Mod+ 276. DR. ALAN HUGENOT, IANDS AND THE FUTURE OF NDE RESEARCH





George Rodonaia
Many people have asked me what I believe in, how my NDE changed my life. All I can say is that I now believe in the God of the universe. Unlike many other people, however, I have never called God the light, because God is beyond our comprehension. God, I believe, is even more than the light, because God is also darkness. God is everything that exists, everything - and that is beyond our ability to comprehend at all. So I don't believe in the God of the Jews, or the Christians, or the Hindus, or in any one religion's idea of what God is or is not. It is all the same God, and that God showed me that the universe in which we live is a beautiful and marvelous mystery that is connected together forever and for always.

Anyone who has had such an experience of God, who has felt such a profound sense of connection with reality, knows that there is only one truly significant work to do in life, and that is love; to love nature, to love people, to love animals, to love creation itself, just because it is. To serve God's creation with a warm and loving hand of generosity and compassion - that is the only meaningful existence.

I enjoyed reading this, Only I want to point out an inconsistency with the reasoning, If George concludes everything is God, then you can not reject the God of the Hindus or The Christians or in any ones religion, as George concludes. He offers a description of God that is already fully offered by the religions mentioned.

I just find it irritating that people try to diminish the Gods of religions, when those same religions already explain God as the source of all creation who is infinite and has immense love, power, intelligence, and potency. Specifically, the God of the Vedas explains His different energies and incarnations in detail and that all religions are one.
 
Sam Parnia is kind of frustrating but one thing seems kind of apparent to me, towing the mainstream line is much more likely to get funding than making it obvious that your thinking is outside the mainstream.
The question I would like answered is how come results from Aware are not more definite,
it seems to be a teasing state of affairs ? People often come back from NDE's and after some years making what sense they can of the experience try to communicate any core messages, these are often common. If 'they' want to get these messages across - why don't they make it easier by making Aware a runaway success ? It is yet another of the many contradictions we see. It is more like nudges and hints in a game, rather than disappointingly giving away the answer outright ?

I would love to know what Sam Parnia truly thinks, his co-workers probably have some idea - but maybe not ?

I found the interview frustrating, Alex has definite opinions and Dr Hugenot frustrated him I think by returning to things about NDE's and consciousness that Alex has long since moved past here on Skeptiko. Even I squirmed a little when Dr Hugenot quoted Shermer and Susan Blackmore as evidence that 'we' we're making progress. Although fair does to Dr Hugenot, he only let Alex push so far without pushing back. You know that he's basically given up when Alex goes quiet. :)

The question I would like answered is how come results from Aware are not more definite,

The sample that was actually able to be interviewed wasn't big enough, Steve. He just didn't have the funding to employ enough assistants. What some people don't realise is that it was very important that the study was undertaken in the first place and completed because it has opened up great possibilities for the future. NDE research is in it's early stages, relatively that is. Parnia will get the evidence, I have no doubt about that but mainstream science will demand more and more etc because "they" (by and large) don't want to hear it.

I would love to know what Sam Parnia truly thinks

He's already said that he believes we are not annihilated and memories are not stored in the brain. And he's right but he's got to be careful . That kind of talk is heresy...
 
George Rodonaia
Many people have asked me what I believe in, how my NDE changed my life. All I can say is that I now believe in the God of the universe. Unlike many other people, however, I have never called God the light, because God is beyond our comprehension. God, I believe, is even more than the light, because God is also darkness. God is everything that exists, everything - and that is beyond our ability to comprehend at all. So I don't believe in the God of the Jews, or the Christians, or the Hindus, or in any one religion's idea of what God is or is not. It is all the same God, and that God showed me that the universe in which we live is a beautiful and marvelous mystery that is connected together forever and for always.

Anyone who has had such an experience of God, who has felt such a profound sense of connection with reality, knows that there is only one truly significant work to do in life, and that is love; to love nature, to love people, to love animals, to love creation itself, just because it is. To serve God's creation with a warm and loving hand of generosity and compassion - that is the only meaningful existence.

I enjoyed reading this, Only I want to point out an inconsistency with the reasoning, If George concludes everything is God, then you can not reject the God of the Hindus or The Christians or in any ones religion, as George concludes. He offers a description of God that is already fully offered by the religions mentioned.

I just find it irritating that people try to diminish the Gods of religions, when those same religions already explain God as the source of all creation who is infinite and has immense love, power, intelligence, and potency. Specifically, the God of the Vedas explains His different energies and incarnations in detail and that all religions are one.

The realm of the afterlife does - if we go by the collected religious and paranormal history - consist of far more than a single supreme being. If we give credence to ancient religions that had multiple gods who they thought was masters of rather specific areas of our earthly realm, then who was they? Like Sun-gods, War-gods, Fertility-gods, Harvest-gods, etc. Where they all just the God, or where they all a collection of Gods different angels who man elevated to gods? Like the archangel Michael for example. Was he also Thor, Mars, and Anhur?

And if we think of God as an almighty being/force who is the creator and controller of everything in existence, then it means that he would have created, and allow the existence of, evil beings, who's sole purpose is to snare, torment, and punish humans.
 
George Rodonaia
Many people have asked me what I believe in, how my NDE changed my life. All I can say is that I now believe in the God of the universe. Unlike many other people, however, I have never called God the light, because God is beyond our comprehension. God, I believe, is even more than the light, because God is also darkness. God is everything that exists, everything - and that is beyond our ability to comprehend at all. So I don't believe in the God of the Jews, or the Christians, or the Hindus, or in any one religion's idea of what God is or is not. It is all the same God, and that God showed me that the universe in which we live is a beautiful and marvelous mystery that is connected together forever and for always.

Anyone who has had such an experience of God, who has felt such a profound sense of connection with reality, knows that there is only one truly significant work to do in life, and that is love; to love nature, to love people, to love animals, to love creation itself, just because it is. To serve God's creation with a warm and loving hand of generosity and compassion - that is the only meaningful existence.

I enjoyed reading this, Only I want to point out an inconsistency with the reasoning, If George concludes everything is God, then you can not reject the God of the Hindus or The Christians or in any ones religion, as George concludes. He offers a description of God that is already fully offered by the religions mentioned.

I just find it irritating that people try to diminish the Gods of religions, when those same religions already explain God as the source of all creation who is infinite and has immense love, power, intelligence, and potency. Specifically, the God of the Vedas explains His different energies and incarnations in detail and that all religions are one.

Personally, I try to leave the who is God bit out of NDE research. Whatever is so, is so ( wow, ain't I smart ! ) . I posted the Art Bell interview with Pam Reynolds recently. If you listen to it all the way through she makes a lot of sense, IMHO and she tells us some extraordinary things.
 
If NDE's are created by the experiencer, wouldn't that mean that after death we are on our own and just create whatever afterlife our unconscious mind produces? The other view which seems much more likely to me and is supported by NDErs and evidential mediums is that the afterlife is a highly organized civilization that created life on earth for it's own purposes and we come from there before we are born and return there after the body dies. How could entities each creating their own reality unconsciously do anything in a coordinated fashion? If the NDErs are creating their own experience because that's what happens in the afterlife, there would never have been life on earth or human beings to begin with. If the afterlife is organized well enough to develop humankind and distribute souls into bodies in an organized fashion, it seems inconsistent that NDErs would be left to fend for themselves and then report back to the rest of us whatever they dreamed up as a description of the afterlife. It would create chaos down here. It seems more consistent with the "organized civilization" model of the afterlife that NDErs are received and hosted by the other side in order to help the experiencer grow spiritually and to share their experiences with the rest of us down here.
 
The realm of the afterlife does - if we go by the collected religious and paranormal history - consist of far more than a single supreme being. If we give credence to ancient religions that had multiple gods who they thought was masters of rather specific areas of our earthly realm, then who was they? Like Sun-gods, War-gods, Fertility-gods, Harvest-gods, etc. Where they all just the God, or where they all a collection of Gods different angels who man elevated to gods? Like the archangel Michael for example. Was he also Thor, Mars, and Anhur?

And if we think of God as an almighty being/force who is the creator and controller of everything in existence, then it means that he would have created, and allow the existence of, evil beings, who's sole purpose is to snare, torment, and punish humans.

then it means that he would have created, and allow the existence of, evil beings, who's sole purpose is to snare, torment, and punish humans.[/quote]

It's incredibly difficult, isn't it, to try a form a philosophy that actually fits everything and works. Maybe we're not meant to know this side of the veil, maybe everything is unfolding exactly as it must, managed chaos.

I'm going to have to stop writing in italics, I thought it was a pretty nifty idea but it looks pretentious and silly.
 
In the afterlife, the best analogy to what incarnated humans call locations, would be best described as states of mind. The state where a person's unconscious mind is creating their reality, what we call the dream state, corresponds to the location in the afterlife sometimes called the astral plane. As I understand it, the tunnel is what helps to get the NDErs through that state into the conscious areas. So I think there are occasional mishaps where a new spirit or an NDEr wanders off into the astral plane, but I don't think that happens very often and I don't think it explains the typical NDE.
 
Personally, I try to leave the who is God bit out of NDE research. Whatever is so, is so ( wow, ain't I smart ! ) . I posted the Art Bell interview with Pam Reynolds recently. If you listen to it all the way through she makes a lot of sense, IMHO and she tells us some extraordinary things.

Did I reply to your post?
 
Great interview and I liked Dr Alan Hugenots outlook on life.

Alex kept pushing him for improvements on NDE studies and fretted about how NDE studies are being brushed over and undermined by hints that experiences are nothing more than chemical brain reactions, Alan narrows the conversation down to experiments that he says prove that consciousness must exist before a material brain, pointing to double slit theory and quantum electrodynamics, and claims that whoever doesn't incorporate this into their argument for NDEs, is missing something.

Alex is still not happy and brings his concern back to the double sided views being pushed in the current field of NDE, such as Sam Parnia who hints that a materialist explanation could be a viable explanation for people's experiences, by chemical reactions causing hallucinations.
Alex seems frustrated that there is no experimental design to verify NDEs and no physical process by which to replicate or demonstrate them, as you would a normal scientific experiment.


But I see this as the cat chasing its tail.

If you argue that the mind and consciousness is not physical or material, you can not argue for science to verify it, it's like asking science to create a model that can read my mind.

Once you accept the mind is not material, you have to also accept that it's outside the scope of empirical science to grasp it.

It seems to me Alex doesn't accept this and demands more from science and scientists, rather than admitting the anecdotal evidence is the best we can do under a materialistic scientific model.
I doubt the anecdotal evidence will ever go away, and people will continue to have these experiences. I don't see what all the worry is about as science will never win the battle over consciousness. Never, it ain't happening.





Overall I enjoyed the interview and enjoyed Dr Alan's private views and completely understood where he was coming from, and Alex as always was great to listen to as he lets the NDE scientific community know he is hot on their heels, if they try to dismiss the anecdotal data as a mere trick of a biological mind.
 
Last edited:
Did I reply to your post?

I don't think that post of mine was really worth a reply, Johnny. I prefer to read other people's posts and chip in occasionally. The subject of who or what is God is unapproachable as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and never will understand why the universe came into existence, not this side of the bar anyway. I do hope I find out one day.
Wouldn't it be a blast if it turned out to be an old man with a white beard ? Well maybe not
 
I don't think that post of mine was really worth a reply, Johnny. I prefer to read other people's posts and chip in occasionally. The subject of who or what is God is unapproachable as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and never will understand why the universe came into existence, not this side of the bar anyway. I do hope I find out one day.
Wouldn't it be a blast if it turned out to be an old man with a white beard ? Well maybe not


Think about what you are saying.

First you say it's impossible to know what God is like. I disagree, if God is, God must be like a lot of things, to be qualified to be God.
If God isn't, then none of that matters. But if He is, then you start from there. Is he the greatest conceivable being?

After saying we can not know God, and I agree a finite mind can not know the infinite, but it can grasp quite a bit. But then you say you hope that one day you find out,

That's just great, I hope you do, but I also don't think it will be a white bearded man that floats around in the sky.

And lastly, I didn't reply to your post to begin with and if your not interested in my posts, feel free to skip them.
 
Discussions about who or what God is - are something I tend to avoid as well. It really is more of a matter of faith in my opinion. I'm with Tim on this - we simply can only speculate what God is based on what we believe is true or not. But I don't think anyone has the right (as Skeptics regularly they think they have the right to do) to persecute or character smear people who do believe in God or some kind of spirituality. And assume materialism is the same as science and that science itself is an unalterable truth.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Discussions about who or what God is - are something I tend to avoid as well. It really is more of a matter of faith in my opinion. I'm with Tim on this - we simply can only speculate what God is based on what we believe is true or not. But I don't think anyone has the right (as Skeptics regularly they think they have the right to do) to persecute or character smear people who do believe in God or some kind of spirituality. And assume materialism is the same as science and that science itself is an unalterable truth.

My Best,
Bertha

I disagree. And think you can deduce a lot about what God is. You can not understand God entirely but there are aspects you can define. God must have certain attributes otherwise He is not God.
You may not like the topic but it doesn't mean it can't be spoken about, especially as it was a response to an NDE experience of someone who spoke about an experience with God,


God is an interesting topic to me, and I view the immaterial aspect of me as my true identity, as a spirit soul, but I also recognise a super soul,
 
I disagree. And think you can deduce a lot about what God is. You can not understand God entirely but there are aspects you can define. God must have certain attributes otherwise He is not God.
You may not like the topic but it doesn't mean it can't be spoken about, especially as it was a response to an NDE experience of someone who spoke about an experience with God,


God is an interesting topic to me, and I view the immaterial aspect of me as my true identity, as a spirit soul, but I also recognise a super soul,
Like I said, I generally avoid discussions or debates about God. You certainly are free to believe what you want about God. But I am not ready to say we are at all knowledgeable as human beings to know the nature of the transcendent. Hell, we still don't have a clue what gravity is, or even how consciousness is produced.

That doesn't mean I don't have my own ideas of the transcendent and I don't have my own spiritual beliefs. I do. But having a debate or speculating over spirituality when the topic is Near Death research as a scientific endeavor - I feel is really not something I want to engage in here.

In addition, scientific methodology is an epistemology that does not include faith based concepts (as of yet). And I think we need to be very wary of introducing our own spiritual prejudices (or beliefs, including materialism) into scientific research.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Think about what you are saying.

First you say it's impossible to know what God is like. I disagree, if God is, God must be like a lot of things, to be qualified to be God.
If God isn't, then none of that matters. But if He is, then you start from there. Is he the greatest conceivable being?

After saying we can not know God, and I agree a finite mind can not know the infinite, but it can grasp quite a bit. But then you say you hope that one day you find out,

That's just great, I hope you do, but I also don't think it will be a white bearded man that floats around in the sky.

And lastly, I didn't reply to your post to begin with and if your not interested in my posts, feel free to skip them.

Have I missed something ? What's with the aggressive reply ? You asked me what I could have easily classified as a silly question, namely ..."did I reply to your post" ....well wouldn't you know that ? Why ask me....are you in the business of posting comments and forgetting that you've posted them 5 minutes later ?
So I just posted something I thought was okay to give you some kind of reply....

Johnny said >And lastly, I didn't reply to your post to begin with and if your not interested in my posts, feel free to skip them.

.....What ? !!! I
 
Like I said, I generally avoid discussions or debates about God. You certainly are free to believe what you want about God. But I am not ready to say we are at all knowledgeable as human beings to know the nature of the transcendent. Hell, we still don't have a clue what gravity is, or even how consciousness is produced.

That doesn't mean I don't have my own ideas of the transcendent and I don't have my own spiritual beliefs. I do. But having a debate or speculating over spirituality when the topic is Near Death research as a scientific endeavor - I feel is really not something I want to engage in here.

In addition, scientific methodology is an epistemology that does not include faith based concepts (as of yet). And I think we need to be very wary of introducing our own spiritual prejudices into scientific research.

My Best,
Bertha

I was responding to an NDE experience that claimed to have had an experience with God, it wasn't you I was aiming at, if you are not into God as a topic then skip my posts, about God, I'm not forcing you to read my posts, I was responding to a specific comment where God was the theme.

Rather than attack my willingness to discuss God, why not attack the ideas instead. Or just skip my posts.
 
Have I missed something ? What's with the aggressive reply ? You asked me what I could have easily classified as a silly question, namely ..."did I reply to your post" ....well wouldn't you know that ? Why ask me....are you in the business of posting comments and forgetting that you've posted them 5 minutes later ?
So I just posted something I thought was okay to give you some kind of reply....

Johnny said >And lastly, I didn't reply to your post to begin with and if your not interested in my posts, feel free to skip them.

.....What ? !!! I


My initial comment was a reply to another post about someone who had an NDE experience and claims to have met God,

You had a problem with me responding to that rather than NDE research, I pointed out I didn't respond to you to begin with, if your not interested in my reply to someone else, then skip it, my comment was not directed at you.

You have no right what to tell me to talk about.
 
Back
Top