Zaptruder said:
But the question is, why look outside the frame work of the natural physical universe for explanation to such phenomena, when you've clearly stated that you don't understand all aspects of the brain.
If you understand everything, and there's still something not adding up, maybe then, there's sense in looking for explanations beyond what is readily observable in the natural physical universe.
As it is, the 'massive, parallel, iterative' nature of the mind, creates such a dizzying array of interactions, that it is almost impossible (certainly beyond our capacity to do so at this point in time) to exhaust possible explanations that arise from examination, introspection of this known, observable universe.
When you reach for a supernatural explanation, you have to explain an entirely new framework of ideas and rules, and the burden of proof is on you; you have to demonstrate that there could be such a dualistic system out there... but these NDEs, not your own experience as you describe it (description been different from subjective interpretation), nor the largely anecdotally derived examples from the OP, do much to prove even the remote possibility of a dualistic system of existence.
Within the framework of our own preconceived bias, we may be able to relate and pick up patterns that reinforce those preconceived bias, but that's not science. That's quackery. Pseudoscience.
Resenting that implication doesn't mean you're free from it.
But in direct response to what you're saying... what you're describing sounds like almost an adrenaline response. At the right cardiac range, and with the appropriate level of hormones as released by our adrenal system, we are able to devote dramatically more of our cognitive resources to sharpening our senses. Literally, time seems to dilate, our neural responses quicken, while shutting down 'unnecessary' higher cognitive functions. Hell, even memory functions shut down to a large extent.
It happens to a lot of people in dangerous situations.
Then consider how our memory is affected post event, by new information. Our memory is biased by information that comes later; we percieve and interpret the information retrieved through the lens of the present, of what we know now, and what we know has resulted.
You may well have percieved a sharpening of senses. At the same time, much of the memory may not have formed at the time; rather upon discussion with others, you begin to 'recall' and over time, you convince yourself that you had a crystal clear memory of the event.
The effect is so pervasive, that you may even recall a great deal of lucidity just right after the event, citing it to deny this line of reasoning.
Or you may indeed, have been incredibly lucid at the point of your near death; just that some other combination of brain processes are applicable in explaining what you actually experienced.
It could theoretically be observable. I'm not saying I believe this theory (I actually find it unlikely) but there are some people who believe in an EMF field theory of consciousness, essentially that an EMF field emitted by the brain is the actual carrier of consciousness. If the interior of our experience is within this EMF carrier, then after death it could exist in a state of (infinitely) self-divisible collapse (say if it's nature was holographic or something). Perhaps this collapse occurs after a momentary spike in the EMF field generated by (or existing alongside) the brain around the time of death (NDE's)?
No argument from me, it's easy to do some mental gymnastics to create an entirely speculative explanation attempting to wrap everything up into a neat little package without any evidence to support it. I hold no illusions about this.
Like I said, I'm not saying I believe this. Rather I'm prone not to believing in it. In fact I have the same problem with it that I do the theory of such people as Penrose that the engram is actually created via microtubules, tubulin, etc, interractions within the neuron. It's perhaps plausible but the evidence has to actually support that these structures are being used in these ways. And these are both things that could easily fall within the empirical-observable sphere, so I can easily just await confirmation or dismissal while resting on a position of uncertainty.
The same isn't true for metaphysical problems, yet they often have a greater urgency, because they touch the nature of the unknowable and what may lie in wait for us after we cross over into oblivion. What this causes in people like me is an urgency to feel as if I have a working model for these problems. Some confirmation or denial, no matter how small, as long as it is perceived as internally congruent and not cast into doubt via incongruence with the things I already feel I understand to some degree or another.
At one point I came in hard up on the side of denial. I'm prone to believing that, it's concise and the very definition of everything wrapping up neatly. No brain = no awareness, it's an easy conclusion to come to... but now I don't, not automatically, at least.
I don't see why that matters or makes me a quack if there's no evidence, period, for either position. I'd feel bad adopting a position on something that there was already evidence for that I was wrong about, and in this sense I consider myself a perfectly capable empiricist. I just don't see the problem with adopting an intuitively inspired position on a question we'll likely never even come close to confirming or denying empirically. It's pure pragmatism, in this case in regards to metaphysics. Something is better than nothing.
It says nothing about my rational faculties, because what I am discussing is something not readily grasped by the rational faculties. They occupy different spheres of human awareness. The intuitive sphere isn't inherently faulty but is rather complimented by the logical perspective and vice versa.
If the reach of the intuition extends beyond the reach of observation or falsification, a person can just adopt a tentative or fuzzy position. I see no harm in a fuzzy position on an inscrutable issue.
So that's not to say I believe in them whole-heartedly. It's usually a kind of 'symbolic' belief in the sense that the way intuitive perceptions are experienced isn't implicitly 'literal' or intended to be a concrete par-for-par explanation in any objective sense. That's not the issue. I'm not looking to provide concrete answers with metaphysical explanations, just that some model for satisfactorily accounting for the full range of metaphysical posibilities (in accordance with subjective perception) is better than an entirely lop-sided position predicated on a lack of evidence for either side. In some situations it may just be an interesting hypothetical model. To be able to entertain it as an idea poses some interesting theoreticals. Or it might just give you some small comfort because you now feel as if you know what to expect when our inevitable mortality rears its head.
IMO It's not really looking outside of the natural framework if we don't adequately understand the intricacies of the framework. It's only viewing the subject through a different perceptual lens, perhaps even with the aim of completing said framework.
We have to have an established framework in order to know where it's limits and boundaries are. If it's an incomplete model, a person looking to complete the model is going to try to find ways to do so.
Especially likely is a person to speculate or introspect over a subject that isn't addressed at all by the collected data. In this case subjective experience prompts the investigation into something that cannot be affirmed or discredited empirically. It only makes for bad science if you inject your subjective experience into the objective-empirical sphere and assume you have it all figured out. Not so, it's exceedingly easy to keep the two separate and recognize the different areas of human interest they address.
No doubt about the confirmation of personal biases. The thing is, if I already have a personal bias to begin with, I frankly don't see a single shred of evidence to make me part with it (nor, admittedly, to credit it), so perhaps that is just as much the problem. The fundamental reason I left organized religion was because it didn't make sense to me. Obviously I had no proof, but it just didn't add up in my own head due to some reasoning or intuition operating beneath my threshold of awareness. It just didn't 'sit' with me, it didn't 'make sense', so I became an atheist. Materialism, I felt, made sense. It still largely does... but then I started seeing some of it's limitations, at least insofar as describing human experience.
So in this case it isn't about evidence-based support but rather how well it fits into our existing intuitive schema. As I said earlier, much of the time metaphysical belief is established on internal congruence, since there's simply nothing else to establish it on. In this sense it is different from empirical knowledge, yet still valuable for how we account for a problem.
I did emphasize that we should be studying widespread brain interractions, I only implicated that if any subject of study
could point in the direction of a 'spirit' existing it is probably developing a complete understanding of the source of consciousness, which seems likely to be the brain as a dynamic neuronal system acting in a holistic or integrative fashion.
NDE's are a pretty prototypical example of dynamic/non-linear brain activity occuring widespread throughout the brain, so they would be inherently interersting purely on the grounds of neurocognitive phenomenon that may shed light onto the source of consciousness.
And I do see the mind-body system as the seat of consciousness... As for what you interpreted as mind-body dualism I really think of as much more subtle of a distinction. Just because consciousness is phenomenologically dependant upon properly functioning physiology
doesn't preculde awareness from being materially transcendent in some abstract sense. Biology may bring about the actualization of a sort of blue-print/archetypal/self-transcendent awareness existing in a kind of theoretical quasi-real state along the lines of 'a priori' knowledge or platonic forms.
But there's no proof of this one way or the other, so I don't see why anyone should be bothered by me holding these beliefs. Even if I was a research scientist attempting to penetrate the source of consciousness using neuroimaging or whatever. This is what I meant by saying I resent the implication that it makes me a quack. I'm able to recognize the total lack of evidence and keep it apart from my own evidence based investigations. They're apples and oranges, the issues they address are completely different. Taking a tentative position based on instinctual heart-feelings, on a numinous issue doesn't make all of my reasoning based on subjects that I recognize as observable and concrete as being inherently suspect.
As for offering an alternate explanation... perhaps. But the demands placed on that explanation are different since it's established on subjective experience. It doesn't need to account for hard specifities beyond a more general, theoretical sense, which is all it
can do without empirical knowledge.
I believe brain activity will perfectly account for consciousness. I don't think it will escape our observation. I'm just willing to take intuitive stances on entirely open-book issues. I don't see why anyone should care, or see that as automatically reflecting negatively on my positions taken on more 'closed-book' issues.
