In the ecstatic state, the obliteration of the physical body is almost complete. The body no longer possesses anything beyond organic life. The soul is held by a single thread, which would rupture forever with only a small effort. In such a state, all earthly thoughts disappear, replaced by perceptions that constitute the very essence of the immaterial being. Absorbed completely in this sublime contemplation, the soul views earthly life as only a temporary stay. The successes and misfortunes of the material world, its gross joys and afflictions, appear as so many trifling incidents on a journey, the end of which the soul feels lucky to glimpse.
(A. Kardec, "The Spirit's Book, Chapter IX, "The liberation of the soul".)
Translation from the original post in Portuguese: Experiências de quase-morte: considerações sobre explicações convencionais recentes.. Link (2024): https://eradoespirito.blogspot.com/2022/09/experiencias-de-quase-morte.html
We received a proposal to publicize more recent NDEs (or "near-death experiences"). What has changed since our first texts [1] on the subject? Many such experiences were reported throughout time. Readers can visit websites like the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS), its specialized Journal of Near-Death Studies, or the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF). These sites are dedicated to collecting and studying near-death experience stories systematically.
From 2012 to 2022, what did the academic community say about the subject? The term "academic community" might refer to people who do not agree with some of the pioneering researchers on the subject, such as R. Moody, S. Parnia [3], or Dr. Bruce Greyson [4]. These researchers contributed to the mainstream media's coverage of these events. They highlight the atypical nature of NDE reports, including the fact that they "suggest" the continuation of life after death.
A discussion has naturally developed between advocates of the "survivalist" hypothesis (suggesting the experiences reveal a deeper reality beyond life) and others who deny this. Examples of opinions in this last direction can be found in [2], [2b], [5], [6], and [7]. This is apparently reasonable because there is no comprehensive theory of consciousness, which is seen as a result of brain activity. According to the majority of academics, NDEs are simply normal brain reactions in times of life's perils, similar to the phenomenon of "thanatosis" in insects.
The lack of a theory of consciousness
Problems begin with the appropriate definitions of "brain death." This definition is fundamental to understanding the phenomenon since everyone who reported the experience survived. In other words, the brain was not actually "dead", despite the cardiac arrest.
To gain an understanding of the current uncertainty, we must evaluate considerable research mapping brain areas and their associations with core cognitive functions. Such functions are considered to be "generated" or "processed" in highly specific regions of the brain. This is equivalent to arguing that the brain tissue in these locations is responsible for cognitive operations. This idea, however, is undercut by the concept of "brain plasticity" in patients who have severe damage to specific sections of the brain yet have little effect on their cognitive behavior. Plasticity is described as the "capacity of the brain to alter its structure and function" [8]. Given this, what actually drives cognitive functions? Instead of focusing on specific regions and tissues, the explanation requires acknowledging that the brain as a whole is the source, rendering mapping somewhat unnecessary from a fundamental standpoint. In summary: the phenomenon itself is regarded as the cause.
The "complexity" of the connections between the billions and billions of neurons that make up the brain makes it even more difficult to identify the root cause. This complexity would be the source, according to the current explanation, with the variety, richness, and multiplicity of conscious experiences the result of an organization that is inaccessible on a tiny scale. Any explanation is possible, but such an idea may impose severe obstacles to the correct understanding of NDE.
These methodological challenges can be seen in one of the first studies to appear to fully record brain activity following a death. As detailed in [9], it was only completed in 2022. There are obvious practical and ethical challenges, such as securing family permission to do scientific research on a loved member who has been diagnosed with an irreversible clinical disease and is about to die.
Current conventional opinion
Reference [2b] summarizes the mood among defenders of conventional explanations. The author considers:
I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences. They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception. As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones. That premise has served science and its handmaiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling, objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption.
There is certainly a problem with the perception of causation here. Survival is described as a "supernatural experience" without clarifying what this entails: would a break from the natural order be required in the survival theory? Furthermore, it is obvious that the brain filters all NDE experiences, just as it does with normal cognitive experiences. Nonetheless, the latter are given the property of "reality" that exists independently of brain "recreation". However, standard brain explanations fail to explain how this is possible. It makes no difference, neurologically speaking, whether "the brain sees an external light bulb on" or "imagines seeing a light bulb" (the same brain regions are involved in perceiving and imagining something).
This passage in [2] summarizes the usual explanation, which lacks any reference information from external reality:
Not surprisingly, many have seized on NDEs as evidence of life after death, heaven and the existence of god. The descriptions of leaving the body and blissful unity with the universal seem almost scripted from religious beliefs about souls leaving the body at death and ascending toward heavenly bliss. But these experiences are shared across a broad range of cultures and religions so it’s not likely that they are all reflections of specific religious expectations. Instead, that commonality suggests that NDEs might arise from something more fundamental than religious or cultural expectations. Perhaps NDEs reflect changes in how the brain functions as we approach death.
In short, the consistency and uniformity of reports are linked to a "generalized religious belief" that is the result of common events in the brain. The universality of experience stems from the universal biology of what happens in the dying brain.
The objectivity, and convincingness of NDEs must be sought in the character of the independent "external reality" that some reports demonstrate and which defies conventional explanations.
The link between NDEs and external reality
It is quite clear that if NDEs continue to be "meaningful, lived experiences" for those who experience them, nevertheless, they will remain as indistinguishable as "normal" fantasy states as well. This significant and profound feature is irrelevant to the conventional view of the mind as a product of the brain. Whatever you imagine or experience will always be a private experience, and hence a fantasy created by brain neurons.
But is it exactly what NDEs report? The current interest of neuroscientists in NDE cases often goes far away from previous reports in the specialized literature on "true NDEs" [10]. This term refers to NDEs in which patients describe exterior world events that they would be unable to know in their current state and body position. There are other recorded examples, one of which has already been described here [10b]. However, it is often the case many academic opinions simply dismiss such examples as "pure fiction".
Stripp argues in a recent paper [11] that the academic community purposely ignores accounts of authentic NDEs in conformity with the mainstream "reductionist bias". Stripp accurately considers the "ontological and epistemological fallacies" linked with NDEs [12]:
Such a statement is based on ontological materialistic assumptions. These are assumptions that the authors fail to mention or discuss, leading to a circular reasoning fallacy: since everything is only biology, NDEs have a biological purpose. I am not arguing against a commonality among all humans but suggesting that commonality may not necessarily amass solely to the biological components constituting the human body. We simply do not know all that ties us together. Furthermore, pure objectivity is, in many views, impossible, as there will always be some subjectivity and human decision in all research. Also, this subjectivity introduces a bias that one should reflect critically upon. Even the most common axioms of science are human constructs and should be treated as such.
In other words, when truly veridic evidence is supplied, the reports are not deemed sufficiently "objective" to warrant "academic credit" under the ostensible need for objectivity. However, this is irreconcilable with the very nature of the phenomenon being examined.
This lack of deference is carefully chosen so that only narratives that fit the dominant materialist viewpoint are reported to make sense. Many conventional methodologies, as a result, wind up focusing just on parts of the phenomenon that appear to be well explained by what researchers believe from the start. For example, reducing NDEs to "drug-induced hallucinations" is one strategy for deconstructing the reports' rich phenomenology [12]. Some researchers [13] have condemned this approach, which cannot be called scientific.
This situation, in our opinion, is regrettable from a "scientific" viewpoint, but completely understandable. It will be impossible to promote a change in academic thought without doing comprehensive studies on NDE experiences. In fact, what will be most "extraordinary" to accomplish is a complete shift of thinking about the subject. Because these are data that must be "collected in passing" (as Kardec would say), it will be extremely difficult to establish any form of rigorous control over their frequency, occurrence, and assessment. It would be analogous to attempting to fully understand sporadic events that occur on a huge scale in nature in closed laboratories. Despite attempts to fit NDE events into preconceived notions and mental disorders, they present and will always supply very persuasive evidence of the truth of life's survival.
References
[1] Reflexões sobre o contexto de experiências de quase-morte: artigo de Michael Nahm (2011). https://eradoespirito.blogspot.com/2012/11/reflexoes-sobre-o-contexto-de.html
[2] R. Martone (2019). "New Clues Found in Understanding Near-Death Experiences".https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-found-in-understanding-near-death-experiences/
[2b] C. Koch (2020). What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about the Brain. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/
[3] What Happens When We Die (Dr. Sam Parnia): https://eradoespirito.blogspot.com/2011/11/livro-iii-o-que-acontece-quando.html
[4] Near-Death Experiences (NDEs). https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/
[5] Evrard, R., Pratte, E., & Rabeyron, T. (2022). Sawing the branch of near‐death experience research: A critical analysis of Parnia et al.’s paper. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
[6] Hannah Flynn (2022). When are we really dead? New study sheds light. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-are-we-really-dead-new-study-sheds-light
[7] Martial, C., Gosseries, O., Cassol, H., & Kondziella, D. (2022). Studying death and near-death experiences requires neuroscientific expertise. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/293819/1/comment%20on%20parnia%20et%20al_final.pdf
[8] Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1998). Brain plasticity and behavior. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 43-64.
[9] Vicente, R., Rizzuto, M., Sarica, C., Yamamoto, K., Sadr, M., Khajuria, T., ... & Zemmar, A. (2022). Enhanced interplay of neuronal coherence and coupling in the dying human brain. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 80.
[10] Ring, K., & Lawrence, M. (1993). Further evidence for veridical perception during near-death experiences. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11(4), 223-229.
[10b] Experimentum crucis: EQMs em pessoas cegas.https://eradoespirito.blogspot.com/2013/04/experimentum-crucis-eqms-em-pessoas.html
[11] Stripp, T. K. (2022). Near-death experiences and the importance of transparency in subjectivity, ontology and epistemology. Brain Communications, 4(1), fcab304.
[12] Van Lommel, P. (2011). Near‐death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not as an illusion. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1234(1), 19-28.
