make that point for you. Likewise the sentence also stated that the concept of expérience de mort imminente emerged from a dialogue between intellectuals in the late 19th century concerning the reported experiences of some climbers who, when falling during their climbs, had undergone "panoramic life review" (I assume this is the same as the English-language term of one's life flashing before one's eyes?). Even if you can justify this statement with reference to Egger's article you require a secondary source to support it as it is necessarily an interpretation of the context out of which the term emerged. WP:PRIMARY FiachraByrne (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, there is no secondary source saying that Moody was unaware with the Egger's expression. This assertion need also a reference.--91.180.186.235 (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

About my modifications concerning the van Lommel's article : primary source, the article of van Lommel (online : http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm), secondary source, an article of Thonnard et al. (http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/papers/french/Thonnard_RMLg08.pdf). In French, sorry for some aren't French-speaking, I give a translation (P. 441). "Of 344 patients interviewed, 62 (18%) had some memories of their period of unconsciousness and 41 of them (12%) had experienced a core NDE (Tables II and IV).--91.180.186.235 (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

effects
"Doctors treating the patient, a 22-year-old woman with epilepsy, found that when they stimulated a brain region called the left temporoparietal junction, the patient sensed the presence of a sinister figure behind her who copied her actions. " [in Nature 20 September 2006. Online : http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060918/full/060918-4.html 91.180.190.99 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement that needs a reputable source
The Effects section contains the statement, The left temporo-parietal junction is involved in the feeling of a sinister figure's presence behind us who copied our actions. No source is given for that claim, and it really needs one. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Look up ... FiachraByrne (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having said that the Nature article refers to a single patient. Has this been replicated anywhere? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I rewrote this statement after having read the original article of the researchers. However, I still think this sentence should be removed from the article. It has happened to ONE patient, this experiment is done in 2006, it is only cited in three other articles, so it is not at all accepted knowledge. The result, the illusion of a person close to the patient, is very m much primary-source data. Furthermore, what is the connection of this illusion and near death experiences? The author of the article does not say anything about near death, so having this sentence here, is original research. Please, comment!  Lova Falk     talk   06:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the the original brief report and the news version  and there is no mention of NDE. It is discussed in relation to schizophrenic symptoms relating to embodiment. Therefore, as it stands the sentence is WP:SYNTH and should be removed. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blanke has published material linking NDEs, the TPJ, sensed presences and those researchers' work here so I'm not so sure about OR / SYNTH.  I suspect Michael Persinger of God helmet fame could provide a degree of corroborative sourcing.  He's very into stimulation of the cortex to produce subjective perception of presences. K2709 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a sythesis if the sentence is based on a primary source that doesn't talk about presences in relation to NDEs. The source you quote above is excellent, however, and I'd fully support the addition of content that summarised its conclusions. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Shared Death Experiences
I had entered the following section to the article that was deleted by SkepticalRaptor on the grounds that it was an "unsupported statement." I did give a book reference at the end of the section (please see below.) How might I better support this section such that it would remain in the article? Thanks! Original section below:

topher67 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

External references
Here are three reasonable external references I have been able to find:


 * Shared Near-Death and Related Illness Experiences (2001) link
 * A Search for the Truth of Near Death Experiences (2011)link
 * Near-Death-Like Experiences without Life-Threatening Conditions or Brain Disorders. (2012) link

topher67 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That last ones seems good - let us see how the participants in the practice and journal publishing realm react to it. Smkolins (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could we add that reference to the article? Topher67 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

With Google search ["Immortality project" Pfeiffer] you can find on Pfeiffers blog a comment with a free read, where all NDE-phenomenons are described by a single explanation model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.235.108 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Eben Alexander, M.D.
Eben Alexander, M.D., is not a proper biographical article. Can anyone here help with that--Pawyilee (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)?
 * Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ketamine and Near-death experience ?
It is said that all features of a Near-death experience can be induced by Ketamine, as cited in this site: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

How do you think about the theorem that Near-death experience like experiences can be induced by Ketamine and thus Near-death experiences may also be hallucinogens, should we make a reference to such a theorem?--EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 23:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To include this, we will need coverage in reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know a man who had an accident where only his car was touched by another car. He was not hurt but had a NDE with a life-review. There are a lot of similar NDEs where health is not disturbed. Therefore the ketamine-theory might be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.255.219 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your acquaintance's personal experience and your interpretation of the Ketamine theory in light of that story are original research. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

‎Intrasomatic Model
The Intrasomatic model Theory which has been added is a non notable fringe theory, it apparently appears in one paranormal book, but searching for "Intrasomatic model" reveals no hits at all, this may well be original research. I originally deleted it, but reverted for a consensus. Please offer any opinions. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Smkolins (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of new sources
Just found these recent papers here and here that could be added to the article, any thoughts? Fodor Fan (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Need more time to review but on the face of it yes - just a matter of intelligently integrating them.... Smkolins (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Neuropsychiatrist Dr. Peter Fenwick
Dr. Fenwick is a respected MD and a well-known researcher in the NDE and ELE fields. Could his findings be incorporated into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.160.36 (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just need reliable references - on topic, scholarly vs self-published, etc. Smkolins (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

NDE Research and Wikipedia manual of style
After reading the abstracts of a few papers on NDEs, it is clear that some of the "scientific" research into NDEs comprises papers that are in gross violation of scientific norms and the Wikipedia manual of style. One example: "According to the 2013 PLOS ONE article by Thonnard et al., near-death experiences cannot be considered as imagined event memories". This is more or less a direct quote from the article's abstract, but this sentence also happens to be in violation of the following principle: under normal scientific discourse, if a human being utters a sentence, it is said that "the person speaks on the basis of memory". It is also said that "those memories are formed on the basis of perception". According to the standard Platonic framework, a perception is an imagined event. In fact, the root of the word "imagine" is "image", in metaphorical congruence with Plato's famous allegory of the cave. The event is said to be "constructed in consciousness" on the basis of the raw sense data. Descartes also weighs in on this topic (Meditations of First Philosophy). This trend of establishing the meaning of words and concepts was carried on by Karl Popper.

My point is that these works form conventions of communication in the scientific community.

As a matter of standard use of the English language, there is no difference between "experiences reported to an investigator" and "imagined event memories reported to an investigator". By convention, the two phrases alias one another, they refer to the same thing. The very definition of an "experience" is "imagined event memory". Now, I have no problem with philosophical and linguistic innovations. I think this is how civilization progresses! I do, however, have a very serious problem with prevarication in the realm of science. What we have are philosophical and linguistic ideas that are presented as medical research. This is profoundly deceptive and a very serious ethical violation. I sincerely hope that the NDE crowd shifts from a practice of scientific deception to a practice of philosophical innovation, because this appears to be the fundamental operating principle. I am ENTHUSIASTIC about the possibilities for the evolution of language and philosophy, but I am DISMAYED at the deceptive tactics.

In short, the Wikipedia manual of style does not get thrown out the window because a group of scientists publish material that contains nonsense sentences. Please be respectful of the norms of the Wikipedia community and edit the article in accordance with the manual of style. Thank you. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, our article is simply reporting what the authors say in their paper. It's not like the terminology was invented for this article.  What do you suggest our article should say instead? Looie496 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Looie496. It seems you are taking issue with the claims made by the referenced article. That is fine and I think I might agree with your criticism but if we threw out every article that someone thought had an error in it as not being consistent with Wikipedia standards we wouldn't have very many articles left. To show its not an appropriate reference you have to show that the journal it was published in isn't reputable or other more fundamental issues like that IMO. BTW, I'm also a skeptic of NDE and don't think most of the people doing this work are very good scientists. I just don't agree with your particular criticism. Mdebellis (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool...But where's the essence?
WOW! Now THAT is an interesting page :)But I still don't understand if the Near-death experience is like visiting Heaven/God and coming back to prove it or just a phenomena that rarely happens when on anesthezia/clinical death/heart arrest beacause you literally die and when you die you're supposed to go towards the light and see God... And while waiting to go to Heaven/Hell you see your whole life with like fast-motion... So I think it's like you get back from the deads... And now resuscitation is really starting to creep me out :C (Because it means that when you loose pulse you are heading towards the light and your soul is leaving your body but it gets back somehow :X)Andrew the Wiki-man (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

With Google-search ["What science really says about the soul"], an article by Stephen Cave can be found on skeptic.com. Here we can read, that a perception of the environment is not possible without senses who deliver signals to the brain. This means: a person where the senses are working is alive. Dr. Moody wrote alredy 1975 in his book ´life after life´ that it is possible to perceive the surrounding environment parallel to NDEs. This parallel action mean: a person is alive when the NDE occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.224.72 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Variants Section
Someone can add more info to the Cultural Variances section.. Frogger48 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some possible resources:


 * Note pages 266–300 are brief surveys of religions responding to various questions.


 * actually most of the chapters relate to western/non-western issues



I'll look around for more. --Smkolins (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (might be hard to find but perhaps the citation will help)






 * --Smkolins (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Near-Death Experiences completely explained, ISBN: 978 3 8448 5290 5, ISBN ebook: 978 3 8448 4806 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.247.250 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Group NDEs and Shared Death Experiences (SDEs)
I strongly feel there should be a separate section about experiences shared by more than one individual. There are two distinct types:
 * Group near-death experience: where more than one person "dies" (e.g. on the battle field.) See near-death.com
 * Shared death experience: where someone actually dies but the "other-world" experience is shared by healthy people at the bedside. See Deathbed phenomena

Thoughts?

Topher67 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Need more the near-daeth.com --Smkolins (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As this is a fairly rare event, additional references are hard to find. Here is one mind-energy.net Topher67 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Atypical NDEs
Another way to categorize these would be under an "Atypical NDEs" section, as has been done in the howstuffworks.com article (see mention of shared NDEs):

Atypical NDEs

Some NDEs have elements that bear little resemblance to the "typical" near-death experience. Anywhere from one percent (according to a 1982 Gallup poll) to 25 percent (according to some researchers) of subjects do not experience feelings of peace, nor do they visit Heaven or meet friendly spirits. Instead, they feel terrified and are accosted by demons or malicious imps. They may visit places that fit Biblical descriptions of Hell, including lakes of fire, tormented souls and a general feeling of oppressive heat.

There have been a few reports of shared NDEs, in which someone connected to the dying person accompanies them on their out-of-body journey. This might take the form of a dream that occurs at the same time that the subject was near death. Children have also been the subjects of NDEs. Very young children tend to report surreal experiences that have some common NDE elements. As children get older, their religious teachings often color their NDEs with more spiritual connotations, such as meeting God or Jesus.

A small percentage of NDE subjects report a prophetic vision that reveals to them the fate of earth and humanity. This is generally an apocalyptic vision showing the end times, but some report visions of humanity evolving into higher beings. One group of subjects, unknown to each other, reported that the world would end in 1988.

Topher67 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Section so added. Totalizerz (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The REM section needs correcting
Last sentence of the REM section lacks a predicate. Maybe the "and" should be deleted. Svato (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking at that, I removed the whole sentence. None of the references for it meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness outside the brain
Consciousness is the result of a brains biological neuronal activity. Therefore it make no sense to use this term for the idea, that consciousness outside the brain might be possible. As long as there is no prove for an external biological brain, this term is only a pun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.229.132 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It has not been proven that consciousness is created in the brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.247.70 (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness is not be the result of brain's activity, unlike thought, behavior and self-awareness. It is universal phenomenon of existence's self-perception through self-aware beings. You maybe don't understand what consciousness really is. Or may be you don't have consciousness. 109.161.83.225 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of religious ideas of consciousness being separate from the body. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Near-death experience (paranormal) be merged into Near-death experience. As far as I can tell, there is little or no significant difference between the subject of the two pages, and the content of the "(paranormal)" page could be used to bolster this page's content. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;"> Iago Qnsi  06:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. One is focussed around studies of near death experience, while the other is a fringe perspective about the afterlife. Second Quantization (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree - I don't think there is a line separating the two in the world at large - it is a matter of spectrum and in proportion should be represented. --Smkolins (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. (This has only just been separated off from Near-death experience, which I will call the "main page".) I think the title of this page suggests that everything on the main page is clearcut medical science, and just this section is supernatural (that is what "paranormal" is newspeak for). But actually all of the data regarding NDEs consists of anecdotal experience, while in a state where the brain is not functioning exactly normally. In fact the main page is permeated by references to religion in particular. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not fix this article up then? Second Quantization (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge Encyclopedic coverage of Near-death experience can encompass both Studies of near death experience and brief coverage of fringe perspectives in one article. Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing brief about the other article, ~12 KB, Second Quantization (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm saying it should be brief. Tommy Pinball (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I aggree.

Merge per WP:POVFORK. It needs to be balanced in treatment per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is not about balance. In this case that would be "false balance". Second Quantization (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge I'm not sure yet if "anonymous" users can vote (and this is a static address), but I find it makes no sense to keep the two separate. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Distressing NDE section issues
Please menation the number of cases studied by Rommer (2000,2001) and the means of selection. This is a crucial information to judge the statistical significance of the result. Please also state what the Types I-IV of NDEs are (the descriptions don't match those in the above classification section which only covers three levels).

In addition: Did B. Rommer consider selection effects e.g. because suicide-attempt survivers may be more likely willing to report negative NDEs (e.g. in order to give a warning to others) than other people with NDE? Could there also be moral or suicide-prevention aspects cause a positive suicide NDEs to be reported less frequently than negative ones? Kenneth Ring mentioned in one of his books (from 1984) that he didn't find any statistically significant correlation between the kind of NDE and its cause (indcluding suicide attempts).

As far as I know did Raymond Moody insert an anti-suicide section to the appendix of Life After Life in order to deter readers from committing suicide (and maybe also to prevent being sued by relatives of suicide victims). The German author Jörgen Bruhn mentioned this in his book Blicke hinter den Horizont ("Views behind the horizon").--SiriusB (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

NDEs and religion
Science is not the only discipline looking at NDEs. Some sources:


 * Note pages 266–300 are brief surveys of religions responding to various questions.




 * Smkolins (talk)

NDEs and religion
Science is not the only discipline looking at NDEs. Some sources:


 * Note pages 266–300 are brief surveys of religions responding to various questions.




 * Smkolins (talk)

A possible new source
Here is a possible new source, for the ones who might want to dig up and add anything useful into the article:. Logos (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, that principle says that articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. But what do we have here?

Afterlife claims section – is written entirely from the point of view of ‎scientific skepticism. There were a few attempts to make it more neutral, but they were in vain.

In February of 2013‎ there was a more neutral version of this section (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Near-death_experience&diff=541010492&oldid=541009734) but it obviously didn't work out very well. At least it mentioned all the views concerning the relationship between the NDE and the afterlife.

I would personally remove that section from this article completely, but maybe someone could make a combination between the most recent version and the version from 2013. But either way, things can't stay this way, in my opinion. I would also remove the “standard hypothesis” section and replace it with something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_studies#Explanatory_models

But all that aside, “Further reading” and “External links” are to all referenced to skeptical sources. I don't think that I need to explain where the problem here is. There is nothing wrong with skepticism and physiological/psychological models of the NDE, but this whole article tries to take that point of view. Ironrage (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a neutral point of view is the goal. This does not mean, however, that we give equal weight to all theories. If we did, our articles on 9/11 would not state that terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Instead, we would present that along with equal presentation of the ideas that the planes were remote-controlled "dummy" planes crashed into the WTC after the real planes had been taken to a secret U.S. military base. Additionally, George H.W. Bush's birth info would be presented alongside the idea that he is actually a human-alien hybrid.
 * The 9/11 conspiracy theories, lizardman "hypothesis" and NDE as "soul"-leaving-the-body idea are fringe ideas: "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Mainstream science does approach NDE claims skeptically. This is the view of mainstream science.
 * "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." WP:VALID


 * If you have specific complaints, please explain them more specifically. Are there sources included that are not reliable? Are there reliable sources that are excluded? Is there material presented that does not accurately reflect what the sources say? Pointing to a past version that you feel is "better" than the current version is too general to really evaluate. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with not giving equal weight to the transcendental model of NDEs. In fact, when it comes to that model there isn't much to talk or write about. But it is one of the three explanations which have been put forward to explain the phenomena, even in the book which coined the term NDE in 1975. It is considered by many who had an NDE as self-evident, and it is the model favored by several NDE researchers – and there are specific reasons and arguments for that. At least it deserves to be mentioned and explained. But it's true that there is yet no scientific evidence for that model. Psychological and physiological models are different, they are something that science can more easily empirically investigate. - Ironrage (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The mainstream neuroscientific view on this topic is that the NDE is a hallucination. Many scientific papers demonstrate this going back to the 1960s. The reason a lot of fringe claims about the afterlife were removed from the article is because they are not reliable sources i.e. linked to paranormal books or fringe journals. But yes the afterlife section is not complete though and it will be expanded with more information and yes some fringe academics like Moody and Greyson support a transcendental or survivalist interpretation of the NDE. You said yourself there they do not deserve equal weight and you are correct. I do not see what the problem is. Goblin Face (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Really, and that's proven? I would rather say that neuroscience as a interdisciplinary field operates under the "assumption" of physicalism (i.e. that brain function is both a sufficient and necessary cause of mind) and that they are trying to explain the NDE under that paradigm, and that the exact nature of the NDE is still unknown. There are still some open questions and problems left, imo.

There is no serious problem per se, but please fix and expand the article (especially the afterlife section) so that there is a certain neutrality. - Ironrage (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There needs to be plenty of sources to prove that mainstream scientific view is this or that. People refer to "mainstream scientific view" or "clear scientific consensus" easily, but fail to provide any citation. The same goes for Talk:Afterlife. Let's not assume something per se and provide sources. Logos (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to his claim that the NDE is a hallucination (the physiological model). The naturalistic explanations might be able to account for some core features of the NDE (this is debatable), but the model itself is speculative. What Goblin said is simply strange. As if it is known for certain that that model is true.

But anyway, i agree with you. Neither are the sources in this article sufficient to "prove" that the scientific consensus is on the side of the physiological model, which is by itself IMO a incorrect sentence, as i mentioned before. - Ironrage (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many scientific papers published in reliable neuroscience, psychological journals etc that indicate the NDE is a hallucination and I added some of these to the article. I think it is ignorant if you want to ignore these even when they are on the article - for example Logos says the article "fail[s] to provide any citation" when there are about thirty or so scientific papers on the article which demonstrate what the consensus view is. Wikipedia is not interested in personal opinion, we go by what the mainstream/reliable sources say on this topic. Scientific research from experiments does not know everything about the NDE, but we have enough evidence to know that various neurological triggers are the cause and that we are dealing with a hallucinatory phenomenon. It is all in the brain, there is no scientific evidence for the afterlife. Just because mainstream scientists don't know absolutely everything about the NDE down to the tiniest detail they don't start putting magical Gods or spirits in the gap. Goblin Face (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're just interpreting my comment as you like. Article may provide many citations, but those citations/papers may not use a language that you claim that they use. Give us the numbers of the most strong -accessible- references/papers, the language/wording of which you think reflect prove either mainstream scientific view or clear scientific consensus, so that we can check. Logos (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, guess based on which sources have i formed my "personal opinion". You didn't said anything that i didn't know before. Everything that i wrote is in fact what neuroscientist have said.

And it has nothing to do with the "god of the gaps" argument. But it has a lot to do with being agnostic/neutral in the face of insufficient evidence. - Ironrage (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note I added some reliable sources above on religious views of the afterlife and NDEs. The discipline of neuroscience isn't the only one with a pov about what's going on. --Smkolins (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I read now one of the research by Dr. Bruce Greyson on OBEs. He is very biased after reading the conclusion of his newest work but one thing in his newest study is interesting that people who had seizures had also NDE experience or similar to them. A example from his study. Keep in mind that this person had only a seizure:

"...He had a profoundly beautiful experience in which a person he had known previously came to him “in an angel form” to show him a woman he would later marry, but whom he had not yet met at that time. Around 4–5 years ago he had a second out-of-body experience during a seizure: he again felt he left his body and was flying, but this time encountered no one. He had beautiful feelings of peace, love, and “oneness,” feeling that everything was interconnected; and he felt that his marriage, which was failing at that time, held a profound meaning of which he was previously unaware. This was the only patient to report a pleasurable out-of-body sensation or to attribute any spiritual significance to it..."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923147/pdf/fnhum-08-00065.pdf

It is only one the others reported different experiences but the same happens in NDEs. Some people have even hellish NDEs or even NDEs that are like a Cthullu nightmare with a giant eating worm etc(http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/william_l_nde.htm).. So I am also going for the hallucination part. NRichter18 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, unless there are giant eating worms in the afterlife :) Goblin Face (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Beautiful blue-eyed women are reserved for neutral/objective scientists, while worms are for skeptics. Logos (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy Eben Alexanders book. It has so many errors and nonsense that I am not even starting with it. Not to mention that IANDS along with Bruce Greyson helped to write the book. No bias at all(sarcasm). I read it but it is full of logical errors and another problem he had also a butterfly in there a giant one. So what did the worms hatched? Also a person who visited heaven according to his words. I think should behave like a monk and not a movie star who wants more money. There will be even a movie about Eben Alexander(http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61167) and he even lied before when he covered up a screwed operation of his the pdf is no longer available but other sites have the same info(http://www.maverick-atheism.org/2013/08/disproof-of-eben-alexanders-proof-of.html). NRichter18 (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All Some of these critics are in Eben Alexander, except $59 webinar and lawsuits, boy. Why don't you update Eben's article then, for the sake of neutrality. Even if his brain (or parts of it) had shut down, he can't prove (nor can have an idea of) exactly when he experienced heaven, before shut down, after resume, or in between; for the sense of time is different in dreams/hallucinations. Logos (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the introduction is very misleading: "The scientific community considers the NDE to be a hallucination caused by various neurological factors such as cerebral anoxia, hypercarbia, abnormal activity in the temporal lobes or brain damage.[8][9][10][11] Whilst some parapsychologists and NDE researchers have pointed to them as evidence for an afterlife and mind-body dualism.[12][13]" (I might add that the words "Whilst ... dualism" do not constitute a grammatically correct English sentence.) In my view, Ironrage above pretty much nails it when (s)he points out: a) neuroscience operates under physicalist paradigm and therefore quite naturally, will attempt a physicalist explanation of NDEs; and b) that the exact nature of NDEs is currently unknown. Parapsychologists, too, operate under a paradigm --- one that allows for something beyond the physical. Furthermore, the paragraph assumes an artificial classification the world into the scientific community, parapsychologists and NDE researchers. However, not only are there people both in the scientific and in the parapsychology community who would deem themselves NDE researchers; some (all?) parapsychologists would view themselves as scientists. So the classification seems inappropriate.

Then, as Logos points out, claims that "the scientific community considers X" are hard to substantiate. I, for one, do not regard such claims as scientific. Instead, I regard the claim as a POV about the nature of the scientific community --- that it is constituted of a fairly homogeneous group of people who have a homogenous viewpoint about things like NDEs; that, because there a couple of publications linking NDEs and hallucinations, therefore this abstract thing called "the scientific community" regards the one phenomenon as a subset of the other. My experience of "the scientific community" (I am part of it) is that it is far more fractious, heterogeneous and self-critical than that. In the light of the foregoing, I would say that something like the following would be less POV-laden:
 * "Neuroscience seeks to explain NDEs as hallucinations caused by various neurological factors such as cerebral anoxia, hypercarbia, abnormal activity in the temporal lobes or brain damage.[8][9][10][11] Some parapsychology researchers point to NDEs as evidence of an afterlife and of a mind-body dualism.[12][13]"

CarlosChio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any challenge to my suggested change above, I have made the change. --CarlosChio (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The NPOV principle -that articles must not take sides - is permantently hurt in this article: When a person is able to perceive stimuli from the surrounding or to think, then this person is conscious and alive - this is our normal state. Therefore the fist idea to discuss NDEs should be, to discuss NDEs as the experiences of persons who are conscious and alive! But you do not find this idea here in this article. NDEs are only considered as dying experience, as hallucinations or result of a disturbed mind. To ignore and suppress the normal state of a person (conscious and alive) is a severe bungle, which ignore the NPOV-principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.225.18 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The last line with AWARE is not true. Dr. Parnia is misleading the media. Dr. Steven Novella also had a look at it among other people and claims this:

"Parnia, in my opinion, is desperately trying to rescue the study by falling back on simply reporting subjective accounts of what people remember long after the event. This type of information is nothing new, and cannot objectively resolve the debate. The results are also completely unimpressive, perfectly consistent with what we would expect given what is already well documented about human memory.

The only relevant part of the study is Parnia’s admission that the results may be due entirely to confabulation. Spinning of this study in the popular press as evidence of life after death is not justified."

Source: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/

Other skeptical looks: http://web.randi.org/swift/no-this-study-is-not-evidence-for-life-after-death http://god-knows-what.com/2014/10/08/new-evidence-for-life-after-death

NRichter18 (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

English Opening concerns
Not all 9/11 conspiracy theories are equally silly. Engineer after engineer after engineer is questioning the manner of the collapse of WTC 7, for instance. Not all fringe theories are equally silly either, and what should matter is not how false people assume them to be a priori due to their perceived ridiculousness and incompatibility with their worldview, but how good evidence they demonstrably have supporting them. If there is good evidence documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals that George H.W. Bush is a lizardman, then Wikipedia should acknowledge that. Shouldn't science be about data and not about bias? Isn't that the whole point? I highly doubt that there is evidence for lizardmen but again, I don't know because I don't research such claims. However, there are many peer-reviewed scientific studies on the NDE phenomena, and they are finding evidence that they cannot explain with materialism, and state as such. Wikipedia should acknowledge that as well, and not present it as if there's zero evidence of the survival hypothesis when that is demonstrably not the case. Additionally, why has the references to the works of Neal Grossman and Chris Carter been removed from this article? They are some of the most respected writers on the phenomena, and have contributed massively to this field of research. English Opening (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably true that most neuroscientists assume that the NDE is a hallucination, but what does that prove when all neuroscientists who make that assumption aren't aware of the actual data on NDEs? Very little. It's like asking mathematicians their opinion on climate change. I absolutely think neuroscientists should be aware of the NDE literature, because it's of huge importance to neuroscience no matter how you cut it (how can hyper-lucid experiences with enhanced cognition and mentation be so frequently reported during moments when the brain is severely impaired if not entirely shut down?), but they're not. And all their beliefs about the NDE is thus nothing but a wild guess combined with their preconceived notions of how the brain works. Therefore, the only thing that really matters is what the scientists who are studying the NDE has to say about it.


 * Additionally, when you claim that "The reason a lot of fringe claims about the afterlife were removed from the article is because they are not reliable sources i.e. linked to paranormal books or fringe journal", you display a deep catch-22 misunderstanding of... well, everything. First of all, is every book about NDEs "paranormal" unless they start with an unshakable certainty that the NDE must be explained with materialism? What kind of dogmatic attitude is that? Are researchers not even allowed to come to the conclusion that the NDE cannot be explained by materialism, given all the data they've researched? "Yeah, the book argued that the data falsified materialism, thus rendering it the label "paranormal", and thus deemed irrelevant by default." That is the very definition of circular reasoning and dogma. Secondly, what fringe journals are you referencing? The Journal of Near-Death Studies? That's a niche journal, not a fringe one. They allow entries on every perspective on the NDE and what happens to human consciousness as they die in general. If you doubt that, keep in mind that the work of Keith Augustine on NDEs was originally published in that journal. Or better yet, read the journal yourself. English Opening (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * English Opening, the formatting of the talk-page has been problematic and there has been an obvious sock puppet problem on here with users creating single purpose accounts. I put your two comments here so it is easier to read. Remember this talk-page is not a forum it should be used to discuss improvements. I reverted your edit because you were adding in some fringe sources (Chris Carter is a spiritualist author). It is not appropriate to be putting that into the lead, per WP:FRINGE Goblin Face (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, what is the problem with single purpose account as long as the contribution itself is of high quality? Wikipedia is even open to be edited by non-registered users, and that's even the point of this website. Secondly, I was discussing improvement, as you specifically continue to espouse policies which are demonstrably irrational and incompatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. You have not addressed the points I made, and your stated reason for reverting the entry in the main article are due to concerns I've already addressed here which you have not responded to. Chris Carter is not a "spiritual author", please deal with the actual arguments I highlighted as a refutation of that point. Also, why did you remove this entire talk page? It was neither very long or messy (like it was a couple of years back). English Opening (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A single purpose account on controversial articles like this can be problematic. Please read WP:SPA. Secondly going by your editing and writing style you have used this talk-page before on a different account, see WP:SOCK - this is against Wikipedia policy. I am not addressing the points you made because they have nothing to do with the article such as your paranormal beliefs, support of 9/11 conspiracy theories or your personal beliefs about NDEs or criticism of materialism. This talk-page is not a forum. But I will respond to the fringe source you added. Chris Carter is a not a reliable source, he is a paranormal writer and spiritualist not a psychologist or neuroscientist. His book was heavily criticized by Benjamin Radford as promoting pseudoscience . I see no reason why Carter should be mentioned in the lead, I guess he could be cited in the afterlife claims section if you really recommend it, but not undue weight. Goblin Face (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for directing me to WP:SPA. However, as you can see I've edited with a different account in the past, and there is no nefarious purpose behind that, only a loss of the password when my computer crashed (and I hadn't entered an e-mail to have an opportunity to reclaim it). If you review that account, you can also see that I've edited a lot of table tennis articles, and even a chess article with this one.


 * Moving on to your actual points, what are you talking about? I've espoused no beliefs regarding the paranormal, nor 9/11, nor materialism. Where have I ever mentioned the importance of my personal beliefs regarding those topics? All I've done is to mention how others perceive those subjects, which is what Wikipedia is all about. I know this is not a forum, and I'm not making personal arguments, so I don't see why you continue to make that accusation without at least explicitly pointing out where I've done so. Additionally, Chris Carter is no more a "paranormal writer and spiritualist" than Susan Blackmore is. He's written a book on NDEs and jam-packed it with lots of science and philosophy; the bibliography alone is 14 pages long, and most scientists in the field hail it as one the best work on NDEs from a scientific perspective. Just because his conclusion differs from that of Blackmore doesn't make his work any less rigorous or more unscientific.


 * Regarding that review. Firstly, it's indeed a review but it's not necessarily a good review (and I could send you a refutation point by point if you're interested), and at no point in the review does he demonstrate that Carter or parapsychology in general is pseudoscientific (have you even read it?). Secondly, it's written by someone associated with an extremely biased organisation (CSI), and thirdly and most importantly, that review is not about Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death. Yeah, you linked me to a review of one of Carter's other books.


 * The reason Carter's book on NDEs should be mentioned in the lead is because it's widely regarded as the best book on the science of NDEs. He goes through all the data, the history of the research, all of the most prominent theories hitherto proposed to explain the NDE, all the philosophical assumptions that is being made in the context of the discussion, etc. The only competing book would be Irreducible Mind, but it's not nearly as extensive and it doesn't have as clear a focus on NDEs as Carter's book does.


 * Lastly, there is no undue weight here. Most NDE researchers - i.e., the scientists and philosophers who properly familiarize themselves with the totality of the data - come to the conclusion that there's probably something to the whole phenomena. There is of course a lot of debate, discussion and disagreement regarding the strength of the currently existing data, but most researchers agree that there's at least something with the NDE phenomenon that we cannot feasible use materialism as an explanatory framework for. This is what's being found in every major study of the phenomenon as well. The fact that most people and scientists in general who are not familiar with the totality of the NDE data hold the opinion that NDEs are probably hallucinations is a product of exactly that which Grossman is talking about in his essay on the subject, and not because they've carefully reviewed the data and found it lacking. In other words, I agree that most neuroscientists assume that the NDE is a hallucination, but the word assume must be emphasized strongly, because it is exactly what it is - most neuroscientists are completely unfamiliar with the NDE data, and merely assume the cause of the NDE is hallucinatory due to the assumption in that field of inquiry that all experiences are created by the brain.


 * I agree that there should be a mention in the lead that most neuroscientists/the scentific community assumes/believes that the NDE is created by the brain - that is relevant in order to give the reader a proper impression of the state of this field and how it relates to most of academia. However, since most active and knowledgeable researchers of the phenomena is of a completely different opinion, it is not undue weight to point that out in the lead and use the most relevant sources to back it up. English Opening (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Chris Carter and Neal Grossman.. i could say a lot about these guys, but like Goblin said this is not a forum. However, i would just like to highlight one particular part that i think says it all, here are two interesting quotes, the first is from the book on NDEs, and the last one is from the "Four Errors Commonly Made by Professional Debunkers" article from the "debunkingskeptics" site:

“The implicit assumption made in all the arguments discussed above was that the relationship between brain activity and consciousness was always one of cause to effect, and never that of effect to cause. But this assumption is not known to be true” - Chris Carter

“William James (1898) showed, more than a hundred years ago, that (1) the most that the facts of neurology can establish is a correlation between mental states and brain states and (2) correlation is not causation. The data of neuroscience will always be neutral with respect to the hypotheses of (1) causation or materialism…” - Neal Grossman

This here is nothing but a giant straw man of neuroscience research, and when i say giant i mean giant. None of these two authors have any qualifications in neuroscience as far as i can tell – so it's not surprising.

In neuroscience, correlation is established by observation (functional neuroimaging), and causation is established by experimental manipulation. This is in accordance with manipulablity or interventionist theories of causation. And neuroscience as a field is here not alone, as anyone who knows something about science experiments and studies should know. I could post a lot of references and quotes by neuroscientists to support what i have just written. But the important point here is this – why should we post on wikipedia fringe sources which completely misrepresent the science? should we, for example, also post creationist lies on the page for the theory of evolution?

Physicalism is indeed an assumption in neuroscience. However, causation alone is not a very big part of that assumption. Necessity and causation can be determined by experimentation. The assumption is more in the sufficiency part, since physicalism says that only physical entities exist. And for that we have the research program of building AI and AC.

The statement that neuroscientists "merely assume the cause of the NDE is hallucinatory due to the physicalist assumption" is actually to some degree correct, but considers (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consider) is better.

But anyway, i agree with Goblin. Ironrage (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A straw man is indeed being committed, but it is on your end. Chris Carter goes out of his way when arguing for the transmission hypothesis, quoting actual neuroscientists up and down when making his arguments, and does not deny the exceedingly intricate connection between the brain and the mind in everyday life. As he writes on page 12 of his book, "In summary, the various arguments against the possibility of survival are: (1) the effects of age, disease, and drugs on the mind; (2) the effect of brain damage on mental activity and, specifically, the fact that lesions of certain regions of the brain eliminate or impair particular capacities; and (3) the idea that memories are stored in the brain and therefore cannot survive the destruction of the brain. The inference drawn from these observations is that the correlation of mental and physical processes is so close that it is inconceivable how the mind could exist apart from the brain." The transmission theory of consciousness does not deny the close correlations between the mind and the brain, in fact, it embraces it and even predicts it from the very beginning. The only way to differentiate between the transmission theory and the production theory is to look into the extremes, such as what happens to the mind at death, just like we have to look at the extremes of small particles and very high speeds to differentiate between Newtonian mechanics and relativity.


 * By stating that "causation is established by experimental manipulation", you have demonstrably not understood the transmission theory of consciousness at all, or at most have an extremely crude version of it in your mind. Chris Carter explicitly refutes the central point of this argument in page 19-23 of his book, stating that "[...] the fact that certain capacities do not appear to currently function because of impairment due to disease, injury or intoxication does not imply that they have been permanently destroyed. If the mind must inhabit a biological machine in order to operate in and manifest itself in the material world, then as long as it is bound to this machine we should expect its operation and manifestation to be affected by the condition and limitations of the machine. If the machine is impaired, then under both the production hypothesis and the transmission hypothesis, so too will be the operation and manifestation of mind. Both of these theoretical possibilities are consistent with the observed facts of [an Alzheimer's case mentioned by materialist philosopher Paul Edwards]. However, the effects of brain damage and old age on the mind are not consistent with Edwards' crude caricature of the transmission theory, in which causal effect only seems to run from mind to body, and never from body to mind. This seems to be the basis for Edwards' repeated characterization of the instrument theory, and its implications, as "absurd.""


 * When you bring up the creationist lies, you act as if they are having their studies published in major geological and evolutionary journals and being indicative of positive results in favor of that theory. Is this the case? Because it is the case with NDE research and major medical journals. Which leads me to question what fringe sources you are talking about, as this represents the mainstream opinion. On page 200 of his book, Chris Carter quotes Bruce Greyson, psychiatrist, NDE researcher and former editor of the Journal of Near-Death Studies as stating "Without exception, every report of a large study of NDEs published in a mainstream medical journal has concluded that these phenomena cannot be explained as hallucinations. Such unanimity among scientific researchers is unusual and should tell us something. Why is it that scientists who have done the most near-death research believe the mind is not exclusively housed in the brain, whereas those who regard NDEs as hallucinations by and large have not conducted any studies of the phenomena at all?"


 * This demonstrates quite clearly why the term 'assume' is needed, as your very own definition for 'consider' is "to think carefully about", which is precisely not what the vast majority of the neuroscientists believing that the NDE is a hallucination have done. English Opening (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris Carter, he is a spiritualist fringe proponent not a scientist and I have no idea why you keep quoting this guy. There is no point in citing his books on Wikipedia, they are not reliable sources. And before you weigh in - you are not the first to try and add his book. Various sock-puppet accounts turn up every few months or so to various paranormal related articles like Leonora Piper trying to add his book as 'evidence' that spirit communication is real. They are removed every time. WP:FRINGE sources such as Carter are not considered reliable. If you want to make a case then cite some scientific papers. As for Bruce Greyson he is a dualist who has also published fringe papers endorsing souls, telepathy and fringe ideas. He has also published some good scientific papers and respectable work in this field but we don't give undue weight to his fringe views about consciousness after death because his opinion is not accepted by the broad consensus from the scientific community. Goblin Face (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You have already made all of those points, and I have already explicitly refuted the central point of all of them. Why are you still re-stating them instead of refuting what's actually been said? English Opening (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

English Opening - No, the straw man is yours, in every respect of your response. The transmission "hypothesis" and what Carter has to say about it was not at all the subject of my post. Unfortunately, it would take far too much time and space to correct and respond to your arguments. Ironrage (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote mine from English Opening comes from a commentary from Bruce Greyson in response to Keith Augustine. Interestingly if you search for the quote the only 'hit' is from Carter's own book. Carter has a history of misquoting people but I will assume good faith and take this one has not misreported. Greyson says that large studies from "mainstream medical journal has concluded that these phenomena cannot be explained as hallucinations", nonsense considering we have a section on the article "Neurobiological and psychological analysis" (over 40 references to mainstream medical journals) concluding in many cases these experiences can be explained by hallucinations. G.M. Woerlee who has spent many years studying these cases has written "near death experiences are profound and wondrous experiences, but despite the intense and profound emotions and experiences they arouse, they are nonetheless conscious socio-culturally determined hallucinations generated by life-threatening experiences." Goblin Face (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Carter goes out of his way when arguing for the transmission hypothesis", by transmission hypothesis he means brain-as-receiver hypothesis, it is a pseudoscientific hypothesis that has it's origins in 19th century paranormal and parapsychology circles. No progress in over 100 years, it has remained a hypothesis, it is without any testable evidence. What testable predictions has it made? None. What repeatable scientific evidence do we have for it, none. It is a hypothesis looking for "anomalies" or as James Alcock says "based on belief in search of data rather than observation in search of explanation." Steven Novella covers it here "The brain-as-receiver hypothesis is nothing more than a convenient way for dualists to dismiss evidence for the correlation between brain function and mental function. The hypothesis, however, is dependent upon a gross misunderstanding of the state of our knowledge about brain function, and the intimate connection that has been documented in countless ways between brain function and mental function.", there is no reason to be mentioning this pseudoscience on the article. Goblin Face (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
The current article seems rife with WP:UNDUE issues. A significant trim to a more encyclopedic style with due weight given to various sources is needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Bill, do you have any suggestions on how to do this? I honestly do not know how to go about this article anymore and have given up on it. It seems to be over time fringe sources are just going to keep being added and there is no way to stop this - not that I oppose a few fringe sources with suitable weight obviously but there is a constant battle to try and put fringe sources into the lead. Single purpose accounts like above will keep doing this. I have added at least 40 scientific papers demonstrating a possible neurological explanation for the NDE (see Neurobiological and psychological analysis) but this topic is emotional to some people, especially fringe proponents who need to believe it is evidence for an afterlife so there will always be arguments from fringe sources and edit-warring (as demonstrated above). There is not much that can be done I guess other than maybe thin out various sections of the article as it may be too long or undue but I don't have time to do this and such edits will be controversial. Goblin Face (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Post at FTNB. Trim away with ES and a note here. Ping me for input. I understand the frustration with the timesink. Possible RfC or ANI. Perhaps someone at FTNB will rise to the challenge. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The dubious fringe sources to energy-medicine, psychical or spirituality journals were removed. The article is more academic and reliable if journals are cited to psychological or neuroscience journals. Goblin Face (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)