Talk:Religious and physiological views of near-death experiences

POV fork
This is a POV fork. It basically makes out that no paranormal views are scientific. If it is fleshed out to include paranormal scientific research, it would be OK.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title, which I believe takes care of this problem.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Title
The title of this article is spelt wrongly ("religous" instead of "religious"). -- Shoejartalk/edits
 * All grammarical problems in an article or article title can be rightfully corrected by anyone, admin or new member, through the Move command at the top bar. --Chr.K. 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification
Because of the debate over it accusedly having a biased view against paranormal notions to be taken as serious and scientific, I am classifying the page as Start, rather than B, despite the considerable material currently present. --Chr.K. 07:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New explanation model about Near-Death Experiences (NDEs)
If the brain is totally focused on the topic 'I am dying/dead' (as noted in element number 2) and according to element 3: "During the Scan it is possible to observe the own brain, LIVE, how it is working". What/Who is really observing the desesperated brain? Veng 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Our brain is the control unit of a very effective feed-back system. Therefore this is an observeable scan of the memory. Because the informations of the life-review are obviously from the episodic memory. But a human person is an integrated organism, therefore we can presume, that all the other informations (during a NDE) will be also from the same part of the memory. The scan is observed by the own brain/mind. It would be nice, if a neuro-scientist could answer, which part of the brain is responsible for this effect. As far as I know, the hippocampus is necessary to recollect informations from the memory - but it need the help of the temporal lobes.

"2) The human brain has only a limited capacity to process information. This is called inattentional blindness. When his attention is mainly focused on the topic, to find a way out of the situation ´I am dead´, then unimportant sensory impressions are not observed. Therefore a sudden lack of pain is felt, additional a sensation of peace, love, calmness."

- Why pain is not perceived but the observing happens, and the sensations of peace, love and calmness too?

- Aren't peace, love and calmness completely opposite feelings to the given situation?

For me, those statements seems to be indirectly assuming that there is something beyond the physical body.

See ´inattentional blindness´ in this enzyclopedia. Our brain has only a limited capacity for attention, therefore it concentrate its possibilities on the job, to find a way out of the situation ´I am dead´ - the sensations of peace, love and calmness are only side effects.

Some of the things in that whole "new construction" theory seem to really be stretching it. I mean, honestly, you see a white light because as a fetus you could only see light and dark inside of the womb? Right.

It was observed, that a fetus (age: 30 weeks) turned away his head, when/after a spotlight shone on his mothers womb. A fetus can not recognize colours, to distinguish colours is learned by babys in the first year of their life.

There is very little scientific basis in the Kinseher model. It is trying to psychoanalyze the nature of the event rather then use real science to verify it. Very many people who have NDE have very many different circumstances regarding their 9 months in the womb and their birth. Yet the NDE is more consistent than that. Some people who see the "being of light" during a NDE were born premature via C-section and did not see or hear their mother for over a week after birth. The model is too narrow to cover the entire range of birth circumstances and still seem like a plausible connection when compared to the variation of birth circumstances and the similarities in NDE events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.11.87 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Even when a child was born via C-section and did not see the own mother for a week: there are other persons who take care for the new born baby => they are the ´being if light´ (in this special situation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.209.83.8 (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why
I respect the new explanation of ndes, but I do not think that that article needs a whole section. I think it should be shortend.

Instead, how about having two separate sections - one on "religious" and one on "physiological" views. There's no good reason I can see to have both in one section; and "physiological" is the main focus of two the main NDE section and the NDE Studies section.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiskatobis (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
The opening paragraph of this article is written in really clumsy english. I doubt if it was written by a native english speaker which is why I suspected the following quote  'by' Jody Long to be inaccurate :

"One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system."

I have checked the reference that is provided and cannot find this quote. It needs to be removed. I will attempt to rewrite this when I can but if anyone wants to have a crack at it then be bold!--Godfinger 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

questioning a link
The link to the Christian research journal is dubious. It starts with a bit about a woman that wrote a book about a near death experiance but that is as far as the relevance to this article goes. Instead of actually talking about or being sceptical of near death experiances, it instead questioned the integraty of the author who wrote the book because she was a closet "mormon". It then goes into warning parents to avoid Opus Dei and the Catholic Church in general. Please, review this link and if the reading of it is the same as what my oppinion stated here is, I highly suggest removing this link because it does not talk about the actual subject matter at hand, is of a fringe group that potentially are not even what they claim to be (Christian) and are highy bigoted in their writting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.89.146.222 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this article by Abanes and Carden appears to be an editorial or opinion piece rather than a scholarly article. It raises some valid objections to Betty Eadie's account (e.g. lack of access to her medical records) but the bulk of the authors' criticism is that her experience and what she learned through it are not doctrinally "correct" from their particular interpretation of Christianity, and are therefore suspect. In particular, Eadie was evidently a member of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) faith but did not disclose this, perhaps for monetary reasons (her book would have been less popular among certain Christians). The section about Opus Dei is a separate article, unrelated to the article which is being cited. While Abanes and Carden may indeed be showing a particular bias, the obligation to provide all reasonable points of view in a Wikipedia article should be followed, in my opinion. This link is listed among the skeptical links in the article. Readers can form their own opinion about its validity. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

literature
A new - (better and more informatve) - book with the Kinseher model of NTEs is now available: "Verborgene Wurzeln des Glücks - selbstbeobachtbare Gehirnfunktion", BoD, 2008, ISBN 978-3-8334-7378-4, German language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.209.105.100 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This book is on amazon.de but nowhere else via ISBN search yet -- just very recently released. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)