Edward Allen Riess

Questions and Answers (25) View all

• Answer added in Consciousness
  992 What is consciousness? What is its nature and origin?
  By Naseer Bhat · Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences
  Edward Riess · University of Rochester

  Hello - I just finished reading the latest dozen or more comments and am impressed with the open-mindedness of the discussion. I've studied NDE's for... [more]

  Hello - I just finished reading the latest dozen or more comments and am impressed with the open-mindedness of the discussion. I've studied NDE's for 30 years and yet, just last week, learned about recent work with EMDR that has produced ADC's - after-death communications. Please consider hearing the interview with one Dr. Alan Botkin, a psychologist that has worked extensively with veterans at the VA. You can access this video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jnipb9rTnQ. The main part of this subject begins about ten minutes into the interview. (Incidentally, I'm the author of the article at http://world5.org/content/powerful-implications-near-death-experiences-ed-riess which argues for making use of NDE information as soon as possible to realize societal benefits.) I'll have to check-back-in to see what thoughts the interview might generate. - Ed Riess (CNIM, EE)
  Following
• Answer added in Consciousness
  992 What is consciousness? What is its nature and origin?
  By Naseer Bhat · Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences
  Edward Riess · University of Rochester

  This is a reply to Basil Hall who. about one week ago, recommended that I review the following: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine... [more]

  This is a reply to Basil Hall who. about one week ago, recommended that I review the following: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#blind Thank you, Basil, for recommending this piece. Although it is completely biased against the possibility of NDE-reality, it is extraordinarily well written and acquainted with the major references in the NDE research literature. Here are parts of the first (perhaps) quarter of that piece with my comments inserted within parentheses. Out-of-Body Discrepancies (1) Some NDErs report out-of-body experiences during their NDEs where what is seen 'out-of-body' does not correspond to what is actually happening in the physical world. Peter and Elizabeth Fenwick reports the NDE of a World War II veteran whose unit came under attack from aerial bombers: The battery cook (a devout Muslim) came running in panic toward me.... He lay down, touching my right elbow, and calmed himself.... As I looked up one of the Heinkel pilots executed a tight turn over the rim of the wadi and lined up on us.... I flattened out like a lizard on the sand.... Instantly I was enveloped in a cloud of beautiful purple light and a mighty roaring sound.... and then I was floating, as if in a flying dream, and watching my body, some dozen feet below, lifting off the sand and flopping back, face downwards. I only saw my own body. I was quite unaware of the two Sudanese lying beside me.... And then I was gliding horizontally in a tunnel ... rather like a giant, round, luminous culvert, constructed of translucent silken material, and at the end of a circle of bright, pale primrose light. I was enjoying the sensation of weightless, painless flight.... I had a feeling it would be more interesting when I reached the light.... I became aware that I was being 'sucked' back through the tunnel and then into a body that felt rather unpleasantly 'heavy,' that the sun was burning my back.... [T]he Heinkels were still firing at us and a cannon shell knocked a saucepan off the truck above my head. This troubled me not at all; indeed I seemed to have lost all sense of fear, but my back felt wet and slimy so I looked over my shoulder to investigate the cause. My back was a red mass of blood and raw flesh.... Then I realised that I was looking at all that remained of Osman the cook, who had been lying beside me. I noticed also that my Bren gunner, who had been close to my other side, had disappeared (Fenwick and Fenwick 43-44). The Fenwicks concede that in this case it is "quite clear" that this NDEr was not actually observing the physical world when he saw his body from above. Obviously this NDE must have been a brain-generated hallucination. Despite their sympathy for the survival hypothesis, the Fenwicks are explicit about the hallucinatory nature of this NDE: "He was unaware of the cook, who had been lying beside him—and was now not simply lying beside him but spread all over his back, where he could hardly have failed to be seen" (Fenwick and Fenwick 44).[1] (Did the Fenwicks state that the nature of the NDE was hallucinatory?) (2) The Fenwicks also mention the case of a woman who had 3 spontaneous out-of-body experiences during her second pregnancy (Fenwick and Fenwick 40-41). In her third OBE, she found it difficult to 'return to her body.' The Fenwicks write: "Mrs Davey adds that although she was up on the ceiling, she did not see her body" (Fenwick and Fenwick 41).[2] (Perception is sometimes reported to be selective; rather than consider this as evidence for the woman not-seeing the physical environment in which her body lay, it could be a case where her body was not visible with the non-physical-perception mechanism that was operating at that time. I argue for this possible interpretation simply because there is such a preponderance of evidence for experiencers having true and validated perceptions using a non-physical mechanism, whatever type that is.) (3) In a case from "the Evergreen Study" (conducted at Evergreen State College in Washington), a woman had a ruptured Fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy (where a fertilized egg implants and grows in one of the tubes rather than the uterus) and reported seeing things in the room while 'out-of-body' which didn't exist: I saw this little table over the operating table. You know, those little round trays like in a dental office where they have their instruments and all? I saw a little tray like that with a letter on it addressed (from a relative by marriage she had not met) (Lindley, Bryan, and Conley 109). The authors report that this woman told her sister-in-law about her NDE, who happened to be a nurse who was called into the operating room at the time of the NDE. But the nurse was adamant that there was neither a letter nor a round table in the operating room. However, the authors note that there was a small rectangular table for holding instruments in the room called a 'Mayo' and quickly deduce a probable scenario for why this experience took the form it did: "Notice [Mayo] sounds like 'mail.' She may have heard someone call the tray by name (since hearing is reportedly the final sense to fail at death) and connected it with 'mail.'" (109). Moreover, the letter seen out-of-body was addressed from the nurse's brother-in-law, which suggests that she might have heard the nurse's name and incorporated that information into her experience as well. (...an interesting and unexplainable situation...) What is particularly interesting about this case is not simply that it contains discrepancies, but also that it seems to confirm that out-of-body imagery in NDEs is sometimes obtained directly from scraps of conversation rather than from some paranormal source. (...a reasonable suspicion...) (4) In a study of 264 subjects with sleep paralysis[3], Giorgio Buzzi and Fabio Cirignotta found that about 11% of their subjects (28 people) "viewed themselves lying on the bed, generally from a location above the bed" (Buzzi 2116). As Buzzi points out, however, these out-of-body experiences often included false perceptions of the physical environment: I invited these people to do the following simple reality tests: trying to identify objects put in unusual places; checking the time on the clock; and focusing on a detail of the scene, and comparing it with reality. I received a feedback [sic] from five individuals. Objects put in unusual places (eg, on top of the wardrobe) were never identified during out-of-body experiences. Clocks also proved to be unreliable: a woman with nightly episodes of sleep paralysis had two out-of-body experiences in the same night, and for each the clock indicated an impossible time.... Finally, in all cases but one, some slight but important differences in the details were noted: "I looked at 'me' sleeping peacefully in the bed while I wandered about. Trouble is the 'me' in the bed was wearing long johns ... I have never worn such a thing" (Buzzi 2116-2117). Buzzi concludes that because these experiences contained out-of-body discrepancies and failed his other 'reality tests,' his subjects' out-of-body imagery must have been derived from memory and imagination rather than from the physical environment at the time (2117). (That's indeed a curiosity; but then, so is this question: why do all of these people perceive themselves from above rather than just have some sort of dream devoid of this feature? That seems to suggest that their perception-positions are accurate more strongly than the several incongruities suggest that their visions are just products of dream-states.) (5) Melvin Morse reports an NDE where a young girl sees her teacher by her body during an OBE when her teacher is not actually there. This case also has other hallucinatory features, such as encountering doctors in an ostensibly transcendental realm: [O]ne child.... could see her own body as doctors wearing green masks tried to start an IV. Then she saw her living teacher and classmates at her bedside, comforting her and singing to her (her teacher did not visit her in the hospital). (Perhaps a mixture of real perceptions and dream-state-induced perceptions can occur. I think I've never heard of reports of such errors in OBE perceptions.) Finally, three tall beings dressed in white that she identified as doctors asked her to push a button on a box at her bedside, telling her that if she pressed the green button she could go with them, but she would never see her family again. She pressed the red button and regained consciousness (Morse 68-69). (I am familiar with that particular account..) (6) Using open-ended questions, Morse also found a case where a child that was clinically dead reported that while she was 'above her body' looking down, "her mother's nose appeared flattened and distorted 'like a pig monster'" (Morse 67). (7) The Fenwicks recount an NDE where the NDEr 'observed' a procedure that never took place during the heart bypass operation she underwent at the time: [S]he left her body and watched her heart lying beside her body, bumping away with what looked like ribbons coming from it to hands. In fact, this is not what happens in a heart bypass operation, as the heart is left within the chest and is never taken outside the body (Fenwick and Fenwick 193). (These reports are very interesting.) The Fenwicks try to explain away this major discrepancy by pointing out that ribbons are indeed tied to arteries during an operation of this sort and by attributing the false perception to misidentification. However, it is difficult to see how a person truly out-of-body with vivid perceptual capabilities could confuse arteries (ribboned or not) with a beating heart lying next to her outside of her body. In the remainder of her experience this NDEr reported 'traveling' to a place that looked like an enormous silver 'airplane hangar' with tiny figures off in the distance, miles away. (8) Other NDErs have reported seeing friends out-of-body with them who are, in reality, still alive and normally conscious. The Evergreen Study also recorded a clearly hallucinatory near-death experience after a major car accident: Well, then I remember, not physical bodies but like holding hands, the two of us, up above the trees. It was a cloudy day, a little bit of clouds. And thinking here we go, we're going off into eternity... and then bingo, I snapped my eyes open and I looked over and he was staring at me [ellipsis original] (Lindley, Bryan, and Conley 110). (I hesitate to even mention that some accounts seem to indicate that we, or our essences, may be split, having more than one existence.) The authors of the study go on to write: "In this incident a woman had lost consciousness but her male companion had not. In the experience, she perceived the two of them in an out-of-body state, yet her friend never blacked out" (110). (Again....) (9) OBErs who do not lose consciousness before their experiences often report watching their bodies continue to perform coordinated actions—as if they were still in control of their bodies—while nevertheless apparently viewing them from above. (Yes! See my next comment, below.) Recalling an OBE while on patrol for the first time, chasing an armed suspect, a police officer reported: I promptly went out of my body and up into the air maybe 20 feet above the scene. I remained there, extremely calm, while I watched the entire procedure—including watching myself do exactly what I had been trained to do (Alvarado 183). (I worked with a senior electronics technician at GE Aircraft Engines who related that at one time he was cleaning a chassis with a volatile chemical which apparently, after several minutes of scrubbing, caused him to suddenly perceive himself from a position outside of and behind his body by a distance of about a dozen feet, still scrubbing the chassis and, after a few seconds or more while being very surprised, regained his in-body point of perception. Also while working at GE, I worked with a female electronics technician who, while pregnant and at home, had an out-of-body experience while walking from one room to another during which she watched herself walking from a position behind and slightly above her body. She was scared by the experience and the duration of the experience was short, on the order of a second or two.) After the suspect had been restrained and the danger was over, the officer returned to normal consciousness. Another OBEr, who had been running for over 12 miles training for a marathon, reported: I felt as if something was leaving my body, and although I was still running along looking at the scenery, I was looking at myself running as well (184). This ability to simultaneously 'hover' above the scene and continue to function as if 'in' the body strongly suggests the hallucinatory nature of these experiences. (I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to use the word "strongly".) In some sleep disorders, for instance, subjects are able to exhibit "directed" behavior—e.g., sleepwalking and sleep eating—even though they are evidently not normally conscious. Taking on an extraordinary new perspective while functioning normally otherwise makes much more sense if such experiences are occurring 'in' the body all along, rather than in some remote discarnate entity detached from the physical body. (In the two experiences I mentioned, it's not directly implicative that the points of perception were from some part of a discarnate entity; it could be a not-constrained-by-space phenomenon not requiring the embodiment of an entity. Certainly, many experiencers refer to the qualities of no time and no space that are inherent in their experiences. Without such constraints such perceptions could be purely some sort of paranormal function we can't yet understand.) (10) Finally, Harvey Irwin notes other intriguing examples of hallucinatory OBEs, such as reports of "seeing the physical body as if from a height of 30 feet (9 meters) or more ... [when] this would have entailed seeing through the roof and the ceiling of the house" (Irwin, "Introduction" 223). (...can we say "hallucinatory-like" here? In my wife's OBE, caused by her being accidentally shot in the chest, after her experience of being able to see policemen interrogating her then-husband in another room of the house as if the walls didn't exist, she rose above her house and was able to see all of it from above as if it were a doll house without a roof.) If something leaves the body and perceives the physical world during OBEs, he asked, "why do some OBErs report distortions in reality (e.g., [nonexistent] bars on the bedroom window), and how are some experients able to manipulate the nature and existence of objects in the out-of-body environment by an effort of will?" (233). (That's a great question; one must bear in mind that to the uninitiated, as was my wife, such experiences would be so unexpected and seem so unbelievable that they wouldn't be 'made-up'; similarly, if they were simply hallucinations, it's likely that there wouldn't be so much consistency among experiencers about how such events occurred.) As the Fenwicks point out, if OBEs and NDEs are hallucinations, we should expect there to be major discrepancies between the psychological image—what the person sees from up there on the ceiling, which will be constructed by the brain entirely from memory; and the real image—what is actually going on at ground level. Mrs. Ivy Davey, for example, did not see her body, although her body was clearly there (Fenwick and Fenwick 41). (Clearly there, but perhaps not clearly perceivable for some reason possibly related to the way entities can reportedly be seen to fade-in and fade-out rather than move into or out of view.) And in the cases above this is exactly what we find. Discrepancies between what's seen out-of-body and what's actually happening in the physical world are found in spontaneous OBEs, in NDEs where a real or perceived threat of imminent harm triggers an OBE, and in NDEs that include an OBE along with other NDE components (e.g., a tunnel and light). (This doesn't, however, belie the accounts which are rife with accuracy. For example, also while at GE, a trainer teaching a class I attended on how to effectively use a planner related a military experience during which he was nearly killed and rendered unconscious by a grenade after which he was transferred to a hospital ship to undergo an operation. While still unconscious and being prepped for surgery he watched a black sailor remove his handgun and then, out-of-body, followed the sailor as he walked out of the OR and turned down several hallways to a place where it would be stored until it could be given back to him. He related that observation after he regained consciousness and accurately told people where his gun had been taken. There are, of course, a large number of cases where the reported observations have the strength of witness testimony.) Veridical Paranormal Perception During OBEs? The cases cited in this essay show that many near-death experiences are hallucinations.[4] (...but what percentage the total number of such experiences is also important.) NDE cases which include false descriptions of the physical environment have been found not only by different near-death researchers, but by researchers searching for evidence that NDEs are not hallucinatory. This motivation among researchers makes it impossible to estimate the prevalence of NDEs with clearly hallucinatory features. As Bruce Greyson (a friend of mine) points out, the file-drawer problem is a likely factor here: NDE accounts with clearly hallucinatory features may end up filed away indefinitely, while only more dramatic accounts are deemed fit for publication by NDE researchers (Greyson, "Near-Death" 344). Similarly, NDEs with obviously hallucinatory traits seem particularly likely to be underreported by NDErs themselves, given the disparity between how real one's NDE felt at the time and the realization that it could not possibly reflect reality if, for instance, the NDEr communicated with his still-living mother in an ostensibly transcendental realm. (...again, my earlier comment must be considered when one uses the words, "...it could not possibly reflect reality..." since the 'physics' of these events is so complex and difficult to know and understand.) Nevertheless, given that many NDEs are already known to be hallucinations, (or PRESUMED to be hallucinations) it is likely that other NDEs are hallucinations as well. (Again, this doesn't belie the large number of accounts which are characterized by high or complete accuracy.) The majority of near-death researchers are interested in the subject because they believe NDEs provide evidence for life after death. (I rather think the reason near-death researchers, who are scientists, are interested in the subject is just as likely to be the quest for understanding, as one could say about any scientist.) Thus near-death researchers generally disregard hallucinatory NDEs while searching for cases of veridical paranormal perception. (This link doesn't work.) But at the end of the day, we are left with no compelling evidence that NDErs have actually been able to obtain information from remote locations (This is a grossly incorrect statement and it suggests a strong bias against any non-materialistic phenomena; there is a great deal of compelling evidence that such information has been accurately obtained!), and we have clear evidence that NDErs sometimes have false perceptions of the physical world during their experiences. Mark Fox provides a very balanced assessment of the evidential value of near-death experiences in his recently published Religion, Spirituality and the Near-Death Experience. As a research committee member of the Religious Experience Research Centre at the University of Wales, Lampeter, Fox is certainly no enemy of dualism. Yet he concludes that NDE research to date largely presupposes some sort of dualism rather than providing evidence for it: This needs to be spelled out loudly and clearly: twenty-five years after the coining of the actual phrase 'near-death experience,' it remains to be established beyond doubt that during such an experience anything actually leaves the body. To date, and claims to the contrary notwithstanding, no researcher has provided evidence for such an assertion of an acceptable standard which would put the matter beyond doubt (Fox 340). In fact, very few cases of 'veridical perception' during NDEs have been corroborated. In many cases, details which are said to have been accurate "are not the kind that can easily be checked later" (Blackmore, "Dying" 114). Even the 'founding father' of near-death studies, Raymond Moody, concedes that most cases of alleged veridical perception during NDEs are found well after the fact and are usually attested to only by the NDEr and perhaps a few friends (114). And in one study Carlos Alvarado found that although nearly one-fifth of participants claimed to have made "verifiable observations" during their OBEs, only 3 of the 61 cases even "qualified as potentially veridical when experients were asked to provide fuller descriptions" (Alvarado 187). Susan Blackmore and Tillman Rodabough consider at length how accurate information can be incorporated into realistic out-of-body imagery during NDEs. Both conclude that the primary source of information in the construction of out-of-body imagery is probably hearing. (This is a very wrong conclusion. Read the material published by Pim Van Lommel.) Rodabough notes that patients who appear to be unconscious often repeat earlier comments made by doctors and nurses even without an OBE, and "have even been able to recall operating room conversations under hypnosis" (Rodabough 108). But Blackmore points out that other sensory sources of information are also available to patients. She notes that a residual sense of touch during NDEs could explain accurate details about where defibrillator pads were placed or where chest injections were administered (Blackmore, "Dying" 125). (That's simply being selective about which cases to discredit. Blackmore has never, to my knowledge, been fair with these facts.) Remaining out-of-body imagery is probably derived from imagination and general background knowledge. For example, Rodabough points out that childhood socialization trains us to imagine how we appear to others 'from the outside'; thus visualizing oneself from a third-person perspective comes naturally (Rodabough 108). Blackmore notes that when people are asked to imagine walking down a beach, they usually picture themselves from above, from a bird's-eye perspective (Blackmore, "Dying" 177). Carol Zaleski suggests that we should expect some NDEs to include OBEs because the most natural way to imagine experiencing one's death is to imagine looking down on one's body from above (as people typically do when asked to imagine viewing their own burials). In her lesser-known 1996 book on NDEs, The Life of the World to Come, Zaleski notes: The people who testify to near-death experience are neither Platonists nor Cartesians, yet they find it natural to speak of leaving their bodies in this way. There simply is no other way for the imagination to dramatize the experience of death: the soul quits the body and yet continues to have a form (Zaleski, "Life" 62-63). (There's more 'selection' going-on here; I've read Zaleski and she offers far more to indicate the veracity of these experiences than this kind of comment that simply honestly acknowledges the expected nature of a dream about death.) Background knowledge also surely plays a role. Personal experience and media portrayals make it easy for us to imagine what a hospital scene should look like (Rodabough 109). Even specific details about people are fairly predictable in a hospital setting: When either a person or their roles [sic] is well known, it is not difficult to predict dress or behavior. For example, isn't it easy to guess that a physician will wear his greens in surgery?[5]... Behavior, particularly where strong emotions are concerned, may be even easier to predict. Mother falls apart and begins to sob hysterically while Dad puts his arms around her in consolation and stoically keeps his anxiety inside.... [Thus] the probability of an accurate description can be high even without an out-of-body experience [emphasis mine] (Rodabough 109). (See Sabom's work comparing accuracy of accounts of experiencers vs. non-experiencers. Predictability had no strength in that study.) Blackmore ultimately concludes that "prior knowledge, fantasy and lucky guesses and the remaining operating senses of hearing and touch," plus "the way memory works to recall accurate items and forget the wrong ones" is sufficient to explain out-of-body imagery in NDEs (Blackmore, "Dying" 115). Cases incorporating out-of-body discrepancies, including those based on misinterpretations of scraps of conversation (e.g., seeing mail in out-of-body imagery when 'Mayo' is spoken), appear to confirm this suggestion. (After reviewing enough data to get a real flavor of typical NDE's, the cases for which one can generate Blackmore's kinds of conclusions become statistically vanishingly small. Blackmore is about as fair with the data as is James Randi.) Our memories are constantly reconstructed as we retell stories about our pasts. When a person has an extraordinary story to tell, such as how he found himself out of his body, with all that suggests about the possibility of life after death, the likelihood of exaggeration—even unintentional exaggeration—is obvious. In such cases, ultimately "the version we tell is likely to be just that little bit more interesting or poignant than it might have been" (115). (Exaggeration would simply make accounts more unbelievable. The "physics" suggested by these accounts make them hard to believe as it is since major facets are so counterintuitive.) In fact, most NDE reports are provided to researchers years after the experience itself. Ultimately, all we have to go on is after-the-fact reports of private experiences. The constant reconstruction of memory makes it difficult to know just what NDErs have actually experienced. This problem is clearly recognized by Fox: [T]he fact that NDErs' testimonies are indeed retrospectively composed ... arouses a suspicion that what NDErs recall—and hence narrate—about their experiences may in fact be different than what they actually experienced during their near-death crises.... [A]ttempting to ascertain what really happens to NDErs—what the core elements of their experiences actually are in and of themselves—may be nigh on impossible to determine.... [W]hat is remembered about an experience or situation may not actually accurately correspond to what was experienced at the time (Fox 197). (Experiencers tend to remember their experiences in great detail - or at least those facets they say they are allowed to remember - unchanged over years, as opposed to other memories, according to several studies.) Following Zaleski, Fox also wonders to what extent people other than the NDEr play a part in composing an NDE report. Both note, for example, Raymond Moody's concession that he sometimes used leading questions when interviewing respondents for his 1975 Life After Life (Zaleski, "Otherworldly" 149; Fox 199). Zaleski also points out that after urging his respondents to speak freely, Kenneth Ring would ask specific questions about whether his subjects encountered features of Moody's model of the NDE, such as: "[W]ere you ever aware of seeing your physical body?" or "Did you at any time experience a light, glow, or illumination?" (Zaleski, "Otherworldly" 105-106). After Sabom allowed his patients to speak freely, he would also "delve for the elements described in Life After Life" (Zaleski, "Otherworldly" 109). One wonders how much similarity would have been found between individual NDE accounts in the West had these early researchers simply asked their respondents to speak freely about their experiences without steering them in a particular direction by probing for Moody's elements. (Would it make sense to NOT ask further questions, after the main account details were related, in an effort to learn more? That doesn't degrade the quality of the information that preceded the additional questioning.) This raises further questions about the extent to which other near-death researchers have also used leading interviewing techniques (Fox 199-200). As Greyson points out, how a counselor responds to an NDEr "can have a tremendous influence on whether the NDE is accepted and becomes a stimulus for psychospiritual growth or whether it is regarded as a bizarre experience that must not be shared" [emphasis mine] (Greyson, "Near-Death" 328). While some counselors might take a dismissive attitude to such experiences, many are likely to influence NDErs in the opposite direction, and near-death researchers seem particularly likely to positively reinforce an afterlife interpretation of NDEs. This may be one reason why so many NDErs accept that interpretation. Another may be that widespread belief in an afterlife among the general population has already primed NDErs to interpret unusual experiences on the brink of death in terms of an afterlife. And on top of such outside influences, Fox notes: [Simply] having an experience which may appear to the subject to point to the possibility of immortality—such as an OBE whilst resting or sleeping, leading to the conviction that the soul can function independently of the body—may suffice to instil in him or her an often strong and permanent belief that personal death is not the end.... And often their experiences are so vivid as to provide, for them, a solid basis for drawing conclusions across a wide range of important, existential issues: including the question of their own immortality and its relationship to the way they live and understand their lives before their deaths (Fox 287). Taking an afterlife interpretation largely explains the transformative effects of NDEs on those who have them as well. (Though to gauge the extent of this, it would be interesting to see if "nonbelievers" had the same transformations as "survivalists" among NDErs.)[6] (Check-out Howard Storm's story; there are many experiencers who originally were non-believers.) Rodabough explains how unintentional interviewer feedback can contaminate NDE reports: [I]f the resuscitated person gives a partially accurate account of some event taking place while he was "out," the questioner may unintentionally give information which the resuscitated person unknowingly fits into his story. To some degree, we can visualize what we are told and not be sure which occurred first.... This is likely to occur if the questioner wants to hear things a particular way and nonverbally reinforces the respondent when he hears what he wants. The high enthusiasm of the interviewer may unwittingly entice the respondents to embellish their experiences, and low enthusiasm may influence respondents to remain silent about puzzling or unusual experiences (Rodabough 109-110). In fact, in recent years a large number of NDE reports have been garnered from NDE support groups. Support group members have almost certainly shaped the content of individual NDE accounts through "biographical reshaping, deepening of commitment, and reinforcement of group belief" (Fox 201). In The Truth in the Light, the Fenwicks asks how an experience as coherent as an NDE could be generated in a disorganized dying brain, and how it could be encoded for vivid recall later: How is it that this coherent, highly structured experience sometimes occurs during unconsciousness, when it is impossible to postulate an organized sequence of events in a disordered brain? One is forced to the conclusion that either science is missing a fundamental link which would explain how organized experiences can arise in a disorganized brain, or that some forms of experience are transpersonal—that is, they depend on a mind which is not inextricably bound up with the brain (Fenwick and Fenwick 235).[7] (Exactly! The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the events are NOT experienced in the brain. Science should be trying to find the missing fundamental link. Note that the last supposed thought in this paragraph presupposes that the conscious experience claimed requires a mind with, probably, certain presupposed characteristics.) But as Gerald Woerlee points out, lack of oxygen to the brain blunts a subject's judgment, creating a false confidence in one's abilities and a false sense that one's thinking is particularly keen—a well-known fact exhibited in the statements of clearly impaired drunk drivers. "This," he argues, "is why people recovering from cardiac resuscitation never say their mental state during a period of consciousness such as an NDE was confused or befuddled" (Woerlee, "Cardiac" 246). Greyson offers a related argument: [O]rganic brain malfunctions generally produce clouded thinking, irritability, fear, belligerence, and idiosyncratic visions, quite unlike the exceptionally clear thinking, peacefulness, calmness, and predictable content that typifies the NDE. Visions in patients with delirium are generally of living persons, whereas those of patients with a clear sensorium as they approached death are almost invariably of deceased persons [emphasis mine] (Greyson, "Near-Death" 334). But as we see in the case of G-LOC dreamlets (pleasurable experiences caused by lack of oxygen to the brain during pilot blackouts), some "organic brain malfunctions" clearly produce hallucinatory experiences characterized by clarity of thought, euphoria, and the 'realness' feel of the experience. (Note the assumption that the pilot's experiences are hallucinatory! It is the opinion of many that these G-stressed individuals are being forced into linking to the paranormal and that at least some of their experiences are of the quality of NDE's.) As James E. Whinnery has reported, hypoxic G-LOC episodes have some similarities to NDEs, such as floating sensations, OBEs, visions of lights, and "vivid dreamlets of beautiful places that frequently include family members and close friends, pleasurable sensations, euphoria, and some pleasurable memories" (Greyson, "Near-Death" 334). The ability to consistently induce these dreamlets in pilot centrifuges should have dispelled the myth that hypoxic hallucinations are nearly always frightening, confused, or disoriented. And the prevalence of visions of the deceased in NDEs is not surprising: patients who merely have delirium are not dying and have no particular expectation of dying. For the same reason, it should not be surprising that G-LOC dreamlets do not share other NDE features. The context of NDEs is much different, as the sensation or expectation of dying is much more likely in near-death contexts. And while Greyson points out that NDErs who had hallucinations prior to their NDEs describe their NDE worlds as "'more real' than the world of waking hallucinations" (334), the proper comparison is between NDEs and (very vivid and realistic) hallucinations that follow a loss of consciousness (e.g., dreams), not waking hallucinations. In their prospective study of NDEs published in Lancet, Pim van Lommel and colleagues argue that NDE-like hallucinations induced in the laboratory are simply too fragmented to be comparable to NDEs (van Lommel et al. 2044). So why do NDErs recall such vivid experiences, rather than fragments of memories, if NDEs are hallucinations? Fox suggests that the answer does not lie in what is happening to the brain during the NDE, but in how NDE reports are reshaped afterward: [I]t is clearly probable that both the structured story which at least some NDErs tell and its vividness and clarity may both stem from a variety of sources other than the purely private experiences of the NDErs themselves.... [P]lot and detail may potentially hail from a wide range of sources, including ... the behavior of near-death researchers themselves as they attempt to draw out a story along already existing and fixed lines, and the processes which have been seen to exist when the NDEr's story is told and retold before groups (which may themselves interact in the process of composition and reshaping of the original traveller's tale) (Fox 203). (One can 'suppose-away' anything, but it doesn't explain the cases where acquisition of verifiable knowledge that was formerly unknown, like learning the identity and details of a long-deceased relative, provide strong evidence for the reality of the experiences.) In fact, the comments of NDErs themselves provide evidence that NDE accounts become more elaborate over time while NDErs' commitment to the reality of their experiences deepens. After 23 years of trying to determine the significance of her NDE, one woman commented: "It was real then. It is more real now" (Zaleski, "Otherworldly" 150). Another NDEr noted that what he understood and remembered about his NDE had grown over the years by relating the story to others (150). In one of the more reliable studies of NDE incidence and transformation, van Lommel and colleagues found that the transformations widely believed to occur after NDEs actually do occur[8], but that "this process of change after NDE tends to take several years to consolidate" (van Lommel et al. 2043). In other words, the transformative effect of NDEs on experients is not immediate, but gradual.[9] This suggests that NDE transformations do not result from the NDE itself, but from reflecting on the meaning of the experience—that is, from the added layers of meaning and interpretation experients' place on their NDEs. (It also suggests that there is so much about the experiences that is profound and difficult to come-to-terms-with...) ...and here I'm going to stop. I can't afford the time to continue a review of this interesting article at this time. Perhaps you, Basil will appreciate these comments; I'm quite convinced that it's not really important whether anyone does. A final "Thank you" to Basil for his suggestion to read this. - Ed Riess P.S.: The best thing that could happen would be one of the regular contributors to this column having a profound NDE and return to report on it to the others. For most people it takes the actual experience to be convincing.
  Following
• Answer added in Consciousness
  992 What is consciousness? What is its nature and origin?
  By Naseer Bhat · Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences
  Edward Riess · University of Rochester

  Basil, thank you for your considered response. I will review the entire piece to which you've directed me and 'report back'. (A quick look showed Su... [more]

  Basil, thank you for your considered response. I will review the entire piece to which you've directed me and 'report back'. (A quick look showed Susan Blackmore as a contributor. She has historically been in the die-hard skeptics camp, so I expect that she may be denying some of the better research results.) - Ed
  Following
• Answer added in Consciousness
  992 What is consciousness? What is its nature and origin?
  By Naseer Bhat · Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences
  Edward Riess · University of Rochester

  I shouldn't really bother. Dante supposedly watched the recommended video and clearly missed the implication that consciousness is not EXCLUSIVELY a ... [more]

  I shouldn't really bother. Dante supposedly watched the recommended video and clearly missed the implication that consciousness is not EXCLUSIVELY a function of the listed PHYSICAL things of which we are aware (the eight sensory and additional capabilities mentioned by Mr. Hall) which, if true, would, PROPERLY, suggest that "Consciousness is [just] an illusion." Consciousness IS, however, more than that as can be seen from numerous scientific studies 'going-back' more than thirty years. Consider: A near-death experiencer, including the neurosurgeon who expanded his paradigm of reality after his experience, would agree with Mr. Hall's assumption that "perception" is defined as 'the process of organizing and interpreting sensory information" but would comment that the list of things that provide sensory information must be expanded now that so many have discovered other features, like those described in the above-recommended video that Dante is clearly not acknowledging. The consequence of that is that the statement, "Turn off the sensations listed above, one by one, and when the last switch is closed, 'consciousness' disappears" is wrong because the other inputs, which most of these discussions do not acknowledge, remain. You people have not allowed the possibility for such to exist even when experiencers, such as that very respectable surgeon, are telling you otherwise. The point of my discussion goes beyond the semantics of the words used in describing consciousness (in the strict usage of which I may be at fault). It is about whether or not non-physical perceptions are real. If a totally blind person can, during medical trauma, accurately perceive a physical scene; if a surgery patient with a brain cooled tens of degrees F and drained of blood can accurately perceive the operating theater in which her body is being repaired; if my wife who was accidentally shot suddenly regained consciousness as a "ball of light" observing police interrogating her then-husband in a far-distant room of her house while also watching life-squad attendants maneuver her convulsing and comatose body onto a stretcher - and if these incidents are similar and as profound as incidents that have been reported by tens of thousands of people by this stage of our human evolution - then anyone trying to discuss the nature of consciousness without even investigating the possible existence of these phenomena is inept in pursuing that task. Scientists that have not looked-into these data must be shown these findings and allow themselves to accept that they have been blinded by the indoctrination of their incomplete educations. It pains me to say this, but aspects of this discussion are not much different from those in a conversation with a religious fanatic. Ed
  Following
• Answer added in Consciousness
  992 What is consciousness? What is its nature and origin?
  By Naseer Bhat · Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences
  Edward Riess · University of Rochester

  Thank you for your comment, Dante. Self-consciousness is, of course, a subjective experience, as you say. What IS objective however, is (as just one... [more]

  Thank you for your comment, Dante. Self-consciousness is, of course, a subjective experience, as you say. What IS objective however, is (as just one example) the corroboration of a blind person's accurate and verified visualization, "seen" in some way during a near-death experience. Having verification of the accuracy of the visualization, i.e. of what the person purportedly saw, ruling-out any possibility that the image in their mind has come from auditory clues or any other means, is objective evidence of the validity of the experience that person had. So; when you say such experiences are "something no one else can corroborate", that is not true. What I'm telling you is that there IS no other way to explain many facets of many of these experiences without "resorting to the paranormal" - i.e., without acknowledging that these things are happening outside the realm of our known physics. You just have to spend the time to look at the evidence. If you don't you're simply missing it (and I fully expect most people reading this are so sure of themselves they wouldn't consider it worth their while to even sample it). I really hope you spend a bit of time at the website I suggested. Refusing to do so is simply not a respectable option. I'm a skeptical engineer and am loathe to accept anything lacking extraordinary evidence. I really hope you spend a bit of time at the website I suggested and check-me-out. THEN, after you've done that, I'd like to see what you have to say about these experiences. Before doing that, there's nothing you can fairly conclude about them. I'll be watching for your future comments. Had you not responded, I'd probably have not bothered to return to this discussion. Do be willing to examine your own prior-derived conclusions. Ed
  Following