TDB: Heaven is Real: A Doctor's Experience With the Afterlife

[techboy]

I am not sure where is the mystery here. His experience changed his brain. His experience was so profound, we could even say that he did not really have a choice on the matter. He may have good reasons to hold his position and we may have good reasons not to share his position.

Your explanation is plausible, especially given your starting set of assumptions, unless there really is a good reason to exclude the possibility that the experience didn't actually happen during the period of cortical shutdown. I remain open to the possibility, should the doctor present such reasoning, even though I have not seen such thus far.

[alexey]

My reality right now is I have a beer.. what should I do with it? haha

And I agree with you 100% about the pushing. I myself am a believer, and I have friends that do not. The individuals that began to push their criticisms and non belief on me or even joking about the believers.. well that's when I cut ties... basically what techboy said haha

For what it's worth, I think that very few people actually want to insult you or your beliefs. I think that main motivation is to find a common ground and a way to coexist and cooperate... and from personal experience I can tell you that it can get pretty frustrating for unbelievers in the USA. I love our country and I think it is set up on principles that allow us to work all this out.

[PeterMP]

I see no problem with personal beliefs diverging from what we know about reality... as long as they do not get pushed on me or my children, etc. Also, having agreement on reality helps us figure out what we should do about it.

For US to KNOW something about reality, wouldn't we have to agree on it?

[alexey]

Your explanation is plausible, especially given your starting set of assumptions, unless there really is a good reason to exclude the possibility that the experience didn't actually happen during the period of cortical shutdown. I remain open to the possibility, should the doctor present such reasoning, even though I have not seen such thus far.

Before people figured out how to do brain imaging, they would figure out roles of different parts of the brain by examining people who lose them due to disease, trauma, etc... so there is a rich history of examining the relationship between the mind and the brain. I am not aware of any evidence for magic ingredients of the mind. Brain appears to be the organ that produces the mind. You lose parts of the brain, you lose parts of the mind. The idea of somehow retaining your mind after you lose the whole brain is really strange.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 05:28 PM ----------

For US to KNOW something about reality, wouldn't we have to agree on it?

I am not sure what you are getting at. We can know something that is wrong, know something that is right, think we know something that we do not actually know, agree on something that is wrong, agree on something that is right, agree on something we do not know, agree to act like we know, agree that we know enough to act, etc.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Belinda Carlisle said "Heaven is a place on Earth."

There is wisdom there.

[techboy]

I am not aware of any evidence for magic ingredients of the mind.

Unless, of course, the doctor actually has a good reason to be sure that his experience did not occur outside the period of cortical shutdown, and the experience actually happened.

Then, that would be pretty good evidence that there is a mind separate from the body, and you'd even be aware of it.

Of course, we could simply reject any new evidence that might contradict current understanding, a priori. That works too.

The idea of somehow retaining your mind after you lose the whole brain is really strange.

Lots of strange things have turned out to be true.

[alexey]

Unless, of course, the doctor actually has a good reason to be sure that his experience did not occur outside the period of cortical shutdown, and the experience actually happened.

Then, that would be pretty good evidence that there is a mind separate from the body, and you'd even be aware of it.

Of course, we could simply reject any new evidence that might contradict current understanding, a priori. That works too.

Let's hear the doctor's reason to be sure before we go about accusing people of rejecting evidence.

Lots of strange things have turned out to be true.

:fingersx:

[Koolblue13]

fact- something might be out there, but we don't know.

just treat life like a state park and leave it nicer than you found it, enjoy some good memories and move on.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo can have fun going back through the edits, though.

I have had fun today, but this part will be more like work. :evilg:

I just returned awhile ago from a great time at a regional casino with friends and co-workers (including an actual neuroscientist who I trounced on the poker table :cool:) and though this story was discussed, the only comments I have for now are those wearing my moderator hat (the earlier post I made presents my general thoughts on the mater to date).

1. one dude was banned for two weeks for rule violations (5 & 12)

2. ASF, my friend---you need to not be such a dick just because you disagree with both a view and the manner in which the view is presented--you do that too often (first few pages especially) and with more than one poster. You need to watch it. I think that of all the non-psycho "religious posters" we've ever had, you play the dick card more than anyone ever has and it's been ok but time to dial it back.

3. alexy...for the record, at any time I review or am following a thread, if I think you have gone too OT too far for too long (especially if you're leading the movement or doing it single-handedly--which usually hasn't been the case) or too gratuitously, I will temp ban you (or anyone else doing the same sort of OT tangent).

I suggest making sure commentary maintains touch with the main topic as much as possible. Obviously, the more people who "help" with any extended tangents, the less likely anyone will be held accountable unless I'm in the mood for banning a bunch of good posters. Tangents in topics like this are widely allowed but there are limits.

4. Basically, posters should be cognizant of your posting regarding rules 5 and 12 and in the depth and nature of your OT digressions. It's not on me to explain every nuance of board management to you guys (especially ones who regularly argue at length on many topics ) with all your varying perceptions and opinions about every thing you believe "you see" happening here, plus matters regarding the actual rules and the actual topical content.

Example: SS's early comments (which are just fine) reflecting his perception of "these matters" is way different from others of equal worthiness, who in turn are yet different from others, etc. Capiche?

So be advised: any matter I act on moderation-wise will not be subject to extended elaboration or explanations via PMs or in the thread (which is against the rules btw) by members seeking to do so. With absolutely no reference to any one poster (so NO ONE should take this as "oh, he means me"), I have far exceeded any requirements on my end for giving support, guidance, and patience to explain such things and there's too many of you who are too opinionated and too persistent.

If you feel you need to at some point, use the feedback forum or send an e-mail to staff with such issues. Expect brevity in reply.

I am going to add a thank you to PeterMP, TB, alexy, Corc among others for modeling behavior in this thread that is just fine, while being neither dry nor wimpy, nor abusive of rules, yet still making their positions (like any of us have any doubts :evilg:) clear in interesting and informative ways.

From this side of the screen (the one that matters most :evilg: :pfft:) you guys are doing it fine, even if some of you think the other is pretty ****ed.

Every member mentioned in this post is regarded by myself, and to the best of my knowledge the other mods, as a worthy ES'er and tailgate poster at minimum .

But keep in mind that when it comes to the bottom line on taking a mod action I think necessary, it won't matter who anyone is, how long they've been here, or how much I do/don't like them, or agree/disagree with them on any topic.

Carry on.

[maxiumone]

I believe the pfrofessor just did...you rejected what he presented because you didn't experience it yourself.

Nevermind jumbo has it covered, imagine that I am a day late and dollar short lol

[Jumbo]

As indicated, I was more skeptical than not, based on my experience with NDE topics, and that was reinforced after some new conversation with people in the field (neuroscience in two cases) about this story. I have been waiting for some credible "follow-up" pieces, but this is all I have seen so far and they just makes a couple points I think worth considering from the skeptic view, independent of whether the entire articles, sites, or writers are anything to crow about.

Hopefully more comes later as folks look into Dr. Alexander's particular experience further.

I didn't know until now that he had a book and promotional tour coming out when I first heard all the coverage of this.

http://www.twirlit.com/2012/10/10/neurosurgeon-in-coma-sees-heaven-wants-you-to-buy-his-book/

An excerpt repeating some of the details I noted in my first post:

Alexander tells the (strangely familiar) story of a skeptic who never believed others when they told him they had seen the afterlife – that is, until he experienced it himself and somehow lost his ability to think objectively in the process. While his cortex was allegedly “offline”, Dr. Alexander went on a journey, where he saw fluffy pink clouds; winged, Angel-like creatures; a beautiful woman who told him not to be afraid; a “giant cosmic womb”; and other fantastic things.

Now I can't help myself here---but I can't look at the various pictures of the doctor and not have my suspicion go up yet another notch.

Also fwiw:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/video-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-experiences-heaven-near-death

Though he considered himself a Christian, Dr Alexander disregarded his patient's stories of near-death experiences as wishful thinking.

However, after experiencing it himself, Dr. Alexander said he "experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death."

I have to allow for folks who will believe it is a bias of my own that leans me towards certain thoughts I have watching him in the video linked above. But if I am operating normally, I'd say that something is odd in his affect. I also noted he has repeatedly stated that this experience has given him a "scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death" <see quote above>, yet he also makes the familiar claim that science can never weight in effectively on these matters when it suits the flow of what he's saying in other moments.

To go out on the limb, I think it's fairly likely he's either flat out, we'll say, "dissembling", in excellent self-promotional (salesman) form, or has convinced himself of something in a manner and almost (to me) appears a little delusional in affect at times (vocal tones/body language/facial expressions/eyes).

I further admit I am a bit suspicious (given the info at this point) that while this happened in 2008, the first seems we (folks I know here and not here) are hearing of it is right before his book launch. I am assuming some report will come out showing where he's talked about this in earlier years.

[The 12th Commandment]

Interesting to see he goes for the Tucker Carlson look. Bow ties are a gift from Satan so maybe the pink clouds, hot women etc are not heaven but his minds eye view of temptation and brimstone? I don't know, but I do know that one guys experience inside his own head (figurative:)) does not scientific evidence make.

[alexey]

Looks like Sam Harris felt it was necessary to comment on this as well:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

...

Everything—absolutely everything—in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was “shut down,” “inactivated,” “completely shut down,” “totally offline,” and “stunned to complete inactivity.” The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate—it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science. Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book—though now that I’ve listened to an hour-long interview with him online, I very much doubt it. In his Newsweek article, Alexander asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.” To his editors, this presumably sounded like neuroscience.

The problem, however, is that “CT scans and neurological examinations” can’t determine neuronal inactivity—in the cortex or anywhere else. And Alexander makes no reference to functional data that might have been acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG—nor does he seem to realize that only this sort of evidence could support his case.

...

Again, there is nothing to be said against Alexander’s experience. It sounds perfectly sublime. And such ecstasies do tell us something about how good a human mind can feel. The problem is that the conclusions Alexander has drawn from his experience—he continually reminds us, as a scientist—are based on some very obvious errors in reasoning and gaps in his understanding.

Let me suggest that, whether or not heaven exists, Alexander sounds precisely how a scientist should not sound when he doesn’t know what he is talking about. And his article is not the sort of thing that the editors of a once-important magazine should publish if they hope to reclaim some measure of respect for their battered brand.

It's too bad we had to go through several pages of: "those nonbelievers will just dismiss the evidence" before getting to the bottom of the "evidence."

[PeterMP]

First, let me say that I think efforts to "prove" god via science are likely always to fail. I also think these effort are foolish on the parts of believers and diminish the value of faith. I also think they are illogical in terms of why would a god pick this point in time in history to reveal his exsistance in a completely validated manner.

I also think that none of us have any idea how good the evidence this man has, but given the claim of "proof" through "science", I find it disappointing that he'd go about revealing his evidence in such a poor and uncritical manner rather than a more rigorous reviewed process.

With all of that said, it is disappointing that somebody of Sam Harris' sature and noteriety would take this route in terms of "criticizing" this man and the editors of NewsWeek when addressing the manner, especially in unsoliciated manner, rather than trying to build a constructive and critical review of the evidence by doing something like contacting NewsWeeks editors with his concerns in a thorough and referenced manner and seeing what their response is or reading the book or simply stating the importance that the complete medical records be released to back up his claims.

Harris' critique should have been about 3 sentences and ended with:

"Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book"

[alexey]

First, let me say that I think efforts to "prove" god via science are likely always to fail. I also think these effort are foolish on the parts of believers and diminish the value of faith. I also think they are illogical in terms of why would a god pick this point in time in history to reveal his exsistance in a completely validated manner.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. I understand that discovering god through science is not the same as having a religious experience, but why would we want to disqualify some ways of looking for god and maybe even finding god?

I think that evidence of god giving us an ability to think is much stronger than evidence of god revealing his infinite wisdom in a single book.

So maybe we can find god by thinking together and working together, helping each other out, and trying to eliminate suffering in the world. Maybe efforts to prove god will succeed as soon as there isn't a person on Earth who is dying from preventable disease or malnutrition.

I also think that none of us have any idea how good the evidence this man has, but given the claim of "proof" through "science", I find it disappointing that he'd go about revealing his evidence in such a poor and uncritical manner rather than a more rigorous reviewed process.

With all of that said, it is disappointing that somebody of Sam Harris' sature and noteriety would take this route in terms of "criticizing" this man and the editors of NewsWeek when addressing the manner, especially in unsoliciated manner, rather than trying to build a constructive and critical review of the evidence by doing something like contacting NewsWeeks editors with his concerns in a thorough and referenced manner and seeing what their response is or reading the book or simply stating the importance that the complete medical records be released to back up his claims.

Harris' critique should have been about 3 sentences and ended with:

"Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book"

What a shame to print this on the cover of a Newsweek magazine. Let Sam Harris spend his time bashing this, if Sam Harris wants to spend his time that way. I wouldn't spend much time on this, but I'm glad somebody's doing it.

[PeterMP]

This is an interesting way of looking at it. I understand that discovering god through science is not the same as having a religious experience, but why would we want to disqualify some ways of looking for god and maybe even finding god?

Like most things in life I tend to limit myself to things that make sense to me.

If God wanted to let himself be a "known", he could have and could do it at anytime w/ or w/o science.

That he'd select this time through that method seems unlikely. If nothing else, simple probabilities tell me the probability is very low.

What a shame to print this on the cover of a Newsweek magazine.

Doesn't that depend on what the evidence is?

Maybe NewsWeek has his complete medical records and 10 neuroscientists spent 10 weeks combing them, and all 10 of them told NewWeek, 'Hey, there is something really here.'

[CrabR]

I recall a story of a hospital that put stickers on top of some equipment in terminally-ill patients rooms. They were up too high to be seen by anyone in the room, and even the doctors didn't know what the stickers looked like. Several of the patients described floating above their bodies, looking down on the scene, and were able to describe the stickers precisely, after near-death experiences

I read just the opposite of that story years ago;. It was a ER nurse who had put them there and no one ever remember what they said. I forget what magazine it was in