Anonymous Icon

Neurosurgeon has NDE

Posted Dec. 1, 2011 by EthanT in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Nov. 29, 2014
by dustproduction



I thought this was an interesting interview. It's Dr. Eban Alexzander from Harvard, who is a neurosurgeon of 15+ years. Anyhow, he had an NDE, and offers a very vivid description of it in this interview. He also expresses his struggles with trying to explain it. I also liked about how he talked about the feelings of what he calls hyperreality, and how the normal explanations of Co2, Oxygen, "drugs", etc., just don't fit the bill. I also referred to this "realer than real" description in a post of mine not too long ago. I personally believe it comes from an expanded awareness, not a drug-induced state or delusion, and I think Dr. Alexander is trying to say the same thing.

Anyhow, here it is: http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience/ Enjoy!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2014

    We still need to account for a memory being form in a brain.
    There are two other sources to consider.

    An article for Esquire by Luke Dittrich, titled "The Prophet" states,
    "In Proof of Heaven, Alexander writes that he spent seven days in "a coma caused by a rare case of E. coli bacterial meningitis." There is no indication in the book that it was [ER doctor] Laura Potter, and not bacterial meningitis, that induced his coma, or that the physicians in the ICU maintained his coma in the days that followed through the use of anesthetics. Alexander also writes that during his week in the ICU he was present "in body alone," that the bacterial assault had left him with an "all-but-destroyed brain." He notes that by conventional scientific understanding, "if you don't have a working brain, you can't be conscious," and a key point of his argument for the reality of the realms he claims to have visited is that his memories could not have been hallucinations, since he didn't possess a brain capable of creating even a hallucinatory conscious experience.

    I ask Potter whether the manic, agitated state that Alexander exhibited whenever they weaned him off his anesthetics during his first days of coma would meet her definition of conscious.

    "Yes," she says. "Conscious but delirious."

    Sam Harris, a neuroscientist writes, "In his Newsweek article, Alexander asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.” To his editors, this presumably sounded like neuroscience.
    The problem, however, is that “CT scans and neurological examinations” can’t determine neuronal inactivity—in the cortex or anywhere else. And Alexander makes no reference to functional data that might have been acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG—nor does he seem to realize that only this sort of evidence could support his case. Obviously, the man’s cortex is functioning now—he has, after all, written a book—so whatever structural damage appeared on CT could not have been “global.” (Otherwise, he would be claiming that his entire cortex was destroyed and then grew back.) Coma is not associated with the complete cessation of cortical activity, in any case. And to my knowledge, almost no one thinks that consciousness is purely a matter of cortical activity. Alexander’s unwarranted assumptions are proliferating rather quickly. Why doesn’t he know these things? He is, after all, a neurosurgeon who survived a coma and now claims to be upending the scientific worldview on the basis of the fact that his cortex was totally quiescent at the precise moment he was enjoying the best day of his life in the company of angels. Even if his entire cortex had truly shut down (again, an incredible claim), how can he know that his visions didn’t occur in the minutes and hours during which its functions returned?"

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2014

    "Numerous studies have looked into the physiological mechanisms of NDE, the production of these phenomena by the brain, but, taken separately, these two theories are incapable of explaining these experiences in their entirety. The study published in PLOS ONE does not claim to offer a unique explanation for NDE, but it contributes to study pathways which take into account psychological phenomena as factors associated with, and not contradictory to, physiological phenomena."


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2014

    One of my real disappointments with IONS is that the people they attract, as evidenced by these discussions, seem to lack an understanding of the very topics they are advocating in favor of. It's hardly my job to present both sides of the debate but too too often this becomes the case here.
    Regarding NDE, let's consider the writing of Robert Mays. Does anyone agree or disagree with Mays? I find several points that I disagree with but I will allow other a say here:


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 15, 2014

    "Suffer fools gladly is a well-known phrase in contemporary use, first coined by Saint Paul in his second letter to the people of Corinth. The full verse of the original source of the idiom, 2 Corinthians 11:19 (KJV), reads "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."[1][2] The New International Version states "You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!"[3] In its current usage, the meaning of the negative, not to suffer fools gladly, has been stated by the Cambridge Idiom Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (2006), as "to become angry with people you think are stupid".[4]"

  • Silverghost Nov 15, 2014

    You two blokes don't give a hoot about someone else's thread do you or the discussion board period, again you are making yourselves out to be utter fools but you can't honestly see this can you?

    I do not have disdain for you two like you obviously do with me, psychologically you both need to think that but trust me that is not the case my friends. You both have a destructive demanding characters and that is disruptive and destructive to the discussion board, that is what I don't like about you two, that is all. You cannot, unlike yourselves, make me hate you in a million years my friends, you both have my empathy even if you don't want it.

    Love and best wishes,

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 14, 2014

    "We each operate in a pond of personal knowledge; our ignorance is oceanic.

    Worse, it is impossible to fathom just how close and how pervasive these unknowns are, precisely because they are invisible to us. "People are destined not to know where the solid land of their knowledge ends and the slippery shores of their ignorance begins," writes Dunning. He calls this affliction the "anosognosia of everyday life". It's an obscure term from the medical literature, but appropriate: people with anosognosia have a disability - they are paralysed or blind - but crucially, do not know they are disabled. It's not denial; they are simply not aware."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 14, 2014

    Brilliant, yes! I had forgotten the Dunning–Kruger effect.

  • NoetPoet Nov 14, 2014

    @Dustproduction (re: Silverghost)
    "I can offer a suggestion, but it has been pointed out to you before; you simple have a large ego, and too little intelligence to realize why you are behaving the way you do"

    Quoted for truth! Silverghost is the very embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ):

    "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 14, 2014


    So the answer here is that you never read the article and can't discuss it intelligently.
    Why do you bother to jump into the discussion and respond to my comment its not because you had some burning point to make about NDE, you don't have any new news to provide?
    I can offer a suggestion, but it has been pointed out to you before; you simple have a large ego, and too little intelligence to realize why you are behaving the way you do. Complaining every time the boy play rough. You are the only one here that plays that card.
    Unlike everyone else on this board, the evidence repeatedly demonstrate that you are incapable of holding any type of discussion. Few. almost no one engage in your nonsense posts so you resort to the tactic use by every other zealot in your attempts to convert the un-believers. I am done thinking that you can be reasonable or learn anything. You have a broken mind tuck in reverse.

    You will never even read one of these books! EVER! You are such a fraud.

    The question remain: how does one explain the inconsistencies of these books


  • Silverghost Nov 14, 2014


    Again you are shouting at me, you are either personally attacking me and others or shouting at us.

    It is obvious people like you are only into the sciences and certainly not into any other concept that just might question these scientific concepts of yours but I do. I question science as much as I question spiritual concepts, that is quite obvious.

    You believe science is the be and end all, that is also obvious, so it's a belief system is it not?

    Unlike yourself who consistently go way off topic to attack people, what I stated has everything to do with NDE's, if you can't or more likely don't want to see this, that isn't my problem.

    End of discussion.........

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 14, 2014

    Re: "No matter what the concepts are about, the initial belief/concept will most often give a bias outcome unless one is into more than one concept. "

    Your point here might be true of belief but science is, as you say, "into more than one concept," and its not a believe system. It is a provisional system that build now itself.
    And you comment does not issue the point of inconsistencies in accounts of NDE.

  • Silverghost Nov 14, 2014

    The point with this is, if you are not scientifically minded you will not make any scientific discoveries, this is obvious, so if you are not open mind to a consciousness existing outside the mind you will not discover such occurrences. No matter what your beliefs and concepts are, if you don’t believe in them, you won’t make any discoveries in relation to such concepts no matter what the concept is.

    When such people have a firm belief that there is no consciousness outside of the brain, no matter how much they research such things they will always come up with an answer that will suite their initial beliefs. You see this in any belief system from science to religion. The initial belief always has an impact unless you are open minded enough to accept other concepts within the equation.

    This is quite apparent, I’ve been on a number of discussion boards/forums from science to spiritualty, you will always come across this problem as seen quite often on this board. No matter what the concepts are about, the initial belief/concept will most often give a bias outcome unless one is into more than one concept. I think it’s wise to take on concepts that are opposing as this I feel is what will give balance to a final deduction.

    Personally I’m not into bias deductions, that is why I’ve taken on opposing concepts that will hopefully stop me from making such bias deductions. Psychology and spirituality do indeed clash as I have shown a number of times on this board; one must choose the relative less bias findings.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 14, 2014

    NDE is relevant in light of all the discussion on the board about consciousness outside the body or "imprisoned" in the brain.

    This is a great review of several books of NDE. The conclusion is the same one I have had; there are enough inconsistencies in these accounts to understand that there must be another explanation for what is occurring.

    "Anecdotes like these are the bread and butter of the tabloids, of course, and they have their entertainment value. Their absurdities, however, reflect the naive but potent hunger for the kind of reassurance that the more substantial NDE narratives also provide. Yes, these scenarios of visits to heaven may seem preposterous to the skeptical reader (like myself). And yes, the comforting messages brought back from heaven have often been delivered before—but through prophecy, revelation, the Word. The recent spate of NDE books offers something more concrete: contemporary first-person reportage. If their authors are not liars, something happened to these people. But what? Can what they report, however unlikely it sounds, be reconciled with science, so that we can respect the phenomenon while rejecting its literal manifestations? These are questions for a second article."

    Indeed there is a second article.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 07, 2014

    Kelly, E. W. (2001). Near-death experiences with reports of meeting deceased people. Death Stud. 25, 229–249.

    Mobbs, D., and Watt, C. (2011). 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. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 15, 447–449.

    Agrillo, C. (2011). Near-death experience: out-of-body and out-of-brain? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 15, 1–10.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 15, 2013

    Re: subject to the viewer's state of mind or expectation.

    Yes indeed, most NDEs are oriented around a person's belief of an afterlife.

  • bestearth Dec 14, 2013

    Introducing Lilou Mace, a whirlwind of transformational interviews, this with Dr Eben Alexander,


  • Anonymous Icon

    wbilly3814 Dec 13, 2013


    I think it is here that I can point out that an NDE is almost never described by people who recover from coma, but hallucinogenic experiences are common, marked by twisted versions of coporeal things, such as Alaxender's reports, none of which bare any resemblence to the Greyson scale of the classic NDE requirement; Alexander, according tot eh Greyson scale, absolutely fails to have an NDE.

  • Anonymous Icon

    wbilly3814 Dec 13, 2013

    We call that confabulation. Each time the memmpory of an event is recalled, it gets slightly altered, regardless of the 'hyper reality' of the event. which incidently is an actual state reported by DMT users. In any case, the confabulation of memmory is impossible to avoid and subject to the present environment, particularly when it is forced by driving oneself to write or a line of questioning. This is the reason that 'recovered memmories' via hypnosis are no longer accepted in a court of law. It is the reason eyewitness testimony, and even the viewing of immediate and present data, such as real time video, are also not permissable, because confabulation has no time limit, it occurs 'immediately,' and subject to the viewer's state of mind or expectation.

    Also, I need point out that the details of Alexander's claims are not supported by any one description in 40 years of studying the NDE, and therefore can only stand to represent personal agenda, that idea supported by the huge amount of press surrounding his release of text; and also, his claim of being a neuroscientist is exalted, but every principle of neuroscience is negated by what he has stated and claimed and repeated.

    The fact is, and I say this with humility, many readers have pointed out that it seemed as though he had my text opened while he was writing, followed it chapter by chapter, complete with quotes between chapters, following the same outline but rephrasing the topics to suit an agenda; noting that the copyright date on his text is 4 years younger than the (original) copyright date on my own text. And most of all, since the text I've written has been in the top 10 since its publication (the first text in the history if science to achevie this), and information has clearly been gleened from it, the list of references conspicuously has this reference missing.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 13, 2013

    Thank you William for talking the time to comment here.
    I like your point about the subjective experience being perception. The point I had previously made in this discussion was that most accounts are the recollections of a the supposed event. This requires a memory to be formed at some point. I will include the notion that memory is plastic and is reshaped each time it is retrieved or recalled.
    Dr. Alexander's claim of being in a coma, his explanation for why it could not have been a mental perceived event, seems to preclude any such memory formation.

  • Anonymous Icon

    wbilly3814 Dec 13, 2013

    As a clinical researcher I was able to review the paper 'just minutes' before publication regarding CO2, as well as some other papers regarding suspected anomalies. I wrote responses to these. In the case of CO2 in particular the data is for all practical purposes gibberish; complete random data (50/50 coin flip data) and presented as proof of principle. I uploaded the text at 4shared.com login billy3814@yahoo.com password mrspock1 file QP FTL.PDF page 171 describes how complete random data was used in this case and presented as proof of principle, not to mention the paper was in the hands of the press before it was even peer reviewed (which was supposed to be in part by me).

    As far as cognitive belief goes, people once believed the earth was the center of the unvierse, there was no alternate model available, the earth not being the center of the universe was completely beyond the human frame of reference altogether, and yet the structure of the universe did not change at all. obviously, belief, a cognitive thing, and Faith, a spiritual state of being are not the same thing.

    dead relatives, tunnels, white light, etc., all fall under the category 'perception,' and that is all the phyical brain is capable of, which, incidently, is 80% fat by weight.

    an irrefutable argument rerquires 1) a mthematical axiom correctly applied 2) data that fits the mathematcial axiom 3) the lack of ability to be challenged by another irrefutable argument via mathematical axiom; 4) lacking any specualtion or opinion whatsoever or dismissing all specualtion and opinion altogether - aka irrefutable.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    Re: "Hyper real", "splendidly vivid" are only feelings, and feelings could be produced by brain, while infinite details can't, and the latter forms the reality.

    The actual 'experiencing' is not under discussion. NDE are recalled via the memory of the 'NDE experience,' and the question of how the memory is form needs to be accounted for. These memories, vivid or not, reside in the brain in long term memory.

  • Anonymous Icon

    enzymewrath Nov 23, 2013

    NDEers used to say their experiences are "definitely real", "hyper real", but reality contains infinite details, so many nde accounts have little details. For example, accounts of seeing deceased relatives during ndes confuse me a lot, because almost every cases narrating the meet of deceased relatives only include several repetitive speakings, mostly are "It's not your time yet, go back for your mundane tasks." But different people should have different personalities, should concern different things regarding and between themselves and the subject of ndes. Consider a pair of parents meet their beloved son long after his attending a foreign university for 4 years and has come back hometown in mother country, what should they talk about, something before their long time depart, during this son's foreign life, and right on the way back home, there are a lot of details to share, they shouldn't just talk about: "It's not your time, you still have tasks on earth to finish."

    Someone would argue that nders don't necessarily narrate their experiences in great details especially regarding their personal or private conversations, or the ndes often last very shortly so there is no time to show someone's personality in the short communicating, but with so many cases which had shown unrealistically simple scenarios and similarly lack of details, I incline to think maybe these are cheap imaginations produced by brain, most people are incapable of forging a long, fresh and complex story within a short period, this is more like a brain's mechanism, rather than a reality of another world.

    Similar problem exists among nde accounts about visiting an unknown place usually full of light but nothing more, being granted "knowledge of everything" which is nothing more than a single literal phrase recursive of itself not even more complex than a simplest math formula or a segment of java code used to query a database record, and reincarnation accounts which claim they were pilots during World War II in their last lives and simply show their savvy of a single fighter plane terminology, these could be easily forged by brain without need to resort to some form of otherworldly forces.

    But bearing my previous concerns in mind, how do we interpret the accounts of ndes being described as "hyper real", "highly organized", "splendidly vivid", and etcetera? I think an analogy might be possibly used to erase the contradict or paradox. Consider our physical world as a real photo, and nde as a photo being heavily processed by photoshop, a real photo can be dull, but it's real while a photo being processed by a graphic technology which is unimaginable one hundred years ago, can then become cartoon sharp and more attractive, but it's unreal and distorted.

    "Hyper real", "splendidly vivid" are only feelings, and feelings could be produced by brain, while infinite details can't, and the latter forms the reality.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 24, 2012

    This seems to be the big question in any spirituality.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 24, 2012


    Lakoff does a great job here of indirectly questioning why a "soul" would recall a NDE.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 11, 2012

    The title of Alexander's book is "Proof of Heaven," a rather assuming title when he cannot answer my simple question. Alexander tells us he believes, "The purest and most extraordinary part of his journey happened deep in coma." How can he possibly claim to recall this. He was in a coma, "his earliest recollections were strange and involved no recall of his life before coma. Like a newborn, he had no functioning language, nor knowledge of this world, our culture, or the loved ones surrounding him."

    Has anyone commenting here read the book, or just blindly backing any claims of NDEs out of personally wanting to believe in it? .

    I seek to understand the science behind things, same as IONS does when it conducts research into PSI

  • Anonymous Icon

    Xristos Nov 11, 2012

    If you look for error Dustproduction you will find it. Belief is unquantifiable and unless based on personal experience when not founded on incontrovertible logic is transcendental. What Alexander is doing is not asking us to believe, he is sharing what he believes as a result of a spontaneous transcendental experience. You must accept his statement that his clarity and knowing went far beyond human understanding. You are taking pure water and seeking to reduce it by boiling it in your crucible to see what remains. Nothing remains.

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 07, 2012

    G'day Dustproduction

    I thought you might be interested in what this doc says: http://thecosmictraveler.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/dr-rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-set-free/

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 07, 2012

    G'day Lawrence

    Yes I can see your point here as it's the same with the mind, it can be conscious but still have no knowing unless it has + knowing, in other words the mind is only conscious until in requires knowing, it's the knowing that gives the consciousness of the mind life.

    Thanks for the useful info Lawrence...

    G'day Dustproduction

    But with some fiction truths are known to be held, fiction doesn't mean it's not based on fact like the bible & other holy texts which some call fiction, it just means it can’t be proven as yet. I’m into science but I’m a little more open minded than you obviously to all possibilities proven or not. I do understand you don’t want to know people who dream up wonderful ideologies out of thin air but I’m a little more open than that, every thought is an energy form therefore must be real in some way but not necessarily in this reality which is restricted by its conscious understanding unlike other possible realities which are not necessarily physical.

    I will put it this way, if someone didn’t fictionally dream up about flight or the world being round or the sun isn’t a God without poof where would we be now?


  • Anonymous Icon

    LawrenceCarson Nov 02, 2012

    Re: mrmathew's1963 comments on Oct 31, 2012

    I like and resonate with your comments especially re that "We Are All Conscious." Actually and more fundamentally we are that which comes before “consciousness ( Latin meaning = With Knowing) because knowing mandates the duality of the knower experiencing the known … two and separate energy manifestations. So that being said … what we really are is (in my opinion and based upon my CPA nature with out of body experiences ) just pure infinite awareness and when we focused upon and within the duality of “stuff” … our Awareness when coupled with our amazing comparative capacity to remember and compare what was vs. what now is … is what we call the experience of knowing. We can’t know without having memory of what just occurred 1.6180339887…. femtoseconds ago. 

    Thus the Universal Algorithm … Aware + Memory Comparison = Consciousness (with + knowing)

    In some 380+ pages in Rupert Sheldrake’s most recent book “Science Set Free – 10 Paths To New Discovery” he very cogently sets forth the dogmatic materialistic plagues that have been serving as the chain-and-anchor to the ships of future discoveries.

    Those that are truly interested to learn how to “Outsmart the beliefs that are controlling all of one’s thinking” would do well to acquire this book and three different colored highlighting marker pens.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 01, 2012

    Ok, so you see my point here, and the question remains open.
    IONS is an organization that seeks to provide scientific evidence for psi. Without it we are stuck with something close to fiction.

    Regarding: water crystals experiments. Masaru Emoto did write a paper with Dean Radin but he has his critics.
    He profits off the sale of his special water, $35 for 8oz.


    A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.[18] ^ Spirituality & Health Magazine

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 31, 2012

    G’day Dustproduction

    Belief in a spiritual practice like meditation is more than a belief & goes beyond theory, it’s been scientifically proven to change people’s lives, religion works on the same principles & of course this has a lot to do with brain chemistry. Like I said in my blog, science will one day prove or disprove a lot of spiritual practices & beliefs in time.

    To answer your question, how does memory appears in the brain from an other than physical experience? Remembering who we are & no this isn’t scientifically based as science at this point in time can’t measure such things because of its lack of conscious understanding but it is getting there. The more we remember who we truly are the more perceptive & telepathic one becomes & the less boundaries one puts up that hinder our understanding.

    I believe we are not just this crude mass but something much greater, maybe even this God as we are creators in our own right, just look at what man has created & we can even create & destroy life itself. Plants react to music which is just one vibration reacting to another, why can’t a more conscious entity like humans produce an even more spectacular result? It’s just to do with a vibrative response to another & the thinking does produce vibrations that we have no way of scientifically proving or disproving at this point in time that these vibrations can transform physical matter.

    Remembering who we are by quietening the mind gives us consciousness beyond our present scientific understanding, this consciousness is of everything I believe, everything is consciousness, this is our true memory not this crude matter than needs data to perform tasks beyond our biological instinctiveness.

    I’m not into blind faith myself but I am open minded to some of the practices from what these blind faiths say they can produce, I’m not going to be ignorant of any possibility if I can’t prove it to be wrong but I certainly won’t say it to be correct either just open to its possibilities.

    Einstein water crystal experiment: I’m not in a habit of lying or making up stories, I actually did read up on this not too long ago but I can’t find reference to it again but Masaru Emoto explains it well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 31, 2012

    Theory is more than a merely belief.
    "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

    In this discussion, a question is posed: how does memory appears in the brain from an other than physical experience?
    We are seeking an explanation of the

    There is not coherent presentation that provides an answer to this question. Granted, the mind can influence a great many things, but how does this apply to NDE.

    I assume the Einstein / water crystals to be an erroneous reference.

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 30, 2012

    G’day Dustporduction

    No I think it’s right after this episode of sarcasm, Institute of Noetic Sarcasm which is of course known to be the lowest form of wit…….

    What’s a theory? Taken from a dictionary: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture…..What do most scientific discoveries come from? Theories, beliefs, ideas before they are proven if they can be proven by our limited consciousness, just because science is unable to prove certain theories/beliefs doesn’t make these theories/beliefs fictitious, it just makes them unprovable at this point in time.

    I can’t find reference to Einstein’s experiment with water crystals as indicated for some reason but I have given you links which will answer your questions below.




    PS I am into science as well, my blog was called Science of Spirituality which showed a lot of scientifically proven facts relating to spiritualism.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 30, 2012

    I believe IONS needs to change its name to IONB, Institute of Noetic Beliefs. All one reads in these discussions is "I believe.... this and that."
    Here's the problem, presenting a belief argument places those that reply in the position of proving a negative. ex. "I believe there is a Santa Claus." How is the existence of Santa disproved?
    Beliefs aside, the question needs to be answered with a scientific hypothesis; how does memory appears in the brain from an other than physical experience?

    Can you provide a reference for the Einstein experimentation with water crystals?

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 30, 2012

    G’day Dustproduction
    To me matter is of everything that exists/vibrates, it might not seem to be of matter in our present conscious awareness state or reality which dictates our conscious awareness but in other conscious realities I believe it’s seen as matter, this is a part of this oneness thing.

    Matter defines something physical to us in our present state of awareness but in higher awareness states I believe it’s all of the same, in other words it’s our consciousness that gives us & dictates our boundaries. In higher consciousness states these boundaries just don’t exist & this is the fundamental problem with science today, it dictates the existence of boundaries, get rid of the boundaries & you have a higher consciousness.

    Einstein conducted an experiment with water crystals which gave the impression that the mind can influence physical matter & this is just of the mind in its present conscious awareness state, what consciousness level is our spirit/inner self at? Something much greater than in our present state of awareness I would believe so why couldn’t it influence any other vibration?

    The brain is only as good as the data programed into it; if you had no data at all to program the mind the mind would be useless especially in our present state or awareness. The source of this memory comes from our spirit/inner conscious selves I believe not from the mind obviously.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 30, 2012

    Additionally we seem to differ on the understanding of consciousness and our to direct it.

    (PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news186830615.html#jCp

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 30, 2012

    Spirit is not matter and you're implying the spirit affects matter without explanation.
    This is the question Alexander does not seem to address: how does the his "spirit" produce a long term memory in the brain.

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 28, 2012

    Scientifically there's more to matter but not spiritually, it's all of the same consciousness no matter what it is & that's why one who is a healer for instance is able to manipulate vibrative consciousness I believe, the more you see/know your environment as being the same the more one can manipulate it.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 27, 2012

    Its slightly more complicated than vibrating matter.

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 23, 2012

    G'day Ethen

    This is very good stuff to hear......I all so hear that some people in the medical fraternity are starting to heal people with vibrative frequencies, we are after all only vibraitve matter.


  • telephoenician Oct 22, 2012

    Yes, but skeptics are boring, and they don't tell very good stories.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 22, 2012

    Here is the weakness of IONS; it simply does not generate the high level of discussion that other sites do.
    Evidence: http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-harris-wont-debate-eben-alexander-on-near-death-experience-science/

    My comment posted there forth is topic: The fact remains that we do understand how long term memory is produced from short term memory. What I am not seeing here is a discuss about brain processes. Harris's point is that the brain did not stop functioning, and this is accurate, leaving the opening for further explanation and doubt about Alexander's story. Other neuroscientists, such as Daniel Kahneman tells us that the unconscious mind plays a bigger role than we imagine. The focus here is the conscious mind, and that may be the error. Much of what flows into the consciousness starts in the unconscious. (see Benjamin Libet) I'll give Alexander's book a look just to see his appendix discussions. I did heard him interviewed and he was not informative or convincing. He has no proof, just a good story to tell. The bottom line is that Alexander's asking us to BELIEVE in what he cannot explain, and religion already does that.

  • Matthew Gilbert Dec 05, 2011

    I tweaked it a bit, Ethan. Thanks for the post!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Dec 02, 2011

    Yes, Dr. Eban is a remarkable man. Good person to have on your side because he is a fist hand experiencer, an experienced neuro scientist, and a compassionate philosopher. He takes not a side in a fight, but finds what each side is looking for. As we progress into the following years, this man will be one of those modern day Einstiens said a while back.

  • Saoirse Dec 01, 2011

    In the meantime, we'll just think of it as a Death Nearing Experience. Works for me.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Dec 01, 2011

    ugh, sometimes I really need to check my posts for typos! Amongst the others contained in this one, the title was supposed to be "Neurosurgeon has NDE", not DNE, lol.

    Is there a moderator that can change that?

Stay in touch with IONS