Evidence Of Life After Death

[zzz 0]

"the devil is inredibly stupid"Edit:Can you name a negative or pessemistic opinion?I can, "some people are going to go to hell."Believing pessimistic things is wrong right?So you believe, "No one is going to hell" (because this is more optimistic)Does the truth then = "no one is going to hell" ??

No the truth = no one knows what happens after death. I believe nobody is going to hell. Believing pessimistic things is wrong is an opinion. I believe it is good, but I also believe that believing in optimistic things is great. Have a nice day!

[BWToth 0]

No the truth = no one knows what happens after death. I believe nobody is going to hell. Believing pessimistic things is wrong is an opinion. I believe it is good, but I also believe that believing in optimistic things is great. Have a nice day!

Ok, So do you believe in what the Bible says? Or only the 'optimistic' things the Bible says?

[rog 0]

Zzz: I dont know if you're the biggest troll ever, or just so blinded by your desire to believe that you cant even see facts. Let me take you through a few facts:1) Van Lommel had nothing to do with the Reynolds case aside from referencing it in his peer reviewed article, so his credentials are not relevant to the veracity of this case. The Lancet is also not relevant to the veracity of this case.2) The Reynolds case is documented in a for-profit book, and to the best of my knowledge, was never written about in any peer reviewed article. Saborn makes money by telling a compelling story, and yet is not held to any rigorous standards in terms of fact checking. Is this correct zzz? Did I miss a reference to an article detailing the Reynolds case? This is junk writing masquerading as science. 3) The Reynolds case was written about long after it occurred. The author (Saborn) first interviewed Reynolds 3 years after the procedure. Plenty of time for memory distortion to taint the scientific value of her claims.4) The only auditory sensation she described during the NDE has been irrefutably shown to have been before she was brought to standstill. It involved the size of her veins as the doctors attempted to hook her up to cardiac bypass that would eventually lead to her being cooled to standstill. It is impossible that the conversation was overheard while Reynolds was in a near-death state. Clearly you agree on that right? This alone is enough to dismiss the Reynolds case as evidence of LAD. Based on her reported experiences,and the timeline of the operation, her near-death experience happened significantly before she was in any kind of a near death state. 5) Of the visual stimuli Reynolds reports, she actually reports incorrectly about a detail of the saw she was describing. This in spite of the fact that she claimed her vision was both brighter and clearer than normal vision. The error in detail is pretty strong evidence that these are constructed memories. Do you have an alternate theory as to how someone with brighter and clearer paranormal vision would be wrong about specific details of a visual memory?6) van Lommel's study was about the incidence of NDEs in patients experiencing cardiac arrest within certain parameters. He established the rate of incidence. He even determined there was no correlation between these occurrences and certain external factors, such as certain types of drugs etc... That is all. Thank you Pim, you've been most helpful. The study was not designed to conclude on the cause of NDEs or on the plausability of life after death. It is after all, merely a survey of people who reported some sort of experience. 7) I've read interviews with van Lommel where he suggests that maybe all the cells in the body communicate with each other, decentralizing our consciousness out of our brain, but still tying it to our physical existence. Hardly the stuff of life after death. I've seen other articles where he really steps in it good, going on about alternate dimensions and electromagnet receivers in your brain. Note that his study doesn't offer any evidence to support these tin-foil hat ideas. They are merely op-ed bits. Even the greatest minds allow their beliefes to taint their objectivity. Einstein did with his rejection of QM (which was created by his own theories of relativity). He basically spent a lot of his career trying unsuccessfully to discredit his own work. van Lommel injects his beliefs into his work as well in a way that is not substantiated by any evidence or provable fact. 8) Two people in van Lommel's study originally reported no NDE experience, but changed their minds in the 2 year follow up. Further evidence that NDEs may be the result of constructed memories.9) The editors of Lancet (the peer reviewed journal that legitimizes van Lommel's study) also published a commentary on his article where they argue that his study does not demonstrate conclusively a separation of body and consciousness. So while they peer-reviewed and published his work, they also took pains to point out that the conclusions dont necessarily follow from the data of the study.Some of above can be found in "http://www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html". Some of it I have source for because I'm at work and dont have time to retrace my google steps from last night.To be clear, I am a bit of a sceptic, but when I read the first link in this thread on the Reynolds case, I found it quite compelling. It did not really stand up to scrutiny though. People using it to support LAD gloss over critical shortcomings, and make a large number of assumptions to make it support their views. Please zzz...respond to these points wherever you can provide additional clarity.

[zzz 0]

Ok, So do you believe in what the Bible says? Or only the 'optimistic' things the Bible says?

Only the optimistic believes I hold. Have a nice day!

[zzz 0]

Zzz: I dont know if you're the biggest troll ever, or just so blinded by your desire to believe that you cant even see facts. Let me take you through a few facts:1) Van Lommel had nothing to do with the Reynolds case aside from referencing it in his peer reviewed article, so his credentials are not relevant to the veracity of this case. The Lancet is also not relevant to the veracity of this case.2) The Reynolds case is documented in a for-profit book, and to the best of my knowledge, was never written about in any peer reviewed article. Saborn makes money by telling a compelling story, and yet is not held to any rigorous standards in terms of fact checking. Is this correct zzz? Did I miss a reference to an article detailing the Reynolds case? This is junk writing masquerading as science. 3) The Reynolds case was written about long after it occurred. The author (Saborn) first interviewed Reynolds 3 years after the procedure. Plenty of time for memory distortion to taint the scientific value of her claims.4) The only auditory sensation she described during the NDE has been irrefutably shown to have been before she was brought to standstill. It involved the size of her veins as the doctors attempted to hook her up to cardiac bypass that would eventually lead to her being cooled to standstill. It is impossible that the conversation was overheard while Reynolds was in a near-death state. Clearly you agree on that right? This alone is enough to dismiss the Reynolds case as evidence of LAD. Based on her reported experiences,and the timeline of the operation, her near-death experience happened significantly before she was in any kind of a near death state. 5) Of the visual stimuli Reynolds reports, she actually reports incorrectly about a detail of the saw she was describing. This in spite of the fact that she claimed her vision was both brighter and clearer than normal vision. The error in detail is pretty strong evidence that these are constructed memories. Do you have an alternate theory as to how someone with brighter and clearer paranormal vision would be wrong about specific details of a visual memory?6) van Lommel's study was about the incidence of NDEs in patients experiencing cardiac arrest within certain parameters. He established the rate of incidence. He even determined there was no correlation between these occurrences and certain external factors, such as certain types of drugs etc... That is all. Thank you Pim, you've been most helpful. The study was not designed to conclude on the cause of NDEs or on the plausability of life after death. It is after all, merely a survey of people who reported some sort of experience. 7) I've read interviews with van Lommel where he suggests that maybe all the cells in the body communicate with each other, decentralizing our consciousness out of our brain, but still tying it to our physical existence. Hardly the stuff of life after death. I've seen other articles where he really steps in it good, going on about alternate dimensions and electromagnet receivers in your brain. Note that his study doesn't offer any evidence to support these tin-foil hat ideas. They are merely op-ed bits. Even the greatest minds allow their beliefes to taint their objectivity. Einstein did with his rejection of QM (which was created by his own theories of relativity). He basically spent a lot of his career trying unsuccessfully to discredit his own work. van Lommel injects his beliefs into his work as well in a way that is not substantiated by any evidence or provable fact. 8) Two people in van Lommel's study originally reported no NDE experience, but changed their minds in the 2 year follow up. Further evidence that NDEs may be the result of constructed memories.9) The editors of Lancet (the peer reviewed journal that legitimizes van Lommel's study) also published a commentary on his article where they argue that his study does not demonstrate conclusively a separation of body and consciousness. So while they peer-reviewed and published his work, they also took pains to point out that the conclusions dont necessarily follow from the data of the study.Some of above can be found in "http://www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html". Some of it I have source for because I'm at work and dont have time to retrace my google steps from last night.To be clear, I am a bit of a sceptic, but when I read the first link in this thread on the Reynolds case, I found it quite compelling. It did not really stand up to scrutiny though. People using it to support LAD gloss over critical shortcomings, and make a large number of assumptions to make it support their views. Please zzz...respond to these points wherever you can provide additional clarity.

Regarding Pam Reynolds, the whole point of her case is that it is physically improbable, if not impossible, to see and hear the things she did.Regarding Lommel and his scientific study,he says...In our prospective study of patients that were clinically dead (flat EEG, showing no electrical activity in the cortex, and loss of brain stem function evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex), the patients report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, or memory from early childhood occurred, as well as perceptions from a position out and above their "dead" body. Have a nice day!

[rog 0]

Regarding Pam Reynolds, the whole point of her case is that it is physically improbable, if not impossible, to see and hear the things she did.

Well, then the point is not proven. The things she heard were during anesthetic. People are often able to hear things under anesthetic. One of the things she saw was described innacurately, which makes it highly plausible (if not probable) that she never saw it at all. People report false experiences all the time. The inaccurate description of the bone saw pretty much demonstrates that this is a false experience.

Regarding Lommel and his scientific study,he says...In our prospective study of patients that were clinically dead (flat EEG, showing no electrical activity in the cortex, and loss of brain stem function evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex), the patients report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, or memory from early childhood occurred, as well as perceptions from a position out and above their "dead" body. Have a nice day!

The study never measured EEG of the patients. It assumed flatline EEG based on the duration of their cardiac arrest. Pretty big assumption. Not to mention the fact that clinical death is a line in the sand we (humans) have drawn for practical purposes. It doesn't even mean no brain activity. It means no brain activity detectable by certain instruments. I met with my manager today, and I detected no brain activity. Is he dead? I dont think so. I realize this is an exaggeration, but my point is, our measurements are only as good as our instruments, and only as good as our understanding of their relevance. They are perfect in neither categoryHis study is also flawed in that it doesn't even attempt to establish that the NDEs reported occurred during flatline EEG. So not only do we not have any determination of the relevance of flat EEG to conscious experience, but even it it were proven, we also have no evidence that these experiences happened during flatline EEG. In short, the study merely establishes the rate at which NDEs are reported in certain types of patients. The truthiness of them, as well as their cause and/or meaning are not established in his study. Comments to the contrary are PVL's opinion, and not established by any scientific process. The Lancet's editors certainly felt strongly enough about this to point it out in a commentary.The fact is, van Lommel's conclusions go FAR beyond what is supportable by fact in his studies. This is quite common. Conclusions in studies are often biased and guided by subjective beliefs of the author rather than by objective rational thought. In fact, studies are often undertaken with a particular conclusion in mind, and hit or miss, the author will try to make it support their perspective. Nothing surprising in that...it's human to do so. We have to be smart about how we view the evidence. To think that van Lommel has no agenda is quite silly to be frank.

[rog 0]

Believing pessimistic things is wrong is an opinion. I believe it is good, but I also believe that believing in optimistic things is great. Have a nice day!

It's nice for you that you only believe positive things to be true. I believe in true things, and I seek out only truth. Truth is "conformity with fact or reality". Believing something to be true doesn't make it conform to reality. Wether something is optimistic or pessimistic is really not relevant to wether it's true or not, so I dont know why you keep bringing it up. This is an intellectual debate. The point is to argue our respective points and help one another gain more insight or understanding of the truth, wether that truth be pleasant (optimistic), or unpleasant (pessimistic). If you're not here to explore truths, why are you even in this conversation? Do you believe that war exists? Do you believe that innocent people are slaughtered in them? Do you believe that thousands of children die every year while the affluent throw out enough food to feed them? These are all very negative truths. Depressing? Yes, but true nonetheless, and I am a better person for knowing them to be true.

[brvheart 1,752]

Ok, So do you believe in what the Bible says? Or only the 'optimistic' things the Bible says?

It's well established that zzz is not a Bible believing Christian.

[BWToth 0]

It's well established that zzz is not a Bible believing Christian.

Nothing about zzz is well established, no is anything statement he makes.

[zzz 0]

Well, then the point is not proven. The things she heard were during anesthetic. People are often able to hear things under anesthetic. One of the things she saw was described innacurately, which makes it highly plausible (if not probable) that she never saw it at all. People report false experiences all the time. The inaccurate description of the bone saw pretty much demonstrates that this is a false experience. The study never measured EEG of the patients. It assumed flatline EEG based on the duration of their cardiac arrest. Pretty big assumption. Not to mention the fact that clinical death is a line in the sand we (humans) have drawn for practical purposes. It doesn't even mean no brain activity. It means no brain activity detectable by certain instruments. I met with my manager today, and I detected no brain activity. Is he dead? I dont think so. I realize this is an exaggeration, but my point is, our measurements are only as good as our instruments, and only as good as our understanding of their relevance. They are perfect in neither categoryHis study is also flawed in that it doesn't even attempt to establish that the NDEs reported occurred during flatline EEG. So not only do we not have any determination of the relevance of flat EEG to conscious experience, but even it it were proven, we also have no evidence that these experiences happened during flatline EEG. In short, the study merely establishes the rate at which NDEs are reported in certain types of patients. The truthiness of them, as well as their cause and/or meaning are not established in his study. Comments to the contrary are PVL's opinion, and not established by any scientific process. The Lancet's editors certainly felt strongly enough about this to point it out in a commentary.The fact is, van Lommel's conclusions go FAR beyond what is supportable by fact in his studies. This is quite common. Conclusions in studies are often biased and guided by subjective beliefs of the author rather than by objective rational thought. In fact, studies are often undertaken with a particular conclusion in mind, and hit or miss, the author will try to make it support their perspective. Nothing surprising in that...it's human to do so. We have to be smart about how we view the evidence. To think that van Lommel has no agenda is quite silly to be frank.

Cynical much? Fact is nobody knows if there is life after death. There is much evidence for life after death. They had experiences with flat EEGs. I have to believe a well respected scientist over you. Sorry. Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

Seriously, folks, time to ignore the troll. His name is fitting..zzz...since his beliefs could only be the stuff of dreams, not reality.

[zzz 0]

Do you believe that war exists? Do you believe that innocent people are slaughtered in them? Do you believe that thousands of children die every year while the affluent throw out enough food to feed them? These are all very negative truths. Depressing? Yes, but true nonetheless, and I am a better person for knowing them to be true.

I believe in life after death because it is an optimistic BELIEF and there is evidence for it. It is not a fact. War exists is a fact, it has nothing to do with belief. War existing is a bad thing, that is a belief. See the difference? The facts you point out are all neutral. They are only depressing if you choose to feel that way about them. Have a nice day!

Seriously, folks, time to ignore the troll. His name is fitting..zzz...since his beliefs could only be the stuff of dreams, not reality.

Again, the reality of what happens after death is unknown. Have a nice day!

Nothing about zzz is well established, no is anything statement he makes.

That is yet another pessimistic opinion. Have a nice day!

[rog 0]

Cynical much? Fact is nobody knows if there is life after death. There is much evidence for life after death. They had experiences with flat EEGs. I have to believe a well respected scientist over you. Sorry. Have a nice day!

It's not cynicism...it's critical thinking. I believe well-respected scientists too, including van Lommel. I believe his statistics about the rate of incidence of NDEs. I believe his correlation to short term memory seems likely to be statirtically significant. Those are fine contributions to the field that are supported by evidence. I really only believe the parts that are substantiated by scientific fact or evidence. Nothing in Pim's study substantiates your opinion that there is life after death. van Lommel never established that these patients had NDEs during EEG flatline. He assumed it. Can you show me otherwise? Pim never established that flat EEG is equivalent to dead, or even that it means no brain activity. Can you show otherwise? That makes it opinion, not science. If you believe it, that's fine. I have no problem with that, but recognize it for what it is...a leap of faith. There is no evidence of life after death that stands up to scrutiny, and certainly van Lommel offers no evidence for it. I think your desire to believe in optimistic things is getting the better of you. Your mind is clearly closed to contradictory evidence.

[zzz 0]

Nothing in Pim's study substantiates your opinion that there is life after death.

Lommel himself disagrees with that opinion. But hey, you know more than him regarding this subject...Have a nice day!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Thanks, rog. I totally agree with everything you said. I tried to point out these things a few pages earlier (like 10) but he didn't listen. He obviously has no concept of how evidence and scientific studies work. You're really just wasting your breath on him, but I think we're all grateful that you went out of your way. Even if he never is going to change his mind, it's nice to let rational people know that he's mistaken.

[zzz 0]

He obviously has no concept of how evidence and scientific studies work.

And apparantly neither does Lommel.....Lommel is the one who conducted the largest study of NDEs. Logically, his opinion would be the most credible. He strongly believes that his study shows evidence of life after death. You believe he is lying when he says his subjects had experiences when they had flat EEGs. I don't see any hard evidence that he is a liar. The Lancet doesn't either. Have a nice day!

[rog 0]

Well, I'll try one more time, and then I'm done...

And apparantly neither does Lommel.....

Maybe he doesn't. It's more likely however that you are reading too much into his study, or mistaking his personal views on life after death for his conclusions drawn from the study data.

Lommel is the one who conducted the largest study of NDEs.

Yeah, a study to "to establish the cause of this experience and assess factors that affected its frequency, depth, and content." Where's your life after death?

Logically, his opinion would be the most credible.

We are discussing what is or isn't demonstrated by his study. What does his opinion or credibility have to do with anything?

He strongly believes that his study shows evidence of life after death.

The actual study is here: http://www.opuslux.com/lancetvanlommel.htmWhere does he say this?

You believe he is lying when he says his subjects had experiences when they had flat EEGs. I don't see any hard evidence that he is a liar.

He doesn't say they had experiences. He says they reported experiences. There's a difference. He doesn't say they had flat EEGs. I says quite clearly that that's assumed, and that they had flat ECGs. An ECG is a measure of heart activity. Not the same. Maybe you should read what he wrote in the study:"All patients had been clinically dead, which we established mainly by electrocardiogram records"Even if he had shown them to be flatline ECG (which he didn't), there is nothing in the study that establishes wether the reported NDEs took place before during or after the clinical death. Is there? Did I miss it? Again, the actual study is linked above. His opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

The Lancet doesn't either.

They obviously dont think he's a complete liar...or else they would never have published it. However, it appears they had enough concerns about the article to publish a commentary. The commentary essentially points out that the study does not establish that NDEs are evidence of a separation of body and conscousness. So while they see value in the study, they acually disagree with him regarding the points we're discussing here and now. Liar? No. Concluding beyond the scope of the evidence? Absolutely. I believe that, and Lancet clearly believed that. Everyone here except you seems to understand that.

[zzz 0]

Well, I'll try one more time, and then I'm done...Maybe he doesn't. It's more likely however that you are reading too much into his study, or mistaking his personal views on life after death for his conclusions drawn from the study data. Yeah, a study to "to establish the cause of this experience and assess factors that affected its frequency, depth, and content." Where's your life after death?We are discussing what is or isn't demonstrated by his study. What does his opinion or credibility have to do with anything?The actual study is here: http://www.opuslux.com/lancetvanlommel.htmWhere does he say this?He doesn't say they had experiences. He says they reported experiences. There's a difference. He doesn't say they had flat EEGs. I says quite clearly that that's assumed, and that they had flat ECGs. An ECG is a measure of heart activity. Not the same. Maybe you should read what he wrote in the study:"All patients had been clinically dead, which we established mainly by electrocardiogram records"Even if he had shown them to be flatline ECG (which he didn't), there is nothing in the study that establishes wether the reported NDEs took place before during or after the clinical death. Is there? Did I miss it? Again, the actual study is linked above. His opinion on the matter is irrelevant.They obviously dont think he's a complete liar...or else they would never have published it. However, it appears they had enough concerns about the article to publish a commentary. The commentary essentially points out that the study does not establish that NDEs are evidence of a separation of body and conscousness. So while they see value in the study, they acually disagree with him regarding the points we're discussing here and now. Liar? No. Concluding beyond the scope of the evidence? Absolutely. I believe that, and Lancet clearly believed that. Everyone here except you seems to understand that.

Logically, the most informed opinion regarding this field would belong to the person conducting the largest scientific study in the field. From ode magazine: After all those years of intensive study, Van Lommel still speaks with reverence about the miracle of the near-death experience. “At that moment these people are not only conscious; their consciousness is even more expansive than ever. They can think extremely clearly, have memories going back to their earliest childhood and experience an intense connection with everything and everyone around them. And yet the brain shows no activity at all!”Yet you suggest I believe other peoples opinions over the person conducting the largest scientific nde study. From the Lancet:During the pilot phase in one of the hospitals, a coronary-care-unit nurse reported a veridical out-of-body experience of a resuscitated patient: "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man." To fit your view that this shows nothing, the nurse would have to be either purposely lying or very incompetent. I for one am not that cynical. I would like to see this commentary. It is hard to take a conspiracy theorists word for it. Also, try to name one person who would have a more credible insight regarding ndes than Lommel. Good luck with that. Have a nice day!

[Flack_attack 0]

This thread makes me want to drive a stake through my heart.

[zzz 0]

This thread makes me want to drive a stake through my heart.

That's one example of why holding negative/pessimistic beliefs isn't the best idea. Have a nice day!

Thanks, rog. I totally agree with everything you said. I tried to point out these things a few pages earlier (like 10) but he didn't listen. He obviously has no concept of how evidence and scientific studies work. You're really just wasting your breath on him, but I think we're all grateful that you went out of your way. Even if he never is going to change his mind, it's nice to let rational people know that he's mistaken.

I'm not the one with the irrational beliefs. Based on his credentials, believing that Lommel is misinformed is much more irrational than believing he knows what he is talking about. Have a nice day!

[Loismustdie 0]

This thread makes me want to drive a stake through my heart.

I will argue anything with anybody, happily, all day long- but I put that zzz guy on ignore the 2nd day he was here, like 6 months ago. A complete waste of time, like soccer, or marriage.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

You know, since I came to grips with my drinking problem, I've done alot of thinking. I decided to be less judgmental, and actively discourage myself from feeling superior to anyone. But I know- I KNOW- I'm better than that zzz guy.

[hblask 1]

OK, I didn't read through the whole thread cuz I came in late, but I've read a lot about this.Basically, the symptoms of these NDEs are very similar to many other brain phenomena not related to death, including isolation tanks. The simple reason for this is that the brain has built in mechanisms for protecting itself from harm, basically an orderly shutdown procedure. This shutdown procedure is interpreted similarly in all humans, because we can only relate it to concious experiences that are similar.

[11 to 1 0]

OK, I didn't read through the whole thread cuz I came in late, but I've read a lot about this.Basically, the symptoms of these NDEs are very similar to many other brain phenomena not related to death, including isolation tanks. The simple reason for this is that the brain has built in mechanisms for protecting itself from harm, basically an orderly shutdown procedure. This shutdown procedure is interpreted similarly in all humans, because we can only relate it to concious experiences that are similar.

symptoms of these NDEs are very similar to many other brain phenomena not related to death, including isolation tanks. No, they aren't. This is another example of some people with degrees in science making prejudgements and then trying to "explain away" the thing they personally don't believe in.I have an article around here in a box, someplace, I'll try to dig it up, but essentially, the so-called explanations are of things not like an NDE at all. One example I can think of right now is inducing tunnel vision. NDErs don't report tunnel vision, what they report is moving through a tunnel, or sometimes a valley. The evidence for the continuation of individual consciousness after death is pretty much overwhelming. But, you bring some folks dead grandmother back to cook dinner for them and they'd tell you the next day it was a vivid dream, even after they found the leftovers in the fridge.

[crowTrobot 2]

The evidence for the continuation of individual consciousness after death is pretty much overwhelming.

there is no scientific evidence. there is only anti-scientific propaganda being hawked to the ignorant-of-science book-buying public.