Researchers ask the question: "How can the phenomenon of near-death experience be explained?" In doing so, they usually imply that any acceptable explanation must be expressed in terms of concepts - biological, neurological, psychological, with which they are already familiar.
The phenomenon of near-death experience (PSP) could be explained if, for example, it was possible to show what state of the brain, what drugs or what beliefs cause it.
Those who believe that PSP cannot be explained imply that it cannot be related to any physical or psychological condition.
I want to state that this approach to explaining PSP is fundamentally wrong. As far as I know, none of those who have experienced the PSP feel the need to explain it in the simplified form that the researchers suggest. For the PSP survivor, this does not need an explanation as it is exactly what it is. It is at least a direct experience of consciousness, or mind, or ego, or personal identity - existing independently of the physical body. And only in relation to our deeply rooted materialistic paradigm, the PSP needs proof, or rather, the proof of its impossibility.
The fallacy of materialism has been empirically proven; hence what needs to be explained is the collective refusal of academia to consider facts and accept them for what they are. Today, academia is in the position of a bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Why is this happening?
Before answering this question, I want to talk about the nature and power of the facts that refute materialism. In an article published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1998, Emilia Williams Cook, Bruce Grayson, and Ian Stevenson described "three characteristics of PSP - heightened mental activity, the ability to see the physical body from a different position in space, and paranormal perception." They then described 14 cases that fit these principles.
Epistemologically speaking, the third criterion, paranormal perception, is the most important. The materialist can, in principle, not explain how a person receives reliable information about events while outside the body.
Consider, for example, the case where the PSP experienced person accurately captures a conversation that took place in the waiting room while his body was unconscious in the operating room. Relevant information, transmitted in the form of sound or light waves, could not leave the reception room, walk through the corridors and climb up the elevators to reach the organs of perception of an unconscious person. However, a person wakes up after the operation with information.
Promotional video:
This case (many of them) shows quite directly that there are non-physical ways in which the mind can obtain information. Hence the conclusion that materialism is a false teaching.
Smoking gun
Perhaps one such case is the "smoking gun" that Michael Sabom described in his book "Light and Death". In this case, the patient experienced PSP when her body temperature dropped to 60 degrees F and her body was completely drained of blood.
"Her electroencephalogram was silent, there was no brain reaction, no blood flowed to the brain." In this state, the brain cannot create any experiences. However, the patient reported a deep PSP.
Those materialists who believe that consciousness is a product of the brain, or that the brain is necessary for conscious experience, cannot explain such cases using their own concepts. An impartial observer would have to conclude that not all sensations are produced by the brain and that materialism has been proven to be false. Therefore, an explanation is required by the extreme inability of academia to consider this evidence and conclude that materialism is a false theory, and consciousness can and does exist independently of the body.
Moreover, the PSP is not the only evidence that refutes materialism, there are many of them in other areas of research. Both spiritualism, extensively studied since the time of William James, and the authentic cases of children recalling their past lives described by Stephenson, are replete with facts against materialism.
The best epistemological analysis of such evidence comes from Robert Almeder. After a lengthy and detailed discussion of past life memories, he concluded that "it is rational to believe in reincarnation, given the facts." The correct conclusion, according to Almeder, should be: "It is unreasonable not to believe in reincarnation, given the facts." I agree with Almeder.
Our collective unreasonableness about the wealth of facts that refutes materialism manifests itself in two ways: (1) ignoring the facts, and (2) insisting on too strict standards of factual evidence that, if accepted, would render any empirical science impossible.
Dogma and ideology
I first encountered this kind of academic stupidity 20 years ago. I absorbed everything I could get my hands on about PSP and was ready to share my findings with colleagues. It seemed incredible to me that they would reject factual evidence so stubbornly.
"Hallucinations caused by taking drugs", "the last glimpse of a fading brain", "people see what they want to see" - these were the most common phrases. One conversation made me especially clear about the fundamental irrationality of pundits with regard to evidence that refutes materialism. I asked, "What about people who accurately described the details of their operation?"
"Ah," was the answer, "they may have subconsciously heard the conversation in the operating room, and their brains subconsciously translated the auditory information into visual format."
“Okay,” I replied, “what about cases where people provide reliable information about an event that happened far from their body?”
“Oh, it's just a coincidence or a lucky guess,” they reply.
Losing patience, I asked: "What is required to convince you that this is true, maybe you yourself need to go through a state of death?"
Completely calmly, without raising an eyebrow, my colleague replied: "Even if I myself experience such an experience, I will consider it a hallucination, but I will not believe that the mind can exist separately from the body." He added that dualism (a philosophical thesis that asserts that consciousness and matter are independent substances, neither of which can be reduced to another) is a false theory, and that there can be no evidence of what is false.
This was an important lesson for me, because I was in front of an educated, intelligent person who said that he would not abandon materialism, no matter what happened. Even his own experiences will not force him to abandon materialism. At that moment, I realized two things. First, this experience has weaned me off challenging such things with die-hard colleagues; there is no point in arguing with someone who claims that his views are already established, and he will not change them, no matter what I say.
Secondly, this experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the structure of the world, subject to evidence (this is a sign of a scientific hypothesis that facts are essential for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or a paradigm of how "should" be, which does not obey the facts (this is a sign of an unscientific hypothesis - evidence is not essential for its truth).
A colleague of mine did not believe in materialism as a scientific hypothesis that might turn out to be erroneous, but took it for a dogma or ideology that "should" be true despite conflicting facts. For him, materialism is a fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which in itself is not subject to doubt.
I have coined the term "fundamentalist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is an immutable truth, not subject to empirical evidence. I call this fundamentalism for an unambiguous comparison with fundamentalism in religion. Fundamentalism implies the conviction of the correctness of one's beliefs.
Just as the Christian fundamentalist is convinced that the world was created in the way described in the Bible (regardless of the fossil remains), the fundamentalist is convinced that everything that exists is made of matter or physical energy (regardless of PSP and other evidence). In fact, and this is an important point, their respective beliefs have nothing to do with factual evidence. As my fundamentalist colleague put it, "There can be no evidence that is not true."
With regard to (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the structure of the world, the evidence against is overwhelming. With regard to (b) materialism as an ideology, evidence is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamentalist believes that his belief in materialism is not ideological but empirical. That is, he mistakenly places himself in category (a), while his behavior clearly falls into category (b).
Skeptics believe that by ignoring and rejecting evidence against materialism, they are demonstrating a "scientific" approach. But when asked what kind of empirical evidence will convince them that materialism is wrong, they, like my colleague, tend to get lost, not knowing what to say.
If they are not familiar with the data, then a criterion is put forward, which, in fact, has already been met. If you point out that there are many documented cases that satisfy the proposed criterion, they will simply make the criterion more stringent, and at some point they will cross the line between a reasonable demand for scientific evidence and an unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical evidence.
Courtesy of the Journal of Near-Death Studies.
Dr. Neil Grossman holds a PhD in history and philosophy and is a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago.