Talk:Near-death experience

Sourcing

I took a look over sourcing here. Way too much reliance on primary sources and poor sources like MDPI. Will be doing some serious trimming in the coming days. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Did some this morning. More to come. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for the trimming - a bummer for me because of all the work gone up in smoke, but good catch nonetheless 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Josezetabal (talk)

Good thing, too. We can't go around depending on primary sources for subjective experiences! OakMiner (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation

Hello Jytdog - regarding your edit [1] why did not you delete all citations of "The Handbook of Near Death Experiences" if the source is non-MEDRS?

In the MEDRS policy they say that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [2] don't you think? The authors are some of the best known names in the field, for instance Greyson is either author or co-author on more 27 publications mostly related to NDEs (in Pubmed)

Anyone's thoughts and comments are appreciated Josezetabal (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the section on Cross-cultural aspects

A reference is made in to Keith Augustine's "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" at the very end of the article. It reads:

"Studies that have investigated cultural differences in NDEs have argued that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture, except for the identity of the figures seen during the experiences. For example, a Christian may see Jesus, while a Hindu may see Yamaraja, the Hindu king of death."

I've read the entirety of the reference, and I can unequivocally say that the citation contradicts what is written in this paragraph of the Wikipedia article. In fact, Keith Augustine discusses the marked dissimilarities between Western NDEs and those of Eastern cultures (e.g., India) reported by cross-cultural studies. While meetings with various religious figures have been reported in the NDEs of different cultures, it is not merely the identity that the NDEr perceives that differs. Augustine, as well as the cross-cultural studies that he cites in his essay, actually indicate the content is quite different across cultures. In the studies that he cites, several themes common to NDEs reported from western cultures (E.g., a tunnel with a light at the end of it) were not universally present cross-culturally.

Until then, we should delete the known offending section of this article. Furthermore, for any user(s) who took part in writing the section that references Keith Augustine's "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences", I recommend that we scrutinize all other contributions that they have made to this article. If they have cited a source so blatantly incorrectly once, their other contributions to this article (and any other) become highly suspect.

24.44.23.186 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Zed

I wonder what ref you are reading. The section in the ref on cultural differences exactly says that Christians from the West see culturally-determined images of Jesus, which somebody from india sees " recognizably Hindu religious figures." Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that, but the section implies that that is the ONLY difference of note, that otherwise the experiences are highly similar. The section in this article specifically reads: "Studies that have investigated cultural differences in NDEs have argued that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture". If you'll re-read my original post as well as the Keith Augustine reference, you'll note his discussion on various studies that conclude completely the opposite of what this Wikipedia article claims.

Whether that's the final word or not from the academic community is not for us to decide. However, as it stands, the reference cited contradicts the claim made for that section of this Wikipedia article. I'd correct it so that it properly reflects the analysis in the Keith Augustine reference, but I'm not familiar with the writing guidelines for articles.

24.44.23.186 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Zed

Edit: Quotations from the Keith Augustine reference, taken at many different points throughout his section on cross-cultural comparisons: (1) "Studies that have investigated cultural differences in NDEs have argued that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture", (2) While deceased friends and relatives are sometimes encountered in Thai NDEs (in 4 of the 10 accounts), rather than greeting the NDEr (as in the West), they inform the NDEr 'of the rules governing the afterlife'", (3) "Tunnels are "largely absent in Thai NDEs" (with one exception unlike Western tunnel experiences), and feelings of peace or euphoria and experiences of light have not been reported at all", (4) "Unlike Western cases, life events are not viewed or relived as flashbacks. Landscapes are common in Thai NDEs, but typically unpleasant, as in the tours of the various hells.", (5) "Given such stark phenomenological differences, Murphy concludes: 'The fact that Thai (and Indian) NDEs do not follow the typical Western progression reflected by Kenneth Ring's temporal model seems to rule out the possibility that there is an ideal or normal NDE scenario, except within a particular cultural context'", (6) "He nevertheless concedes vague cross-cultural commonalities 'in which individuals commonly use culturally-derived patterns to confabulate individualized death-process phenomena that serve common psychological functions' [emphasis mine]", (7) "Despite a few core elements—such as having an OBE, going through a tunnel, encountering a light, and meeting deceased relatives—descriptions of the world encountered during Western NDEs are nearly as variable as dreams.", (8) "Of the 8 prototypical Western NDE elements, only 'meeting others' is truly universal in non-Western cultures. Landscapes are nearly universal, but quite variable in their details.", (9) "...existing cross-cultural studies suggest that any cross-cultural core consists of a very small number of elements", (10) "Since far more differences than similarities have been found between Western and non-Western accounts, the commonalities between different Western NDEs require a special explanation."

24.44.23.186 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Zed

You are providing your own analysis of Augustine. This is not valid. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User 24.44.23.186 is right - if I understood him/her correctly. Keith Augustine's article is geared towards showing that NDEs are hallucinations (which they may be after all - but that is not the point) hence he is repeatedly insisting on the fact that there are important cultural differences. So citing this reference to support the fact that "that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture" does not make sense. Have I understood you correctly User 24.44.23.186? Josezetabal (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP is providing an interpretation of Augustine instead of summarizing what Augustine says. This is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation; it's exactly what he says. But feel free to pretend it says whatever you want, I won't be trying to fix your work on this article anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.23.186 (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Needs to get worked over

The content below consistently attributes things to French or other people and doesn't cite the source. I started fixing it and got fed up. The actual citations need to be provided.

This whole thing verges very hard on SYN and OR in selecting arguments to discuss and where to go into depth with quoting sources cited in the reviews and then citing those primary sources.

Spiritual explanations - afterlife claims and skeptical responses

See also: Consciousness after death

Many individuals who experience an NDE see it as a verification of the existence of an afterlife, and some researchers in the field of near-death studies see the NDE as evidence that human consciousness may continue to exist after death. The transcendental (or survivalist) interpretation of the NDE contends that the experience is exactly what it appears to be to the persons having the experience. According to this interpretation, consciousness can become separated from the brain under certain conditions and glimpse the spiritual realm to which souls travel after death.

The transcendental model is in some friction with the dominant view from mainstream neuroscience; that consciousness is a product of, and dependent on, the brain. According to the mainstream neuroscientific view, once the brain stops functioning at brain death, consciousness fails to survive and ceases to exist.

Van Lommel said that the NDE poses a major challenge to current scientific thinking regarding the relationship between consciousness and the brain: "How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?... (the) NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Other NDE researchers such as Parnia, Fenwick and Greyson, have expressed similar questions and concerns.

These arguments raised by several researchers have been criticized by some scientific skeptics and scientists on several grounds. Chris French (2005, 2009) noted that, "it is clear that the argument that recent findings present a major challenge to modern neuroscience hinges upon the claim that the NDE is actually experienced "during a period of clinical death with flat EEG" as claimed". With respect to the former point he pointed out that it is not at all clear that NDEs actually do occur during a period of flat EEG. Assuming that the patients in question entered a period of flat EEG, French argued that the NDE may have occurred as they entered that state or as they slowly recovered from it. Parnia and Fenwick (2001) had rejected the idea that the NDE may have occurred as the patient is becoming unconscious because they argued that this happens too quickly. But French points out that it is unclear how much time would be required to experience an NDE and that a common feature of altered states of consciousness is time distortion. He argued that this is well illustrated by the life review component of the NDE itself which, although involving a review of a person's entire life, only seems to last a very brief time. And that therefore, "who can say, therefore, that the few seconds of remaining consciousness as an individual enters the state of clinical death is insufficient for the experiences that form the basis of the NDE?".

Chris French, a notable skeptic of the afterlife claims of NDErs

Parnia and Fenwick (2001) also claimed that the NDE could not occur as a person slowly regains consciousness as this period is characterized by delirium and not by the lucid consciousness reported by NDErs. French again argued that the attribution of confusion is typically made by an outside observer. The subjects themselves may not subjectively feel confused at all. He quoted from an article by Liere and Stickney where they noted that, "Hypoxia quickly affects the higher centers, causing a blunting of the finer sensibilities and a loss of sense of judgment and of self-criticism. The subject feels, however, that his mind is not only quite clear, but unusually keen", and that the subjective claim of great clarity of thought may therefore well be an illusion. French (2005) also noted that "it should be borne in mind that we are always dealing with reports of experiences rather than with the experiences themselves. Memory is a reconstructive process. It is highly likely the final narrative will be much more coherent after the individual has reflected upon it before telling it to others, given the inherently ineffable nature of the experience itself".

And with respect to the latter point, the survivalists have also been criticized by scientists like French and Braithwaite of placing undue confidence in EEG measures. French (2005) and Braithwaite (2008) claimed that survivalists generally appear to assume that a flat EEG is indicative of total brain inactivity and that therefore the experience of an NDE during such a flatline period would completely undermine the core assumption of modern neuroscience that any complex experience must be based upon a functioning neural substrate.

Even assuming that NDEs actually occur during such periods, the assumption that isoelectric surface EEG recordings are always indicative of total brain inactivity is according to Braithwaite and French wrong. Braithwaite noted that "unless surgically implanted into the brain directly, the EEG principally measures surface cortical activity. The waveforms seen in cortical EEG are largely regarded to come from the synchronistic firing of cortical pyramidal neurons. As such, it is entirely conceivable that deep sub-cortical brain structures could be firing, and even in seizure, in the absence of any cortical signs of this activity." Braithwaite also noted that Gloor (1986) reviewed evidence indicating that inter-ictal discharges in the hippocampus or amygdala can produce complex meaningful hallucinations without the involvement of the cerebral cortex. B

Another argument which, according to Braithwaite (2008), relies upon misplaced confidence in surface EEG measurement was put forward by Fenwick P. and Fenwick E. (1995). B According to Braithwaite, they argued that, in cases where the surface EEG recording was not flat, if the NDE was a hallucinatory experience based upon disinhibition, evidence of this disinhibition should be visible in the surface EEG recorded at the time. However, Braithwaite argued that data from a recent study comparing EEG recorded at the scalp with EEG recorded from electrodes surgically implanted in deep sub-cortical regions show conclusively that high-amplitude seizure activity can be occurring in deep brain regions and yet be completely undetectable in the surface EEG. Braithwaite also discussed a study comparing surface EEG recordings with the fMRI blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) response showed that the surface EEG could fail to detect seizure activity at the level of the cortex that was detected by the BOLD response.

NDE researcher Janice Miner Holden found 107 anecdotal reports of patients being able to see and recall detailed events occurring during the cardiac arrest that are afterwards verified by hospital staff in the NDE literature as of 2009, out of which approximately 91% were accurate.

According to French (2005) and Blackmore (1993), when serious attempts at corroboration are attempted, the evidence often turns out to be nowhere near as impressive as it initially appeared. And such cases can possibly (since they had not been ruled out) be accounted for in terms of non-paranormal factors including, "information available at the time, prior knowledge, fantasy or dreams, lucky guesses, and information from the remaining senses. Then there is selective memory for correct details, incorporation of details learned between the end of the NDE and giving an account of it, and the tendency to tell a good story."

According to French (2005) a similar claim to the argument from veridical perceptions are the cases of blind people that during NDEs are able to see even though, in some cases, they may have been blind from birth; that paper says: "initial readings of such accounts often give the impression that the experience involves seeing events and surroundings in the same way that sighted people do, but closer reflection upon these cases suggests otherwise." French quoted from an article by NDE researcher Ring where he noted that, "as this kind of testimony builds, it seems more and more difficult to claim that the blind simply see what they report. Rather, it is beginning to appear it is more a matter of their knowing, through a still poorly understood mode of generalized awareness, based on a variety of sensory impressions, especially tactile ones, what is happening around them." French (2005) concluded that, "NDEs in the blind are certainly worthy of study but do not merit any special status in terms of evidential support for spiritual explanations of the phenomenon."

Nevertheless, according to French (2005) future research in the near-death experience should focus on devising ways to distinguish between the two main hypotheses relating to when the NDE is occurring. If it really is occurring when some NDE researchers claim that it is, during a period of flat EEG with no cortical activity, then modern neuroscience would require serious revision. This would also be the case if the OBE, either within the NDE or not, could be shown to be veridical. Attempts to test the veridicality of OBEs using hidden targets (e.g., Parnia and Fenwick (2001)) should be welcomed.

References

--Jytdog (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog - instead of going crazy about attributions, I would first make a list of all the resources we wish to use. There are more recent articles - for instance Prof Parnia has published other more recent review articles and like you wrote in the comments, the article by Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watt has not been used enough (though it is not classified as a review article in PubMed)

Also, I think we should create a sub-section under Explanatory models - for the Transcendental Theory - even French (a skeptic) has a whole section (in his review article) dedicated to this model. A lot of the above information could go in there whilst using more recent (review) articles and better attribution Josezetabal (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing is the foundation of Wikipedia. Being mindful that content is actually supported by sources is essential here, not to mention just basic acceptable scholarship. The content above would flunk a high school composition course and it is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog I have read Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watts article. It is not classified as a review article by PubMed, although it is one. Same comment for the most recent article by Sam Parnia [3]. I propose we use both. Do you agree? Josezetabal (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

why do you think PMID 21852181 is not classified as a a review by pubmed? Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

you are right Jytdog, I double checked again and it is a review article indeed, so we should definitely use it - Josezetabal (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"The content below consistently attributes things to French or other people and doesn't cite the source. I started fixing it and got fed up. The actual citations need to be provided."

I am basically the author of the whole "spiritual explanations" section, and sources were cited at first. But as more people started editing... i don't know what happened.

The Van Lommel quote in the beginning is from "Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands.” The Lancet.

The 2005 Chris French source is: "Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7578454_Near-death_experiences_in_cardiac_arrest_survivors

I'm not so sure what the 2009 source was. Probably "Near-death experiences and the brain. In: Craig Murray, ed. Psychological scientific perspectives on out-of-body and death-near experiences. New York: Nova Science Publishers"

The Parnia and Fenwick source is "Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness" (2001).

The 2008 Braithwaite source is "Near death experiences: The dying brain". Skeptic magazine.

Since then, in addition to the source from 2008 Braithwaite released a new (similar) paper "Occam's Chainsaw: Neuroscientific Nails in the coffin of dualist notions of the Near-death experience (NDE"; http://www.academia.edu/10060970/Occams_Chainsaw_Neuroscientific_Nails_in_the_coffin_of_dualist_notions_of_the_Near-death_experience_NDE_

And in addition to Braithwaite, French, Blackmore, etc. Keith Augustine is also someone who is worth mentioning. There's a whole chapter on NDE's in The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death (2015) which seems to be a version of his "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" article from infidels.org. Ironrage (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ironrage thank-you for the initial work you put in. Much appreciated. I will try to check the sources you listed here above, see if they are review articles or solid university press books, add few more sources (using same criteria) and then submit them here on the talk page Josezetabal (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ironrage Here below a first attempt to draft a list of articles that could be used:

REVIEW ARTICLE (used already) French, Christopher C. (2005-01-01). "Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors". Progress in Brain Research. 150: 351–367. ISSN 0079-6123. PMID 16186035. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50025-6.

REVIEW ARTICLE (used already on the page) Parnia, Sam (2014-11-01). "Death and consciousness--an overview of the mental and cognitive experience of death". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1330: 75–93. ISSN 1749-6632. PMID 25418460. doi:10.1111/nyas.12582

REVIEW ARTICLE (used already on the page) Almost 40 years investigating near-death experiences: an overview of mainstream scientific journals. Sleutjes A, Moreira-Almeida A, Greyson B. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014 Nov;202(11):833-6. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000205. Review. PMID 25357254.

REVIEW ARTICLE (not used) Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness. Parnia S, Fenwick P. Resuscitation. 2002 Jan;52(1):5-11. Review. PMID 11801343.

REVIEW ARTICLE (not used) Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Oct;15(10):447-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010. Epub 2011 Aug 17. "There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them." Mobbs D1, Watt C. PMID 21852181. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010

Other Articles

"Occam's Chainsaw: Neuroscientific Nails in the Coffinof Dualist Notions of the Near-death Experience (NDE)" by Dr Jason J Braithwaite. It shows 1 citations in Google Scholar [4]. Not indexed in Pubmed. I would reject this source. However Dr Jason J Braithwaite seems like a solid guy with lots of publications [5] - can you please check which of the publications are review articles covering our subject ?

I will continue the work to identify more articles and also start working on making a list of books Josezetabal (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Towards a cognitive neuroscience of the dying brain" (http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/-(53998d2c-d2a6-47aa-ae6a-ccd590e06ff5).html) is included in the list of publications and it's the same as the 2008 source but under a different name.

There is also a reply from NDE researchers on the "There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences.." article; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22868045

In the Journal of Near-Death Studies there are also some relevant articles from Keith Augustine and other NDE researchers (https://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/keith-bio.html). Ironrage (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We need secondary sources expressing "accepted knowledge". This is an encyclopedia article, not a page where we track blow-by-blow debate in the literature. We don't use "comments". Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree Josezetabal (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As promised, here below a list of Books we could use

BOOK (already used on the page) Chapter "Leaving Body and Life Behind: Out-of-Body and Near" By Olaf Blanke in the book S. Laureys & G. Tononi (Eds.) The Neurology of Consciousness. © 2009, Elsevier Ltd. The book is cited 52 times in Google Scholar [6] Elsevier being one of the top providers of scientific, technical, and medical information, this is a no brainer

BOOK (currently not used on the page) Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence, Second Edition – edited by the American Psychological Association. More especially chapter 12 by Bruce Greyson : Near Death Experiences Bruce Greyson has authored or co-authored [7] 45 articles on Near Death Experiences The first edition of the book has been cited 435 times in Google Scholar [8] Again, this book should be a no brainer

I would reject BOOK (currently not used on the page) “The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death (2015)” is published by Rowman & Littlefield Although Rowman & Littlefield publishes scholarly books and journals -- the book only shows only 7 citations in Google Scholar. [9] Also, I did not find any articles by Keith Augustine in Pubmed so I would reject this source because of the lack of authority of the book and author

Any thoughts Ironrage and Jytdog ? best Josezetabal (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fringe edits from Josezetabal

I noticed Josezetabal has been deleting sources that give the NDE a natural neuroscientific explanation, and this is quietly been going on for a while. He has deleted various academic or scientific sources because he claims they are not on PubMed. Just because a source is not a paper listed on PubMed does not mean it should be deleted.

This source Towards a Neuro-scientific Explanation of Near-death Experiences by Vanhaudenhuyse, was removed by Josezetabal. His reason "Vanhaudenhuyse et al. 2009 does not exist in Pubmed - also reference 56 is a Book of Intensive Care Medicine and Vanhaudenhuyse is not one of the co-authors. So all references are wrong" [10]. I just linked to the Vanhaudenhuyse source. He was co-author. I do not usually edit on this wiki and I do not want to engage in an edit war, but there appears to be some deception going on here. Reliable sources have been deleted. Rebecca Bird (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree! One only needs to look at who has disappeared and who has survived the edits to identify the culprits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perky28 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense added to lead

"Purely mathematical research involving artificial neural nets has demonstrated that the volume secretion of neurotransmitters such as adrenaline during near-death trauma induces hallucination [7]. Then, as simulated cell apoptosis progresses, neural nets perform pattern completion upon their own internal damage, at first generating the equivalent of life review, and thereafter producing ever more creative, fantasy-like experience before fading to black.[8] Due to the accelerated progression of both true and false memories with cascading neural damage, we may expect dying neurobiology to experience time-dilation and a subjective feel of forever".

Utter nonsense added to the lead by Perky28. His source is this weird paper [11], Virtual input” phenomena within the death of a simple pattern associator by S. L. Thaler. This paper does not mention NDE's. It is off-topic to being adding it to an article on near-death experiences. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thaler's 2016 paper that Perky28 added to the lead does not mention NDE's either [12]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

These mathematical studies couldn't be more relevant to this article, and yes, they have been published in the Journal of Near-Death Experience, as well as being discussed in the press (e.g., Scientific American). The PubMed article does discuss the hallucination accompanying a traumatized brain and is therefore extremely relevant. ...There, without any profanity, unlike the style of the Skeptic Brit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perky28 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I also found the addition of this material to be UNDUE; several of the refs were also primary sources, and the content described what was in the primary source. This is not how we build articles in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What in your opinion is UNDUE? I guess anything outside your ideology conveniently fits that definition. Besides, several secondary references have been included (e.g., Yam, Ricciardiello, Young-Mason). So, throw the baby out with the bathwater, book burning at midnight, and don't forget your torch! COI, I don't see any COI? This is wanton vandalism!!!Perky28 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do reply on your talk page, which is here: User talk:Perky28. I'll be happy to further discuss content once the discussion there is resolved. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, it seems that your editing privilege has been revoked on several occasions. Could it be that you are vandalizing articles based upon your own particular world view? Wikipedia should not be based upon bullying.Perky28 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)