Near-death experiences are "real" only because people have them

A New York Times opinion piece makes an excellent point about near-death experiences that applies equally to all kinds of spiritual, mystical, and religious experiences.

There's plenty of evidence that people have these sorts of experiences. So that makes them real in a limited sense.

It's the same sort of reality that arises when someone goes to a country music concert and absolutely loves it. Their mind produces a feeling of subjective pleasure from being at the concert. 

However, this doesn't mean that the concert was objectively lovable. Someone who doesn't like country music could be sitting right next to the "loves it" person and have an experience of "hates it."

Likewise, John Fischer, the author of this opinion piece who has written several books about near-death experiences, says that while there's no doubt that people have them, there's no solid evidence that they prove the reality of life after death, heaven, and such.

Being similarly scientifically-minded, I keep this in mind whenever I hear about someone's claim that they've had some sort of supernatural experience. I'm perfectly wiling to accept that they believe they had a supernatural experience, while being deeply skeptical that the experience actually was of a supernatural reality.

Here's the opinion piece. I've boldfaced passages that refer to the "real" question.

Owen Gent

“Have you stood at the gates of doom? Or looked through the gates of death? Have you been to the edge of the universe?” In the Old Testament, The Voice from the Whirlwind poses these questions to Job.

The implied answer is no, for these seem to be divine prerogatives. For humans, heaven is a gated community, and we typically can’t even peer through. This is one reason (among many) near-death experiences inspire awe: They seem to give us a “God’s eye” view of what really lies beyond. They take us to the edge of the universe.

While it’s not exactly a scientific term, most of us have an agreed understanding of what “near-death experience” means. Obviously, an N.D.E. takes place in a “near-death context” — a situation in which one’s life is in jeopardy.

Most who have studied or discussed them agree that to count as an N.D.E., the experience must occur while the individual is not wakefully conscious and have a significant number of these aspects: an “out of body” experience in which one seems to be floating above one’s physical form and can see it and its surroundings; a life review; guidance by deceased loved ones or revered religious figures toward a “guarded” realm (a light in the darkness, a gated or fenced domain, the other side of a river).

Many people who have had an N.D.E. report being profoundly transformed — less anxious about death, more spiritual and more “prosocial” (including more concerned with morality).

These sorts of experiences have been reported throughout history and across cultures. Plato described one in “The Republic” — the Myth of Er. They are partly dependent upon the particulars of an individual’s life situation, religion and culture, but there are common elements as well.

For instance, the religious figures may be different — a Christian would see Christian figures, a Buddhist would see Buddhist figures, Hindu gods and goddesses would appear in a Hindu’s N.D.E., and so forth. Yet at a deeper level there is guidance by respected figures, a voyage led by trusted mentors from the known to the unknown. This time it is perhaps the most daunting journey, from life to death. Loving guidance on our last journey, or the last leg of our journey, is deeply resonant.

In popular literature, N.D.E.s are almost always interpreted “supernaturalistically.” They are interpreted as showing (or “proving”) that the mind is not the same as the brain and can continue after the brain stops functioning, and also that the mind has contact of some sort with a “heavenly” or nonphysical realm.

The titles of popular books about N.D.E.s proclaim that “heaven is for real” or that we have a “proof of heaven.” Medical doctors and neuroscientists writing about these issues claim that N.D.E.s offer “evidence for the afterlife” and “consciousness beyond life.” They think of them as round-trip tickets to the Good Place — the trip of an afterlifetime.

The proponents of a supernaturalistic interpretation of N.D.E.s insist that they are “real.” The neurosurgeon Eban Alexander’s “Proof of Heaven” even includes a chapter titled “The Ultra-Real.” I do not deny that people — many people — really have N.D.E.s, with their reported contents. They really have these experiences, just like people really dream.

So N.D.E.s are real in the sense of “authentic” — they really occur. No one should deny this; to do so is to disrespect a vast majority of those who sincerely report them.

There is, however, another sense of “real”: accurate. Are N.D.E.s, interpreted literally, accurate depictions of an external reality? This is an importantly different question. It is crucial not to slide from “real” in the first sense to “real” in the second, but this is precisely what many of the supernaturalists do. N.D.E.s really occur. But we cannot infer from this that they accurately depict guidance by deceased loved ones to a nonphysical realm.

The big question is: Do N.D.E.s provide a proof of heaven? Or hell? I don’t think so. None of the arguments is persuasive. There are clear, vivid dreams and hallucinations. There are deeply profound and transformative experiences caused by the ingestion of psychedelic substances. All of these experiences present their contents as “ultra-real.”

This is a known feature of any spiritual experience, and N.D.E.s are a kind of spiritual experience. People throughout the world have sincere and absolutely certain belief in their religions, but it does not follow from this sincerity and certainty that the religious beliefs are true, literally interpreted. How could they all be, given their radical differences? So too with N.D.E.s.

The arguments for supernaturalistic interpretations of N.D.E.s are glaringly problematic. Many of the most visible proponents of the idea that N.D.E.s prove the existence of an afterlife are doctors. They include Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon; the cardiologist Pim van Lommel; and the oncologist Jeffrey Long.

It is important to emphasize that their conclusions are not medical but philosophical. The ideas that the mind can separate from the body and have contact with a heavenly realm are clearly not medical conclusions, and physicians have no special authority here. After all, they are physicians, not metaphysicians.

I trust my physician to interpret my blood work, but not to let me know that my soul left my body when I was under general anesthesia. It is striking that some doctors employ such homeopathic doses of logic. They are trapped in a kind of tunnel vision.

It would be desirable to have a more plausible interpretation of N.D.E.s which they are real in both senses: They really occur and they are accurate. I propose that we interpret N.D.E.s as fundamentally and primarily about our journeys from life to death — dying.

Most N.D.E.s depict a journey toward an imagined guarded realm, but not a successful passage to it. Just as in the literature on living forever, such as the ancient “Epic of Gilgamesh” or myth of Tantalus or the quixotic search for the Fountain of Youth, we come ever so close, but in the end we don’t quite make it. In N.D.E.s we get right to the gates, but we don’t go through; we get right to the edge of the universe, but we stop there.

N.D.E.s show not that there is an afterlife, but that it is possible to die well, surrounded by loving companionship. We can die in sterile, cold hospitals — alone. (There are negative N.D.E.s.) Or we can die in a more humane setting, surrounded by loved ones. N.D.E.s are thus real in both senses: They really occur, and they accurately portray these possibilities.

They are important because they remind us of the possibility of dying well. We don’t have to accept either extreme: that N.D.E.s do not really occur or that they prove that heaven exists. They point us to something profound and beautiful about dying. They give us real hope, not false hope, in facing the next part of our journey, whatever that will bring.

John Martin Fischer is a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, and the author of “Near-Death Experiences: Understanding Visions of the Afterlife” and “Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life.”

Comments

[Jesse]

Traveling to heaven in ones own mind wouldn't mean a whole lot, but I recall reading about a few NDE's which including detailed memory during the NDE of things happening in multiple places where the one having the NDE wasn't located.

If those experiences really happened, they still wouldn't necessarily prove the existence of anything supernatural per se, but it would be difficult to explain how almost dying gives some people the ability to hear things from miles away.

My grammar sucks and I'm too lazy to correct anything.

[Spence Tepper]

The author states
"The big question is: Do N.D.E.s provide a proof of heaven?"

But this isn't the big question at all. It's not even a scientific question. It's a rhetorical question. Heaven? That is a concept.

But this is proof of something. Something we know little about is going on.

The real question is, what else is there? Can this inner realm of experience be explored? Can it be mastered?

Assume it's all physiological. That really doesn't end the questions at all. It's only the beginning.

[La madrugada]

Hi Brian,

The 3 books, written by Robert.A.Monroe have changed my life, he is also the founder of The Monroe Institute where you can learn to leave your body:

When, unpredictably and against his will, Robert Monroe began to have out-of-body experiences, he was frightened and disbelieving. He found that he could leave his physical body to places far removed from the material and spiritual realities of life on earth. He came to inhabit a world unbounded by death or time. As Robert Monroe met many other people who have had similar experiences and read the literature of the East that documents the long history of this phenomenon his fears were alleviated. His journeys became more frequent and began to change his life. This classic, first-hand account of out-of-body experiences challenges us to revise our ideas about life and death. Robert Monroe's step-by-step instructions invite the reader to initiate their own out-of-body experiences.

[Um]

In the end the problem will be to find out if stimulation of brain centers, involved in inner experiences, will result in the same experiences.

It is all about the content.

When we dream, certain brain centers are activated …. does activating these centers give the same content??

It is all about content.

The same holds for what we experience with the sensesIt is all about content

There is no reason to disbelieve Moses had an experience in which "god" promised a piece of earth to the hebrews. However, that same "god" never appeared to others, confirming the message to Moses so that they could heed his words. Which indigenous tribe was ever informed about that decision? Inuit, Kogi, aboriginal, Maori, and all other tribes of the world?

These experiences are like dreams, inner voices etc etc NDE's

[Turan]

The sub-title of this book regarding NDE's – “They cannot prove the existence of heaven or hell, but they give us hope” – gives a mighty clue about believing NDE's to be some sort of proof of an afterlife – as do many of the numerous questions tied up in our HOPES and beliefs.

Its a rather strange human phenomenon that questions of God, faith, belief, hopes of life after death and so on figure so prominently in our minds – and it cause us so much distress and confusion. No other creature on this planet has this problem. Why are we not satisfied with living and experiencing this life as it is (arguably experiencing from the quite limited position that our organism allows). Even when we are quite comfortably off, with more than enough food clothing and shelter we still frantically want for something more – why?

A clue may be linked to our confusion and muddiness about how we see the mind. It has almost become the norm to refer to the mind as though it is something special and separate from our brains and bodies whereas an honest look into this mind reveals it as being merely a store of information housed in the brain. Also, this 'store' of data contains the information from where 'I' or 'me', is constructed.

It is feasible that as the 'I' structure is so dominant and important to us 'it' fears annihilation, fears not-being – which is ridiculous as it is only a mental structure. It, this 'I' structure has become so important it clings to any belief to support its continuation. It's very structure and raison d'etre requires us to live (or to think) in terms of the past or the future, so we rarely feel happy or comfortable with life as it is now – we want and imagine more.

Lastly, regarding the reality of NED's, Kevin Nelson (neurologist) in his book 'The God Impulse' refers to NDE's and the suchlike as 'disappointedly . . . an illusion' – though he does stress in his epilogue that they have a profound value to many peoples well-being.

[manjit]

I like John Fischer. He is one of those rare materialist-sceptics about NDEs who can be disarmingly honest about their biases.

At a talk he was giving at California University, starting at the 1hr08m40s (1:08:40) mark, Fischer says, perhaps rather too honestly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgqAYtXfP9c

""He (Parnia) doesn't see how they can be explained naturalistically. And what I would say is...it's not obvious how they can be explained...but...I'm kind of a default naturalist in the sense that I come to these (experiences) with the presupposition or the prejudice...or the antecedent view that there must be some way to explain how these people got this information. That's my, as it were, starting assumption.

But, in intellectual honestly, I have to say that I don't know how to explain some of these."

Presupposition. Prejudice. Antecedent view. There must be some way to explain. Starting Assumption.

I don't know.

And there goes the way of all such discussions amongst ideologues, be they theist or atheist, spiritual or materialist.

[manjit]

I hope I can be forgiven the indulgence of a second post, but I just recalled that John Fischer sounds a bit like Joe Fisher......who took a different investigative approach to such questions as "is there life after death" and the like.....

Review from amazon:

"There are not many books that not only can I not put down, but also didn't want the book to end.

This is a fascinating story of a man researching spiritualism, mediums and spirit guides.

It is also a warning to anyone either involved or thinking of getting involved with channeling spirits or indeed going to see a medium.
The book shows how these 'beings' are very intelligent, manipulative and dangerous.

Early on in the book his mother hit the nail on the head when she said "Demons. You're talking to demons and I don't like the sound of it one bit."
He felt that was her Christian 'conditioning' making her say that.

For me Joe Fisher goes tantalisingly close to actually naming these beings on several occasions but just as I felt he was about to, his new age beliefs got in the way and he fell back onto his new age 'conditioning' and explained them away as Lower Astral Beings, whatever they are.

There were times in the book when he unknowingly described the nature of demons and their outlook but didn't realise this.

It is a very good book. Depending on your own beliefs it will depend whether you find this book confusing or whether it makes sense.
For me, the book made total sense even if I disagreed with some of the authors conclusions.
I know what he was dealing with even if he didn't.

In the end he was right to stay away but there was one question that never seemed to be asked in the book.
Given that he tried to validate each spirits claims and he found the personal details they gave to be false.
In the one example of Dr Lang, where his channeled spirits claims about his personal details turned out to be valid i.e. who his family where, where he worked, dates etc. It was assumed that because this information given by the spirit claiming to be Dr Lang was accurate and that this spirit could sound like Dr Lang when he was alive that they must indeed be talking to the discarnate spirit of Dr Lang.
That is not proof that it was Dr Lang.

If I gave information about someone else that turned out to be accurate and could impersonate them without them seeing me, that doesn't mean I am that person.
This was never challenged in the book.

Read this book and heed its warnings. Stay away from spiritualism even if you do not have religious beliefs. You cannot believe what you are being told.

Mr Fisher committed suicide in 2001. A very sad end."

Link to book here. Reader beware:

http://lunahelia.com/LunaBox/Fisher%20-%20The%20Siren%20Call%20of%20Hungry%20Ghosts.pdf

[Whodunit]

A Theory of Mind and Brain that Solves the ‘Hard Problem’ of Consciousness

June 20, 2011; revised December 5, 2011
ROBERT G. MAYS AND SUZANNE B. MAYS
5622 Brisbane Dr, Chapel Hill

Abstract—We propose that the “mind” is an energetic, spatially extended,
nonmaterial entity that is united with the brain and body. The mind is a separate entity having the character of a structured energy field, which can interact with physical processes including brain neurons.

The nonmaterial mind is also the seat of conscious experience. The mind interacts directly with cortical neurons, probably via electrical interaction, resulting in both subjective phenomenal experience and causal influence on neurological processes.

The Mind as an Autonomous, Energetic Field of Consciousness

In an earlier paper, we introduced the idea of the self-conscious mind or simply “mind” (Mays &
Mays, 2008a, pp. 22–31).

The human being consists of (1) an energetic, spatially extended,
nonmaterial mind that is united with (2) a material brain and body.
The mind is nonmaterial (does not consist of material atoms, etc.) but rather is a structured,
energetic region of space that can interact with physical processes, in particular with neurons, and
thus has physical attributes. The mind is united and co-extensive with the brain and body and
interacts directly with the brain, probably via electrical interactions with cortical and other dendritic
structures.
The mind is also the seat of phenomenal experience, that is, a “field of consciousness”.

All cognitive faculties (perception, thinking, feelings, volition, memory and self-awareness) reside in the
nonmaterial mind entity, not in the brain.

[Whodunit]

https://youtu.be/78SkTuk8Zd4

Peter Fenwick is a neuropsychiatrist and neurophysiologist who is known for his studies of epilepsy and end-of-life phenomena.

Dr. Fenwick believes that consciousness may be independent of the brain and so able to survive the death of the brain, a theory which has divided the scientific community

'The plain fact is that none of us understands these phenomena. As for the soul and life after death, they are still open questions, though I myself suspect that NDEs are part of the same continuum as mystical experiences.'

[John_S]

The main question left out, is there an separate entity, called the mind or soul. Or is the consciousness created by the brain, on the "materialistic" level.
If we could come nearer to a valid result, how the consciousness and the self-model is constructed in the brain, the hole metaphysics and supernatural storys become useless.
A very interesting book on this subject is "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger.

shorturl.at/iuLP5

He describes there e.g. Out of body experiences, which can be induced by electromagnetic waves.
For me, even when it was partly not easy to read, a very profound book about the consciousness.

[sonia]

https://youtu.be/MyaBeHeRK6M

There’s just too much in the above link to a Ted Talk by an agnostic/atheist biophysicist who had an NDE. It gets into the science of it but also leaves open the door to profound wonder.

[Anil]

Haines what about expieriance if you have at rssb or have you heard about indian swami vivekanand or the comment of jesus that I DIE DAILY what does it means when you concentrate yourself at third eye whole body got sensless and in begning heart beat stops then breathing stops and at last blood pressure got zero and you totally got sensless andimedically you got dead but on other hand you have complete sense and memory of internal journey