I've studied more than 5,000 near death experiences. My research has convinced me without a doubt that there's life after death.

[Ben Zioner]

21 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That's the spirit!

Maybe we should take up ghost writing as it would be dead easy!

Naah, we'd get busted by immigration.

[Pdubs]

On 8/29/2023 at 4:58 AM, Tarteso said:

Surely you are right. It’s curious that beautiful experiences like in paradise. Sensation of peace, light, heavenly souls, good and positives energies are told, but there are no experiences of visits to hell. Except the inferno of Dante ?

 

There have been often life changing NDE’s of hell

[Pdubs]

On 12/8/2023 at 3:46 AM, JayClay said:

 

How can we? You haven't provided a source for your spooky claims.

Fair enough, here’s one source that goes into a lot of these “spooky claims” 😂

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

[Pdubs]

On 12/8/2023 at 8:33 AM, eisfeld said:

 

If there is a lot of convincing scientific data and studies then I'm sure it'll be easy for you to provide links to that. Episodes of The Twilight Zone don't count.

😂 you right, just posted one (not twilight zone) source. 

[eisfeld]

5 minutes ago, Pdubs said:

😂 you right, just posted one (not twilight zone) source. 

 

That's not a study. That "paper" (I really wouldn't call that a paper, it's pretty much just a blog post of a random MD) that does not provide a single piece of evidence that NDE are real and is based on what people who had NDE "feel" and think about their experience. All it does is say we can't medically conclusively explain it yet. Well great, we knew that already.

[JayClay]

18 hours ago, Pdubs said:

Fair enough, here’s one source that goes into a lot of these “spooky claims” 😂

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

 

Thank you for posting a source but if you believe that there's anything in there which is irrefutable proof of an afterlife, please point to the specific paragraph because, after a quick scan, I don't see anything.

[steven100]

Logical sense says .....

 

when you die all your organs shut down permanently

the body will then decay over time

there is no life after death as death is the end and finish of life

 

there is new life when a woman becomes pregnant but that has nothing to do with life after death. 

[Pdubs]

23 hours ago, eisfeld said:

 

That's not a study. That "paper" (I really wouldn't call that a paper, it's pretty much just a blog post of a random MD) that does not provide a single piece of evidence that NDE are real and is based on what people who had NDE "feel" and think about their experience. All it does is say we can't medically conclusively explain it yet. Well great, we knew that already.

Hopefully these sources are more the type you’re looking for. In that first source, it might not have been very authoritative, but it mentioned several occasions where people saw things or people which/who they never could have seen or known about, which is not just feelings based.

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1048929/full
here are a few highlights from this study:

“Additionally, some children who have experienced NDEs have reported meeting the individuals whom they did not know at the time of the NDE, but later recognized as their deceased relatives from the family photos they had never seen before“

 

”The heightened senses and the improved consciousness among these individuals even indicate that “these experiences are neither dreams, nor sleep, nor the disorders caused”; “This phenomenon is medically inexplicable.””

[Pdubs]

6 hours ago, JayClay said:

 

Thank you for posting a source but if you believe that there's anything in there which is irrefutable proof of an afterlife, please point to the specific paragraph because, after a quick scan, I don't see anything.

Here are some of the more convincing parts of this source. I’m not sure I’d say this is irrefutable proof, but I also think that these experiences can be just thrown out as the result of drugs or dreams, etc. I also just posted a couple more sources (more authoritative) which, while not making the same bold claims, had similar findings.

“Another prospective study of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences with similar methodology to Sabom’s study was published by Dr. Penny Sartori.⁹ This study also found that near-death experiencers were often remarkably accurate in describing details of their own resuscitations. The control group that did not have NDEs was highly inaccurate and often could only guess at what occurred during their resuscitations.“

“Further evidence that NDEs are not a result of expectation comes from the aforementioned Kelly study where in one-third of the cases the encountered deceased person had a poor or distant relationship with the NDEr, or was someone that had died before the NDEr was born.”

[eisfeld]

10 minutes ago, Pdubs said:

Hopefully these sources are more the type you’re looking for. In that first source, it might not have been very authoritative, but it mentioned several occasions where people saw things or people which/who they never could have seen or known about, which is not just feelings based.

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1048929/full
here are a few highlights from this study:

“Additionally, some children who have experienced NDEs have reported meeting the individuals whom they did not know at the time of the NDE, but later recognized as their deceased relatives from the family photos they had never seen before“

 

”The heightened senses and the improved consciousness among these individuals even indicate that “these experiences are neither dreams, nor sleep, nor the disorders caused”; “This phenomenon is medically inexplicable.””

 

The first one is pretty much the same as a Deja Vu experience. The brain can play very powerful tricks and alter memories on the spot to match a more recent experience. Note how they just *thought* that the people they later saw on pictures are the people they saw in their NDE "dream". Nothing unusual and also not evidence that they actually saw these people.

 

Your second quote is weird. How can literally unconscious people have improved consciousness? That's an oxymoron. But it also just concludes that they can't explain it. Nothing there has any evidence that the NDE are something physically real.

[Sheryl]

It is important to note that 80-90% of people who return from being clinically dead did not have (or at least have no memory of) an NDE.

 

These are the exception, not the rule.

 

Putting aside the question of what an NDE actually is, it is not known why some people (a minority) have them and most do not. 

 

 

[eisfeld]

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

It is important to note that 80-90% of people who return from being clinically dead did not have (or at least have no memory of) an NDE.

 

These are the exception, not the rule.

 

Putting aside the question of what an NDE actually is, it is not known why some people (a minority) have them and most do not. 

 

 

 

That's a good point. And I think it is not dissimilar to how most people don't remember the vast majority of their dreams. I nearly never remember a dream. Some people are also able to train themselves to enter lucid dream states on demand. Two times in my life I was in a near death situation and my brain acted quite differently than normal. Consciousness felt hightened (a bit like slowmo) but I can't be certain that it actually was higher or if its just how it felt or if my brain just decided to remember it like that. There were hallucinations as well. I'm pretty sure these NDE wil turn out one day to be a result of multiple factors like the brain trying a last ditch effort to survive so puts parts of it on turbo but some other parts may be already failing or not having enough control/power so all kinds of effects can happen. It'll be a matter of time before scientists figure it out. They made a lot of progress in recent decades but there is still a long road ahead.

[peter zwart]

Despite the fact that we already know a lot, there is still so much that we do not know. The only way to find out is by passing away, and I prefer to wait a bit longer for that. I only have the hope that, at that time, I will be reunited with my loved ones who have already passed away.

[Pdubs]

10 hours ago, eisfeld said:

 

The first one is pretty much the same as a Deja Vu experience. The brain can play very powerful tricks and alter memories on the spot to match a more recent experience. Note how they just *thought* that the people they later saw on pictures are the people they saw in their NDE "dream". Nothing unusual and also not evidence that they actually saw these people.

 

Your second quote is weird. How can literally unconscious people have improved consciousness? That's an oxymoron. But it also just concludes that they can't explain it. Nothing there has any evidence that the NDE are something physically real.

I have experienced Deja Vu like most people and while I see what you mean about similarities, but the people who met their deceased relatives were able to name them and describe their relationship to them without having known they existed previously. That does not happen in Deja Vu. I’m curious how you would respond to this quote from that source:

”In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.”

 

As to the second source, isn’t that the point - that these experiences are oxymorons if you try to explain them medically.

 

Could you send a source that fits your standard for being authoritative that offers a medical/scientific explanation for NDEs?

[asf6]

10 hours ago, eisfeld said:

Consciousness felt hightened (a bit like slowmo) but I can't be certain that it actually was higher or if its just how it felt or if my brain just decided to remember it like that. 

 

I've had that experience (once) but it wasn't in a near death experience, it was in a sporting situation. Everybody else was in slowmo but I wasn't. It was a short (a few seconds) but interesting experience that I wish I could replicate. It's my belief that the brain can sometimes do different and unexpected things to us and that was one of them. Perhaps NDEs are the same as the people are still alive but their minds and bodies are not in their usual state. 

[JayClay]

16 hours ago, Pdubs said:

Here are some of the more convincing parts of this source. I’m not sure I’d say this is irrefutable proof, but I also think that these experiences can be just thrown out as the result of drugs or dreams, 

 

There's nothing in the quotes provided that suggest to me that these eventualties are not simply down to "drugs or dreams" as you put it.

 

What exactly in the paragraphs you quoted makes you think "well that couldn't possibly be a result of the brain being in a state of altered consciousness"?

[KhunLA]

On 8/29/2023 at 8:39 AM, Social Media said:

Then they're greeted by deceased loved ones, including pets, who are in the prime of their lives.

One can only hope ... 

... thankfully, no mention of St Peter & the pearly gates ... 

[eisfeld]

9 hours ago, Pdubs said:

I have experienced Deja Vu like most people and while I see what you mean about similarities, but the people who met their deceased relatives were able to name them and describe their relationship to them without having known they existed previously. That does not happen in Deja Vu. I’m curious how you would respond to this quote from that source:

”In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.”

 

As to the second source, isn’t that the point - that these experiences are oxymorons if you try to explain them medically.

 

Could you send a source that fits your standard for being authoritative that offers a medical/scientific explanation for NDEs?

 

It claims that consciousness and awareness *appeared* to occur. There is no way to measure that when there is no heartbeat. It's not like they can ask the person right in that moment. They base it off of recollections once the patient is back again. And that's the tricky part because memories can be faked by the brain as evidenced by Deja Vu and other well known effects. And in the same vain there is no proof that they were not experiencing the events or facts that they *claim* to not have experienced before. They could have known about these facts but unable to access this part of their memories but now it surfaced.

 

That we can't explain something medically *yet* does not mean that it's something strange that can't be explained medically ever. We just are not there yet with our understanding of the brain. People used to believe in all kinds of magical reasoning for things that our brain experiences but over time we've learned that there are physical explanations for. Many diseases like Chorea were attributed to demonic possessions while they turned out to be brain issues. Psychosomatic illnesses with no apparant physical cause were attributed to supernatural reasons while we now know they are due to psychological factors.

 

I don't have a source for my point of view. But I'm also not claiming that something is real for which there is no evidence. My point is that memories and recollections by people are a very terrible source of information because they are unreliable and time again has science proven that what was once thought to be supernatural was instead something we just didn't understand. In fact, not a single supernatural thing in the history of human kind has been proven to be really that. So going by that track record I'll maintain my point of view that it'll be explained properly soon enough.

[eisfeld]

9 hours ago, asf6 said:

 

I've had that experience (once) but it wasn't in a near death experience, it was in a sporting situation. Everybody else was in slowmo but I wasn't. It was a short (a few seconds) but interesting experience that I wish I could replicate. It's my belief that the brain can sometimes do different and unexpected things to us and that was one of them. Perhaps NDEs are the same as the people are still alive but their minds and bodies are not in their usual state. 

 

Exactly that. The body in these NDE situations is already in a very unusual state. Heart stopped, the brain does not get the same amount of inputs both sensory as well as in terms of nutrients, oxygen etc. It would be very surprising if it didn't enter a weird state in which it can malfunction in all kinds of weird ways including altering memories or perception of reality. It's not like the universe really enters a slowmo state in the mentioned example. That's evidence that what we think we experienced might not always match the physical reality. To then go and ask these people what their experiences were cannot be taken for reliable recollections of reality. The proofs that claim the persons had no way to know about something but after the NDE they could tell about it are missing that they did not prove that the person couldn't have known these things because for that they would have needed to monitor them during the whole timeframe (usually of their while life when it comes to known passed away relatives). They could have heard about them etc. who's to say just because they claim they didn't that they really didn't.

[Pdubs]

5 hours ago, JayClay said:

 

There's nothing in the quotes provided that suggest to me that these eventualties are not simply down to "drugs or dreams" as you put it.

 

What exactly in the paragraphs you quoted makes you think "well that couldn't possibly be a result of the brain being in a state of altered consciousness"?

The paragraph says that some people met relatives they had never seen before (sometimes didn’t even know they existed). The other one says they could describe their entire resuscitation much of which happened while they were unconscious. People without NDEs could not do this.

Im pretty sure those things could not be just the result of drugs and even if they could be, it would not be a consistent result.

[Pdubs]

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

 

It claims that consciousness and awareness *appeared* to occur. There is no way to measure that when there is no heartbeat. It's not like they can ask the person right in that moment. They base it off of recollections once the patient is back again. And that's the tricky part because memories can be faked by the brain as evidenced by Deja Vu and other well known effects. And in the same vain there is no proof that they were not experiencing the events or facts that they *claim* to not have experienced before. They could have known about these facts but unable to access this part of their memories but now it surfaced.

 

That we can't explain something medically *yet* does not mean that it's something strange that can't be explained medically ever. We just are not there yet with our understanding of the brain. People used to believe in all kinds of magical reasoning for things that our brain experiences but over time we've learned that there are physical explanations for. Many diseases like Chorea were attributed to demonic possessions while they turned out to be brain issues. Psychosomatic illnesses with no apparant physical cause were attributed to supernatural reasons while we now know they are due to psychological factors.

 

I don't have a source for my point of view. But I'm also not claiming that something is real for which there is no evidence. My point is that memories and recollections by people are a very terrible source of information because they are unreliable and time again has science proven that what was once thought to be supernatural was instead something we just didn't understand. In fact, not a single supernatural thing in the history of human kind has been proven to be really that. So going by that track record I'll maintain my point of view that it'll be explained properly soon enough.

With the reasoning you are using, there is no possible way to “prove” anything supernatural because if something physically impossible happens, you can just say “we’ll find a scientific explanation in the future.” You are also discounting many of these NDEs just because they could have been faked or lied about. And while trusting everything you hear is obviously dumb, you can go to far the other way. You could use that reasoning to claim we never made it to the moon.

 

Two NDE stories that I’ve heard that would have been very hard to fake are

1. A kid who met his little sister who died two months after conception and told his parents about her. However, his parents had never told him about the miscarriage and they didn’t even know the gender of the baby.

2. Someone who had an out of body NDE and saw a shoe on an outside ledge of the hospital that no one knew about. She described what it looked like and where it was, and the nurse later found it and it matched the description.

https://www.rnceus.com/uncon/unnd.html

 

you’re probably gonna say these were likely faked or you don’t have enough evidence so I’m not sure we’re gonna get anywhere with this.

[eisfeld]

4 hours ago, Pdubs said:

The paragraph says that some people met relatives they had never seen before (sometimes didn’t even know they existed). The other one says they could describe their entire resuscitation much of which happened while they were unconscious. People without NDEs could not do this.

Im pretty sure those things could not be just the result of drugs and even if they could be, it would not be a consistent result.

 

Again, these people *claim* to not have known these relatives. They might have simply forgotten about them or overheard information about them when small and so on. Plenty of scenarios could explain these without resorting to supernatural stuff. There is no proof for their claims. The ones that can recall stuff while they were unconscious... well their sensory inputs were not turned off were they? That they are not conscious doesn't mean their brain cant absorb the input. You mention consistent results. NDEs are anything but consistent. What you are looking at are extreme outliers and not the norm.

[eisfeld]

3 hours ago, Pdubs said:

With the reasoning you are using, there is no possible way to “prove” anything supernatural because if something physically impossible happens, you can just say “we’ll find a scientific explanation in the future.” You are also discounting many of these NDEs just because they could have been faked or lied about. And while trusting everything you hear is obviously dumb, you can go to far the other way. You could use that reasoning to claim we never made it to the moon.

 

Two NDE stories that I’ve heard that would have been very hard to fake are

1. A kid who met his little sister who died two months after conception and told his parents about her. However, his parents had never told him about the miscarriage and they didn’t even know the gender of the baby.

2. Someone who had an out of body NDE and saw a shoe on an outside ledge of the hospital that no one knew about. She described what it looked like and where it was, and the nurse later found it and it matched the description.

https://www.rnceus.com/uncon/unnd.html

 

you’re probably gonna say these were likely faked or you don’t have enough evidence so I’m not sure we’re gonna get anywhere with this.

 

Let me repeat. None of the unexplained claims have been proven as real supernatural. Not a single one. It's like the people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. The claim about the moon is frankly ridicolous. We have pictures, videos and it's easily explained how we did it. We know all about it. Lets be real here.

 

About your two examples:

1. Who says the kid never overheard the parents talking about it? They didn't consciously tell the kid about it but that doesn't mean the kid never heard about it. Also guessing the gender is a 50/50 chance, not exactly statistically significant data point. If I correctly predict a heads or tails coinflip then that doesn't mean I was able to predict the future.

2. The story comes from a page that has zero sources. No proof of anything not even mentioning dates, places or names. Anyone can post a story, doesn't mean it's true.

[connda]

Yeah.  I had a NDE when I was in my teens.  It probably explains why my bull<deleted>ometer is calibrated so sensitively. 
Try dying!  It's a trip. 
Then?  Life's "realities" become something you explore as opposed to accept (like in "everyone must accept what "experts" say).  Honestly.  Unless the 'expert' has been where I went?  They don't have a clue.

 

[JayClay]

22 hours ago, Pdubs said:

The paragraph says that some people met relatives they had never seen before (sometimes didn’t even know they existed). The other one says they could describe their entire resuscitation much of which happened while they were unconscious. People without NDEs could not do this.

Im pretty sure those things could not be just the result of drugs and even if they could be, it would not be a consistent result.

 

@eisfeld has already dealt with the issues pretty well but I'd like to add some thoughts about the resuscitation... I don't see why people wouldn't be able to describe what was happening while being resuscitated, because they obviously actually regain concisness through the process. And once you have regained consciousness, you are aware of what's actually happening. The brain is pretty good at filling in gaps so it's probably quite plausible for somebody to be able to "remember" what happened to them.

 

As for what happened while they were still unconscious.... Is there any scientific proof that we shouldn't be able to remember things happening just because we're not conscious? I honestly don't know but I don't see why your brain wouldn't be able to notice being prodded and pulled about by doctors; between the motivion, noise, possible lighting changes etc there's enough of the body's sensors being triggered that surely some of that could register as a memory?

 

 

[Pdubs]

17 hours ago, connda said:

Yeah.  I had a NDE when I was in my teens.  It probably explains why my bull<deleted>ometer is calibrated so sensitively. 
Try dying!  It's a trip. 
Then?  Life's "realities" become something you explore as opposed to accept (like in "everyone must accept what "experts" say).  Honestly.  Unless the 'expert' has been where I went?  They don't have a clue.

 

Do you mind sharing more about your NDE?

[Pdubs]

18 hours ago, eisfeld said:

 

Let me repeat. None of the unexplained claims have been proven as real supernatural. Not a single one. It's like the people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. The claim about the moon is frankly ridicolous. We have pictures, videos and it's easily explained how we did it. We know all about it. Lets be real here.

 

About your two examples:

1. Who says the kid never overheard the parents talking about it? They didn't consciously tell the kid about it but that doesn't mean the kid never heard about it. Also guessing the gender is a 50/50 chance, not exactly statistically significant data point. If I correctly predict a heads or tails coinflip then that doesn't mean I was able to predict the future.

2. The story comes from a page that has zero sources. No proof of anything not even mentioning dates, places or names. Anyone can post a story, doesn't mean it's true.

 

29 minutes ago, JayClay said:

 

@eisfeld has already dealt with the issues pretty well but I'd like to add some thoughts about the resuscitation... I don't see why people wouldn't be able to describe what was happening while being resuscitated, because they obviously actually regain concisness through the process. And once you have regained consciousness, you are aware of what's actually happening. The brain is pretty good at filling in gaps so it's probably quite plausible for somebody to be able to "remember" what happened to them.

 

As for what happened while they were still unconscious.... Is there any scientific proof that we shouldn't be able to remember things happening just because we're not conscious? I honestly don't know but I don't see why your brain wouldn't be able to notice being prodded and pulled about by doctors; between the motivion, noise, possible lighting changes etc there's enough of the body's sensors being triggered that surely some of that could register as a memory?

 

 

The government could have made those pictures or videos with CGI. Ok, yeah, I was using hyperbole to make a point. Literally the entire basis of both of your arguments is “I don’t trust your sources” “they could all be explained by tons of people lying or having weird memory anomalies that are consistent with other NDEs” “doesn’t seem believable to me.” Maybe one of you could find an authoritative source to answer any of my points?
 

Over half of the world’s population through time if not more believes or believed in an afterlife of some sort so I’m not sure you can say they are not easily explainable when a large percent of the population could explain it using a soul and afterlife. This is a phenomenon that is consistent with several religions.

 

As to the resuscitations, the source I posted said that the control group who did not experience the NDEs could not describe their resuscitations and just had to guess. I also am not an expert on consciousness during resuscitations, but that would seem to indicate that you wouldn’t remember much at all.

[eisfeld]

43 minutes ago, Pdubs said:

The government could have made those pictures or videos with CGI. Ok, yeah, I was using hyperbole to make a point. Literally the entire basis of both of your arguments is “I don’t trust your sources” “they could all be explained by tons of people lying or having weird memory anomalies that are consistent with other NDEs” “doesn’t seem believable to me.” Maybe one of you could find an authoritative source to answer any of my points?

 

We don't trust the sources because we looked at them and they are extremely weak. We can come up with alternative explanations to yours and we have equally no proofs for those, same like you don't have any for yours. But we are honest in concluding that we simply don't know. You ask us to find an authorative source for what? None of these claims can be disproven. You can only find other, medical explanations but we are simply not there yet. So what exactly do you expect? We are just saying these phenomenons can probably be explained by very real effects in the brain without resorting to supernatural things. History tells us this is the best approach.

 

48 minutes ago, Pdubs said:

Over half of the world’s population through time if not more believes or believed in an afterlife of some sort so I’m not sure you can say they are not easily explainable when a large percent of the population could explain it using a soul and afterlife. This is a phenomenon that is consistent with several religions.

 

They also believed in invisible men that are all-powerful. Or believed in demons, ghosts or any number of supernatural entities. They also knew nothing about science or how our brain works. Believes don't explain how something works. By definition a believe means they don't know! It's just a made up story about stuff. Sometime a believe can be an educated guess. Sometimes it's just nonsense pulled out of where the sun doesn't shine. Again, history has shown us that most of our believes were flat out wrong. Religions are the antithesis to science and knowledge.

 

52 minutes ago, Pdubs said:

As to the resuscitations, the source I posted said that the control group who did not experience the NDEs could not describe their resuscitations and just had to guess. I also am not an expert on consciousness during resuscitations, but that would seem to indicate that you wouldn’t remember much at all.

 

So there are two factors at play in these cases: 1. do the people actually process the sensory inputs while unconscious and 2. are they able to recall the processed information later on. Unconsciousness is not a binary state in the brain. There are trillions of different states the brain can be in. Some people have more brain activity and some will have less. For some part X will be working while for others it'll be more part Y. We should not be surprised that people who remember a NDE also can remember other facts. Clearly their memory is working better than the one of the people who can't remember anything. Survivership bias.

[Pdubs]

Here are a couple articles from the New York Academy of Science on this topic:

https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/academy-news/is-there-life-after-death/

this one describes some of the less easily explainable aspects of NDEs and how the meaning of death has changed recently

 

https://www.nyas.org/press-releases/what-happens-when-we-die/

“Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

 

https://www.nyas.org/landing/rethinking-mortality/

 

another article describes how one doctor thinks these are explainable physiologically and several others who think science can not address the question:

https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/academy-news/what-near-death-and-psychedelic-experiences-reveal-about-human-consciousness/

[Pdubs]

10 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

We don't trust the sources because we looked at them and they are extremely weak. We can come up with alternative explanations to yours and we have equally no proofs for those, same like you don't have any for yours. But we are honest in concluding that we simply don't know. You ask us to find an authorative source for what? None of these claims can be disproven. You can only find other, medical explanations but we are simply not there yet. So what exactly do you expect? We are just saying these phenomenons can probably be explained by very real effects in the brain without resorting to supernatural things. History tells us this is the best approach.

 

 

They also believed in invisible men that are all-powerful. Or believed in demons, ghosts or any number of supernatural entities. They also knew nothing about science or how our brain works. Believes don't explain how something works. By definition a believe means they don't know! It's just a made up story about stuff. Sometime a believe can be an educated guess. Sometimes it's just nonsense pulled out of where the sun doesn't shine. Again, history has shown us that most of our believes were flat out wrong. Religions are the antithesis to science and knowledge.

 

 

So there are two factors at play in these cases: 1. do the people actually process the sensory inputs while unconscious and 2. are they able to recall the processed information later on. Unconsciousness is not a binary state in the brain. There are trillions of different states the brain can be in. Some people have more brain activity and some will have less. For some part X will be working while for others it'll be more part Y. We should not be surprised that people who remember a NDE also can remember other facts. Clearly their memory is working better than the one of the people who can't remember anything. Survivership bias.

My main point in the first two parts was that you can’t just discount all these experiences and say they are all fake, which it seems we agree on. I’m not sure it’s possible to prove that this is supernatural without trusting the sources or experiencing an NDE so I guess we can agree that it is an open ended question with no current proof outside of trusting people’s stories.

 

To your third point, I guess that could be an explanation for it but I don’t think either of us knows enough about resuscitation and consciousness to determine which explanation is correct.

 

I just posted some links to the New York Academy of Science. The first one describes our current understanding of death and what NDEs appear to hint at ( no real claim made), the last one describes several doctors’ views on NDEs.