Top Neurosurgeon ‘Spent Six Days In Heaven’ During A Coma

[Antlerman]

Anyone who has experienced a very realistic dream knows the human brain can create a very convincing image, complete with emotions. Fear of death is the reason mythology and religion exist.

Once again, you guys totally miss the point. I haven't watched this video as I just read this thread a few minutes ago. You try to interpret this as somehow either validating, or dismissing, this external idea of a mythological God. Gaaah... you don't get it. You're trying to debate a Sunday School image as fact or fantasy. That's not the point. Why is it you're stuck here?

 

I don't have time to dissect the living hell out of the faults in the comments here as I have a delicious dinner ahead, but should someone wish to explore beyond the sorts of typical arguments I hear here, I'll be happy to have an intelligent, rational, reasoned, discussion into these areas. Seriously, does it give you comfort to prop up and knock down an image created from your Christian past, and not see beyond it?

[florduh]

Anyone who has experienced a very realistic dream knows the human brain can create a very convincing image, complete with emotions. Fear of death is the reason mythology and religion exist.

Once again, you guys totally miss the point. I haven't watched this video as I just read this thread a few minutes ago. You try to interpret this as somehow either validating, or dismissing, this external idea of a mythological God. Gaaah... you don't get it. You're trying to debate a Sunday School image as fact or fantasy. That's not the point. Why is it you're stuck here?

 

I don't have time to dissect the living hell out of the faults in the comments here as I have a delicious dinner ahead, but should someone wish to explore beyond the sorts of typical arguments I hear here, I'll be happy to have an intelligent, rational, reasoned, discussion into these areas. Seriously, does it give you comfort to prop up and knock down an image created from your Christian past, and not see beyond it?

 

The person who had what is popularly called NDE put the Christian mythology veneer on it. Others attach their own meaning as you have done.

 

My own perspective is not based in disproving the Christian myth. I agree with the scientists who have studied the phenomenon and believe the event has its basis in brain function (or dysfunction) and doesn't represent any mysterious "spiritual" truth. Near death is not death, so I don't see the connection people make with this anyway.

 

That said, I can understand the profound effect such an experience could have. The experience of alien abduction also has understandably profound effects on the lives of those who experience it and believe it really happened, but I don't believe there are real, living aliens who abduct people.

[mymistake]

Anyone who has experienced a very realistic dream knows the human brain can create a very convincing image, complete with emotions. Fear of death is the reason mythology and religion exist.

Once again, you guys totally miss the point. I haven't watched this video as I just read this thread a few minutes ago. You try to interpret this as somehow either validating, or dismissing, this external idea of a mythological God. Gaaah... you don't get it. You're trying to debate a Sunday School image as fact or fantasy. That's not the point. Why is it you're stuck here?

 

I do not see it as validating or dismissing an external idea of a mythological God. I often do consider the idea of a Sunday School image as being either fact or fantasy because of what Christianity did to my life and most of my family members. I still struggle every day with that. If I didn't have the damage (and nobody else did either) then I would have no reason to talk about it. But NDEs do not prove or disprove Christianity. Christian theology and the observable universe handle that. I find NDEs to be interesting. I wonder what it would be like to experience one.

 

 

I don't have time to dissect the living hell out of the faults in the comments here as I have a delicious dinner ahead, but should someone wish to explore beyond the sorts of typical arguments I hear here, I'll be happy to have an intelligent, rational, reasoned, discussion into these areas. Seriously, does it give you comfort to prop up and knock down an image created from your Christian past, and not see beyond it?

 

Are the things you have to offer actually pointing out faults or are they merely differences in opinion? The problem for me is that you tend to use many words that have spiritual meanings unknown to me. Without an objective frame of reference I'm not going to get much out of it. For example a while ago I tried to follow a similar conversation. I couldn't make sense of much of the jargon so I focused on "duality" and "non-duality" but even then I couldn't tell what you meant by either. Another example: teaching my son division and multiplication. At first he had no clue what I was talking about and did not believe me. But I was able to use an objective frame of reference. I got out pennies and showed him what I was talking about. Eventually he saw that it was not just an opinion. Division and multiplication follow a set of consistent rules. If you have something down to Earth and useful I would like to see that very much.

[Antlerman]

I don't have time to dissect the living hell out of the faults in the comments here as I have a delicious dinner ahead, but should someone wish to explore beyond the sorts of typical arguments I hear here, I'll be happy to have an intelligent, rational, reasoned, discussion into these areas. Seriously, does it give you comfort to prop up and knock down an image created from your Christian past, and not see beyond it?

 

Are the things you have to offer actually pointing out faults or are they merely differences in opinion?

I see them as pointing out flaws in reasoning in many cases, yes. It also has a lot to do with perspective that comes from additional knowledge. Is it a difference in opinion? Well, sure, but not without supporting reasons.

 

The problem for me is that you tend to use many words that have spiritual meanings unknown to me. Without an objective frame of reference I'm not going to get much out of it. For example a while ago I tried to follow a similar conversation. I couldn't make sense of much of the jargon so I focused on "duality" and "non-duality" but even then I couldn't tell what you meant by either.

I'm always discovering better ways to communicate these things, and how I do now may be better than in the past. Hard to say though. There is of course going to be frames of reference as you say. The 'spiritual' language I use is largely a personal preference thing, and bottom line is it really doesn't matter what symbols one uses, so long as the essence of what is communicated is the same. For instance, saying "It's just the brain", does not in fact communicate content. In fact, typically that is intended to gut meaning and symbolic power out of it and throw it into the trash can. That to me is hardly being objective about these things.

 

So, I'm game to find some common language that communicates. But it will have to transcend mere reductionism. If not, then it will always come down to matter of perceptual realities, and it doesn't matter if I call it God, Spirit, the Universe, the Absolute, Consciousness, Awareness, Self, Oneness, Brahman, Being, Infinity, the Void, Emptiness, etc. If someone has no experience of what these speak of, then it's merely some metaphysical model speculating about some causal reality. It's like arguing whether or not another continent exists without actually going there and setting foot on it. That act pretty much settles the argument, but not how you describe the landscape to others. Often descriptors will sound strange and "woo" to those who have never seen a mountain, for instance.

 

But to the greater point, if this person in the video, which I've yet to make time to watch (presenting one hour videos for discussion is to say the least challenging for people to do in order to discuss - I'm working off a lot of past discussions here), if he is interpreting this in a Christian context, that's understandable. The meanings and faces that he sees will necessarily need to speak to his mind. That does not mean that the experience was not real. It also does not mean it was "just the brain". It was an opening into something for himself through the brain, and the brain does what the brain does and offer symbols to the mind to try to translate it for him. The experience is real. It is profound, life changing, and transcendent.

 

What it is not however is proof that one's cultural symbols, or even deeper symbols than that, are the literal faces of literal beings 'beyond the grave'. What is experienced in fact does transcend our so-called 'normal' reality which we love to insist is *reality*, and these images are the faces our minds put on that. It's the "That", which is hardly a closed subject. I call That, God, but it really doesn't matter what word you use, and actually I'll add that to even call it God reduces it to a Face. God beyond God, is a personal favorite description I've heard. But call it what you will, it is my belief - and I'm qualifying what I'm saying here now as a belief, is that we are opening to the 'essence' of what all things are, of who we are within that which transcends body and mind, but what we experience in the body, in the mind, are mere expressions of that. It's how we translate that, how we interpret that, how our mind presents it to us. That is why it is deeply symbolic, and not literal, factual objects in time and space. They are expressions, or manifestations of that which is timeless, and spaceless. As such, it is impossible to analyze, probe, or prove with the tools of reason and science. You look at a flower, and you see a flower. I see That.

 

Another example: teaching my son division and multiplication. At first he had no clue what I was talking about and did not believe me. But I was able to use an objective frame of reference. I got out pennies and showed him what I was talking about. Eventually he saw that it was not just an opinion. Division and multiplication follow a set of consistent rules. If you have something down to Earth and useful I would like to see that very much.

In a sense it does come to this, roughly. An awareness opens and then you 'see' it. But don't look for it as an object to understand. It is the Subject of all objects.

[Akheia]

I'm a bit distrustful of explanations that rely upon capitalization to enhance meaning. By calling it a "Subject" rather than a subject, that feels to me like it's saying this "subject" is inscrutable and indeed above scrutiny, not to mention makes the whole idea harder to parse because I know what a subject is but I don't think you're using it in the way I've always seen it. AM, you know I love and respect you, and it's important for me to emphasize that when I say that despite my fervent desire to understand you, it can be really hard to penetrate your meaning when you use words in ways they are not commonly used, definitions that don't appear to be common, and WooCaps like that. Okay, that last bit was a nod to LL

 

Nobody's made the case that NDEs prove or disprove Christianity. I've only said I think the guy's framing his personal subjective experience with the dominant religion of his culture, just like just about every other person who's had an NDE seems to do. I don't think people usually ask the right questions when it comes to these experiences. Does an NDE support the idea of a god, afterlife, etc? No, not at all. Does that mean it's an invalid transformative experience, that it's "fake," that it's not true? By the same token, not at all. Does that mean that it's not some deeply spiritual experience or that it might bring awareness that we might not have had before having the NDE? Also not at all. Is it universal? No, doesn't seem that way. Is it something that occurs outside the self? Is it really a sneak preview of what happens after death? Not that we've been able to establish.

 

Like the concept of "soulmates," popular conception of NDEs seems way way way off to me.

[SilentLoner]

His forthcoming book, "Proof of Heaven, A Neurosurgeon journey into the Afterlife" that aims to dispel the skepticism will be published by Simon & Schuster later this month.

 

Nothing for free I guess...

[SilentLoner]

Can't out of body experiences can be induced in anyone by stimulating a particular part of the brain? Also, don't some people with depersonalization disorder have out-of-body experiences too?

[Akheia]

Alas, it's hard to design an ethical experience to induce NDEs in patients under controlled scenarios.

 

But:

 

http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html

Bit more explanation of it here: http://research.obe4u.com/nde-simulating-experiment/

 

Seems like the field will be dominated by anecdotes for a while yet.

[par4dcourse]

 

Life's plenty good without some gobblety-gook dogma to fuck up the works. Give me my beer, my books, my anime and porn any day!

 

Careful there! You might get a paddling too!

[asanerman]

Life's plenty good without some gobblety-gook dogma to fuck up the works. Give me my beer, my books, my anime and porn any day!

 

Careful there! You might get a paddling too!

, ,!

[Antlerman]

I'm a bit distrustful of explanations that rely upon capitalization to enhance meaning. By calling it a "Subject" rather than a subject, that feels to me like it's saying this "subject" is inscrutable and indeed above scrutiny, not to mention makes the whole idea harder to parse because I know what a subject is but I don't think you're using it in the way I've always seen it.

I'm capitalizing subject not to enhance the meaning, but to indicate it as the Absolute, like the way we capitalize God in our conventions of language. I'm not so sure I'd call what I said actually as an 'explanation' in this case either, as much as an expression. You can't explain what cannot be defined. Is above scrutiny? It is beyond definition, and as such cannot be viewed as an object. But saying this does not mean it is beyond apprehension. All that means is that is known beyond reason, which requires categories, boundaries, definitions, and as such being an object outside yourself. You see the difficulty here? You, and others, wish it, or conceive it as an object, some "thing" outside ourselves, something other than the flower, the tree, the dog, the stars, etc. "It", is all those things, and no-thing. Put another way, it is the Is'ness and Suchness of all that is, yet itself is not any 'thing'.

 

All that to say, reason cannot grasp it. Another part of ourselves can 'know' it, however by knowing ourselves. You cannot seek out and find what is already, always, fully there. You don't try to understand it with reason. It is not an idea, not a concept, not a belief, not a faith.

 

Nobody's made the case that NDEs prove or disprove Christianity. I've only said I think the guy's framing his personal subjective experience with the dominant religion of his culture, just like just about every other person who's had an NDE seems to do. I don't think people usually ask the right questions when it comes to these experiences.

Bingo! That includes dismissing them as "just the brain". That reasoning doesn't try to understand the significance of them, cross-culturally. It seems a fervent desire to explain away anything experiences as just some brain-blip. I question the motives as to why.

 

Does an NDE support the idea of a god, afterlife, etc? No, not at all. Does that mean it's an invalid transformative experience, that it's "fake," that it's not true? By the same token, not at all. Does that mean that it's not some deeply spiritual experience or that it might bring awareness that we might not have had before having the NDE? Also not at all.

Then why don't most so-called skeptics try to understand them? It seems to me that they are seeing any such phenomena as either supporting the mythic-literal beliefs, or they can safely reject those since we know now it's "just the brain". What they don't see is that their ideas about the "supernatural", so called, is exactly the same as the mythic-literalist believers! That's all they understand. That's what God is to them, and so "it's all just the brain", answers that notion of God, and God therefore is a delusion.

 

Is it universal? No, doesn't seem that way.

Why do you say that? I believe it is. Those that experience NDEs experience the same essential things, regardless of the clothes they wear, which of course is cultural.

 

Is it something that occurs outside the self? Is it really a sneak preview of what happens after death? Not that we've been able to establish.

When you take into account that mystics the world over, throughout time, experience the same essential things, I'd say that makes it something 'outside the self'. And by that self, I specifically mean the small case self, which is our individual ego, shaped and molded by culture, family, experience, and personality. The Self, with the capital letter, which is how the Hindus speak of it, is in fact transcendent to that small self.

 

My beliefs? I will never die. I cannot. My ego me will die at death. There is no home in the sky that ego me will live on in - which is the whole problem with Christian myth, as I see it. They never learn to let go of the ego! They pray to God to keep it from death, which is exactly where they need to go in order to transcend it into that Universal Self. No one ever dies, as we all are eternal this way - but it is not your egoic "me", which is the whole confusion. How do I explain this? There is Being beyond ego. And it is that who we truly are. When you know that, there is no more clinging to illusions of a separate existence. Without that illusion, there is no fear of death.

 

Like the concept of "soulmates," popular conception of NDEs seems way way way off to me.

Well, yes, popular anything is way, way off. Like popular views of science that make it Scientism, for instance.

[mymistake]

Do you have objective evidence that NDEs are not "just the brain"? Otherwise your claims are just your opinion.

[Antlerman]

Do you have objective evidence that NDEs are not "just the brain"? Otherwise your claims are just your opinion.

It doesn't seem you have understood what I have been saying. I very specifically said, "It was an opening into something for himself through the brain, and the brain does what the brain does and offer symbols to the mind to try to translate it for him." My complaint about saying "it's just the brain", has also been specifically stated, "In fact, typically that is intended to gut meaning and symbolic power out of it and throw it into the trash can. That to me is hardly being objective about these things."

 

You do realize that your entire perception of reality likewise is "just in the brain"? Yet, you assume it to be objective truth because its your common symbol sets you share with others in a 'consensus consciousness'. I can likewise dismiss your illusions about truth and reality saying "it's just in the brain", but I find that to fall short of the larger areas of investigation.

 

What do you imagine I am saying?

[mymistake]

I take it that is a "no".

 

You do realize that your entire perception of reality likewise is "just in the brain"?

 

True. My perception is subjective. However my subjective perception is of an objective world.

 

Yet, you assume it to be objective truth because its your common symbol sets you share with others in a 'consensus consciousness'.

 

False. I do not make that assumption about my perception. Perhaps you should ask what I assume rather than assert what I assume.

 

I can likewise dismiss your illusions about truth and reality saying "it's just in the brain", but I find that to fall short of the larger areas of investigation.

 

What do you imagine I am saying?

 

I really don't know. If you are asking me to guess about your over all message then: it makes you feel great to calm your mind and live in the moment. Without that thing you do, whatever it is, you would not be able to calm your mind and live in the moment.

[Antlerman]

I take it that is a "no".

You assume a lot. In the same way you say objective reality exists outside your perception, do you deny this to the experience of an NDE? Of course the NDE takes place in the brain, so does the entirety of your perception of reality in every moment of every day. Is it all a self-reflective reality, or is it perceiving things beyond itself? I don't see how the NDE is any different. Oh wait... yes, because the symbols is uses are "supernatural"! That makes it invalid. Right?

 

You do realize that your entire perception of reality likewise is "just in the brain"?

 

True. My perception is subjective. However my subjective perception is of an objective world.

And so is everyone else's. What makes yours *reality*, and theirs not? As much as you can say to the Christian they are delusional, the same can be said of you by someone who sees the objective world from a different level of understanding. And I'm not talking mysticism here. Don't be so married to your perceptions as Truth. Remember when you were a Christian you did the same? What makes this different now?

 

Yet, you assume it to be objective truth because its your common symbol sets you share with others in a 'consensus consciousness'.

 

False. I do not make that assumption about my perception. Perhaps you should ask what I assume rather than assert what I assume.

What do you realize about your perception?

 

I can likewise dismiss your illusions about truth and reality saying "it's just in the brain", but I find that to fall short of the larger areas of investigation.

 

What do you imagine I am saying?

 

I really don't know. If you are asking me to guess about your over all message then: it makes you feel great to calm your mind and live in the moment. Without that thing you do, whatever it is, you would not be able to calm your mind and live in the moment.

I would say that's true of pretty much every human. We're human, after all. We share that in common. We all evolved with the same over-sized monkey brains.

[mymistake]

I take it that is a "no".

You assume a lot.

 

I was giving you a chance to clarify in case you intended to communicate: "yes, there is objective evidence". I tell you what message I hear and then you either confirm or clarify.

 

In the same way you say objective reality exists outside your perception, do you deny this to the experience of an NDE? Of course the NDE takes place in the brain, so does the entirety of your perception of reality in every moment of every day. Is it all a self-reflective reality, or is it perceiving things beyond itself? I don't see how the NDE is any different. Oh wait... yes, because the symbols is uses are "supernatural"! That makes it invalid. Right?

 

I didn't say that.

 

 

And so is everyone else's. What makes yours *reality*, and theirs not?

 

I didn't say that my perception is reality. It isn't.

 

As much as you can say to the Christian they are delusional, the same can be said of you by someone who sees the objective world from a different level of understanding.

 

Oh? Do show me how my beliefs fly in the face of reality. Do show me how my beliefs are self-contradictory. However know that I will not be impressed by empty opinion.

 

And I'm not talking mysticism here. Don't be so married to your perceptions as Truth.

 

Who are you talking to? Perhaps you are thinking of a conversation you had with somebody else. Otherwise I think you need to point me to where I claimed my perception is Truth.

 

Remember when you were a Christian you did the same? What makes this different now?

 

You lost me. Define "this" in "What makes this different now?". You seem to be operating under the idea that I have made claims or assumptions I have not. If so, then it is you who are mistaken.

 

What do you realize about your perception?

 

That I cannot trust it. Some areas of my perception are more reliable than others.

[Akheia]

I'm chewing on what you answered, AM, and do thank you for taking the time. Just one quick note as I digest: I probably have this thing you termed the illusion of separate existence as I don't grasp it fully, but I'm not especially scared of death. I've watched death stalk and destroy, right before my very eyes, and I'm not scared of it anymore. I'm not plunging toward it with wild abandon like that crazy Japanese chick Wolverine hung out with in the Kitty Pryde mini-series in the 80s, but I'm not scared either. Also I am skeptical of NDEs as popular media depict them but still want to know how they work.

 

As to perception, I don't generally trust mine either. That's what an undergrad degree in psych'll get you. Perception is about the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. That's why objective backup is kind of important, you know? When dealing with something as spiritual as an NDE's aftershocks, I get that to some extent we have to talk about it in somewhat metaphysical terms and that's okay. But I want to know what the nuts and bolts of the NDE are and how we know what we know about them. Fascinating stuff.

[Falloutdude]

Well, it's fairly obvious I'd like to believe in something beyond this. I guess I'm surrounded by Ex-Christians who are also Ex-Spiritual. I thought this sub-forum was something different.

 

Don't lose heart LifeCycle. It is supposed to be something different. It's just that a lot of people here are mainly materialistic strictly, and don't really like "spiritual" things. I really don't understand why you would take the time out to get irate in a sub-forum dedicated to spirituality, it seems at the least a waste of time.

 

Spirituality doesn't have to be in terms of literal supernatural happenings of course, but to me it shouldn't matter even if it is, as long as you're not pushing it. To each his own.

[Antlerman]

Who are you talking to? Perhaps you are thinking of a conversation you had with somebody else. Otherwise I think you need to point me to where I claimed my perception is Truth.

Sorry, I think I am blurring what you were saying with what I'm used to hearing from others. I'm apparently wrong.

 

What do you realize about your perception?

 

That I cannot trust it. Some areas of my perception are more reliable than others.

Yes. I think I'd add though that we should trust ourselves, but not be so convinced of how we think as to not allow for other valid ways of looking at things. Another thing too, is that of the perceptions being appropriate to ourselves. What we perceived as truth when we were a Christian was truth to us and served us for the time we needed it to. As we changed, the landscape of our realities shifting, those perceptions worked against us and we needed to evolve them to better meet where we were changing to. I think people mistake thinking that suddenly, by just learning some new thing that that made them "lose faith". I see that as more a done deal before some new "truth" came along. Just a footnote thought to share.

[Antlerman]

I'm chewing on what you answered, AM, and do thank you for taking the time. Just one quick note as I digest: I probably have this thing you termed the illusion of separate existence as I don't grasp it fully, but I'm not especially scared of death.

The illusion of a separate existence is inherent is a dualistic world. You and every person on the planet, myself included have this. It's typically in moments of opening that we see the reality of things, that there is no separation. But then, back we go into a word of self/others, subject/object dualities.

 

As to perception, I don't generally trust mine either. That's what an undergrad degree in psych'll get you. Perception is about the easiest thing in the world to manipulate.

I think another important thing to add about perception is how as we grow, the fundamental foundations of how we perceive also shifts. I see it as not just some new way to look at the world, but a fundamental shift in how we do. It not just moving to another window on the same floor looking out over the landscape from a different angle, but taking the elevator up to another floor, and every angle from up there has a fundamentally different altitude.

 

I think that is the core of what I'm getting at here about perceptions. The mythic-literal believer is looking at the NDE from where he lives on the fourth floor of the building. I would say I'm looking at it from several stories up in the same building. Obviously, I'll see everything he sees and understand how he sees it since I had to go to that floor first and so I pretty much know how the world looks to him through those windows on that floor. He however is unaware there are floors higher up in the building as that world to him has no frame of reference, it doesn't exist to him. And so reports from those living up on the higher floors to him sound just wrong, strange, kooky, or... "Woo!". It's important to bear in mind about our own perceptions in regard to the world we live in on that floor of the building, but it's also important to realize there are multiple floors, each at a different altitude which fundamentally affects all perceptions on that level.

 

That's why objective backup is kind of important, you know?

Yes, but bear in mind verification to someone on a mythic level is not the same as a rational level. The real thing that is being sought after is one word: legitamation. We all seek to have our views legitimated by others on the same floor. If you are seeking to have your world make sense and fit in with those on your floor in the building, using the criteria of those on floor five to legitimate how you function on floor four is inappropriate. It will not function. It destabilizes reality. They have no context for that type of thought in their world. And the same thing holds for floor six for those on floor five, etc.

 

Are you following the understanding here?

 

When dealing with something as spiritual as an NDE's aftershocks, I get that to some extent we have to talk about it in somewhat metaphysical terms and that's okay. But I want to know what the nuts and bolts of the NDE are and how we know what we know about them. Fascinating stuff.

Lots to say to this. I've had an NDE, and you may wish to read over this thread here where I go into considerable depth on some of this: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52881-near-death-experiences-hell-hope/

 

I would also recommend you watching this full presentation I appreciate very much. He gets into the God Helmut in this. Excellent material:

 

[Akheia]

I will watch it on Sunday while all the fundies are in church. It'll be a hoot. I've heard about the god-helmet before--it gave me a lot of trouble philosophically back in college I think but this looks like a lot more thorough of a treatment of the ideas.

 

I do get what you're saying about perception, I think. I just want as good a view of the matter from my level as I can get. If I don't understand how it works generally on the physical level, that seems like an awfully shaky foundation upon which to ascend to other levels--or descend I guess. I don't view your level as inherently superior or inferior to any other level so our altitudes are largely a matter of semantics. It's just another way of looking at the same thing to me. It's okay if your level doesn't deal in those nuts-and-bolts; it'd be as wrong of me to apply those standards to your level as you to insist that at my level nuts-and-bolts are irrelevant. I hope I didn't misinterpret what you said but hope you'll set me straight if I did.

 

How I relate to what you're saying is from the vantage of someone whose mental outlook has shifted on several matters, like how I view relationships. I used to view those sorts of things from a tiny corner out on a ledge on our metaphysical building, and now I see them from a much broader ledge and from a markedly different scope of experience. How we approach a matter, the questions we ask, what we're after with the inquiry, our goals, how the answers will fit in with where we are as individuals and society, those will all dramatically change how we view a matter. For me, my goal in understanding NDEs is primarily to know as much as I can learn about what's happening in them on the physical level and from there to learn how they fit into the psyche and society at large.

[mcdaddy]

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

[PandaPirate]

Ive been studying logical fallacies and the fact that he's a neurosurgeon give a huge opportunity to the fallacy called appeal to authority. Just because its his profession, doesn't mean he's immune to the same inaccurate assumptions that every human mind makes

 

What?

[Ouroboros]

Ive been studying logical fallacies and the fact that he's a neurosurgeon give a huge opportunity to the fallacy called appeal to authority. Just because its his profession, doesn't mean he's immune to the same inaccurate assumptions that every human mind makes

 

What?

I think what RR means is that since the guy is a neurosurgeon, it's easy for people to fall for the fallacy of thinking that "Oh, that guy must know things. He can't be fooled by some natural explanations, so his experience must prove that heaven exists." Something like that.

[Akheia]

Impossible to come away from Harris' piece without the sure and certain suspicion that Alexander's a nut who just wants to sell books and get famous.