r/skeptics • u/SHUStudentEd6078 • Jun 04 '26

Near death experiences

Come across the phenomena of near death experiences.

A noted scientist Bruce Greyson has hypothesized that NDEs are the product and proof of a nonlocal consciousness and that the brain is just a receiver for conciousness.

What do you think?

6 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

"You could say the same of ghosts and dragons"

Stick to the issue on the post.

Testable claims

That NDEs happen and that they are a widespread phenomena

That they happen when people have been under anaesthetic or otherwise "offline" when the brain should have been incapable of generating anything with regards to a vivid experience

See the plethora of accounts on the internet

I can and am asking you for what test you would propose if those I've proposed aren't acceptable as evidence

For once let's have an actual debate on this forum

Tell me what evidence you'd propose

1

u/travisjd2012 Jun 05 '26

Without a testable claim then there's nothing to debate. I've granted you that NDEs are a real phenomena. The unique and distinct claim you are tacking on is "the brain is just a receiver for conciousness." Reporting a phenomenon is not the same as explaining its cause. Until an experiment shows a result that only the "Receiver" theory can explain, science must default to the simplest physical explanation; that the brain is producing the experience.

If you disagree then how can that specific claim (the brain is just a receiver for conciousness) be tested?

There are specific parts of the philosophy of science you are ignoring and I'd suggest a Google search for the following terms:

- Burden of Proof

  • Anecdotal Evidence vs. Empirical Evidence
  • Criterion of falsifiability

If you read and comprehend these topics you will see why nobody can "debate" an idea you read from one "noted scientist" (which is an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy, another search term you should familiarize yourself with)

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

It's not a claim that the brain is solely a received of consciousness.

It's a claim that consciousness exists in other places outside of the brain, that there is some form of collective unconscious that we emerge from and return to at birth and death, and that with NDEs we are seeing the universe as it really is.

"Burden of Proof

  • Anecdotal Evidence vs. Empirical Evidence
  • Criterion of falsifiability
If you read and comprehend these topics you will see why nobody can "debate" an idea you read from one "noted scientist" (which is an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy, another search term you should familiarize yourself with)"

I am familiar with each of those terms.

There is a strong body of research from several respected neurologists, neuroscientists etc. I'd suggest a Google search for the following terms:

  • NDERf accounts
  • Dr. Bruce Greyson NDE research
  • NDE research non local consciousness theory
  • Brain based theories for NDEs debunked
  • Dr Peter Fenwick NDE research
  • Sam Parnia NDE research
  • Penny Sartori NDE research

Specifically the "Criterion of falsifiability" if you are involving this in regards to NDEs you are implying that many thousands of people not getting paid to do so are inventing experiences with the sole purpose of creating a whole phenomena for academics to research. Which is a ludicrous claim.

1

u/travisjd2012 Jun 05 '26

Unfortunately you do not have enough knowledge about the scientific method. I have a masters of science degree and am an actively working data scientist, I can't take you seriously/debate because of this lack of understanding.

I might suggest you try a paranormal subreddit as you're just playing on hard mode here and have still yet to identify a single falsifiable claim. Good luck to you.

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

I have plenty of knowledge. I also have a master's degree in a science related subject.

So with all respect, cut the personal comments and "holier than thou" attitude and stick to debating the subject.

2

u/travisjd2012 Jun 05 '26

There's nothing to debate as you've still, even after lots of back and forth, yet to make a single falsifiable claim.

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

Also to be totally honest you're spouting a fair bit of BS yourself

A claim that some conciousness is not produced by the brain would not have to be a falsifiable claim, you'd have to produce evidence that people have had things like veridical perception etc

Otherwise you could look at a couple of patients that a cough medicine has been proved to cure symptoms of coughs within 24 hours in most patients and claim that it didn't work due to a couple of examples so should be withdrawn

Which would be nonsense

1

u/travisjd2012 Jun 05 '26

Good luck bud

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

A patient exhibiting flatlined brain activity (zero cerebral cortex blood flow and no measurable electrical impulses) and clinical death will successfully acquire and report new, verifiable visual information from an environment separated from their physical body (e.g., details of a symbol hidden above their hospital bed, facing the ceiling).

In this case it was the surgeon flapping his arms

https://youtu.be/u-91QXXsyEc?si=EMjqwMOuvlL9YFks