Sci. Am. denies NDE\'s mean anything: Greyson's response (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, December 27, 2021, 18:31 (1063 days ago) @ David Turell

His book "After", 2021, I've reviewed:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=after+by+greyson&i=stripbooks&crid=3A00EB21O5YVF&...

The title has two meanings. First how NDE's affect people's personalities after the event, and second what it may mean about afterlife. Certainly the overall effect is to remove fear of death, and most have a definite expectation of an 'after' for themselves.

The book is filled with many interview notes from a large number of the over one thousand NDEer's he consulted with, many in a psychiatric setting, others in his research, over a forty- year span. With all the reading I did I was very aware of Grayson, but this book is a compendium with information and his answers.

On pages 220-221 he offers his thoughts that the best theory that fits the facts is that the brain acts as a receiver of the mind. He uses a cell phone as an example while van Lommel used a radio. He accepts the premise brain and mind are most likely separate, but discusses the brain as sole operator. He does discuss viricidal NDE's, but his overall experience convinces him they are real even despite that clear evidence on its own. His final thoughts sounds like a religious leader's sermon when he describes how NDE's transform how experiencers live 'after'. At no point is there any sense Grayson is peddling religion. The book is scrupulously pure science as he maintains his researcher's strict role. He was under salary as an academic psychiatrist in an academic setting.

We have accepted NRE's on this website as phenomena Which need to be recognized and discussed. I recommend the book for all interested. NDE's are common occurring in up to 15-20% of folks, when searched for. It raises the question, why do we have them? Think about your answer. I have.