Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Well, I think it's cool that Alexander is going to devote his career to finding an explanation for his experience, and the nature of consciousness. I'll be looking forward to any articles on this subject he produces as the years go by. It's good to have a neurosurgeon "on the case", so to speak.
Sam Harris has not read the literature on NDEs — that much seems obvious to me (I wonder when he was last at University of Virginia talking with Dr. Kelly?). I have plenty of recommendations for him but I seriously doubt he would be interested.
It is not an established fact the cerebral cortex is where matter is transformed into consciousness. It is not even an established fact in biology that there is consciousness since it can't be put on a laboratory table and examined.
When you say he has little or no evidence what do you mean? Is Dr. Eben Alexander on trial? What crime has he been accused of that he has to hand over his evidence to Sam Harris and the other pseudo-skeptics? I find no reason to doubt Dr. Eben Alexander at this point; and I am certain he isn't irrational nor is his belief that consciousness is not of the body irrational either.
This reminds me somewhat of the unprofessional way Harvard handled the study of alien abductions carried out by the late John E. Mack, M.D. The Dean's goon squad investigated the good doctor which tells us that academic freedom doesn't count for much in the U.S.
Sam Harris has not read the literature on NDEs — that much seems obvious to me (I wonder when he was last at University of Virginia talking with Dr. Kelly?). I have plenty of recommendations for him but I seriously doubt he would be interested.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. He seems quite well-read.
It is not an established fact the cerebral cortex is where matter is transformed into consciousness. It is not even an established fact in biology that there is consciousness since it can't be put on a laboratory table and examined.
Maybe someone should tell that to Dr. Alexander then since, as Harris notes, it seems to be his assertion that "his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity,'" which he seems to think is clear evidence that consciousness is independent of the brain and heaven is real. But as Harris also notes, Alexander doesn't provide adequate evidence of neuronal inactivity (like functional data acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG), and the evidence he does provide suggests a lack of familiarity with the subject:
Everything—absolutely everything—in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was “shut down,” “inactivated,” “completely shut down,” “totally offline,” and “stunned to complete inactivity.” The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate—it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science. Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book—though now that I’ve listened to an hour-long interview with him online, I very much doubt it. In his Newsweek article, Alexander asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.” To his editors, this presumably sounded like neuroscience.
The problem, however, is that “CT scans and neurological examinations” can’t determine neuronal inactivity—in the cortex or anywhere else. And Alexander makes no reference to functional data that might have been acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG—nor does he seem to realize that only this sort of evidence could support his case. Obviously, the man’s cortex is functioning now—he has, after all, written a book—so whatever structural damage appeared on CT could not have been “global.” (Otherwise, he would be claiming that his entire cortex was destroyed and then grew back.) Coma is not associated with the complete cessation of cortical activity, in any case. And to my knowledge, almost no one thinks that consciousness is purely a matter of cortical activity. Alexander’s unwarranted assumptions are proliferating rather quickly. Why doesn’t he know these things? He is, after all, a neurosurgeon who survived a coma and now claims to be upending the scientific worldview on the basis of the fact that his cortex was totally quiescent at the precise moment he was enjoying the best day of his life in the company of angels. Even if his entire cortex had truly shut down (again, an incredible claim), how can he know that his visions didn’t occur in the minutes and hours during which its functions returned?
When you say he has little or no evidence what do you mean? Is Dr. Eben Alexander on trial? What crime has he been accused of that he has to hand over his evidence to Sam Harris and the other pseudo-skeptics? I find no reason to doubt Dr. Eben Alexander at this point; and I am certain he isn't irrational nor is his belief that consciousness is not of the body irrational either.
No, he's not on trail, but his assertions are certainly open to criticism, especially by scientists in the field of neuroscience. Moreover, nobody's doubting his experience, they're simply questioning his assertions about the nature of consciousness and the existence of heaven based upon a vision he had and little else, at least up to this point (refer to the two paragraphs quoted above).
This reminds me somewhat of the unprofessional way Harvard handled the study of alien abductions carried out by the late John E. Mack, M.D. The Dean's goon squad investigated the good doctor which tells us that academic freedom doesn't count for much in the U.S.
Don't see the similarity or the relevance, to be honest.
No, he's not on trail, but his assertions are certainly open to criticism, especially by scientists in the field of neuroscience. Moreover, nobody's doubting his experience, they're simply questioning his assertions about the nature of consciousness and the existence of heaven based upon a vision he had and little else, at least up to this point (refer to the two paragraphs quoted above).
I am more open to real scientists like Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington who wrote:
LET us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematise what it reveals. He arrives at two generalisations: (1) No sea-creature is less than two inches long. (2) All sea-creatures have gills. These are both true of his catch, and he assumes tentatively that they will remain true however often he repeats it.
In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to observation; for knowledge which has not been or could not be obtained by observation is not admitted into physical science.
An onlooker may object that the first generalisation is wrong. "There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them." The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge, and is not part of the kingdom of fishes which has been defined as the theme of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can't catch isn't fish." Or--to translate the analogy--"If you are not simply guessing, you are claiming a knowledge of the physical universe discovered in some other way than by the methods of physical science, and admittedly unverifiable by such methods. You are a metaphysician. Bah!" (Arthur Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science (1939), p. 16
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington was an astrophysicist who died in 1944. Gee, you think it's possible science has discovered a few things since then? On top of that, if the man was saying something about...you know...astrophysics, which was his field of study, then he should be quoted as an (early) authority. He should leave thought experiments involving ancient dinosaurs to scientists who know about that field.
By the way, this scientist also declared black holes did not exist, which was definitely in his field of study.
This sort of "but THIS authority agrees with me so there!" appeal to authority drives people who understand science nuts, because it proves nothing. Anyone can be wrong. The evidence stands or falls on its own, not on some authority.
I am more open to real scientists like Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington who wrote:
LET us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematise what it reveals. He arrives at two generalisations: (1) No sea-creature is less than two inches long. (2) All sea-creatures have gills. These are both true of his catch, and he assumes tentatively that they will remain true however often he repeats it.
In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to observation; for knowledge which has not been or could not be obtained by observation is not admitted into physical science.
An onlooker may object that the first generalisation is wrong. "There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them." The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge, and is not part of the kingdom of fishes which has been defined as the theme of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can't catch isn't fish." Or--to translate the analogy--"If you are not simply guessing, you are claiming a knowledge of the physical universe discovered in some other way than by the methods of physical science, and admittedly unverifiable by such methods. You are a metaphysician. Bah!" (Arthur Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science (1939), p. 16
I believe I know just how small Harris' net is.
It's an interesting analogy, and I agree that there may be more to life than what scientists can currently observe and determine through the physical sciences. That said, science is not only improving its range of observation all the time, but none of this contradicts or really even counters Harris' criticisms of Alexander's assertion. Harris himself states that:
And, unlike many neuroscientists and philosophers, I remain agnostic on the question of how consciousness is related to the physical world. There are, of course, very good reasons to believe that it is an emergent property of brain activity, just as the rest of the human mind obviously is. But we know nothing about how such a miracle of emergence might occur. And if consciousness were, in fact, irreducible—or even separable from the brain in a way that would give comfort to Saint Augustine—my worldview would not be overturned. I know that we do not understand consciousness, and nothing that I think I know about the cosmos, or about the patent falsity of most religious beliefs, requires that I deny this. So, although I am an atheist who can be expected to be unforgiving of religious dogma, I am not reflexively hostile to claims of the sort Alexander has made. In principle, my mind is open. (It really is.)
What Harris is really criticizing is what he feels to be Alexander's 'lazy reasoning' and apparent lack of familiarity with the subject of how the brain works. And out of the two, I find that Harris simply makes a better case for being skeptical than Alexander makes for believing, on the basis of his vision, that consciousness is independent of the brain, that death is an illusion, and that heaven exists and awaits us all (or at least some of us).
^^^ He's a neurosurgeon. I do find it hard to believe that he lacks familiarity/understanding of how the brain works. That doesn't make any sense.
Operating on brains doesn't necessarily mean that you also study the intricacies of how they work (neurosurgeon ≠ neurobiologist), and it's entirely possible that Harris knows more about this subject than Alexander. Whatever the case, if you read Harris' response, he explains what parts of Alexander's article led him to suspect a lack of familiarity with the subject of how the brain works on Alexander's part. Perhaps his forthcoming book will rectify that and present a better case, but in my opinion, his Newsweek article doesn't seem to exhibit as much familiarity with the subject as Harris or Mark Cohen seem to possess.
Maybe, and I do agree with him to a point, but like you said, the guy wrote a whole book, an article won't contain as much information.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited October 2012
I don't know for certain that Alexander is lying, I don't know for certain that his experiences aren't a completely real NDE... But I do know for certain that people can believe in falsities because they want to. I do know for certain that people can lie for money or fame.
All Sam Harris is doing is pointing out a flaw in what we understand is something Alexander is already claiming to be a rather pivotal fact: that these visions took place when his cerebral cortex was completely shut down. If he cannot prove this, then it is possible that all of his visions were mind-made. Sam Harris also consulted with an expert, Mark Cohen (a pioneer in the field of neuroimaging who holds appointments in the Departments of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Science, Neurology, Psychology, Radiological Science, and Bioengineering at UCLA), who supported Harris' thoughts on the topic.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a critical eye when someone is trying to justify an experience as fact. Of course, we will have wait to see what his book says, but I don't get why some people seem to get so agitated about science when it seems to stand contrary to something involving faith... all the sudden, you're close minded just because you're skeptical? What's wrong with saying, "Well, these points don't add up so I'm not going to put all of my stock in this guy until he can clear up these things that don't make sense..."? Isn't that just being logical?
What if he took it a step further and said he saw God and he told him that no one could enter Heaven unless it was through Jesus? If everything else about his account was exactly the same, would everyone be as likely to put faith in him? Or would more people turn a discerning eye on this guy just because, suddenly, he's saying something that very directly contradicts (most of) our beliefs?
My recommendation -- don't waste your money buying this book. I just finished reading it, and it was a disappointment.
I never expected it would be "proof" of heaven. In fact, my guess is that the publisher insisted on that kind of title in order to sell more books.
But it turns out that most of the book is not about the author's "experience" in heaven during his coma. Most of the book is about his family's experience with his illness. And in that, you learn nothing that most families haven't experienced when a loved one goes through serious illness.
I will say that there are a few passages that might lend themselves to Buddhist thinking. Images of devas and other such Buddhist figures come to mind in several places.
Comments
Sam Harris has not read the literature on NDEs — that much seems obvious to me (I wonder when he was last at University of Virginia talking with Dr. Kelly?). I have plenty of recommendations for him but I seriously doubt he would be interested.
It is not an established fact the cerebral cortex is where matter is transformed into consciousness. It is not even an established fact in biology that there is consciousness since it can't be put on a laboratory table and examined.
When you say he has little or no evidence what do you mean? Is Dr. Eben Alexander on trial? What crime has he been accused of that he has to hand over his evidence to Sam Harris and the other pseudo-skeptics? I find no reason to doubt Dr. Eben Alexander at this point; and I am certain he isn't irrational nor is his belief that consciousness is not of the body irrational either.
This reminds me somewhat of the unprofessional way Harvard handled the study of alien abductions carried out by the late John E. Mack, M.D. The Dean's goon squad investigated the good doctor which tells us that academic freedom doesn't count for much in the U.S.
No, he's not on trail, but his assertions are certainly open to criticism, especially by scientists in the field of neuroscience. Moreover, nobody's doubting his experience, they're simply questioning his assertions about the nature of consciousness and the existence of heaven based upon a vision he had and little else, at least up to this point (refer to the two paragraphs quoted above). Don't see the similarity or the relevance, to be honest.
By the way, this scientist also declared black holes did not exist, which was definitely in his field of study.
This sort of "but THIS authority agrees with me so there!" appeal to authority drives people who understand science nuts, because it proves nothing. Anyone can be wrong. The evidence stands or falls on its own, not on some authority.
It's an interesting analogy, and I agree that there may be more to life than what scientists can currently observe and determine through the physical sciences. That said, science is not only improving its range of observation all the time, but none of this contradicts or really even counters Harris' criticisms of Alexander's assertion. Harris himself states that: What Harris is really criticizing is what he feels to be Alexander's 'lazy reasoning' and apparent lack of familiarity with the subject of how the brain works. And out of the two, I find that Harris simply makes a better case for being skeptical than Alexander makes for believing, on the basis of his vision, that consciousness is independent of the brain, that death is an illusion, and that heaven exists and awaits us all (or at least some of us).
All Sam Harris is doing is pointing out a flaw in what we understand is something Alexander is already claiming to be a rather pivotal fact: that these visions took place when his cerebral cortex was completely shut down. If he cannot prove this, then it is possible that all of his visions were mind-made. Sam Harris also consulted with an expert, Mark Cohen (a pioneer in the field of neuroimaging who holds appointments in the Departments of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Science, Neurology, Psychology, Radiological Science, and Bioengineering at UCLA), who supported Harris' thoughts on the topic.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a critical eye when someone is trying to justify an experience as fact. Of course, we will have wait to see what his book says, but I don't get why some people seem to get so agitated about science when it seems to stand contrary to something involving faith... all the sudden, you're close minded just because you're skeptical? What's wrong with saying, "Well, these points don't add up so I'm not going to put all of my stock in this guy until he can clear up these things that don't make sense..."? Isn't that just being logical?
What if he took it a step further and said he saw God and he told him that no one could enter Heaven unless it was through Jesus? If everything else about his account was exactly the same, would everyone be as likely to put faith in him? Or would more people turn a discerning eye on this guy just because, suddenly, he's saying something that very directly contradicts (most of) our beliefs?
I never expected it would be "proof" of heaven. In fact, my guess is that the publisher insisted on that kind of title in order to sell more books.
But it turns out that most of the book is not about the author's "experience" in heaven during his coma. Most of the book is about his family's experience with his illness. And in that, you learn nothing that most families haven't experienced when a loved one goes through serious illness.
I will say that there are a few passages that might lend themselves to Buddhist thinking. Images of devas and other such Buddhist figures come to mind in several places.