Talk:Near-death experience

First sentence

In the first sentence, "...dead and then somehow revived" seems to imply that there's something odd or mysterious about this, rather than the common well-known occurrence of medical resuscitation. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Reply: First sentence

It was intended to. Raymond Moody's books explore the possibility that there is more to reality than the material world. Some NDE's involve a being of light telling a person to go back to the world.

Dr. Moody himself maintains a strict NPOV on the question of life after death, of course. Unlike me, who believe it.

We could change somehow revived to came back to life if you want

Linguistic details

"...were brought back to life" is better--it doesn't generally happen without intervention.

Reply: Linguistic details

Okay, but many of the NDE's occurred without (physical) intervention. --Ed

Continuing discussion: Linguistic details

Such near-death experiences, though, are just that--not actual "clinical death" as the first sentence implies. That has a very specific meaning, and is not generally reversed without some intervention (even if minimal). Most of the people who report NDE's are either (1) genuinely clinically dead, and know this because they are under the care of doctors who tell them about it after they are revived, or (2) are not under the care of doctors, and believe that they were dead for a time, but have no real evidence of that. I have no doubt that people in precarious medical condition report all kinds of experiences--the brain is a marvellous thing. --LDC

Continuing discussion: Linguistic details

If doctors really can bring a dead person back to life it rather takes away the miraculous qualities of the ressurection, does it not?

"Near death" means "Near death" not "Dead".

Exile

More Linguistic detauils

Furthermore - if you follow the link to clinical death you find this means an "irreversible" state of death. I was under the impression that NDE referred to people who, for example, had cessation of breathing and no pulse but were revived. If you were "irreversibly" dead you wouldn't be able to come back and tell us about it. If no-one responds to this I'm tempted to rewrite.

Exile

NDE's are common

Added some stuff. NDE's are actually rather common.

For NPOV, we need to be sure that we emphasize that NDEs are a well-documented subjective phenomenon; on the other hand, the meaning of NDEs is still up for grabs. Even Jansen is careful to state that his work is addressed to the scientific paradigm. As he notes in [1] and [2]:

'I am no longer as opposed to spritual explanations of these phenomena as this article would appear to suggest. Over the past two years (it is quite some time since I wrote it) I have moved more towards the views put forward by John Lilly and Stan Grof. Namely, that drugs and psychological disciplines such as meditation and yoga may render certain 'states' more accessible. The complication then becomes in defining just what we mean by 'states' and where they are located, if indeed location is an appropriate term at all. ... My forthcoming book 'Ketamine' will consider mystical issues from quite a different perspective, and will give a much stronger voice to those who see drugs as just another door to a space, and not as actually producing that space'.

...

Despite its association with sensationalist media reports, populist books of doubtful scientific value, and a series of dubious Hollywood films, the NDE is still of considerable importance to medicine, neuroscience, neurology, psychiatry, psychology and, more controversially, philosophy and theology (Stevenson and Greyson, 1979; Greyson and Stevenson, 1980; Ring, 1980; Sabom, 1982; Jansen, 1989a,b, 1990b, 1995, 1996). Philosophical and theological issues are beyond the scope of the present discussion, which is based within the scientific paradigm and is thus best assessed from within this paradigm.

...

Spiritualists have sometimes seen scientific explanations of NDE's as dull and reductionist. However, the exploration of the mind-brain interface is one of the most exciting adventures which humans have ever undertaken. The real reductionism lies in attempts to draw a mystical shroud over the NDE, and to belittle the substantial evidence in favour of an scientific explanation.

Science for scietific questions, and religion for religious questions. Cheers - Chas zzz brown 00:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Unexplainable Reports

"Children report seeing relatives who are living as part of the NDE, which begs explanation if the NDE is an experience of an afterlife." In the paragraph that discusses "Unexplainable" reports in NDE accounts, the last sentence about children's NDE's doesn't really fit, since it isn't about unexplainable reports of worldly events/objects from an out-of-body perspective. Is there somewhere else in the article it should go, or is there a concept it is trying to convey that might need to go in a new paragraph? To me it seems to belong in the realm of interpretations of the NDE. Whether what somebody sees in the spiritual part of the NDE seems appropriate has nothing to do with the paragraph in question. Oh, and it occurs to me that children may blur the different realms and tend to report everything they saw as one realm. Perhaps the see their family living and dead from various realms. ??? Point being that the sentence really needs expansion and justification. Tom 19:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hell NDEs

I was just curious if anyone knows anything, and can add to this article, about NDEs where people report going to Hell. I have read of only one case, in the early 20th century, where a former cowboy, who had killed many people in his days in the Old West, came back from a stroke-heart attack combo and had said he had been swallowed up and had went to Hell. Most reports talk about goiwing to Heaven, but Id be curious to read about going the other way. Husnock 8 Nov 2004

Reply: Hell NDEs

Let's see what we can do. Tom - Talk 20:17, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

There. How's that? (These things just do me in. I can't write them without plucking an undeniable recognizance somewhere inside me.) Tom - Talk 21:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Moving the section

Although interesting in itself I belive that the theme of Hell in NDE-experiences should be introduced later in the article. It would be better for the reader to get familiar with different viewpoints and research before being introduced to this very delicate issue. --Hawol 14:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply: Moving the section

Yes. Have at 'er. Thank you for caring enough to want to re-organize. I am quite sure nobody will contest your actions. I wasn't sure where to put it. Tom - Talk 17:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Major elements

The major elements section needs to be finished. It is obviously a stub since Hell is a minor major. I will think about how to expand the section. Tom Haws 19:51, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Reply Major elements

Please give bibliographical references to any material that is contributed. It is much easier to do a source-critical reading that way. Hawol 15:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for citation

Can someone point out where to find more information on the experiments cited in which messages were placed in positions where people experiencing NDEs should have been able to see them? --68.15.144.115 15:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't at the moment. Perhaps you could find and add some? Tom Haws 16:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else, please reply if you do have information on them. 68.15.144.115 07:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could e-mail PMH Atwater or Kevin Williams for help. Tom Haws 19:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Life flashing

What about one's life "flashing before one's eyes" like one hears about on TV all the time? My mom says she experienced this.. Does this phenomenon belong in this article? Either way I can't find it in wikipedia.

Excellent point. Yes, it does. Can you add something? Tom Haws 16:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Removal

I am removing a phrase from the "As an afterlife experience" "In a story commonly repeated as a parable,". I don't object to this phrase, but it is confusing and needs to be explained better if it is to be in the article. Tom Haws 19:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Problematic section - Major elements

I have given this edit a lot of thought, and I hope I do not offend anyone by doing it. I find the section on "Major elements" to be a bit problematic. It's autobiographical tone comes across as fictional and somewhat coloured by new-testament semantics. There is nothing wrong with New-Testament semantics and imagery as long as it is placed within a context where it belongs and where such a context is made explicit to the reader. But unsupported by critical commentary or bibliographical references, as is the case here, these stories - unfortunately - come across as something out of an evangelical pamphlet or a fictional book. If these autobiographical elements should continue to function as a separate section within the article, I belive that they should at least be informed by bibliographical references and critical commentaries from the field of Near-death Studies. The way it is now it is difficult to do a source-critical reading.

I do however appreciate the initiative from the contributor to include autobiographical elements (they are crucial for an increased understanding of the phenomenon), but I cannot support the current version of the section. I hope I have not offended anyone by removing the section (for now). I am - after all - humbled by new insights to this field of study. I do not rule out that I could support some future version of the disputed section. In such a case I suggest that it undergoes a major re-write, including an addition of bibliographical references, and a more academic commentary that can help new readers to orient themselves within this very delicate field of study. The welfare of the reader is important.

--Hawol 16:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Problematic section - Major elements

Thanks for your careful explanation. Somebody asked for an explanation of Hell in NDEs, so I added a bit, and it got substantially expanded and reworked. Would this version be less problematic? [3] Tom Haws 19:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Continuing discussion - Major elements

Thank you for your response! Well, it is less problematic but I still can not support the improved version. Since the theme is such a delicate issue as "Hell In NDE- experiences" I believe the version would benefit from critical commentaries from the field of Near-Death Studies (such as-> what has leading NDE-researchers said about this issue? Is it a well-known issue in NDE-research? What are the different opinions about this issue?). It would also help the reader a lot if a literary reference for the three autobiographical accounts could be given, or else they might be interpreted as legendary material (as a kind of urban myth) or as fictional. Finally, I believe that this kind of delicate issue (Hell in NDE's) should be introduced fairly late in the article so that the reader has had a chance to get familiar with the broad scope of the article and its subject matter. I hope these are constructive suggestions that clarify my position. I will look forward to any suggestions for improving the article.

--Hawol 13:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)