Sunday, August 9, 2020

Citations

 NDEs are among the weakest evidence for an afterlife, but some academics have argued that the "paranormal" interpretation of (at least some) NDEs is currently the best one — in the sense of exceeding the plausibility of the mundane stereotypical "nothing to see here" physicalist interpretations— even if endogenous psychedelics are heavily involved in mediating the experience. The pro-and-con literature is fascinating. Here are a few examples on both sides. Meow.

ON UNEXPECTED SURGES/SPIKES IN BRAIN ACTIVITY ACCOUNTING FOR NDEs

a) Borjigin et al (2013) Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 110, issue 35, pp 14432–14437. (b) Chawla, L. Seneff, MG (2013) End-of-life electrical surges. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 110(44), p 4123. (c) Borjigin et al. (2013) Reply to Chawla and Seneff: Near-death electrical brain activity in humans and animals requires additional studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(44), p 4124. (d) Borjigin et al (2013) Reply to Greyson et al.: Experimental evidence lays a foundation for a rational understanding of near-death experiences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 19;110(47), p 4406. In this last reference, Borjigin et al give Greyson et al a public spanking of their intellectual ass. (e) Chawla et al (2017). Characterization of end-of-life electroencephalographic surges in critically ill patients. Death Studies, vol 41, issue 6, pp 385-392.
On Operation Standstill (a) Woerlee (2011) Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience, Journal of Near Death Studies, vol 30, issue 1, pp 3-25. (b) Hameroff (2011) Response to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" Journal of Near Death Studies, vol 30, issue 1, pp 26-28. (c) Carter (2011). Response to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" Journal of Near Death Studies, vol 30, issue 1, pp 29-53 (this guy blabbers a lot). (d) Woerlee (2011). Rejoinder to Response to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" Journal of Near Death Studies, vol 30, issue 1, pp 54-61. (e) Dr. Jeffrey Long, a fierce proponent of the survivalist interpretation, told me, “I’ve never felt Pam’s NDE was anywhere near as evidential as it has been represented, as her OBE observations correspond to the time that they were trying to start the vascular access lines, and there is no chance that was at the time her body was in hypothermic arrest. Having said that, it takes time for auditory filtering to happen, and 100 decibel clicks are on the extreme end of what you could ignore under any circumstances. I find it almost inconceivable that Pam did not hear the clicks, but did hear conversation, unless she was OBE. I have to agree with Gerald [Woerlee] that her ability to hear that song may be anesthetic awareness. ” (Personal email communication, February 28, 2011) On the Missing Dentures case, see Smit, RH; Rivas, T. (2010) Rejoinder to “Response to ‘Corroboration of the Dentures Anecdote Involving Veridical Perception in a Near-Death Experience’” Journal of Near Death Studies vol 28, issue 4, p 193-205. General overviews (pro and con): Sudduth (2016) A Philosophical Critique of Empirical Arguments for Postmortem Survival,  Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion (chapter 3) Carter (2010) Science and the Near Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death, published by Inner Traditions. This is part 2 of Carter’s trilogy on psi and science. This book covers most (albeit not all) of the non-paranormal naturalistic models and explains their shortcomings. It also covers some of the proposed veridical cases and argues that the skeptical literature has unfairly assessed (at least some of) these cases. Carter is a frequent contributor to the Journal of Near Death Studies. Kelly and Kelly et al. (2007) Irreducible Mind: Towards a Psychology for the 21st Century, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (chapter 6). Braude (2003) Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death, Rowman and Littlefield Publisherd, Inc. (chapter 8) (ETC ETC ETC) Pro and con articles: (a) Augustine (2007). Does Paranormal Perception Occur in NDEs? Journal of Near Death Studies, Vol 25, issue 4, pp 203-236. Available in its entirety for free at https://tinyurl.com/yawy77q8 Abstract: “While most near-death researchers have disregarded reports of near-death experiences (NDEs) with hallucinatory features, many have sought cases of veridical paranormal perception during NDEs. But despite more than a quarter century of near-death studies, no compelling evidence that NDErs can obtain information from remote locations during their NDEs has been forthcoming. This paper, Part I of a critique of survivalist interpretations of NDEs, reviews the quality of the evidence for veridical observations during NDEs, and finds the case for veridical paranormal perception during NDEs wanting.” (b) Greyson (2007). Comments on “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in NDEs?” Journal of Near Death Studies, vol 25, issue 4, pp 237-244. (c) Clark (2007). The Other Shoe Drops: Commentary on “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in NDEs?” Ibid (too lazy to write the same Journal vol an d issue), pp 245-250. (d) Tart (2007) Commentary on “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in NDEs?” Ibid, pp 251-256. (e) Sabom (2007) Commentary on “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in NDEs?” Ibid 257-260. (f) Augustine (2007) “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in NDEs?" Defended. Ibid, pp 261-283. Abstract: “Four preceding commentaries present a variety of criticisms of ‘Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?’: that most near-death researchers do not interpret near-death experiences (NDEs) as evidence for life after death; that near-death researchers never appeal to NDE accounts incorporating predictable or uncorroborated details as evidence for veridical paranormal perception during NDEs; that reliable data contradict my critique of near-death veridicality studies; that it is unscientific to suggest a role for embellishment in NDE reports; that the patient in the Maria's shoe case reported veridical details that she could not have learned about through conventional means; and that my critique of the Pam Reynolds case amounts to an ‘a priori dismissal’ of features suggesting veridical paranormal perception or consciousness in the absence of brain activity. I respond to each of these and other criticisms in kind.” etc etc etc etc etc etc

No comments: