Thank you for your balanced response. Although I maintain a very different opinion on a number of matters (where I see the glass half full and you apparently see the glass half empty), I do enjoy reading your posts.

A mere 200 years ago, mankind had no real understanding of electricity. Without the scientific tools we have today, man could not measure it and properly discern its characteristics.

A mere 100 years ago, doctors were still prescribing “blood letting” as a method to get the bad humors out of the body, even as over 100 years of research culminating with Louis Pasteur’s work, made it clear that such a practice was not as effective as simply having the doctor wash his hands.

Today, we lack the scientific background and methods to address numerous observed phenonomena that permeates the fringes of science today.

As a proclaimed skeptic, you play a very important role in science, with your intent (as I perceive it) being to debunk those who introduce scientific theory without conclusive scientific evidence.

I see things from a different perspective. If a questionable resultant is repeatedly produced, there must be some basis for this resultant.

When we lack proper tools, we may come to completely incorrect conclusions as to why a resultant occurs. Thunder and lightening comes from the Gods, for example. We may defend this position because we see no reason to change our minds. A primitive person can still argue today that thunder and lightning comes from the Gods because he does not see any scientific proof that this is not what is really happening.

During the mid 20th century, science became a God to many people. Everything could be explained by science. There was nothing that we did not know (or at least did not have some scientific explanation for).

A skeptic in the early 1800′s would find themselves defending blood letting based upon the belief that medical doctors knew it was an effective technique, or defending thunder and ligthning coming from the Gods based upon confidence in theological beliefs.

Emergent technologies today undergo the same riducle. The “Big Bang” theory is considered sacro-sanct by numerous astronomers while others such as Arp are ridiculed for their alternative theories which are being repeatedly proven by scientific evidence that is pain-staking gleaned from radio telemetry.

We now see alternatively powered vehicles on the roadways which have been the subject of riducle by this very blog. As clearly shown within this blog, many people had the science wrong (myself among them), but the overall principal and direction was correct.

NDE experiences happen. I had a NDE myself (nothing so elaborate as floating above my body, just a voice in my head that helped me react in a manner that saved my life).

NDE experimentation offers us opportunities to evaluate both the neurological changes in the mind during an NDE and the opportunity to document unexplainable resultants. Through such processes, we may be able to establish trends in these unexplainable resultants which may eventually led us to new discoveries.

Life gives us opportunities to be eagles and ostriches. An ostrich sticks his head in the sand when something doesn’t fit into his established models. An eagle finds was to soar above it.

Bright Blessings,
Larry

Accusing me of being emotional is an ad hominem logical fallacy – and also happens to be wrong. I find it odd that you can read this entry and find it to be highly emotional. Perhaps you are just projecting.

You make many false assumptions in your comment – all designed as an attempt to undercut my position, but they are demonstrably false. First, it is my stated position that scientific inquiry is never “completed.” It is always a work in progress. I am open to another interpretation of NDEs if the evidence warrants – at the present time, it just doesn’t.

Second, frequent readers of this blog are aware that I use such claims as teaching tools to explore logic, epistemology, and scientific methodology. Even if I consider the topic itself to not have much scientific merit, it can make an excellent topic of skeptical discussion.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the placebo effect and therefore its implications. I discuss it thoroughly here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=24

Your premise that I am hostile to anything which contradicts my current scientific conclusions is also without evidence and contrary to my stated position. It is also absurd on its face – you are saying that those with a strongly held religious belief are more objective in their reasoning than someone who is just trying to consistently apply logic and science to a question.

Also – I make no claims about death, my stated position is agnostic toward any unfalsifiable position outside the realm of science. The NDE researchers are claiming to do science, and some NDE proponents interpret such experiences as evidence for consciousness being separate from the physical body. Those are scientific claims and I am just examining them as such.

Since you have already completed your study of the paranormal, I am somewhat surprised to keep seeing it as a recurring theme on your blog. Why is this?

Given the emotion which seems to accompany your writing on this subject, I can not help but wonder if within you there is doubt. Oftentimes, we see people speak most vehemently against those issues for which they harbor doubt. As a neurologist, perhaps you could explain this in more detail.

My fundamental point of doubt is the placebo effect. By “believing in” or at least having “some confidence in” a sugar pill, people have undergone numerous physiological changes consistent with the effect of drugs and medications. At the extreme end of the placebo effect (with a few twists added), you have “faith healers” that have been certified to be no more effective than the placebo effect.

People can clearly be helped using faith. If people believe in NDE, it is only because they do not believe in the finality of death. The majority of the world does not believe in the finality of death, therefore the majority of the world is interested in unbaiased NDE research.

Since you profess that death will bring a finality to your conciousness, anything that might raise doubt in you must clearly be destroyed or your doubts may overcome your reasoning.

Good luck with your position, but I would argue that a skeptic is by definition someone who harbors doubts. If you have no doubts, then how can you be a skeptic?

Blessed Be,
Larry

There are reports that acute application of NO does cause an acute increase in retinal sensitivity to light. If you turn up the gain enough, you can get a response even if there is no signal. The retina can make signals that the brain tries to make sense out of.

It turns out that hypoxia causes brisk production of NO from nitrite. There are many enzymes that reduce nitrite to NO that are inhibited by O2. When that O2 is removed, NO levels go up. Exactly what the NO is doing is not fully understood either, but it has been shown to be quite protective against damage from reperfusion injury. There is some thought that the NO binds to heme and other O2 utilizing enzymes and blocks them from generating superoxide when O2 levels come back up following reperfusion (which is actually when most of the damage from hypoxia actually occurs).

The reports of euphoria during NDEs is consistent with euphoria under extreme metabolic stress as being an adaptive aspect of physiology, something that would allow an organism to escape from a predator. If all resources are diverted to “running from a bear”, that is analogous to the brain metabolic state caused by insufficient blood flow, or insufficient oxygen. The state has to be euphoric, because that euphoria is the only thing that keeps the organism running from the predator. If the organism felt fatigue and stopped, the organism would be caught and eaten. The euphoria needs to be sufficient to allow the organism to run itself to death. Running itself to death and being caught by the predator are exactly equivalent from an evolutionary sense. I think this is the same euphoria that occurs during the manic state, and also the euphoria induced by stimulant drugs of abuse, amphetamine and PCP and also by autoerotic hypoxia. I think this is also the source of the “runner’s high”.

I suspect that each instance of euphoria produced via severe metabolic stress does cause some damage, or at the very least greatly accelerated aging (due to reduce repair of normal wear-and-tear). I think this is why many of the neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s have as a risk factor prior metabolic or traumatic insults to the brain.