Question about the dying process.

[TNDemo]

It is a common phenomenon for people to see their dead relatives and friends as they are nearing death. Some people who have had near death experiences have also experienced that. People who believe in life after death believe it is truly their spirits come to help the dying person. The scientific community tends to believe it is random firing of the brain. I don't have a real opinion about this and am trying to keep an open mind.

My question is if it is just random firing of the brain, why don't they see people who are still alive? Why don't they see casual acquaintances or people from TV? Nobody seems to see Frasier or Captain Kangaroo. It is always someone who loved them and has died and sometimes it is people they think are still alive but later it is determined they had already died. I have talked to a number of hospice nurses and this is always the way it has been witnessed. Ideas?

[Loonman]

1. Brainstorm/final seizure

Because everyone has visions specific to their particular faith or whatnot.

[stellanoir]

2. All good points. . .

Having had several NDE's I can only tell you that it's totally comforting. Nothing to fear whatsoever.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

3. Because emphasis is placed on the 'dead visitors' ..

... doesn't mean others weren't seen either?

Y'know, like you buy a new blue camry.. suddenly you see blue camrys all over the place ?? It doesn't mean they weren't there BEFORE!! <wink>

[Dookus]

4. well

I would posit that people dying in a hospice situation have spent a lot of time thinking about death and possible reunion with those who've gone before them. If one believes in an afterlife and reunion with the dead, it seems likely that they would interpret any such "random firings" as being those people with whom they've been recently preoccupied.

The most recent Skeptical Inquirer has a very good article regarding the physiology of near-death experiences.


on edit: It's why christians sometimes "see" Jesus. I doubt many hindus do. It's all about what you believe.

[Speck Tater]

13. Skeptical Inquirer has a very good article, yeah, right!

I used to subscribe to SI and believed every word they printed. Then one day I read one of their "very good articles" in a subject area I was personally very familiar with. They were guilty of such gross distortion of the facts that it just disgusted me! I couldn't believe that they had let such a shabby piece of pseudo-science get into their mag.

Then I started digging deeper into some of their other "very good articles" and found, when I went back to the source material, seriously flaws in almost every one. Suddenly I became skeptical of the skeptics. Suddenly I recognized the ideological axe that they were grinding with every article, and how indiferent they were to actual factual reporting. SI is the Fox News of the science world. They distort, you comply.

Their book reviews regularly make false straw-man statements about what a particular book claims and then the review goes on to demolish this straw man while claiming to have demolished the book itself. Having read many books that were reviewed negatively in SI I have found a consistent pattern of distortion and outright lying about the contents of the book being reviewed.

Consider, for example, this very thorough rebuttal of a SI review published in the Skeptical Inquirer of The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Evidence of Life After Death. By Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. This careful disection of the SI review demostrates just how distorted their reporting is: http://www.enformy.com/Gary-reHymanReview.htm

One lawyer opines that the author of the book has grounds to sue SI and the reviewer for their distortions and lies: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/rayhyman.html

Of course, for the true believer in the SI party line it looks they every word they print is golden. For seomone who has awakened from that brainwashed state, SI looks like pure ideological propaganda filled with factual errors, and deliberate misrepresentation. SI reminds me very much of some radical RW political publication. To the true believer every word is golden. To the enlightened liberal, every other word is a lie or distortion.

To learn more about the underhanded techniques used by "debunkers" check out http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/winston.html

[Dookus]

21. *shrug*

the article I referred to was by an anesthesiologist who understands the physiology of the brain and other senses as they "shut down".

You found things in the magazine you disagreed with. So do I. That doesn't mean every article in it is blatantly wrong. Read it or not... I just mentioned it because it was pertinent to this thread.

[Dookus]

23. OK..

I had a chance to look at some of those links.

The first reply to a rebuttal by a believer to somebody who skeptically challenged his work.

The second is by a lawyer who SAYS the author has grounds to sue SI. I wish they would. Then we'd learn more.

The last one, and most interesting, is a the typical twaddle of paranormalists who insist that they encounter real phenomena daily, yet somehow those phenomena resist testing and replication under controlled real-world conditions. They question whether extraordinary claims do in fact require extraordinary evidence, or whether the burden of proof is on the claimant.

It's pseudoscientific hogwash.

[Speck Tater]

24. Yup. Just like arguing with a Freeper. ;)

No offense, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Once a person's mind is made up and closed there is really no point in arguing facts. Facts no longer matter.

[Dookus]

25. I see...

and I guess you don't see the slightest bit of irony in your statement.

Since I refuse to believe something that is entirely unsubstantiated, I'm Freeper-like. But YOU, being so open-minded and all, are the epitome of reasoned debate.

:eyes:

[Speck Tater]

29. Permit me to appologize.

Here in DU we often characterize some article or editorial by stating that the author is a "freeper". By making that characterization we are really engaging in a kind of us-vs-them code in which "freeper" means someone who is one of them, not one of us, and in saying that we imply that this person's "facts" are suspect and his judgement is not to be trusted.

We all know that "all freepers are lunatics", just as freepers know that "all liberals hate America." But in truth these characterizations are never universally true. Yes, there are many freepers who are complete idiots. But there are some rational, thoughtful moderate conservatives who we might label with the smear "freeper" who are not deserving of that smear. Just the same, once we have applied the label we have branded whatever that person says as being suspect.

Similarly, when we say something like "this was written by a believer who..." this is the skeptic's us-vs-them code-speak for all those mental defectives who believe in flying saucers, healing crystals and the lost continent of Atlantis. In making that characterization the skeptic is doing the same thing we do when we label someone a freeper and the same thing a freeper does when he labels one of us a liberal.

"All liberals hate America." Therefore liberals are dangerous and nothing they say can be taken seriously.

"All believers consult astrologers and cast spells naked under a full moon." Therefore believers are deluded and nothing they say can be taken seriously.

In point of fact, such characterizations are seldom accurate. It is curious that not only is the practise of dimissively labelling people as "belieivers" mentioned in the links I provided above, but you yourself in your reply choose to label the author with the standard skeptic's smear "believer" thus dismissing as irrelevant anything the article might have to say.

What about an honestly objective researcher? There really is no room for such a person in the skeptic's scheme of things. Any honest, objective researcher who reports any favorable outcome in a study is promptly labeled "a believer" and from that point on nothing he says need be taken seriously ever again.

But in point of fact, there are serious researchers who have reported positive results, and who also DO NOT believe in healing crystals, and DO NOT believe in the lost continent of Atlantis, and who DO NOT fall for such preposterous garbage astrology, fortune telling, and spirit channeling. There are serious, careful researchers who get positive, replicable results under tightly controlled laboratory conditions and yet do NOT cavort in the nude with their covens under the full moon.

But such people as this cause cognitive disonance to the hard-line skpetic. Just like the conservative Republican who disagrees with Bush, this is a person who cannot be dismissed with a easy smear like "freeper" or "believer". Yet the hard-line skeptic will insist on categorizing anyone who is not in complete agreement with him as "a believer", and will insist that every word spoken by "a believer" is suspect and probably false.

And just as "all liberals hate America" so too "all believers are either fools or frauds."

Now to be perfectly fair, I also have the tendancy to label such hard-liners as "skeptics" and distrust whatever I hear them say. But this is only because I have caught the extreme hard-liners in so many lies.

So, returning to the issue at hand, "can Skeptical Inquirer be trusted to report objectively" the answer lies not in labelling people as "skeptics" vs "believers" but in examining the facts objectively. I have read many of the books reviewed in SI, including the one I gave the links to, and I have read the reviews in SI. In every case I have found serious factual distortions, omissions and outright lies in the pages of SI.

Regardless of who calls whom by what denigrating names, those objective facts remain as testimony to the fact that if one is going to be truly skeptical, as opposed to merely closed-minded, then one must also be skeptical of the skeptics. This is especially true since the avowed mission of SI is NOT to examine these claims objectively, but to find a way, any way, to dispute or discredit them. Just as the freepers have decided a priori that liberals are dangerous, so have these skeptics decided a priori that serious investigation of these areas are dangerous. I quote from SI:

"Belief in paranormal phenomena is still growing, and the dangers to our society are real ... Please help us in this battle against the irrational. Your contribution, in any amount, will help us grow and be better able to combat the flood of belief in the paranormal."

Now read that again with one substitution:

"Belief in liberalism is still growing, and the dangers to our society are real ... Please help us in this battle against the irrational. Your contribution, in any amount, will help us grow and be better able to combat the flood of belief in liberalism."

We should all recognize this kind of demonizing for what it is. It does not serve the advancement of knowledge, which is why these skeptics, although they are EXTREMELY vocal, are in the dwindling minority of working scientists.

[Dookus]

33. apology accepted

Now as to whether you can rightly disparage anything that appears in SI because you disagree with a book review, I think that's probably unwise. The article I referred to was not a book review. Dismissing out of hand without even reading it doesn't make your argument more persuasive.

I was most put off by the third link you provided, in which every reasonable criteria used by science and rationalists were dismissed. Occam's razor was dismissed. The idea that a claimant is responsible for proving the claim was dismissed. Almost every tenet that so well-served humanity for the last few hundred years was dismissed out of hand because they haven't validated the paranormal.


Most importantly, how can you claim that skeptics are in the dwindling minority of working scientists? That claim is outrageous. Skepticism is taking a provisional approach to ideas. They must have evidence to back them up before they're accepted. Even "accepted" ideas are provisional, in that they can be rejected when newer, better evidence presents itself.

To say that a minority of working scientists are skeptics is just blatantly untrue. To say that minority is dwindling is even worse. By definition, EVERY working scientist is a skeptic. If they're not skeptical, they're not doing science.

[Speck Tater]

38. I was using the term "skeptic" in a narrow, and unfair way.

This, again, is "name-calling". But as a short hand device I tend to say "skeptic" when what I really mean is people who have closed their minds to anything that disagrees with some dogmatic ideology that they have accepted as gospel truth.

All scientists should be "open-minded skeptics" and most are. No scientist should be a closed-minded skeptic, but some are. Fortunately the closed-minded sort are in the minority. Unfortunately, most them contribute to SI, and are vocal enough to leave many with the impression that the closed-minded variety are in the majority.

What's worse, many young people hoping to be "accepted" into the "scientific priesthood" mistakenly believe that they must become one of these closed-minded cynical sorts in order to be considered "respectable." Like young converts to religious fundamentalism these young converts to scientific fundamentalism become very narrow minded and irrationally, hysterically, and sometimes almost violently opposed to any research that threatens their ideology.

There is nothing quite so shrill and desparate as a fundamentalist facing evidence that refuses to fit into his ideology. And since there are numerous viable alternatives to materialistic monism as the fundamental metaphysics, belief in materialism is nothing more nor less than religious faith. It has not been shown to be superior in any way to any of the alternative metaphysical systems. Nor is it a necessary assumption to the workings of the scientific method. The alternative metaphysical theories, however, are seldom taught to science majors, and they grow up not even realizing that there are viable alternatives to materialistic monism. In fact, I got as far as my MS degree without ever encountering an alternative metaphysics, yet friends who were philosophy majors knew all about them. It was only after my formal scientific training was completed that I was ever exposed to metaphysics as an academic discipline. (As opposed to what the "new-age" crackpots and dingbats call "metaphysics") And that by virtue of friends in the philosophy department, not by way of formal curriculum. It's really a shame that the scientific curriculum doesn't include the philosophy of science. That is a vital field that holds a great many ideas of importance to the practise of science. Not the least of which is the fact that "materialism" is an assumption which has no empirical support whatsoever. Something most scientists would call ridiculous, simply because they have no training in philosophy, and have been indoctrinated to believe that materialism is the only rational metaphysics.

Then these people with no philosophical training are let loose to make philosophical pronouncements, never even questioning the most basic axioms upon which those conclusions are built. In fact, never even realizing that those axioms they think are "facts" are nothing more than unsupported, unproven assumptions.

Ah, but I'm getting too long winded. Best to let the subject rest. Eventually the facts, "the damned facts" as Charles Fort called them, will win out over the futile efforts of the priethood of fundametalist scientism, and real science, guided by the real skeptics, the open-minded skeptics, will unearth the truth, sending the dogmatists scurrying back into the shadows.

[Dookus]

40. yes

I agree with your conclusion.

Only I believe the "real" skeptics will prove your worldview to be nonsense.

Indeed, they already have.

[Speck Tater]

42. Party line.

In point of fact I agree with Carl Sagan in that there are three lines of paranormal research that have had results positive enough to warant further serious consideration.

Only the hard-liner still tries to perpetuate the myth that all paranormal claims have been disproven. Quite the opposite is true. But you won't read about it in SI.

[troublemaker]

5. I would guess

that as the system breaks down the most well-worn neural trails remain, sort of the way old people often have very vivid childhood memories.

There are certainly some odd things about 'optional' death, like from long bouts of cancer, where they system sort of decides to shut down even though there's no reason for the person to have not died yesterday or tomorrow. Everything shuts down in a certain order... blood stops circulating in the extremities hours before death, etc.

[Wickerman]

6. Captain Kangaroo is dead

yep, that is right - I really have nothing to offer. Seriously, like dreaming it is probably a subconscious play of what is relevant. Death is much more relevant than life when you are facing death.

[democratreformed]

7. A story for you

My father-in-law was an alcoholic. One night, a bunch (including my husband and father-in-law) went fishing on the river. They ran out of gas. My brother and I went to find them and take them some gas. On the trip back up the river, my f-i-l fell in. It truly is a miracle that we were able to find him. He was basically dead. I gave him mouth to mouth. We performed CPR on him three times before we got to the bank. They lost him again in the ambulance.

He made it. But, he says he had visions that scared the beejeesus out of him. He hasn't ever gone into specifics but has mentioned that he saw his mother and several others. That was about four years ago. He has not drank a drop since.

[Speck Tater]

8. It has happened that someone had a near death experience and

reported seeing someone they thought was still alive, only to find out that the person seen had very recently died.

Those who believe that it is random brain firing, or illusionary haven't really taken the trouble to examine all the evidence. That hypothesis falls far short of explaining the phenomenon, yet the hypothesis is eagerly accepted by those who have already made up their minds for dogmatic ideological reasons. The hard-core skeptic will jump at the first eplanation that agree with their prior belief.

Folks who believe that "paranormal" experiences are meaningless fall into two categories. Those who have an axe to grind and will bend the truth and ignore data in order to grind that axe and those who have read what is written by the axe-grinders and believe it without taking the trouble to examine the evidence for themselves. Skeptic followers, like neocon followers, wait for their guru to fax them their talking points. Then they believe those talking points without question. It's oh so much easier to have some authority figure tell you what to believe than it is to think for yourself or examine the evidence openly and honestly.

As Einstein pointed out our beliefs limit what we are able to see.

[gpandas]

12. show me the "evidence"

to me the afterlife is death

[BBradley]

31. You don't deserve to quote Einstein.

Way to generalize. I love how you dismiss everyone who doesn't believe your paranormal BS as either dogmatic, or idiots who can't think for themselves. Give yourself a pat on the back.

[Speck Tater]

39. Who then am I permitted to quote?

What paranormal BS is it that you think I believe?

I'll bet you're wrong.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. I think it makes more sense to believe it's NON-random firing of the brain

eom

[diamond14]

10. my Mom died in my arms in the year 2000....

my brother, a medical doctor, called it a "charmed death", because I took care of Mom for the last 9 months of her life, in her home...and she died at home, sitting in her big pink recliner, in her pink bathrobe with her feet on the matching pink footstool....


IMO, hospital deaths are VERY different, and much more traumatic to the dying person...I spent many long days/nights IN the hospital with my Mom, with dying people all around....the whole hospital scene is GHASTLY and abnormal, traumatic to BOTH the dying person AND their families....before all this hospital dying came into vogue, most everyone died at home, with their family and friends...


during my mother's lengthy illness, and as she came closer to the end, she spoke more and more about the 'old days' and my childhood...she had HUGE medical problems and IMO, had several small strokes...her memory was not real good, but occasionally, she would brighten up and remember some long ago FACT that I had forgotten....

but as death creeped closer and closer, Mom wasn't remembering things well at all....and I never corrected her...just listened and talked to her...most of all, she wanted someone to talk with...because most of my brothers and sisters stopped dropping in for visits (perhaps they were horrified), and her friends stopped coming over (perhaps they were horrified), and I would keep the vigil quietly....at the end...Mom just SHUT DOWN quickly...she was all swollen up (from kidney failure, cancer tumors, heart blockage) and had a massive heart attack...


although she went through the 'death rattle'...she never said a word...and my Dad and I kneeled by her side and held her hands as they got colder and colder...and we prayed (which I asked my Dad to do, in order to steady him)....Dad prayed the 'Hail Mary'...."pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death"...

and I talked to my Mom the whole time....telling her that I loved her, and that she was a good Mother and was an inspiration to others and more....and when she was cold...I told her that I was letting go of her hand...and putting her hand in the HAND OF GOD....and I kissed her forehead.....my brother, the medical doctor, finally arrived....and he said: charmed death...{I wanted to punch him, but now that I have had more time to reflect, my brother was right on)...and then he said: OK, you can go now...your job is over....

so I left and went down to the local bar, bought a glass of wine and drank it with fond thoughts of my Mom....


WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIE IN A HOSPITAL??....noisy, loud, medical caregivers, who are strangers, all around you...with only a thin curtain separating you from a coughing or screaming stranger, families all traumatized, carts going by, 'code red' announcements blaring, the wheezing of dead people next to you on life-support systems....it's not peaceful, it's very abnormal...so any judgements made about deaths in a hospital should be taken with a grain of salt...

most people DIE in hospitals because their families are too lazy to take care of their own, and provide them with some dignity at the end of their lives...it's sad really....

religion can be a comfort, as it was to my Mom, and I KNEW that was the right approach, as my Mom lay dying...but strangers in a hospital are not into taking care of death in personal way...some do the best they can...but hospitals are BIG BUSINESS, and suck up unsuspecting patients into a PROFIT-MAKING business...and IMO, it's the most immoral part of bush* healthcare policies: making HUGE profits off the sick and dying...it should be STOPPED...take the profit out of healthcare NOW...

[DemExpat]

14. My younger sister and I took Dad home to die with Hospice care

as well in 1997....
Although our hardnosed (Repub) Dad was never the "type" to cuddle and hug, he was meek as a lamb and incredibly appreciative of having the fortune to be at home where he wanted to be.

His wrist watch stopped 2 minutes after his last breath - a sign to me that his spirit was letting us know that there was "more" after death.

:kick:

DemEx

[jody]

11. You might want to visit IANDS at the enclosed link

International Association for Near-Death Studies

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. My dad did this..called out to his mother and reached up

from the bed...I think when people are dying they are completing their lives and anything incomplete will arise

[BiggJawn]

16. That's not very comforting....

If that's true, I got a very nasty death waiting for me....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. You never know..you may be more complete than you think

My experience of you is that you've not stuffed most of your resentments :D

[BiggJawn]

18. LOL! that's for sure!

No, you're right there, I don't stuff much....But then, as the LI said in "Das Boot"...
"Just a few minor details to tend to...."

[nini]

19. my Dad had all kinds of weird things happen the month before he died.

He saw his grandmother, he saw his mom. He'd sit there and reach out to something we could not see. He'd smile as he was doing that. etc. etc. etc...

What really got me was one day he was doing the looking like he was watching someone walking and he shouts out 'that God Damn Al Campanis'.. what the hell is he doing here???' My Dad hated the Dodgers and was a big Giants fan. uh ok.. He said this this a couple times and then we forgot it. 3 days later we're at my dad's house for father's day and the news came on saying Al Campanis had died that morning. we about crapped our pants.


Right before he died he was talking about my Aunt Margo who was married to his brother. He kept saying he had to go get her. Turns out my aunt died the night before my dad.

No one will ever convince me something isn't going on during the transition from life to death. too many unexplained things happened to be only a coincidence.

[Speck Tater]

20. There are hundreds of thousands of well documented

cases like this. Many of them have an astounding depth of detail and data. There's no way that they can all be "explained away" by some purely physical brain process. The mass of evidence is just too overwhelming.

And yet still there are people who say "show me the evidence." Apparently these people are not interested enough in seeing the evidence to simply open their eyes and look at it!

The problem has never been a shortage of evidence. The problem has always been an unwillingness to actually look at the evidence.

[Dookus]

22. really?

Hundreds of thousands of well-documented cases? Where?

[carpetbagger]

26. It wouldn't surprise me.

I know Karlis Osis collected several hundred reports systematically. I myself have seen at least several dozen of these cases in my life.

Whether or not they signify anything beyond material and neurologic explanation is up for debate, but they're quite common.

[Dookus]

28. still

several hundred thousand, well-documented cases?

[Don_G]

27. I Know Several Nurses At My Local Hospitals

I don't know about the dead relatives and friends part, but the patient generally knows he or she is going to die about a week before the event if their mind isn't affected.

I don't know why other than it seems to be a pattern common to 5 hospitals in my area.

[BBradley]

30. My best friend was hit by a tractor trailer, and "died" for a bit.

He said he didn't see anything. No light, no flashes, no friends and family, just black.

[qwertyMike]

37. Me too

I had an NDE

Nada, nothing, zip

Wasn't scary though.
Made me wonder if I have no imagination. :(

[VOX]

32. My mom died in a hospital, but we made the best of it...

She had fallen two weeks before (4th time in 9 years) and we thought she was getting better. We were going to take her home, but suddenly her organs began to "cascade," and the dying process had begun. She had a terrific doc, and he promised to make her transition painless (and he did). There were no heroic measures per her request, and morphine was given liberally.

Her doc got her a private room at the end of a hall, so it was as quiet as a hospital room can get. Her friends and relatives had gathered and taken over the room, and she got to say her individual goodbyes -- she was quite lucid and joked the afternoon before her death. Her caregiver urged us to go home and get some rest -- we had all been awake for 24 hours, some of us for 36 hours. Reluctantly, we departed, knowing that we would be back in a few hours.

My mom was not the kind of person who wanted or liked to be fussed over, and she had a very private side to her. Her caregiver read her the 23rd Psalm and the Lord's Prayer, then went out to get a quick bite to eat. True to form, my mom chose that brief window of time to let go. That was in February 2003, and not a day has passed since then that I don't think about my absence during her actual death. When I got back to the hospital, she was still warm, but quite departed. It's a strange thing to see the lifeless body of the person who gave you life.

The caregiver said that my mom had been restless for a moment earlier that evening, and at one point said out loud, "I don't like what I'm seeing." (It gave me the willies to hear that.) She also called out to a "Jack" and a "Mary." I can't be certain of the stimuli that she was reacting to, but Jack was the name of her late first husband (not my dad, but the guy she left to be with my dad), and Mary was the name one of her best friends and neighbors, who also happened to volunteer for many years in the ER of the very hospital where my mom died. Mary had died of pancreatic cancer several years earlier.
I have no idea what to make of this.

I wish I could have been there with her, but I know my mom was ready. She had said her goodbyes, and it's just like her to slip out when no one was looking. :)

Love you, Ma. You were -- and are -- something else! :toast:

[nini]

36. I believe she left when no one was around because she wanted to

My dad did the same thing with his brother. My uncle was visiting and about 30 seconds after he left my dad's breathing changed and he started actively dying. Only to start breathing again and opened his eyes when he heard my nephew say my sister had just driven up. She came in said her goodbyes and he started breathing weird again and was gone in about 3 minutes. weird.

Your mom left when she was ready and didn't want to hurt you having you see it. I really believe that. Don't feel bad for not being there because you were when she needed you to be.

:hug:

[Red State Rebel]

34. My Mom kept her sense of humor...

She had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and given 6 months (colon/spread to liver). In her last week or so, she was in and out of it. Her sisters drove out and got her father and brought him in to see her. They hadn't spoken in years. After he came in and visited for a bit, they went down to get something to eat. I stayed behind with Mom. It wasn't long after they left she looked at me and said "I must be dying if that son of a b*tch is here". I cracked up.

All of us kids were there the night she died. My little brother hadn't been up in about a week and my husband took our jeep out into the snow to get him as we knew the end was coming soon. They got back and within 15 minutes she was gone. We all felt she just wanted us all to be there. When her baby boy finally got there she was able to let go.

[DemExpat]

47. Sweet....

I flew home across the Atlantic when I heard Momma was dying from a brain aneurism in 1995.....

After reaching the hospital my cousin told me to hurry up to her room as she was slipping away. I got there while Mom was still warm and breathing, but she died, as if her systems were slowly shutting down, while I kissed and hugged her....20 minutes after I arrived.

I also felt that she waited for me to say goodbye.

:-) :cry: :-)

Love your Mom's sense of humor at the end - I would love to be able to follow her example!

DemEx

[jpgray]

35. A myth can perpetuate itself

If you really believe you will see these things, there's a good chance you will see them if you are in such a state of trauma or unconsciousness that you would be normally prone to seeing visions. Don't forget also that the many cases wherein someone doesn't see anything of this sort while in a near-death state are probably not given the same amount of attention.

[Speck Tater]

41. Statistical studies take all kinds of NDEs in account.

It would be very poor procedure to ignore cases where the patient saw nothing.

However, any one of us could go out in the back yard on any night and watch for meteors. Some of us might see a meteor, and some of us might not. Surely you aren't suggesting that those who didn't see a meteor have proven that those who did see a meteor were halucinating?

Very often people who dismiss the NDE studies out of hand have some very niave notions of how the NDE research was conducted. I know quite a few people who dismiss NDEs out of hand. Not one of those people has actually read any of the studies. Seems like the people who actually read the studies get somehow "contaminated" and turn into "believers" and have to be ridiculed and shunned lest they spread that contamination among their colleagues.

I can't tell you how often I've heard the statement "Old Fred's gone mystical on us," when some otherwise rational person has actually read the studies and come away with his mind changed. I can't blame skeptics for not reading the studies. After all, who would want to risk being contaminated or risk going mystical? It really is much safer to just not read the studies while continuing to parrot the party line that they are all poorly done and meaningless. Yes, stick with that strategy. You'll sleep much better at night knowing your reputation is in no danger from the thought police.

[jpgray]

45. Now you are comparing apples and oranges

Two people who are entirely healthy outside watching the sky is a radically different situation from two people who are near death. Put two people on LSD outside watching the stars having given them the deep belief that they WILL see meteors, and I guarantee a large percentage will see 'meteors' or similar astral phenomena. Any vision during a NDE may be easily explained as a subconscious creation, not as an accurate depiction of some objective reality. Assuming it IS an objective reality rather than a dream-like hallucination is just another religious exercise--all one has to hold on to is that belief, because it simply cannot be proved through any amount of strenuous scientific evaluation. There is no way to scientifically eliminate the possibility that it is simply hallucination.

[Throckmorton]

43. Ask me again in three or four years,

Ive been thinking quite a lot about this very topic.

[TNDemo]

44. Throckmorton,

I was wondering if your wife experienced anything like this. I know it is very recent for you and you may not be ready to talk about it but if you want to I would be very interested to listen.

[ronnykmarshall]

46. When my brother died

I was sleeping in the living room next to his room. Around 5am I felt someone shaking me very hard, I sat up and the whole room was lit up and I felt this warm tingling all over my body. Suddenly I saw this great flash of and light and the it slowly faded away.

The feeling was incredible and comforting.

I woke my mom up who was sleeping on the couch. In the other room, we could hear my brother's breathing getting shallow (the death rattle as they call it). Within an hour, my brother passed away.

I'm not making this up.

[johnnie]

48. I've heard from people who have had this happen

It is called deathbed visitation. I never had one so I can only go on the few that I have personally heard of and from.
I will say with 100% certainty that there is a lot more going on than what you see right here.
It goes both ways, the skeptics say you have to believe and I say you have a lot less of a chance experiencing anything beyond what you see if you refuse to see it.
I could tell you all about shit that is still way beyond my understanding. It's not about spirits or anything like that, but it freaked me out. I won't get in to it here because if I told too many people they would lock me away.

[TNDemo]

49. LET'S TALK ABOUT PRECOGNITION.

Since we have all of us here talking about this subject. I am on the fence about life after death, however, I do believe there is something beyond what we know in our normal five senses. I don't know if it is an intuitive part of our brain that we don't know how to use well and occasionally an antenna goes up and catches something or if it could indeed be a spiritual phenomenon. All I know is I have had a number of experiences that lets me know there is something more than the black and white life experience.

Here is one experience I have had. I would love to hear a real explanation for how this happened but I am sure I will never know. Five years ago on a Friday night I dreamed three times in a row that my father was about to die. He was 67, been to the doctor earlier that week with a clean bill of health, and there was no reason to expect anything. I knew he slept until about noon so I started calling him around then with no answer. Left messages all day (200 miles away) and no response. Had no luck trying to get someone to check on him but my brother was going to visit the next day and he thought I was being paranoid. Next morning (Sunday) my aunt calls (my mother's sister - parents had been divorced for 30 years). She said she had the oddest dream about her father and my father being together (my grandfather had died years earlier and he and my father were not friendly by any stretch). She said my father and grandfather both looked young in the dream and that my father was reaching his hand out to my mother (who looked her normal age) and was asking her to come with him. We laughed about the dream and I said it would be weird if we found out he was dead. She encouraged me to call his church and see if he showed up. I did - he hadn't and they went to check on him. He was dead in the back yard, still sitting on his riding mower. He had been there over 24 hours. The guy who found him had seen him the morning before at 10:00, finishing up mowing the front yard, going around to mow the back. He did a strip and fell forward, apparently having just enough time to turn off the engine. My half sister was away on a camping trip (his daughter from his second marriage). She woke up Saturday morning to a vivid dream where my dad called her and told her "your mother (dead seven months) is here with me. God let her come because he knew I needed her." Her mother then got on the phone and said "You need to come home right now. Your father is about to have a stroke. Leave now." She had gotten up, ran around the campground until she found a phone, called him and didn't mention her concerns. Said he was feeling fine. This was about 9:00. He died about an hour later. She decided it was just a strange dream and didn't go home. It took us over a day to track her down.

So three different people in three different cities have a dream relating to his death. I think it is more than a coincidence but I don't have any rational way to explain it. Do you?