What can we learn/deduce from this phenomenon?


A near-death experience (NDE) refers to a broad range of personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations ranging from detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, extreme fear, security, or warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light, which some people interpret as a deity or spiritual presence.
The phenomenology of an NDE usually includes physiological, psychological and alleged transcendental aspects.

Typically, the experience follows a distinct progression:

1. a very unpleasant sound/noise is the first sensory impression to be noticed ;
2. a sense of being dead;
3. pleasant emotions; calmness and serenity;
4. an out-of-body experience; a sensation of floating above one's own body and seeing the surrounding area;
5. a sensation of moving upwards through a bright tunnel of light or narrow passageway;
6. meeting deceased relatives or spiritual figures;
7. encountering a being of light, or a light (often interpreted as being the deity or deities they personally believe in);
8. being given a life review;
9. reaching a border or boundary;
10. a feeling of being returned to the body, often accompanied by a reluctance.
11. feeling of warmth even though naked.

Some people have also experienced extremely distressing NDEs, which can manifest in forewarning of emptiness or a sense of dread towards the cessation of their life in its current state.

Wikipedia article -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experiences

imhotep:

What can we learn/deduce from this phenomenon?

That portions of the brain remain active even when it's close to expiration.

KAG:

That portions of the brain remain active even when it's close to expiration.

@KAG
Yet another dogmatic response. Not scientific enough to explain NDEs.

imhotep:

@KAG
Yet another dogmatic response. Not scientific enough to explain NDEs.

"You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

So, when you were asking for what we can learn or deduce from that specific phenomenon, you were really asking for a scientifc study of some kind? Pourquoi?

I am open to scientific, mystical, philosophical and theological explanations that are in tune with right reason illumined by faith.

I understand that science alone cannot comprehend the whole of reality (visible and invisible).

KAG:
That portions of the brain remain active even when it's close to expiration.

Let me now stretch your explanation a bit. Imagine that all brains 'close to expiration' eventually expire, but all record similar experiences before they expire.
How can you explain the fact that these brains (from diverse people with markedly different backgrounds and belief systems) record similar [/i]experiences, or that these experiences are somewhat [i]patterned

imhotep:

I am open to scientific, mystical, philosophical and theological explanations that are in tune with right reason illumined by faith.

That's another way of saying I'll only accept responses that affirm my bias. Anything else will be rejected automatically by a lot of handwaving and ignoring. Thanks for playing.

I understand that science alone cannot comprehend the whole of reality (visible and invisible).

Out of curiousity, why?

Let me now stretch your explanation a bit. Imagine that all brains 'close to expiration' eventually expire, but all record similar experiences before they expire.
How can you explain the fact that these brains (from diverse people with markedly different backgrounds and belief systems) record similar [/i]experiences, or that these experiences are somewhat [i]patterned

Any ubiquity is explainable by one thing they all share: the presence of the same neurons and chemicals that make up the brain. That is, all human brains, as far as has been discovered, contain the same general make-up and chemicals.

However, not all NDEs are the same. There are many variations between individual near death experiences. That is a function of their experiences. Furthermore, the majority of people don't seem to get any NDEs. Why do you think that is? And what can you deduce from that?

KAG:

Any ubiquity is explainable by one thing they all share: the presence of the same neurons and chemicals that make up the brain. That is, all human brains, as far as has been discovered, contain the same general make-up and chemicals.

However, not all NDEs are the same. There are many variations between individual near death experiences. That is a function of their experiences. Furthermore, the majority of people don't seem to get any NDEs. Why do you think that is? And what can you deduce from that?

Yes, these brains have similar structure, but store WIDELY differing experiences of widely differing people. Some of these people might also have suffered brain problems.

I am concerned with those that had NDEs. Many reviewed their outlook on life after these experiences.

imhotep:

Yes, these brains have similar structure, but store WIDELY differing experiences of widely differing people. Some of these people might also have suffered brain problems.

Okay? I'm not sure I see how that detracts from my earlier response.

I am concerned with those that had NDEs. Many reviewed their outlook on life after these experiences.

And many didn't. Where do we go from here? Why aren't the people that didn't experience NDEs of concern to you? I know of one person who changed his outlook on life after no experience of an NDE. He became convinced that there really is nothing after death, and after a great deal of thought deconverted.

KAG:

Okay? I'm not sure I see how that detracts from my earlier response.

And many didn't. Where do we go from here? Why aren't the people that didn't experience NDEs of concern to you? I know of one person who changed his outlook on life after no experience of an NDE. He became convinced that there really is nothing after death, and after a great deal of thought deconverted.

You have silently assumed that these experiences are limited to a part of the brain. This is why I called your first comment dogmatic.

I am not concerned with those that did NOT have these experiences. I am trying to learn as much as I can from those that had them, without resorting to dogmatism or prejudices.

Let me refer you ( and others ) to two sites that have a lot of information on this
1) International Association for Near Death Studies -> http://www.iands.org/

2) Near Death Experience Research Foundation -> http://www.nderf.org/

@KAG
The definition of Dogma ->

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

imhotep:

You have silently assumed that these experiences are limited to a part of the brain. This is why I called your first comment dogmatic.

Assumption and dogmatic together in the same sentence? Say it ain't so. Yes, I assumed. That is not dogma.

I am not concerned with those that did NOT have these experiences. I am trying to learn as much as I can from those that had them, without resorting to dogmatism or prejudices.

Again, back to my question. Why don't those that didn't experience it, concern you? Wouldn't taking them into account be essential to avoiding dogmatism and prejudices?

Let me refer you ( and others ) to two sites that have a lot of information on this
1) International Association for Near Death Studies -> http://www.iands.org/

2) Near Death Experience Research Foundation -> http://www.nderf.org/

Okay.

imhotep:

@KAG
The definition of Dogma ->

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

You missed the important part:


Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

There you go. Now can you please stop using the word inappropriately

KAG:
Assumption and dogmatic together in the same sentence? Say it ain't so. Yes, I assumed. That is not dogma.

You assumed AND jumped to the conclusion that a part of the brain is still active.

KAG:
Again, back to my question. Why don't those that didn't experience it, concern you? Wouldn't taking them into account be essential to avoiding dogmatism and prejudices?

NDEs are not initiated by the human will. Those who experience it are usually [i]passive [/i]subjects. [b]After[/b]looking at those that experienced it, I will then proceed to those that have not (and why they did not).

The subject is still one of intense research.

KAG:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

There you go. Now can you please stop using the word inappropriately

Don't you think it is dogmatic to:
- maintain that there is no existence after death;
- maintain that everything must be traced to some brain function/activity;
- deny the existence of anything spiritual on incorporeal;

,without physical evidence to back up any of these

imhotep:

You assumed AND jumped to the conclusion that a part of the brain is still active.

I assumed and asserted based on that assumption and several detailed experiments to understand the workings of the brain, that parts of the brain remain active.

NDEs are not initiated by the human will. Those who experience it are usually [i]passive [/i]subjects. [b]After[/b]looking at those that experienced it, I will then proceed to those that have not (and why they did not).

The subject is still one of intense research.

That's fair enough.

imhotep:

Don't you think it is dogmatic to:
- maintain that there is no existence after death;
- maintain that everything must be traced to some brain function/activity;
- deny the existence of anything spiritual on incorporeal;

,without physical evidence to back up any of these

I don't remember doing any of that, but no, it's not dogmatic especially because of this part of your post: "without physical evidence to back up any of these"