- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Exactly. There comes a point in life when spirituality, I think, is no longer about proof. I see that in you. And I see that in the rest of us. Maybe that’s all you have been expressing.
It’s not about proof. It’s about reality. Love your reality. Live your reality. Face your reality. Share your reality.
Tom, I like this. The difficulty I have with this subject (and others we are paralleling it against), is what if your reality is not correct? What happens when I start making daily changes based on what I think was a NDE?
What if my reality is that we’re all going to be beamed up to the space station and be saved from this crazy world, so we need to live together in Waco, TX? One outcome could be the FBI raids the compound and we all die.
At some point, isn’t it the responsible thing for others who care about the person require action to intervene and find out what is happening in their brain that is making them think incorrectly (according to others’ reality)? You can’t succeed in society by living your reality, when your reality is so far off of the physical reality. Living a reality based on false doctrine leads to damnation…the end of progression.
Heber13 wrote:Quote:Exactly. There comes a point in life when spirituality, I think, is no longer about proof. I see that in you. And I see that in the rest of us. Maybe that’s all you have been expressing.
It’s not about proof. It’s about reality. Love your reality. Live your reality. Face your reality. Share your reality.
Tom, I like this. The difficulty I have with this subject (and others we are paralleling it against), is what if your reality is not correct? What happens when I start making daily changes based on what I think was a NDE?
What if my reality is that we’re all going to be beamed up to the space station and be saved from this crazy world, so we need to live together in Waco, TX? One outcome could be the FBI raids the compound and we all die.
Or, to bring this closer to reality, what happens if we all think that communism is the key to life based on the experiences we had under Jim Jones, and we believe that by drinking the kool-aid we’ll be helping advance communism (the true gov’t)?Heber13 wrote:At some point, isn’t it the responsible thing for others who care about the person require action to intervene and find out what is happening in their brain that is making them think incorrectly (according to others’ reality)? You can’t succeed in society by living your reality, when your reality is so far off of the physical reality. Living a reality based on false doctrine leads to damnation…the end of progression.
I think you’re absolutely right Heber. The problem is determining if your reality is so far off. We can’t do this ourselves, which is why it takes someone to intervene. But as Mormons we aren’t very receptive to people to trying “intervene” in this way, are we. This is a very hard problem. I don’t see Mormonism as a cult in this manner, and I don’t think our realities as Mormons are so far off reality (I think some TBMs will have unhealthy worldviews (I think I did), but most are pretty good), but then again, it’s very hard to know!
Quote:The problem is determining if your reality is so far off. We can’t do this ourselves, which is why it takes someone to intervene.
Yes…exactly.
Heber13 wrote:
What if my reality is that we’re all going to be beamed up to the space station and be saved from this crazy world, so we need to live together in Waco, TX?You’re mixing your cults, heber.
😆 😆 This is tricky because an important part of the human experience is community. In practicality, most human conflicts come from “community realities” not being able to co-exist. Race, religion, empire, super-natural are all “realities” that human communities have not been able to accept in other human communities. So there is a paradoxical nature to reality: it’s individual, then communal, then universal but it’s only perceived as being communal, for most humans. (Though the individual feels it as individual, communal and universal)
Human communities have adopted adapted realities to survive. These include checks on individual reality that differs from the community reality so as not to adapt to an existentially destructive reality.
So, an important part of the human evolutionary process is the individual adapting to the community in helpful ways. If they are not helpful, the community may reject them/it as a means of “adapting” so as not to “die”.
I think that communities with the greatest diversity of “reality” will allow for the greatest opportunity to adapt and progress. It’s not an accident that this diversity was prominent in early greek, roman, and arabian communities, only to be lost when the orthodox reality became too oppressive to the diverse “realities”. Human progression made great leaps forward when unbounded by orthodox “reality” as accepted by the respective community.
The “American” experiment is the most recent example: founders were great believers in “alternate” realities to what the accepted was at the time in their “parent” communities. Hence, the “age of enlightenment”. The age of enlightenment was made possible by the ability of the community to examine and accept alternatives to what the contemporary “reality” was. And fostering the idea of individual reality being helpful to the community reality.
Wow, swimordie. Another home run. Yes. Yes. Yes. My personal motto is: “Spirituality doesn’t trump morality.” The Golden Rule is still tops. If spirituality leads me to be a better neighbor, hip hip hooray! If not, time to get a new spirituality. And I think the natural proper progression in the understanding of “Who’s my neighbor?” is from the family, to the church, to the community, to the universe. As Joseph Smith said, “A man who is filled with the love of God is not content to bless his own family, but ranges through the human race.”
And parallel to the increasing scope of outgoing morality, I think there is an increase in the scope of incoming connectedness. I used to listen to my Mom, then my Dad, then my teachers, then the Apostles, then the Bible teachers, then the journalists, then the great Moral Teachers and sacred texts, and now the common and simple good people of the entire world.
It’s a natural progression outward as our capacity and background experience increases. And the reality becomes increasingly apt.
swimordie wrote:The “American” experiment is the most recent example: founders were great believers in “alternate” realities to what the accepted was at the time in their “parent” communities. Hence, the “age of enlightenment”. The age of enlightenment was made possible by the ability of the community to examine and accept alternatives to what the contemporary “reality” was. And fostering the idea of individual reality being helpful to the community reality.
This is interesting, swim (first let me say, you crack me up…you should start a thread on the benefits of keeping a sense of humor!)
Here is my thought about the American experiment and truth…
With the American experience, I would propose that it was not the freedom to all have our own realities that created the greatest nation on the earth…but that the system of government was built upon universal principles that did not limit freedoms and opportunity for progress (and because of free agency, sin and crime). It is the belief the founding fathers were inspired to devise a system of checks and balances rather than a communist system of imposed values that allows for success. It is because the reality is closer to the truth than the perceived reality of communism.
If we believe NDEs are mystical and spiritual and of God and there is no further explaining it…we don’t learn any more about the human brain, as opposed to realizing the psychie and how it works and truly explaining those experiences…then we can move forward and possibly help other psychotic disorders.
I like the way Tom said,
Tom Haws wrote:It’s a natural progression outward as our capacity and background experience increases. And the reality becomes increasingly apt
Heber13 wrote:If we believe NDEs are mystical and spiritual and of God and there is no further explaining it…we don’t learn any more about the human brain, as opposed to realizing the psychie and how it works and truly explaining those experiences…then we can move forward and possibly help other psychotic disorders.
Fantastic, Heber! This is one of the great unexplored frontiers of humans ability to help other humans.
Tom Haws wrote:It’s a natural progression outward as our capacity and background experience increases. And the reality becomes increasingly apt.
Perfectly stated, Tom, imho.
I want to share an interesting story with you. Twenty years ago, when I was working in a plush hair salon in Eugene, Oregon, I had a customer who would fly in from San Francisco. She had become famous and was to appear on some big talk shows because of an unusual “out of body” experience. She told me to share her story whenever possible. This woman had lived a self-centered, fairly wicked life. She had many questions about life and feared what the next life would bring. She had been a diabetic for 8 years on insulin. As she was taking a taxi to the airport one morning, she realized she had forgotten to eat breakfast and had not taken her insulin. In fact, she forgot to take insulin with her as she had felt so rushed. She began to go into diabetic shock and quickly asked the taxi driver to go back; that she needed her insulin. At this point she became aware that she was standing outside the taxi and looking in at he limp body. She also noticed a man in white appearing next to her. She was not afraid and seemed to be ready with her questions. The first question she asked was “Is there really such a being as the Devil”? The being in white said, “I’ll let you see.” Suddenly the being disappeared and everything became very dark. So black and dark you could cut it with a knife. She became aware of the presence of the most awful being coming towards her which frightened her enough to say, “Ok, I don’t need to know anymore”.
The darkness left and the light and heavenly being returned. Well, you’d think she’d leave well enough alone, but she then asked her next question. “Is there really such a place as hell”? The heavenly being said again, “Ill let you see.” She then said she experienced true hell, but it was not as she had anticipated it to be. Her whole life began flashing before her and she re-lived every awful thing she had done to people. She had to feel the anguish and pain others went through because of her actions on earth. Also, she saw the ripple effect it had on others. It was the most horrible experience. She woke up in the hospital and the doctor knew she had gone through something traumatic and asked her if she had an “out of body” experience. She told him about it and then said just before she came to, the heavenly being told her that her time on earth was not up yet and she needed to go back. She was to know that this experience was not just a figment of her imagination, because she would no longer have diabetes or need to be on insulin when she returned. The doctor checked her out and she did not have diabetes and has not been on insulin since. This experience happened 3 years prior to my meeting her.
To me, NDE’s are like a host of other mysterious phenomena that we couldn’t explain for a long time–in the absence of a good scientific explanation, we interpreted/answered the experience in religious terms–i.e. while dying, I saw my body, I talked to God, I heard the EMT’s having a conversation about me, God gave me a choice of living or dying, etc. therefore, I have “proof” that God is real, I have a spirit, and there is life after death. That seems like a reasonable conclusion without a better, more sound, explanation. Science has very good answers/explanations for NDE’s now; we used to think the Rain Gods were responsible for rain, now we trust the scientific explanation, to me, NDE’s are no different. I think Rix mentioned this earlier, but psychedelic drugs induce all sorts of “religious” experiences. People talk to God, see angels, fly, etc.–before science could explain why this happens, lots of people believed they were really experiencing these things. Whether its drugs, a dying brain, or anything else, if science can explain it, then that is the better answer to me.
wordsleuth23 wrote:To me, NDE’s are like a host of other mysterious phenomena that we couldn’t explain for a long time–in the absence of a good scientific explanation, we interpreted/answered the experience in religious terms–i.e. while dying, I saw my body, I talked to God, I heard the EMT’s having a conversation about me, God gave me a choice of living or dying, etc. therefore, I have “proof” that God is real, I have a spirit, and there is life after death. That seems like a reasonable conclusion without a better, more sound, explanation. Science has very good answers/explanations for NDE’s now; we used to think the Rain Gods were responsible for rain, now we trust the scientific explanation, to me, NDE’s are no different.
Well, while I understand your point, I think it’s quite inaccurate to say that there is no difference. I do think that as neuroscience, and psychologists learn more we will discover mysteries and further increase understanding. But psychologists will be the first to admit that their science is rather unique. It is not nearly so well-defined, easy to test, or conclusive due to the uniqueness of each one of us. Here are some very important differences:1. Rain is a purely physical phenomenon (purely tangible even at the atomic level), consciousness is exactly the opposite as it is not tangible, measurable, or even well understood at this point.
2. Besides 1, rain is rain is rain (simplified here a bit I know). NDEs, consciousness, and spirituality varies wildly with individuals. There are common threads as Tom has pointed out, and those are interesting, but it makes it very hard to test in a scientific manner.
wordsleuth23 wrote:I think Rix mentioned this earlier, but psychedelic drugs induce all sorts of “religious” experiences. People talk to God, see angels, fly, etc.–before science could explain why this happens, lots of people believed they were really experiencing these things. Whether its drugs, a dying brain, or anything else, if science can explain it, then that is the better answer to me.
You know I lean this way too, but I believe we have to be careful. If science can explain it, it doesn’t make it right. It might be better in some respects because it is more logical, or more in line with objective reality, but if the explanation Tom provides helps people does that not count for something? Maybe that makes the NDE explanation better according the measure of how it changes people’s lives. I am not opposed to things that change people’s lives for the better, even if they’re not in line with objective reality. If their belief is damaging other people, or doing some harm, then yes, it is a problem. But I don’t see that in people who have had and NDE.I know this is a bit of postmodern view and I am generally quite wary of such a view. I understand the danger of being relativistic, but like other things in life, striking the proper balance is like dancing on a tightrope. Positivism has its place, but should be countered IMHO with a healthy dose of the metaphysical.
jmb275 wrote:Well, while I understand your point, I think it’s quite inaccurate to say that there is no difference. I do think that as neuroscience, and psychologists learn more we will discover mysteries and further increase understanding. But psychologists will be the first to admit that their science is rather unique. It is not nearly so well-defined, easy to test, or conclusive due to the uniqueness of each one of us. Here are some very important differences:
1. Rain is a purely physical phenomenon (purely tangible even at the atomic level), consciousness is exactly the opposite as it is not tangible, measurable, or even well understood at this point.
2. Besides 1, rain is rain is rain (simplified here a bit I know). NDEs, consciousness, and spirituality varies wildly with individuals. There are common threads as Tom has pointed out, and those are interesting, but it makes it very hard to test in a scientific manner.
You’re right, it is inaccurate to say that the science of understanding rain is no different that the science of the brain, but my point still stands. I’m sure there are still some indigenous tribes in the world that still believe in some sort of rain god, and that is because they don’t “know” why it really rains. I guess I can’t guarantee there isn’t a rain god, but I’m going to comfortably accept the scientific answer.
That is my point about NDE’s. While NDE’s and neuroscience are more complex than rain, we have scientifically gotten far enough with NDE’s to identify what is happening in the brain when they occur, and to even create them on command. If we’ve gotten to the point with something that we can create them on command–a special brain helmet is one way–then its safe to say we’ve “debunked” the supernatural explanation. Like rain, understanding NDE’s from a scientific standpoint doesn’t mean we have proven there is no God, or that heaven doesn’t exist, but I’m more comfortable with the sound, proven understanding science has provided on the issue. Jmb, you should read some of the studies that have been done–for references, go to Michael Shermer’s website.
I have no problem with people finding comfort in these experiences, I just don’t believe them. I’m with you, as long as people’s belief in this phenomenon don’t lead them to mistreat others, or push their belief on others, then its no big deal. It is bothersome when people say it’s “proof” that agnostics/atheists/non-theists are wrong, because the only sort of proof related to the matter lies with science, not the other way around.
jmb275 wrote:You know I lean this way too, but I believe we have to be careful. If science can explain it, it doesn’t make it right. It might be better in some respects because it is more logical, or more in line with objective reality, but if the explanation Tom provides helps people does that not count for something? Positivism has its place, but should be countered IMHO with a healthy dose of the metaphysical.
I disagree with your statement “if science can explain it, it doesn’t make it right”. I guess defining terms here would be helpful–I would define “right” as the most correct explanation we can have/gain at any given moment. In that respect, when science can accurately describe a phenomenon, science is “right” in one sense. That doesn’t mean Tom’s explanation is useless or unhelpful, but positivism gets things done–metaphysical thoughts/philosophies can’t really be “right” by their very nature–they can be interesting, but not right, unless they can be proven by science. I’m obviously looking at this through the biased lenses of a positivist, but that is my take.
1. Can you explain what positivism means to you? 2. This thread seems, in bulk, to be dedicated to debating/exploring the meaning of NDE. In other words, a meta-discussion has overtaken a proper technical discussion of NDE phenomenology and data. The thread seems not to be really “All About NDEs”, but “What about NDEs?”. Do you have the interest and energy to look closely enough to talk “All About NDEs”? Can I call thread-jack? Is that fair? Maybe not. Suppose I propose that rather than postulate about whether we can accept XYZ mechanism for this unknown quantity called Near Death Experiences, we instead work on defining the subject. What is a Near Death Experience? What does it look like? In other words, if I am going to understand the reality that stages a Near Death Experience, shouldn’t I start by understanding the experience itself? So I ask you and all of us, “What do you understand the Near Death Experience to entail?” “What is the full range of phenomenology to account for (on another thread or in another era)?”
Is that fair? Define first, explain later?
P.S. Since there have been no further comments yet. Let me add the words of P.M.H. Atwater that explain the need to understand before analyzing, if that is indeed your interest. I don’t blame anybody for being disinterested in NDEs. They aren’t the “One True Religion”, I repeat. But if you are interested in studying, study.
Quote:The problem with Dr. Blackmore’s work, and that of all the others who seek to explain away the near-death phenomenon in neurological or psychological terms, is that they base their premise on just a few of the many aspects of near-death states. NONE OF THEM have anything to say about the entire phenomenon as reported, or its spread of physiological and psychological aftereffects that in most cases become life-long changes, nor the range of implications. Their work, if you really study it, is hollow.
None of Dr. Blackmore’s comments about eye sight or anoxia of how sight narrows at death fit what actually occurs during a near-death experience. Persinger’s work doesn’t fit either, because none of the participants in any of his research projects have ever described the full spectrum of the phenomenon, much less the pattern of aftereffects. There is a reply to Dr. Blackmore’s work in the Article Section of my website (
http://www.pmhatwater.com ), that was submitted by an individual who had noticed what was missing from her theories. You might read it for further details.The skeptics sound good and their reasoning seems solid, until you step back and take another look at what they’re saying. I’m not certain what references they are using to base their ideas on, but I do know that none of them have ever done substantial research with actual near-death experiencers, nor the kind of clinical work now published in many peer-reviewed journals. The old days of small studies and provocative claims are now over. Near-death research today stands firmly on the results of four large clinical prospective studies done in three countries, on findings coming in from research in non-industrialized countries, and on a wealth of studies that have withstood over three decades of scrutiny.
I can explain in more detail the aspects of the NDE Atwater is referring to.
Tom Haws wrote:1. Can you explain what positivism means to you?
Positivism is empiricism, i.e, evidence you can test.
Tom Haws wrote:Atwater quote:The skeptics sound good and their reasoning seems solid, until you step back and take another look at what they’re saying. I’m not certain what references they are using to base their ideas on, but I do know that none of them have ever done substantial research with actual near-death experiencers, nor the kind of clinical work now published in many peer-reviewed journals. The old days of small studies and provocative claims are now over. Near-death research today stands firmly on the results of four large clinical prospective studies done in three countries, on findings coming in from research in non-industrialized countries, and on a wealth of studies that have withstood over three decades of scrutiny.
I can explain in more detail the aspects of the NDE Atwater is referring to.
What are Atwater’s academic credentials? For her to criticize the studies done by “skeptics” is interesting, considering the studies are actually quite numerous, the people doing the studies have ACTUAL Ph.D.’s, and their work appears in peer reviewed journals. Susan Blackmore’s academic credentials are enormously more impressive than Atwaters, so her criticism of Blackwater also strikes me as misplaced. Anyway, I’ll stay out of this discussion because I’ve said what I think about NDE’s and I don’t want to be the antagonist of the thread.
Tom Haws wrote:2. This thread seems, in bulk, to be dedicated to debating/exploring the meaning of NDE. In other words, a meta-discussion has overtaken a proper technical discussion of NDE phenomenology and data. The thread seems not to be really “All About NDEs”, but “What about NDEs?”. Do you have the interest and energy to look closely enough to talk “All About NDEs”? Can I call thread-jack? Is that fair? Maybe not. Suppose I propose that rather than postulate about whether we can accept XYZ mechanism for this unknown quantity called Near Death Experiences, we instead work on defining the subject. What is a Near Death Experience? What does it look like? In other words, if I am going to understand the reality that stages a Near Death Experience, shouldn’t I start by understanding the experience itself? So I ask you and all of us, “What do you understand the Near Death Experience to entail?” “What is the full range of phenomenology to account for (on another thread or in another era)?”
Thank you Tom for bringing me back down to earth. Yes, you are right. I would like to know more about NDEs. I will try to read some of the information you gave tonight so I can intelligently discuss the phenomenon.Skepticism is great, even good. Antagonism, I agree, is a problem. You’re the judge. 
wordsleuth23 wrote:What are Atwater’s academic credentials?
I didn’t intend to be appealing to an expert, but to merely be borrowing Atwater’s words. Please respond to the words as though I had said them myself.
I don’t want to speak ad hominem instead of at the subject, but here are the credentials for the prominent researchers in the field.
Dr.
Kenneth Ring, Ph.D., (born 1936) is Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Connecticut Susan Blackmoregraduated from St. Hilda’s College, Oxford, with a BA (Hons) degree in psychology and physiology. She went on to do a postgraduate degree in environmental psychology at the University of Surrey, achieving an MSc degree in 1974. In 1980, she got her PhD degree in parapsychology from the same university, her thesis being entitled “Extrasensory Perception as a Cognitive Process.” After some period of time spent in research on parapsychology and the paranormal,[1] her attitude towards the field moved from belief to scepticism.[2] She is a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and in 1991 was awarded the CSICOP Distinguished Skeptic Award. Melvin Morse, M.D., is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington. Raymond Moodystudied philosophy at the University of Virginia where he obtained a B.A. (1966), an M.A. (1967) and a Ph.D (1969) in the subject. In 1976, he was awarded an M.D. from the Medical College of Georgia. In 1998 Moody was appointed Chair in Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. After obtaining his M.D., Moody worked as a forensic psychiatrist in a maximum-security Georgia state hospital. P.M.H Atwaterhas no earned doctorate. I hope that helps.
===================================
2006-08-09 2:30 p.m.
OK, so I’m out of my existential funk. At least, I am pacified enough to start caring about all the deluded believers in the world and possibly enough to try to sort through their stuff.
The problem is, I am not a very good secularist. I have not much but faith in my secularism. I have very little knowledge or research behind me. All my research and knowledge for all these years has been focused on building and refining my model of reality as a believer.
I can’t bring much evidence to bear in favor of my secularism, and I am willing to confess that it is largely due to my inexperience. If a preponderance of the evidence is going to be the deciding standard in this matter, I may not have patience in this experiment to give the secularist presumption a fair shake, and I may quit the experiment early with the secularist presumption buried under an avalanche of little evidences.
But suppose there really is nothing but space and time. Let me think of near death experiences:
Pam Reynolds must have researched bone saws in preparation for her flat-line, low-temperature, blood-drained brain surgery. She must have in the moments before flat-lining imagined popping out of her body and sitting as it were on the doctor’s shoulder and surveying the room and the scene with heightened awareness, including the bone saw. And she must have imagined being drawn through a darkness toward a light. And she must have imagined being stopped by relatives lest she become unreturnable. And she must have imagined her uncle escorted her back to her repulsive body and told her to “just jump in like a swimming pool” and then when she hesitated too long pushed her back. And she must have imagined the pain and chill of entering back in.
Howard Storm and George Rodonaia, both atheists turned ministers of God must have been mistaken it thinking their NDE’s were the real thing compared to the rest of life.
Pam Reynolds, Howard Storm, George Rodonaia, dozens of others I have read, hundreds of others written I have not read, and thousands of others, the lion’s share of the 1/5 [ed. 1/20 or 5%, not 1/5] of the U.S. population that has had NDE’s must be interpreting wrong that their NDE was reality and the rest of their life only so in reference to it.
Susan Blackmore does a good job of starting to explain some possibilities for NDE mechanisms. And I applaud her work. But I find some of her explanations lacking.
TUNNEL AND LIGHT
Blackmore proposes that the tunnel and light experience is a function of the biology of the cortex of the brain. This could explain tunnel imagery, though I don’t understand how. What it doesn’t explain is the complete phenomenon that many of the experiencers seem to be trying to express using tunnel imagery.
The perception phenomenon represented by the words tunnel and light is much more complex than those two mere words, tunnel and light. I will attempt to express a less condensed version of the tunnel and light perception. But in order to do so, I will need to construct an NDE reference frame. This is similar to what researcher Kenneth Ring has done, but I will use my own system.
MY NDE PHENOMENOLOGY MAP
*snip snip*
Already included aboveBACK TO TUNNEL AND LIGHT
On my map above, tunnel and light are numbers 4 and 5. For those who are familiar only with the canonical NDE lore and themes, it might seem 5 and 6 could be combined. But they cannot. It is true that many memorable accounts tell of perceiving a light through the void and feeling drawn toward it promptly and rapidly as if through a tunnel. But this is not universally the case.
VOID DISTINCT FROM LIGHT
George Rodonaia perceived as the first element of his NDE an utter void.
He assumed his personal extinctionuntil he recalled Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am,” after which he experienced element 6, Light, followed by element 4, a wandering about this world. Others perceive themselves in a dark void. One lady perceived she was in a place of darkness filled with individualswho were huddled so desperate they didn’t even notice or respond to her presence or her thoughts. Howard Storm perceived that malicious people tricked him, taunted him, then abused him for sport for hours, weeks, or months. In a different category than those who perceive spending time in the void are those who perceive it
as they go tothe light. Some speak of pausing in their progress to the light or at paying attention to other souls through the void around them, some traveling, some static. Others pass through the void rapidly but not so rapidly as to fail to notice other individuals at their periphery. But returning to the memorable tunnel and light accounts, it appears that these experiencers may be either forgetting the unpleasantness of the void or possibly were so focused on going toward the light in their perception that they did not perceive any details about the void beyond its being dark and framing the periphery of their perceived destination.
LIGHT DISTINCT FROM VOID
On arrival, the light is described as either a person or a place. But the important distinction of the light is that once the light is obtained, the void is left behind. For their arrival at the light from the void, experiencers use words like came, plopped, emerged, and landed, or they simply express element 10, oneness as the void fades away.
BLACKMORE, NDE, AND BELIEF
Blackmore’s explanation fits well the canonical NDE themes, but it fails to explain fully the range of perceptions of the void and the light. Blackmore has done a good job, but this NDE element is a demonstration of the amount of work remaining to be done to arrive at satisfying explanations for the full range of NDE phenomenology. For those of us who accept as a given that there is no reality beyond time and space, this should not be disheartening. Reality is what it is, and our inability to explain it reflects poorly on us, not on reality.
===========================
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.