Michael Patterson
Member
Personally I do NOT think that such desires for greater purpose or meaning would undermine the logical interpretation of NDE data that folks in this community often put forth. I would see the desire for meaning, purpose, connection, etc to be influential in the development of MEANING itself in some big picture view, without which perhaps there would be no conceptual thought, language, etc. I would be interested to hear other ideas about this.
I would not suggest that this way of looking at things is an Absolutely Correct Way of Looking at Things. But it is useful for me, anyway, to experiment with.
If w distinguish between those who undergo NDEs and those who observe and interpret, I think we can say there are two distinct groups. Experiencers can be anybody - including people with not a spiritual bone in their psyche and no belief in religion at all. What they report seems to be a coherent body of experiences, which can be interpreted according to the lights of the inquirer/observer.
I think there is no doubt that a bias toward wanting to see a greater purpose or meaning influences how NDEs are interpreted, and whether that is a good or bad thing depends on whether you pay any credence to arguments about brain state at time of NDE.
It is argued that a positive bias leads to treating what other regard as inconclusive evidence as conclusive - and this is the basis for the current dispute, such as it is. I agree that the evidence about brain state is inconclusive, because we don't know what we don't know and all we can say is that it looks this way. Parnia's observation that 'consciousness survives physical death' is qualified by not knowing how long for. That's fair, but also irrelevant for those looking for deeper meaning and purpose.
You have to be disciplined about what you are asking - and not a lot of folk are. NDEs are an experience, so what should matter is what that experience tells us. If might want to ask 'If it turns out that the brain was active and engaged, does that negate the content of the NDE experience?" If you think it does, you have to contend with that. If you think it does not, then you can get on with figuring out what deeper purpose and meaning can be discerned from the reports of NDE experience.
I have said in this and other threads that the brain is irrelevant, because it is not a conditioning factor in any experience - NDE or OBE. I think it remains a player. Here's my principle issue about this whole subject. A lot of folk are ardently opining on matters about which they possess insufficient knowledge/information. I do not present myself as an expert, but well some direct experiences [not including a NDE], I have inquired into the subject to a reasonable degree.
While I entirely get the medical inquiry into NDEs it is not the only valid inquiry, and it is certainly not necessarily a pertinent one. It is important for physical science to advance in its own respect, but it so often comes behind the validation of experience. Its a bit like examining horse shit and declaring "Horses are real!" Well, that's no surprise to the guys riding the horse. The horse is real long before its droppings are examined and analysed.
If you think about it, you can't examine an experience that hasn't been had. And once it has been had, isn't that enough? Doesn't the experience stand on its own account?
We need to avoid the con pulled by materialists - whether an experience is valid, and whether it has been validated by authority. This started under Christianity - nobody could experience the divine unless it conformed to Church law and dogma. Invalidation of the experience of the sacred was a political objective of the early Church. That mentality transferred to Science. Having excised God from the picture, Science did not surrender any of the convenient conventions that go with power.
If we have a real passion for deeper truth and meaning we need to repudiate the right of science to validate experience. Not only does it not possess the knowledge, it does not possess motive. Parnia nailed the limitations of science - consciousness persists after the death of the physical body - but for how long? That's not useful. Is it relevant? No.