M.J. Mandoki's Blog, page 3

Alternative to Vaccination?

Alternative Solution?

Some government officials have the desire to make Covid-19 vaccination mandatory.  According to them, vaccination is the solution to the pandemic.  Yet, there are outliers even amongst the politicians who disagree.  It seems that some people want to see a different solution.  Why?  What could be their reasoning?

A potential rejection for the vaccination is the following argument.  People always try to find the fastest and cheapest solution to everything nowadays.  For example, in the past few decades women had to go to work to supplement the family income.  This meant that nobody had the time to cook at home anymore.  Of course, the food industry came up with a solution.  They created fast and cheap food, sold in fast-food restaurants and in grocery stores.  Naturally, or rather unnaturally, this solution meant adding food preservatives, colouring and other human made chemicals to the food.  Another example is modernization in general.  With the birth of the industrial revolution, human beings had faster and cheaper living conditions.  Humanity made advances  in anything from transportation to hot showers.  However, all these fast and cheap conveniences came at a cost.  Fast and cheap food made people overweight and sick.  Modernization in general caused an impending environmental catastrophe.  These and other examples made people rethink the value of fast and cheap solutions.

Then, the Covid-19 virus has arrived.  Instantly, all governments wanted a fast and possibly cheap solution to the crisis.  It was understandable that they wanted to move fast; people were dying after all.  So, they came up with the vaccine.  The idea was that if they vaccinate everybody, the crisis can be over fast and it will not cost a lot.  However, some people rejected this solution.  Many simply had enough of the idea of fast and cheap, based on previous experiences.  They would rather find an alternative solution that is not necessarily fast and cheap with its possibility to come back to bite them later on; but, something that is still effective.

What are these potential alternative solutions?  First, to focus specifically on Canada, this country has one of the lowest hospital bed availability amongst the developed countries.  For every 1000 Canadians, there are 1.95 hospital beds available.  In the countries belonging to the European Union, for every citizen, there are 5.4 hospital beds available.  Basically, these countries have more than two and a half more hospital beds for every 1000 people.  So, if Canadians had more hospital beds with more doctors and nurses working in the hospitals, the crisis would not be as great as it is now.

Another potential solution that can help people all over the world is treatment.  From the beginning, scientists and doctors knew that the Covid-19 virus is 96% survivable.  This means that only 4% of the people are in a dire situation.  If scientists put more effort into finding a proper treatment, the rest of the 96% of the population could just go on living as before.  Instead, they tried the fast and cheap solution of trying to vaccinate everybody, which is impossible.  The problem isn’t just the people who have had enough of the fast and cheap solutions society has been obsessed with for hundreds of years.  The problem is also logistical.  To be effective, healthcare workers would have to vaccinate all seven billion people at once.  A piecemeal solution does not work because, by the time they finish vaccinating one part of the world, on the other part of the world, a new variant appears.  However, the logistics of vaccinating everbody all at once cannot be worked out simply because the richest countries are hoarding the vaccines and the companies that are manufacturing the vaccines are too greedy to share their recipes.   So, fast and cheap just does not work.  The holdouts want a treatment for those who need it and they want the rest of the people to be left alone.  They had it with the continuous harassment from the government to line up for yet another dose of vaccine.   

People want better.  At least, the few holdouts who had enough of fast and cheap solutions do. They want a more viable solution in the form of enough hospital beds and well-designed treatments.  It is much easier to focus on those who are really sick in the hospitals, then, to endlessly harassing everybody.  Treatment is also less likely to cause any dreaded and currently unknown long-term health effects the many may suffer from vaccination.  Treatment is limited to those who are ill while the vaccine can affect the population at large.  It is just logical to push governments in general to come up with some kind of a sensible and viable solution, instead of harassing the holdouts to the process who had enough of fast and cheap solutions that usually come back to bite people later on, just as they did in the case of fast and cheap food and fast and cheap modernization in general.

 M. J. Mandoki

Why Am I Writing about Revenge?

Why should one write about revenge?

Ever since I went back to writing my novel on revenge, people around me keep asking me why I am writing on this topic.  After all, revenge is the morally wrong thing to do, right?

I agree that revenge is morally wrong.  I support this observation wholeheartedly.  I am spiritually committed to the idea that it is wrong to do any harm to anyone. 

Despite my spiritual commitment, I still think that the topic needs to be covered.  My inspiration to deal with revenge has to do with the fact that nobody has a good spiritual or philosophical explanation on how to stop oneself from taking revenge when the person is feeling beyond angry.  For example, Christians often emphasize the value of forgiveness.  However, there is never any hint, idea or procedure about how a person in rage is going to get there.  How does one get from rage to forgiveness?  How does one forgive the person who has inflicted the pain?

This is where my novel comes in.  The story is stereotypical in essence, which married couples are very familiar with.  The wife suspects that her husband is cheating.  One night, she takes the courage to check out her theory.  She is right.  She gains first person evidence that her husband is having an affair with another woman.  She is so angry that there are no words to express her emotion.  After all, he promised he would never do that!  So, now what?

I threw in an extra twist to the story.  Georgia, the wife, is an exceptionally intelligent, well-educated, patient, clever and cunning woman, somewhat reminiscent to the Greek Goddess, Métis.  Naturally, this is a deadly combination of personality traits.  It means that she is not the kind of woman who would just try to physically attack her husband or just shoot him in the back in cold blood.  She is the type of woman who can cook up a really twisted revenge plot, which is ironically mostly directed at the mistress.  In this scenario, the problem of taking revenge is exponentially greater than in the case where an angry wife just starts hitting her husband with a frying pan.  Georgia can inflict serious pain on both her husband and his mistress.

Of course, I chose this scenario because the case of revenge in this instance becomes very complex.  A woman who is asked to forgive her husband’s indiscretions is also a feminist issue.  Over the past few decades,  television audiences have seen politician after politician standing in front of a microphone asking for forgiveness for his infidelity, with his wife holding his hand.  Many feminists feel betrayed by this move.  The message is that a woman should endure any humiliation because her dignity does not matter.  She should just endure any pain her husband measures out and just publically take it because life is all about the husband’s carrier.  Given this feminist issue, is forgiveness still a straightforward matter?  Should a woman like Georgia just forgive?  Or, is her revenge a justified feminist move?  And, even if she forgives, should her husband just get a pass?  In short, how would a feminist read Georgia’s plan for revenge?

Once the plan for revenge is underway, a very unique and delicate operation unfolds in my novel.  It gets sometimes morbid and sometimes hilarious.  I am certain that my audience will get very excited about the plot.  However, here is another complex  set of questions: When the reader gets excited about Georgia’s revenge plot, what does this excitement say about the reader?  Is secretly rooting for Georgia a sinful act on the part of the reader?  So, are people really hard-wired to take revenge and is forgiveness just a politically correct action society brainwashed people into believing in?  If everyone is really honest, what is the big picture here?

After taking a break from this project to finish my PhD, I am now back at it.  I am willing to answer all of the above posed questions by working through the plot.  I will tackle the issue of revenge head on.  Even if I do not believe in taking revenge, it is necessary to deal with this issue.  Once the novel is done, I will look for a traditional publisher this time.  Wish me luck!

M. J. Mandoki

Book Review: After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal About Life and Beyond, a book written by Bruce Greyson, M.D.

After, published by St. Martin’s Publishing Group in 2021, is not an ordinary book.  It is partially a semi-biographical account of Bruce Greyson’s long career in near-death research, and partially an account of his observations and his conclusions about near-death experiences.  Basically, this book is an insight into the thought-process and work of a scientists who spent over forty years studying near-death experiences.

As the loose title suggests, the word “after” has multiple meanings.  First, it refers to a potential afterlife scenario.  Greyson does not shy away from the fact that most of those people who had the experience are convinced that there is an afterlife.  Second, the title also refers to the life people had after the experience.  The after-effects of these experiences are remarkable and the author dedicates the last few chapters to their significance.  Finally, the title also suggests that Greyson’s future still holds possibilities for future discoveries after this book.  Hence, After is a well-chosen title that indicates the possibilities, significance and potential future discoveries about near-death experiences.

Greyson approaches the subject both as a human being who is filled with amazement about near-death experiences and as a scientist who is trained to be both open-minded and sceptical.  He opens his book with a stunning example of a personal experience that he could not get over to this day (1-8).  As a young psychiatrist working in a hospital, he receives a pager call to attend to a young woman who tried to die by suicide.  His pager startles him while he is eating his meal and he spills his tomato sauce on his tie.  He puts on his doctor’s coat and buttons it up to hide the stain and goes to see his patient.  The patient is asleep but her friend is available to talk to him.  The next morning, when the patient is awake, she give an account of the conversation Greyson had with her girlfriend and mentions that he had a tie on with a stain on it.  Greyson is stunned.  He cannot find an acceptable rational explanation to the woman’s knowledge about the content of the conversation and the stained tied he was wearing that night.  As a human being, he could not let the experience go and as a scientist he wanted to have an explanation for it.

Greyson admits that it is difficult to accept the claim people who had a near-death experience make.  As a psychiatrist he was taught to consider these experiences as a result of wishful thinking and the result of the confusion between fantasy and reality (22).  So, he could not just take these people’s word for their claim that there is a life beyond death.  However, his father also taught him to consider the fact that science is always a work in progress and, therefore, studies are needed to be done to pronounce a verdict on a phenomenon (20).  For this reason, Greyson decided early on that careful study of the evidence was needed to pronounce a verdict on the nature of death and reality.  In short, he was ready to embark on over a forty year long journey to follow the evidence and see what he could conclude about the nature of reality based on this evidence.

Greyson’s semi-biographical chapters include the examinations of many near-death features: the irregular time, life review, out-of-body experience, otherworldly travel.  As it was mentioned before, some chapters are also dedicated to the after-effects of these experiences.  While Greyson pushes on, he examines each topic with the most likely explanation for the evidence.  He admits to his audience at each stage that science has made a tremendous progress in the understanding the brain, but he also recognizes that none of the existing material-based explanations seem to be sufficient to properly resolve the mystery of near-death experiences based on the available scientific evidence.

Greyson’s book is challenging since he does not try to convince the reader to take a particular position.  He allows the reader to grapple with the topic without any help or lead from him.  He takes a position on the topic only at the very end where he admits that he thinks that the mind and the brain are different and that this is the only explanation he can accept, even though he admittedly cannot demonstrate how this dualistic scenario could work.

This is a book that should be read by all those who are interested in near-death experiences, whether the reader is a beginner or a veteran on this field of research.  Bruce Greyson’s knowledge and lifelong experience are irreplaceable.  He is truly a giant in his field, as his nickname, Mr. Death, suggests.

M. J. Mandoki

Is Critical Thinking Welcome in Society? Should People Bother to Think Critically?

I teach critical thinking in college. This is held to be one of the most important skills students learn in a higher educational institution. Yet, lately, I wonder if critical thinking is welcome in society and if it is worth for anybody to bother to learn to think critically.

Critical thinking is encouraged as long as it does not collide with certain agendas. A good example is vaccination. No, this article is not meant to be a debate about whether vaccines work; instead, this is a debate about whether people are actually encouraged to think critically about this issue at all. Imagine if a person reads all the scientifically relevant material and, after the critical examination of the issue, decides not to be vaccinated. Is critical thinking welcome in this case? This person will most likely be labelled as misinformed, deviant or outright evil. Or, it could get even worse and the person may be accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, the person may be pushed out of restaurants, forbidden to travel and even lose his or her job. Is it really worth thinking critically and making one’s own decision about this issue?

In the Medieval Time, there were people who tried critical thinking with very little luck. For example, some women tried natural healing remedies to heal the sick. These women were often labelled as witches and burnt at stake or drowned in rivers for trying to think in an independent way, looking at the issue of illness critically. Society often looks at this practice now as barbaric. Yet, one wonders if society has gotten seriously better at critical thinking. Certainly, one will not lose his or her life as a result of critical thinking in a democratic society, but is it really much better nowaday if one is labelled as misinformed, deviant or evil and if one is pushed out of restaurants, forbidden to travel and lose his or her livelihood as a result of independent, critical thinking?

The critics will say that independent, critical thinking is welcome, just not in certain cases–and the pandemic is one of these cases. Here, people are encouraged to suspend independent, critical thinking and just follow the govenment officials. They will decide for people what the right thing to do is. In this case, people just have to dutifully follow along and do as they are told. The majority has done so and I will not pronounce judgement on them. I am not here to debate the value of the vaccines. I am just pointing out the requirement for participation in a democratic society and whether or not it is encouraged–or even allowed–for people to think independently and critically about this matter. So, the majority has followed, the critics would argue, because the government officials should make the decision in such an important matter and people should not question the goverment and should not just go rogue doing what they think is best. So, critical thinking is normally welcome, just not in this case.

However, if critical thinking is welcome in society at any time except when the stakes are high, is critical thinking really worth having? Have society really progressed in this area since the Medieval Time? If people are encouraged to just follow along and do the right thing and if the goverment officials will determine what the right thing is, independent, critical thinking is not that valuable an asset after all. Maybe, people should not bother to think critically because it will cost them too much: being labelled, discriminated against and having an inability to sustain themselves. Maybe, critical thinking is not really worth it.

I will post this article now. However, I wonder if the internet thought-police will remove it because of its controversial nature, once again proving that critical thinking is not encouraged or even properly allowed in society.

Monika Mandoki

Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry

This is my thesis as it appears on Western University’s Scholarship website.  It is free to read it.  It took me three years to write it.  Please, feel free to read any or all parts of it.  Here it is:

This project is a philosophical investigation into near-death experiences (NDEs). It attempts to answer the central question: Are near-death experiences veridical? The aim of my work is to defend the veridicality of near-death experiences within the framework of idealism. However, this aim is not achieved simply by adopting an idealist standpoint. Instead, I present arguments for the reason this idealist standpoint is necessary. First, I argue that the traditional way of assessing near-death experiences is often oversimplified and carries an unnecessary bias in favour of a materialist interpretation, which eventually sets it up for a failure to demonstrate that an afterlife state can exist. Once this materialist bias is examined, I make an attempt to level the playing field, so to speak, to see where this equal level can take the discussion. Ultimately, I argue that it is best to fit all evidence and arguments into a theory that best explains near-death experiences; and, the theory that best explains these experiences is philosophical idealism. At the end, I provide examples of this theory and also a synthesized version of the best imaginable theory to show in what way or ways these idealist theories can explain near-death experiences and in what way or ways near-death experiences can be demonstrated to be veridical in nature.

Source: Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry

Near-Death Experiences In a Mental Reality

If philosophical idealism is right and if reality is mental in nature, how do we explain near-death experiences?  What is the meaning of near-death experiences in a mental reality?

If reality is mental in nature, it means that there is only on substance in reality.  This substance is mind or consciousness.  In order to have a unified reality, mind is one.  At the bottom, reality is one–it is mind only.  However, there is a level of individuation where mind breaks up into multiple examples of itself.  Once there are multiple minds in existence, they enter a state of mind we call physical reality.  We exist in this state right now.

Reality?

How does this reality explain near-death experiences?  In physical reality, we have a choice of becoming enlightened, which simply means being aware of the nature of our reality.  When we die two things can happen.  The person is enlightened and moves to a higher level of reality where individuation ends, such a person temporarily does, for example, in mystical experiences. Or, the person ends up in another state of mind where he or she can assess the life the person just finished living and prepare to occupy another physical body in physical reality again.  Alternatively, the person can perhaps move to another state where further enlightenment is possible.  The point is to progress in order to return to the source of our being, to the unified mind.

Back to the Source

Near-death experiences are the beginning of the movement to follow these paths when we die.  However, this movement is interrupted and the person during a near-death experience has an opportunity to switch back to this physical reality and continue to live his or her life in the current body.  Basically, near-death experiences are a glimpse into the next state of consciousness that a person is prepared to switch to after death.

Near-death experiences in this state of reality offer an insight into the structure of reality we live in.  They are gifts for people to learn and progress.  They represent opportunities to gain insight into the heart of our being.  We should take the time to listen to these stories.

M. J. Mandoki

Why Can the Brain Not Be Responsible for Near-Death Experiences?

Often times, the argument is that the brain is responsible for near-death experiences.  The biological argument is that some kind of chemical changes in the dying brain cause these experiences.  The psychological argument is that a survival mechanism turns on and the psyche is trying to fight the inevitable, providing images.  Although the explanation using the brain may satisfy some people, the explanation is unsuccessful once a person asks what the mind is.[image error]

What is the mind?  The story starts with the basic observation that experience is not possible without consciousness.  Without consciousness, there is nothing to be conscious of.  The human mind has to be there in order to even consider its own mental activities.  Consciousness has to be present in order to say, “I am conscious.”

What is this conscious mind?  Human beings build their visual phenomenological experiences based on the electromagnetic spectrum of between 380 to 760 nanometres in wavelength.  Colours about and beyond are unseen.  Auditory phenomenological experiences are based on the frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hertz.  Sounds above and beyond are unheard.  Of course, some animals are not just capable of seeing colours and hearing sounds that humans cannot, but also smell and taste things people are unable to.   In addition to the observation on sense limitations, it can be also argued that human beings are also limited to the spatial appearance of the world in the three dimensions of length, width and depth and the mysterious time limitation of chronological motion from past to future through present.[image error]

The assessment of reality in terms of wavelengths is not strange until we consider the brain as an object.  The brain is an object of certain wavelengths in the world that is perceived.  But, the question is: perceived by what?  If one imagines a hypothetical, fictional scenario of opening up the skull and looking at one’s own brain in the mirror, what does one see?  One simply sees an object in the mirror that is a compilation of electromagnetic wavelengths one perceives.  But, if all objects, including the brain is just compilations of wavelengths, what is doing the perceiving?  Are compilations of wavelengths just capturing other compilations of wavelengths?  The only possible answer is that consciousness is that something that supports all configurations in this phenomenological experience.  Ultimately, this means that the bare minimum requirement for reality is consciousness itself.   This means that consciousness must be basic; it has to be a basic building block of reality.

What is reality like in a scenario where consciousness is a basic building block?  In this scenario, reality can be imagined as a kaleidoscope.  As the pattern of pictures change, the conscious observer can see new images.  The pattern of pictures change with each state of consciousness.  We can have the pattern of the waking state, sleep state, mystical state, hypnotic state, near-death state.[image error]

In near-death experiences, a person starts switching over to another state, but then switches back to the waking state.  In death, the person permanently switches over to another state.  We live in a reality where we switch into this waking state we call life, or physical reality, and switch out of it when we are done.

In this reality, the brain is just a compilation of wavelengths.  It cannot cause near-death experiences.  Rather, the natural workings of consciousness create the experience.  The result is that consciousness does not cease operation; instead, consciousness just switches over to another pattern to continue its operation in that pattern of the kaleidoscope image.

M. J. Mandoki

Near-Death Experiences Versus Everyday Perceptual Experiences

[image error]

Many people are sceptical about the veridicality of near-death experiences.  They think that near-death experiences are not real!  Why does this scepticism exist?

Take a look at the following two examples.  First, a person is conscious of feeling peaceful, being in the body, walking through a dark tunnel, encountering a person, discussing previous experiences, walking out of the tunnel and into the light outside to admire the landscape around.  Does this experience sound suspicious?  No, not at all!  Most people would assume that somebody has just described a Sunday afternoon walk.

Compare this experience to the following.  A person is conscious of feeling peaceful, being out of the body, floating in darkness, encountering a presence, having a life review and entering a light and the world beyond.  Does this experience sound suspicious?  Most people pause at the end of this description.  This experience does not inspire confidence in most people.  But, why not?

The first experience offers confidence because people can relate to it.  It is an everyday perceptual experience most people can readily relate to.  It is natural and part of people’s lives.  However, the second example is not an experience most people can relate to.  It is not part of people’s everyday experiences.  That is the reason they pause and think when they hear this description.

The truth is that we heavily rely on our experiences because we take it for granted that our experiences are fairly reliable.  A person who had a near-death experience can rely on this experience to compare it to other experiences and tell how veridical (real) this near-death experience is.

Other people cannot do the same.  Since they never had a near-death experience, they have nothing to rely on for comparison.  Usually, what people do in this case is to turn to similar experiences they did have and try to lump this experience in with such alternate experiences.  For example, people have a tendency to compare near-death experiences to dreams or altered states under the influence of drugs.  Basically, in the absence of a near-death experience, they try to imagine that this experience is similar to other experiences they did have.  The problem is that they are relying on imagination and imagination is not the same as memory.

Conflict often arises between people who had near-death experiences and, for this reason, are relying on their memory and people who did not have these experiences and are relying on their imagination.  Since most people have never experienced anything that was as real as their usual everyday perceptual experiences, they have a hard time even imagining that such an experience can exist.  It is just easier to lump near-death experiences in with other types of experiences that they have intimate knowledge of, even if these other types are rated as less real as everyday perceptual experiences.

To demonstrate this problem, imagine that you have lived on a tropical island all your life, isolated from the world.  One day, a visitor arrives and tells you that she comes from a country where it is so cold that water turns into a solid material and you can walk on it.  Naturally, this story would make you pause!  You can walk on water in the cold?!  If you have never seen ice in your life, your lack of experience makes this scenario sound unbelievable.  Your doubt will assume that the person is either high on drugs or has experienced a crazy dream that she thinks is real.  In the absence of any experience with ice, your imagination takes over and tries to find an explanation that is believable for you in your situation.  This is the issue.  If you cannot rely on your memory, your imagination takes flight!

[image error]

So, are near-death experiences as veridical as everyday perceptual experiences?  It depends on who you ask.  If you ask a person who had a near-death experience, the answer is “yes”.  If you ask a person who did not have the experience, the answer ranges from “no”, through “maybe”, to “yes”, depending on the workings of their imagination.

M. J. Mandoki

Near-Death Experiences and Plato’s Myth of Er

[image error]

Although the term “near-death experience” has only existed since Raymond Moody’s publication of Life After Life (1976), the phenomenon is not new.  Plato has cited the experience of Er in his work, The Republic, that sounds like an NDE! 

Er is thought to have been killed during a battle.  Surrounded by people when lying on the pyre, he returns to life.  He shares his experience with the others.  According to Plato, he goes through the following experience when he dies:

He said that his soul left his body and went on a journey, with lots of other souls as his companions.  They came to an awesome place, where they found two openings next to each other in the earth, and two others directly opposite them up in the sky.  There were judges sitting between the openings who made their assessment and then told the moral ones to take the right-hand route which went up and through the sky, and gave them tokens to wear on their fronts to show what behaviour they’d been assessed for, but told the immoral ones to take the left-hand, downward route.  These people also had tokens, but on their backs, to show all their past deeds.  When Er approached, however, the judges said that he had to report back to mankind about what goes on there, and they told him to listen and observe everything that happened in the place (614 c-d, 371-372).

Er’s experience contains a number of NDE stages.  He leaves his body, travels to a border he is not allowed to pass, observes the events and later reunites with his body.

In addition to the typical modern day experience, the story of Er is also filled with Greek pagan mythology.  After either a time of great torment or heavenly rest, the souls pass before Lady Necessity who directs them to travel through the Plain of Oblivion to the river of Lethe (forgetfulness) to take a drink and fall asleep (621 a-b).  Mixed with the Greek mythological elements, the event ends with the revelation that the souls are born into new bodies, similarly to some Eastern traditions.

It seems that NDEs are nothing new.  They have been with us for thousands of years!

 

Source:

Plato, (1993). Republic. R. Waterfield (Trans. & Int.), Oxford: University Press

M. J. Mandoki

Near-Death Experiences and Psychic Explanations

[image error]

Traditionally, the contributors to the study of near-death experiences have broken into two groups, some endorsing the Afterlife Hypothesis and others defending the Dying Brain Hypothesis.   The question is whether the dualist-based Afterlife Hypothesis can ever win over the more materialist-based Dying Brian Hypothesis.  Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make a case for it.  The argument that relies on psychic explanations may hurt more than it can help.  But, not all is lost in this debate.

What do these two positions say about NDEs?  According to the afterlife hypothesis, NDEs are a glimpse into life beyond death.  Basically, conscious experiences continue after the demise of the body.  NDEs are these conscious experiences that are remembered as part of an integral history of the total experiences of the individual.  This hypothesis treats NDEs as actual, “real” experiences outside the physical world.  The dying brain hypothesis interprets NDEs differently.  According to the dying brain hypothesis, NDEs can be accounted for by the dying process itself that takes place in the brain.  NDEs are caused by the biological and psychological processes that go on in the brain.  It means that these experiences can be accounted for by the biological changes, psychological stress, socio-cultural influences or, the combinations of these factors.  This hypothesis does not treat NDEs as actual, “real” experiences outside of the physical process.

Why is it so difficult to make a case for the Afterlife Hypothesis? The studies have inspired some scientific-minded researchers to come up with a materialist explanation of NDEs, supporting the dying brain hypothesis.  The explanation is very believable in the minds of many experts.  They suggested a number of possible physiological causes for NDEs: hypoxia, hypercarbia, endorphins, ketamine and temporal lobe seizure.  They also cited a number of possible psychological causes: reliving birth trauma, depersonalization, fantasy proneness and cultural influences.  Basically, any numbers of alternative explanations are possible.

Why do psychic explanation hurt more than they can help?  If extrasensory perception is a contender for an explanation in case of NDEs, the person does not have to operate apart from the brain and outside of the body.  The entire experience could be the result of telepathy; the acquisition of information from another person outside the use of the five human senses; or the result of clairvoyance; the acquisition of information about an object outside the use of the five human senses.  Or, the person could gain information as the result of precognition or post-cognition, the acquisition of information about an event outside of the use of human senses; information, which will take place in the future or which took place in the past.  None of these psychic alternatives require that a person be outside of the body and operate outside of the brain.  If the brain possesses these psychic powers, survival of death is not necessary.  Therefore, a psychic explanation does not make a case for survival of death.  In fact, it helps the defenders of the Dying Brain Hypothesis simply by giving them an extra argument for a special power the brain may possess.

There is only one thing to ask the defenders of the Dying Brain Hypothesis at this point.  If the brain possesses psychic powers, what does this say about the nature of the brain and the nature of matter itself?  Can a person be a real materialist, if he admits to these special powers?  What does materialism mean at this point?  What is matter itself?  If matter has psychic powers, is not matter a form of consciousness?  If it is, then, isn’t it possible that consciousness always remains and it is indestructible?  So, is there a life after death in some form, after all?

There are some questions to think about.  The presence of psychic powers may not help the case of the Afterlife Hypothesis directly, but it certainly weakens the traditional understanding of matter and the brain.

M. J. Mandoki