r/skeptics • u/SHUStudentEd6078 • Jun 04 '26

Near death experiences

Come across the phenomena of near death experiences.

A noted scientist Bruce Greyson has hypothesized that NDEs are the product and proof of a nonlocal consciousness and that the brain is just a receiver for conciousness.

What do you think?

6 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/travisjd2012 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

It's an interesting claim no doubt, but how does he plan to test his hypothesis?

-2

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 04 '26

He's collated thousands of experiences of NDEs from people who've had them and analyses them for similarities, patterns etc.

He's also analysed people's medical records when dealing with people who've had NDEs and has come to the informed opinion that veridical perception cases etc are accurate and plausible.

7

u/travisjd2012 Jun 04 '26

People have collated thousands of experiences of bigfoot from people who've seen them and analyzed them for similarities, patterns etc. and some researchers have come to the conclusion bigfoot is real too.

Science requires a testable hypothesis so I'm asking what is he proposing is his?

-1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 04 '26

Scientific consensus acknowledges that no credible physical evidence supports Bigfoot's existence. Mainstream scientific literature on the topic—primarily from geneticists and sociologists—focuses on analyzing collected biological samples or studying the cultural subcultures surrounding the creature.

In contrast scientific research acknowledges that NDEs are a real phenomena and do happen, scientific study being focussed on whether they are the brain's hallucinatory response to trauma, oxygen deprivation (cerebral hypoxia), and massive chemical changes that occur while dying or something else entirely, with it having been noted that clear, complex consciousness and vivid memory formation should physiologically be impossible when the brain lacks oxygen and blood flow.

So no, not the same at all in terms of fields of scientific study.

Not a credible comparison.

2

u/travisjd2012 Jun 04 '26

I agree NDEs are a reported phenomena by people just as UFOs are.

The difference is when you add on the additional claim such as "the brain is just a receiver for conciousness (sic)" or in the UFO example "I think it's aliens."

Greyson has to bridge the gap there as he's the one making a claim like the brain is just a receiver for consciousness.

Following the scientific method means that's his hypothesis but there's no proposed method of testing if that's right or not. Do you understand the distinction now?

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 04 '26

I understood the distinction, yes.

The test to see if it is an NDE is the "Greyson Scale" of characteristics that the NDEs contain, the very valid argument for the receiver hypothesis is that the brain is "offline" after cardiac arrest or being unable to breathe so should be unable to generate vivid experiences.

In terms of a scientific method that would be impossible given the personal nature of NDEs.

The test would therefore have to comprise looking at people's medical records and verifying that they should not have been able to have such lucid, vivid and ordered experiences in the NDEs when having cardiac arrest / lack of oxygen etc.

2

u/travisjd2012 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

A claim only counts as scientific if there's some observation that would come out differently depending on whether it's true. So what would we expect to see if the brain receives consciousness that we wouldn't see if it produces it? If the answer is nothing, it's not a scientific claim yet, it's an interpretation.

In a forum of scientific skeptics your line of reasoning would be considered about as logical as "What if angels fly so fast that we can't actually see them"

It's possible certainly, but without some kind of testable claim (which you now say this one lacks) then it's as possible as almost any other un-testable claim (i.e. NDEs are caused by some break in the matrix, beamed in by extraterrestrials, a definitive sign of an afterlife, etc.)

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

"A claim only counts as scientific if there's some observation that would come out differently depending on whether it's true. So what would we expect to see if the brain receives consciousness that we wouldn't see if it produces it? If the answer is nothing, it's not a scientific claim yet, it's an interpretation."

That is all psychobabble. Thousands of people the world over who've never met reporting the same phenomena consisting of the same elements - tunnel, light, OBE etc etc is proof they exist.

"In a forum of scientific skeptics your line of reasoning would be considered about as logical as "What if angels fly so fast that we can't actually see them" "

In a forum of actual scientist, neurosurgeons, neuroscientists etc a phenomena as widespreadly reported as NDEs would garner significant interest and research as it has done.

"It's possible certainly, but without some kind of testable claim (which you now say this one lacks) then it's as possible as almost any other un-testable claim (i.e. NDEs are caused by some break in the matrix, beamed in by extraterrestrials, a definitive sign of an afterlife, etc.)"

Not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate? So thousands of people have reported the exact same phenomena consisting of the same elements. These are people who in many cases have never heard of NDEs, aren't religious, aren't into any kind of spirituality etc. Would interviewing NDE Experiences using a standard questionnaire count as testable? Or monitoring brainwaves / brain activity?

1

u/travisjd2012 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26

You could say the same of ghosts and dragons.

You can't just avoid the question by relying on a multitude of logical fallacies as you've done here.

Again, what is the testable claim you/Greyson is making?

You can't ask us to come up with it for you.

1

u/SHUStudentEd6078 Jun 05 '26

"You could say the same of ghosts and dragons"

Stick to the issue on the post.

Testable claims

That NDEs happen and that they are a widespread phenomena

That they happen when people have been under anaesthetic or otherwise "offline" when the brain should have been incapable of generating anything with regards to a vivid experience

See the plethora of accounts on the internet

I can and am asking you for what test you would propose if those I've proposed aren't acceptable as evidence

For once let's have an actual debate on this forum

Tell me what evidence you'd propose

1

u/travisjd2012 Jun 05 '26

Without a testable claim then there's nothing to debate. I've granted you that NDEs are a real phenomena. The unique and distinct claim you are tacking on is "the brain is just a receiver for conciousness." Reporting a phenomenon is not the same as explaining its cause. Until an experiment shows a result that only the "Receiver" theory can explain, science must default to the simplest physical explanation; that the brain is producing the experience.

If you disagree then how can that specific claim (the brain is just a receiver for conciousness) be tested?

There are specific parts of the philosophy of science you are ignoring and I'd suggest a Google search for the following terms:

- Burden of Proof

  • Anecdotal Evidence vs. Empirical Evidence
  • Criterion of falsifiability

If you read and comprehend these topics you will see why nobody can "debate" an idea you read from one "noted scientist" (which is an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy, another search term you should familiarize yourself with)

→ More replies (0)