Customer Reviews

Dying to Live: Near-Death Experiences

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I came to this book admittedly a skeptic but with an open mind and determined to discover the truth about the near death experience. I have read a number of books on the subject including: Kenneth Ring's 'Lesson from the Light', Chris Carter's 'Science and the Near Death Experience', 'Recollections of Death' by Michael Sabom, as well as work by Sam Parnia and Dr Fenwick, so I am familiar with the arguments in support of the NDE being a supernatural phenomena or as some may prefer to put it, a spiritual experience and evidence of an afterlife.

I have concluded that Susan Blackmore's 'Dying to Live' completely demolishes the idea that the NDE is a spititual experience or evidence for an afterlife. Each aspect of the NDE is explained by Blackmore, for example:

Feelings of peace and bliss caused by endorphins.

Tunnel and Light caused by anoxia.

Life review caused by temporal lobe seizures, triggered by endorphins.

Experience of 'out of body' due to break down of body image and model of reality.

Accurate perception of immediate environment during the NDE due to prior Knowledge, fantasy and lucky guesses and the remainder operating senses of hearing and touch.

These explanations for the various aspects of the NDE experience are supported by the vast majority of those in the medical field and the scientific community. Blackmore offers a perfectly rational explanation for what to some, may seem like a supernatural event. For those who have not read Blackmore's book I strongly suggest that you do in oreder to explore each of the above in detail. It is fascinating stuff!

However the real insight I gained from this book was Blackmore's arument that there is no such thing as the 'Self' there is only a mental model produced by the brain which creates the illusion of a 'Self' if this is so, and it does seem to be supported by psychologists, biologists and scientists, then there is no 'Self' to go anywhere!

The Dying Brain Hypothesis simply suggests that as the brain begins to die the self image created by the brain breaks down so the brain simply tries to recreate a new sense of 'Self' and a new model of reality from memory and imagination but this new model, the NDE, is also an illusion, just another mental model created by the brain, it is not real just in the sense that the world you see everyday is not real;it is an illusion, a mental model created by the brain that enables us as biological beings to adapt to and survive in our environments.

Mystics have tried to transcend reality or the illusion of reality to gain some insight into some ultimate reality which is somehow real in the sense that the reality we all live in is not. But as Blackmore points out this to is simply a creation of the brain, another mental model.There is no real 'Self' and reality is just an illusion and so is everything else, including the NDE!

I think that it is important to follow the data wherever it leads us and sometimes that is not easy when it conflicts with our own values and beliefs. The belief in an afterlife offers much comfort and hope for many people but I'm afrain the NDE offers no evidence for this.

The fact that this book has been published at all is bewildering. The author has created a theory that purports to explain the NDE phenomenon through debunking; the difficulty is that she does not provide any evidence at all! The entire book consists of her observations and comments, and this simpy does not suffice. She dismisses the evidence that DOES exist without addressing it.

For example: the most challenging and interesting book on the subject is Michael Sabom's "Recollections at Death". He presents numerous well-documented cases that suggest that the NDE is real - and he also provides a thoughtful, articulate and fair-minded discussion of the possible answers.

Blackmore does not actually deal with any of the evidence, with one exception: she refers to the ONE detailed case where he does not provide the original records. He includes it because of its uniqueness - in ALL other cases, he includes the original medical records. She makes a joke about it and disregards it; she never makes the point that his book is filled with evidence based on origical records and personnel. Any reader who is not familiar with Sabom might think that this one case is typical of the entire book!

Reading this book has made me much more aware and sceptical of authors who claim to be experts. If I was not familiar with the work done on this subject, I would not know how misleading and simply inaccurate Blackmore's book is. Why didn't the publishers check for accuracy? Why was a book about a theory published without evidence?

In addition, Blackmore claims to have had a NDE herself. This is not true. She describes a hallucination following the use of drugs - then goes on to describe the related experience and associates it with the NDEs of people on the verge of death! A disgraceful book.

Although "believers" in the spiritual interpretation of the NDE will not be convinced by Blackmore's dying-brain theory, this is by far the best book on the subject I've seen. Blackmore is not out to "debunk" the believers, but to show that her theory better explains the data in almost every respect. Her standard for what constitutes a good scientific theory is particularly valid in showing how alternate explanations (even non-spiritual) are not useful, if not outright mistaken.

It's interesting to note that even in his latest book Kenneth Ring still says the "unbelievers'" explanations claim that the NDE is pointless, or not meaningful, or that it belittles experiencers. Anyone who reads Blackmore's intelligent, compassionate book, which is even tinged by eastern philosophy (though from a neurological standpoint), know that Ring is fooling himself.

I call Blackmore's theory a "prototheory" because it is not comprehensive. But she admits outright that the evidence for this or that point would not yet excuse speculation; she doesn't cop out on issues, she simply says that neither she nor the believers can say one way or the other yet without further research. All in all, _Dying to Live_ is more of a foundation for future research and theorizing on the meaning of the NDE, but as such it is invaluable.

IN SCIENCE and inductive and deductive logic, when speculating on the cause of a phenomena you MUST use a Bayesian Inference and deduce what is most likely given prior observations - that is, that NDEs are a cause by the brain. This is the application of Ockham's Razor. However, THIS IS ONLY SUITABLE until new data comes along that debunks this initial position, in which case you have to move to an alternate theory that better suits this data. Blackmore has fulfilled the former position perfectly, yet ignored the latter requirement of adjusting a position based on new facts. Her conclusion is subsequently illogical.

What Blackmore has done is argued the original position whilst debasing all data that suggests that this position is incorrect. She is correct in saying that given a specific phenomenon when viewed in isolation can be caused by the brain and thus we should expect this to be the case. Yet, in doing so she has ignored all veridical cases - that is, verified by independant observers (in the OBE segment of NDEs). Thus, her position is incorrect - this is an ineffible epistemic fact - her position no longer applies when there are a sufficient number of veridical cases from trustworthy sources.

Consider for instance Dr. Sartori's case wherein the patient measured a 3 on the Glasgow Coma Scale - the worst possible score - indicating either coma or clinical death, except this same person could recite a blonde head nurse peering nervously from behind curtains, a pink swab being placed in his mouth, could identify which doctor shined a torch into his eyes, and could accurately recite the resuscitation procedure contrasted to the inability of non-NDErs to do so. The patient recited all these perceptions the moment he was revived to a room full of physicians including Dr. Sartori. (Sartori's book, and personal communications). Of course, Dr. Sartori could be lying, or perhaps the patient won the hallucination-lottery and heard the nurse peering through the curtains and guessed she was blonde, felt the swab despite being a 3 on the Glasgow Scale and guessing it was pink, and guessing all the characteristics of the doctor he identified. All this while the patient was unresponsive to "deep pain stimuli".

Or consider Moody's case where an elderly woman claimed to observe a nurse unsafely open a glass vial in a separate room (normal protocal required her to open it in a specific way, except she did not do so and in doing so posed a significant risk of self-harm in order to get the medicine to the patient swiftly.). This, of course, could be a hallucination on her part after-the-fact (where she heard doctors talking of the incident then she created a false memory). Or, all parties or a required number of parties could be lying.

Consider the report by Morris (2003) in the IJNDS, she claims a nurse located a hidden coin on top of an unobservable shelf after being alerted by an NDE OBEr. Of course, the nurse in question could've been lying.

Consider the nurses' claim in a large Dutch study (in IJNDS) where the patient claimed to observe the doctor removing the dentures, placing it in a drawer on a cart with lots of ampules before being put on a machine to revive him. The patient was unresponsive. Of course, they could be lying, or we could be receiving a distortion of the facts.

Consider the case reported by Dr. Greyson where a patient was under anasthaesia yet reported the surgeon holding his hands by his chest and his elbows sticking out. Of course, he could've opened his eyes and perceived the doctor doing this and had no memory of doing so mid-operation, or this patient could've heard the doctors talking about it then formed false memories after the fact, or both the surgeon and the patient could be lying to Dr. Greyson.

Consider Pam Reynold's case in which she claimed to observe everything with ridiculous accuracy. Of course, she could've heard the bone-drill during anasthesian awareness then contsructed it in her hallucinations(which were co-incidentally "more vivid" and lucid than real life), she could've hallucinated the attachments kit that the bone-drill came with because of visits to the dentist that had a similar apparatus, she could've lied about seeing her head being half-shaven instead of full shaven or could've incorporated that into false memories after-the-fact.

Consider Maria's Shoe case, where a patient claimed to see a show on a ledge on a window on the 3rd story that matched her stated observations - worn out, hole in toe, lace tucked under. This detail could've only been garnered by nearby inspection of the shoe. Of course, she could've heard a doctor talking about it and constructed a false memory after the fact, or the nurse and patient reporting the case could be lying, or a mixture of both.

Consider the 5-year UK pilot study, where, out of 42 patients, those who clinically died and were resuscitated yet did not have an NDE could nowhere near describe their resuscitation procedures(Paraphrasing, Sartori). Those that clinically died and were resuscitated yet did also have an NDE OBE could describe the procedure with near 100% accuracy. (Sartori, year unknown, IJNDS).

There are over 30 more similar cases I haven't outlined that exist in the literature, and it's probable there's much more that haven't been reported.

Consider all the cases of where a person died, saw a relative, yet they did not know that person was dead at the time of the NDE. (Barrett, 1926, pp. 10-26; Callanan & Kelley, 1992, pp. 86-87, 93-94; Crookall, 1960/1966, pp. 21-22; Gurney &
Myers, 1889, pp. 459-460; Hyslop, 1908, pp. 88-89; Myers, 1903, ii, pp. 339-
342; Osis & Haraldsson, 1977/1986, p. 166; Ring, 1980, p. 208; Sidgwick,
1885, pp. 92-93).

So, do you now see why Blackmore's application of Ockham's razor is delinquent. This book deserves 5 stars for intellectual rigorousity, yet deserves 1 star for accurately represeting the DATA on NDEs. That is, her position is correct if veridicality wasn't there, but it is, and thus her position is incorrect. When confronted with data that doesn't support the dying brain hypothesis, you must again use a Bayesian inference and come to a new hypothesis, which isn't what Blackmore did.

Her conclusion is the inverse of what is probably true.

This is an excellent, well written, thought-provoking book. Susan Blackmore started her research career hunting for evidence of the supernatural. When most people would have given up, she persisted, tracking down other people's experiences and doing her own experiments. One track of that journey took her into "Near Death Experiences", which is partly what this book is about. While we can never really know what happens during death, no one has tried harder or with greater honesty to find out. Her account of that journey and where it took her makes fascinating reading, and while her conclusions may take some digestion, at least they are reassuringly rational.

Much as I love the Brits, there seems to be a genetic deep seated need in some of them to contort the facts to fit their peculiar passion for iconoclastic absurdidy. Even after seeing the pictures of a round earth taken from the surface of the moon, the Flat Earth Society HQ in England issued a communique stating that they would have to " re-examine their position" with regard to the possibility that they might be wrong. The earth might in fact be round after all. Perhaps the author will be blessed with an NDE, because that is probably what it will take to get her to abandon her desperate position. As a person who has had the experience of both an NDE and Oxygen loss resulting in unconsciousness, I can attest that the two experiences are totally dissimilar. Further, I have met many other NDE and OOB experienced people, and the change in perception and lifestyle is universal. Something much more profound is at work here than random electrical discharge in the brain. My one greatest wish for human kind is that we might all have this OOB experience. It is the equivalent of standing on the moon and looking at "the good earth".

ITS all wishful thinking says Susan Blackmore, a woman who has waged her career on this claim.

Where is the evidence? Well, you see there is none. Blackmore wages her evidence on pink unicorns she says she is trying to abolish. In a true hand waving fashion, Blackmore dismisses ALL evidence for OBEs that could produce facts that were verifiable. This is coming from the same woman who is studying 'memetics' a non-falsifiable pseudo-science, and claiming it is scientific.

Sure, if you're the ultimate non-believer, you will find hand waving here. But the truth is, you DON'T NEED Blackmore to do handwaving for you, because in truth, if you ARE a sceptic, you are quite probably a smarter sceptic than her, and can come up with better arguments.

Poor.

I was very disappointed in the book. Her biases were very blatant; even though she tried to say that she was writing a "scientific" look at the NDE's, it was obvious that she considered any evidence toward the people who had NDEs as insignificant. I would have appreciated an unbiased look that took both sides equally seriously, to me that is what science is supposed to do. In her view, the "dying brain" theory explained every situation. (Sounds like the type of things that skeptics say about "true believers", eh?)

One part of the book confused me. She said that all we are are groups of neurons, that there is no "self" inside, and we can't really get out of our bodies. But she stated that she had an "out of body" experience, where she flew a great distance, and did not want to come back, but finally had to. How did she get out of her body, if she does not have a "personallity"? She never even tries to explore this, just states it. That is the main problem I have with the book, that she never really seriously considers any other possibilities or points of view, which does not really constitute science in my book.

This book fails on several levels. Mainly, however, because it is not objective. It starts from a particular premise and then endeavours to prove the validity of that premise despite the facts that the author encounters during her journey of 'honest' investigation.

The book must have been written before the now celebrated and quite astonishing case of Pam Reynolds who in Phoenix Arizona underwent 'shut-down' surgery. In this pioneering operative technique all the blood is drained from the patient's brain and it was during one of these shut-down procedures that Pam experienced a NDE. During the operation, Pam could not only recall in some detail what was said and but also describe the equipment that was being used by Dr Speztler, the surgeon in charge, and his team although she was clinically (and verifiably so) brain-dead at the time.

Dr Blackmore apparently is a Zen Practitioner and so it seems incredibly bizarre that she should imagine that 'all' we are and experience can be simply explained away by the somewhat limited model of reality as understood by science today. Surely one should, at the very least, have the modesty to entertain the remote possibility that the mysteries of life, mind and matter may not yet fully be understood by humanity?

Susan Blackmore beautifully demonstrates how the scientific method can be applied to the mystically charged subject of Near Death Experience (NDE). Her analysis of existing data and review of current theories is meticulously thorough, but engaging and insightful. Most researchers in this field, when faced with its more difficult mysteries, simply chalk it all up as ghostly round trips to heaven, or ask us to swallow whole universes of improbabilities in parallel planes of existence. Instead, Ms. Blackmore seeks the answers using a wide range of related studies and established theories in human physiology and psychology. This is how scientific research ought to be done -- by the book -- with exhaustive examination of the information, consistent application of scientific principles, and without slanting the conclusions toward one's own cosmic agenda. The rewards for such due diligence are verifiable theories explaining many aspects of the NDE. These are thoughtfully presented, carefully supported, and far more plausible than most competing theories. Blackmore's enlightening examinations of the human mind reveal its remarkable mechanisms for supporting our survival, our sanity, and our self-delusion. It's science without seance; research without a religion; facts without fabrications. A masterpiece in the art of clear, critical, and rational thought.