So here's the thing. Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander wrote a best-selling book called Proof of Heaven, which made the cover of Newsweek. In the book he said that he had a profound NDE while comatose, and that the NDE constitutes empirical evidence of life after death. Sam Harris, an atheist philosopher who is open-minded on issues of psi and postmortem survival, criticized Alexander's claims and followed up with further criticism. Bernardo Kastrup, a philosopher and author who embraces Idealism (the idea that consciousness is everything), took on Harris's arguments in a blog post and then a second post. Michael Sudduth, a philosopher who is open to postmortem survival but thinks the current evidence and arguments for it are inadequate, criticized Kastrup for his opinion piece and defended Harris. Kastrup replied to Sudduth. Sudduth replied to Kastrup.
Got it?
Yeah, it's a kerfuffle.
Though I'm a little reluctant to enter these roiled waters, I've decided to tug on my waders and give it a go. But since these arguments can persist forever without accomplishing much, I'm going to limit my comments to just a couple of issues, and to focus only on Kastrup and Sudduth.
First, I have to say that I think both of them make some good points. And what I want to do is highlight the single strongest point (in my opinion) that each of them makes.
I'll start with Kastrup. In his reply to Sudduth's initial post, Kastrup writes:
I ... argued that a chemical or physical trigger [such as the chemical DMT] does not necessarily invalidate the transcendent nature of [Alexander's] experience, since all NDEs are, ultimately, triggered by some physical event. What does Sudduth have to say about this? He writes: "Kastrup is correct, of course, that in at least one sense the similarity between Alexander’s NDE and DMT experiences doesn’t defeat the authenticity of the former as a valid transcendent experience." But this was my point. So Sudduth actually agrees with my point. What's his problem then? Well, he asserts that "Harris nowhere claims [that] Alexander’s NDE was produced by brain chemistry," so my point is a straw-man. What? With a blush of embarrassment, I leave it to you to judge it after you consider the following passage by Harris:
"Does Alexander know that DMT already exists in the brain as a neurotransmitter? Did his brain experience a surge of DMT release during his coma? This is pure speculation, of course, but it is a far more credible hypothesis than that his cortex 'shut down,' freeing his soul to travel to another dimension."
Can someone explain to me how is it that Harris is not suggesting here that DMT could explain Alexander's NDE on a purely chemical basis? I mean, how much clearer could this possibly be? Sudduth's grievance is that Harris does not outright state that the NDE was caused by chemicals; that Harris merely mentions the possibility that it was. Duh. So what? It would obviously have been ridiculous if Harris had asserted that he knew what caused Alexander's NDE. Raising the possibility of a chemical cause was as far as Harris could have gone to try to debunk Alexander.
In his reply, Sudduth defends his position, but I have to side with Kastrup here. It is, in my opinion, mere pettifoggery to suggest that Harris was not trying to discredit Alexander's NDE by suggesting that it could have been caused by a surge of DMT in the brain. True, Harris did not say definitively and unequivocally that this was the explanation, but he presented this hypothesis as "far more credible" than the postmortem-survival hypothesis.
Now, perhaps it is more credible in this case. It very well may be, as I'll discuss briefly below. But there is no point in pretending that Harris was doing something other than what he was very obviously doing.
That brings us to what I feel is Sudduth's strongest point, the issue of when exactly Alexander's NDE took place. In his initial post, he writes:
In Proof of Heaven, and in subsequent interviews and talks, Alexander ... argues, howbeit in a reserved manner, that his alleged veridical perceptions during his NDE provide evidence that his NDE occurred during his coma....
[H]e allegedly experienced communications from a person who tried, on particular occasions, psychically contacting him while he was in his coma, and he also saw faces that corresponded to actual people, five of whom were present at Alexander’s bedside shortly before he came out of his coma (Proof of Heaven, 108-10). If we regard these features of his experience as veridical perceptions, then, given the assumption of the time-anchor argument, it would seem that he had these perceptual experiences at specific points during his coma.
One fairly obvious response to the time-anchor argument would be to concede that Alexander had the veridical perceptual experiences (in his NDE) during his coma. This wouldn’t be extraordinary, and it certainly wouldn’t support the extrasomatic interpretation of his experience, unless there was good evidence that his cortex was shutdown at the time of the perceptions. As Harris noted, a significant number of coma patients have awareness during coma. Perhaps more significantly, there’s data that shows that even coma patients in a vegetative state can gradually transition into a state of minimal awareness, and then lapse back into a vegetative state (see Schnakers, Giacino, and Laureys). In the absence of functional data tracking patterns of brain activity, it’s difficult to see how Alexander can properly rule this out. Moreover, Alexander’s description of the human faces bubbling up out of a dark muck, and whose voices were unintelligible, wouldn’t be surprising as subjective features of a change in cortical activity shortly before regaining consciousness. While this would not explain the alleged communications with Susan Reintjes who was not physically present, if there’s any evidence for telepathic interactions between people, it’s drawn from persons whose cerebral cortex is actually functional.
Now let’s be clear here. I’m not suggesting that residual and changing cortical activity, generating moments of minimal awareness, actually explains the apparently veridical features of Alexander’s experience. I’m rather pointing out a consequence of Alexander’s lack of functional data: if he doesn’t have adequate evidence that his cerebral cortex was shutdown for the entire duration of his coma, establishing on the basis of time-anchors that he must have had the experiences during his coma doesn’t do much for the conclusion he wishes to establish.
I think Sudduth is right about this, and it's the biggest problem I've had with Alexander's story from the start. The strongest NDEs involve a veridical component that can be verified after the fact and can anchor the experience to events in the known world. Alexander's experience lacks this element. His vague impression of a psychic communication is too ambiguous to count for much, and his impressions of visitors at his bedside are not inconsistent with the limited perceptual capabilities of comatose patients. Alexander would probably argue that, because he remembers experiencing most of his otherworldly journey before these time-anchors occurred, it proves that his NDE must have taken place while he was deeply comatose. But we're not really justified in making that inference. His memory might be inaccurate, or the entire NDE might have occurred within just a few minutes during the period when he was recovering from the worst of his illness. As Sudduth points out, people who take psychogenic drugs often report elaborate, lengthy experiences that seem to go on for many hours, but which take place within just a few minutes of (what we might call) "Earth time."
I said this was the biggest problem I've had with Alexander's account. There are two other problems. One is that the experience really does seem like a drug trip. I've read accounts of DMT testing under controlled conditions by psychiatrist Rick Strassman, and the bizarre, hallucinatory narrative recounted by Alexander matches them very well. Though I've never taken hallucinogenic drugs myself, when I think of Alexander's book, the images that come to my mind are from the Beatles movie Yellow Submarine – imagery that was obviously inspired by LSD trips.
My other problem with Alexander's book is related but slightly different. His NDE is simply different in almost all respects from the standard NDE's that have been reported, documented, and tabulated for decades. I don't know of any other NDE where somebody reports flying around on the back of a giant butterfly, for instance. To me, one of the convincing features of NDEs is their relative consistency (taking into account cultural and personal differences). Alexander's NDE breaks the mold in so many ways that it is, at best, an outlier, and perhaps more plausibly, not a true NDE at all.
The fact is that Alexander's NDE is by no means the most convincing such case. It has been widely discussed because it is the first NDE, as far as I know, to be reported by a brain surgeon. Alexander's professional training and status provide his story with a certain intrinsic interest and perhaps make it more credible, to some people, than the account of (say) a plumber. But there are many other NDEs that boast more striking veridical details and which fit much more comfortably into established narrative patterns.
Many other issues have been raised in this discussion, but as I said, I'm not going to try to get into them all. As I've explained on other occasions (once in direct response to Michael Sudduth), I'm very skeptical of the super-psi idea, which Sudduth seems to find somewhat persuasive, or at least well worth considering. I'm also skeptical of Kastrup's philosophical idealism and the idea that reality can be explained in monistic terms – i.e., that everything can be reduced to a single thing. I suspect that reality, rather than being neat and simple and elegant, is actually something of a mess.
At the very least, this little dust-up has offered proof of a tenet of chaos theory: when a butterfly flaps its wings, it can indeed stir up a storm.
I agree with you Michael that Mr. ALexander's NDE is highly atypical, but what I found most intriguing is when he saw the young woman during his experience, and then later identified her as a deceased sister (if I'm remembering her correctly) he had never been told about when he was growing up. Assuming that he's telling the truth, it's a very strong piece of verdical evidence, which makes the rest of his NDE all the more puzzling. Perhaps it really was a brain trip instead of a mythical experience, but the spirit of his deceased sister intervened to try and send a message.
Posted by: Ian | January 05, 2016 at 02:57 AM
I agree with your scepticism in this case. Alexander Eben´s experience seems to me more like a Disney inspired hallucination that a genuine NDE. And please note it is not only some hardcore sceptics who reject Eben, you can find a devastating critique by Dr. Jean-Pierre Jourdan,none less than the president of IANDS-France, on the website of the same organisation (in French). http://iands-france.org.pagesperso-orange.fr/res_reflex.html#LPP
Michael M.
Posted by: Michael Helm | January 05, 2016 at 10:46 AM
Count me in as one who also thought Alexander's NDE sounded more like a drug trip than anything else, and one that didn't seem anything like the hundreds of NDEs that I've read about. I stopped reading after about two chapters, just couldn't take it anymore...
Posted by: Kathleen | January 05, 2016 at 02:37 PM
When I saw this blog entry, I initially thought it was an old rerun. "Proof of Heaven" was my introduction to NDE literature. Alexander's experience is exceptional and unique, but it does not contradict what is conveyed in other accounts. What is particularly unusual in Alexander's story is the temporary annihilation of his sense of self and personal history, such that he was simply aware with no language or human memory to frame his experience. Thus, of course, no life review, as he was tabula rasa, and no crystallizing the experience at the outset within a human context.
Harris's critique of Alexander can be cut and pasted and applied generically to most any NDE claim. Alexander's brain state, whether on, off, or some state between; is not relevant to the validity of his experience. That goes for all NDEs, some of which occur when only the threat of imminent death is present. Like many NDEs, Alexander's did not involve a cardiac arrest. Alexander speculates that the particular state of his brain may have contributed to the unique features of his NDE. Perhaps, but I don't know. Who does?
Harris wants his readers to know that Alexander has strayed off the reservation of science and gone off to Oprah land. No stranger to ad hominem smears, he uses the same tactic to "debunk" the Pam Reynolds case:
"Dr. Michael Sabom, is a born-again Christian who had been working for decades to substantiate the otherworldly significance of the NDE. The possibility that experimenter bias, witness tampering, and false memories intruded into this best-of-all-recorded cases is excruciatingly obvious."
So, when celebrity atheist Sam Harris speaks out against "Proof of Heaven" we should trust his objectivity, but when someone of Christian faith has done considerable NDE research we should presume "experimenter bias, witness tampering, and false memories". Like many of his ilk, Sam presumes that his beliefs are the inevitable fruit of the practice of reason and pursuit of truth. The irony of his position completely escapes him.
Posted by: David Chilstrom | January 06, 2016 at 10:53 AM
I agree that Alexander's "Peak in Darien" experience of his deceased sister should be considered veridical evidence - for what its worth. And whatever caused his experience to occur is not relevant to whether or not his experience was a real afterlife experiencest. A good example supporting my claim comes from actor Larry Hagman (of J.R. fame) who experienced an NDE-like experience while on an LSD trip. Years later, he had virtually the same NDE-like experience after recovering from a liver transplant (though heavily medicated). Both of his experiences include core NDE elements as well as hallucinatory images (such as two feathery mythological Griffin-like lions guarding a cave). So while it's true that hallucinogens can produce NDE-like experiences while not actually "near death," it shouldn't be relevant in determining whether or not such experiences are actual afterlife experiences. There are many consciousness-altering ways to have transcendental experiences - the dreams we have every night is another example. Read about Larry Hagman's NDE-like experiences on my website. His testimony is one of the best and most beautiful I have ever come across.
Kevin Williams
www.near-death.com
Posted by: Kevin Williams | January 08, 2016 at 05:42 AM
Michael,
I agree with everything you wrote here. I think Alexander was in the Astral (mostly) during his experience, though that doesn't mean that other "real" beings could not have visited him. I agree about the time-markers, though the issue of "when" in such cases may largely be irrelevant. (It's helpful, certainly, in the case of some NDEs to establish that the patient could not have been conscious while receiving veridical information. But this is more for the sake of establishing that the mind can exist without the brain than for establishing "when" the patient had the experience.)
Posted by: Matt Rouge | January 08, 2016 at 05:52 AM
All of us, some more so than others, ignore the elephant in the room. For each of us, Sam Harris included, our reality exists totally in our conscious experience. The illusion each of us is blinded by is that there is a world outside our conscious experience that is exactly like the reality we are experiencing. But it is just that, an illusion. All we know is what we consciously experience. It cannot be otherwise. The brain and all that the term implies exists only within conscious experience. Again, we have no way of demonstrating otherwise.
While for most of us, the stream of our conscious experience is of a material world, and since we in most instances do not have experiences of anything other than a material world, it is understandable that each of us has “bought” into the illusion that a material world exists outside of our conscious experience. But we can provide no proof that such a world, especially one exactly like the world we experience, actually exists.
Since reality, for each of us, is our individual conscious experiences, when someone has the conscious experience of an alternative reality, one that we ourselves do not personally have, how can we say, not having had that experience, that it is invalid. It is valid for the person who has it, as are all of our experiences. It is just that some experiences are consistent with the experiences we have of a material world, while others are not.
Since everything is conscious experience, and nothing can be demonstrated to exist outside of conscious experience, there is nothing to preclude the possibility of our having a shift in our conscious experience from our usual reality of a material world to an alternative reality. Sam Harris has apparently not had this experience. Others apparently have. His reality precludes the existence of these alternative realities, because in his reality they are inconsistent with his experience of a material world, while for those who experience them, they exist and are real.
Posted by: Tom D | January 10, 2016 at 08:00 PM
Tom D:
"Sam Harris has apparently not had this experience."
Tom, I agree with your very interesting comment. What surprises me about Sam Harris is that despite his having had some profound experiences triggered by psychedelics, he remains tied to a materialist perspective.
He writes:
"Needless to say, if I knew my daughter would eventually develop a fondness for methamphetamine or crack cocaine, I might never sleep again. But if she does not try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in her adult life, I will worry that she may have missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience."
For many of us, the rite of passage of which he speaks makes us feel right at home with accounts like Alexander's.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | January 10, 2016 at 09:24 PM
Kevin said:
"A good example supporting my claim comes from actor Larry Hagman (of J.R. fame) who experienced an NDE-like experience while on an LSD trip. Years later, he had virtually the same NDE-like experience after recovering from a liver transplant (though heavily medicated)."
Kevin, as someone who's forever lobbying for the spiritual value of some psychedelic experiences, I appreciate your posting this.
Thanks, too, for your great work on NDERF!
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | January 10, 2016 at 09:46 PM
Interesting thoughts, Tom, and well stated. - AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | January 10, 2016 at 10:03 PM
@Tom that's why "we" feel its pertinent to study consciousness. Bring science out of the dark ages and make the study of science a comprehensive one. After all NDE'S are culture bound, and remote viewing, PSI etc have been shown to have an effect. It's time the world studied what consciousness in all its forms is capable of. Lyn x.
Posted by: Lynn | January 10, 2016 at 10:11 PM
Lynn,
Yes, I agree that consciousness should be studied from many different angles. Many of “us” lament the fact that the purse strings for scientific research are mainly controlled by materialists, as is most of academia. Thus most research into consciousness assumes the brain to be the source. Individuals such as Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman are attempting to change the paradigm, such that we come to recognize consciousness to be fundamental and the source of the experienced brain rather than the brain being the source of consciousness.
There is so much research that could be done if there were more open-mindedness. What is the source of our experiences? How do we explain long-term memory? There is a rare group of individuals who remember in detail every day of their life from an early age (referred to as hyperthymesia). How is this explained, and does it have any relationship to the extremely detailed life review experienced in some NDEs and by many who have made the transition into an alternate reality? How do we explain the reports by many that during their life review they experienced events (had memories) from the perspective of others who were involved in their experiences? How do we access memories of other lives? There is so much that we do not know about memory and where memories come from that to say that it is totally limited to the brain ignores numerous other possibilities that should be open to research.
Kudos to Michael Prescott and others for a willingness to explore some of these possibilities.
Posted by: Tom D | January 11, 2016 at 09:51 AM