The following is an interesting email discussion I had with an anesthesiologist named Gerald Woerlee who is the author of the book Mortal Minds: A Biology of the Soul and the Dying Experience which is profiled on his website. Woerlee's book is a scientific explanation for how human physiology has generated paranormal ideas and senses such as the notion of a "soul" and life after death. His reasoning is along the same line as other materialists who dispel parapsychological explanations behind the near-death experience phenomenon. You can read the preface and first chapter of his book online at his website. Titus Rivas has written an outstanding review of Woerlee's book.

Of course I disagree with his conclusion of a purely materialist view, but because I am not a doctor, it is important to read whatever physiological evidence you can from those who are - even those who take the non-supernatural viewpoint which is the prevailing viewpoint in science today. The true skeptic is not a "believer" but a person who keeps an open mind to all reasonable viewpoints until they are proven false. And because neither the survivalist nor the materialist viewpoint has been proven to be undeniably true or false, despite the recently scientific studies, it is important to keep an open mind and examine all the evidence. I believe Gerald Woerlee's book provides an excellent case and valuable insight into the brain's physiology and how it relates to consciousness and paranormal phenomena. And it is this reason I recommend his book for which I first learned of when he emailed me and we had an interesting email discussion about the Dutch NDE study by Pim van Lommel in 2001 and Lommel's conclusion that it is evidence of a transcendental consciousness. The following is that discussion.

From: "Gerald Woerlee" <mortalminds@hotmail.com>

Dear Mr. Williams,

Nice, thorough, and even exhaustive. A good website on the subject of NDEs. Yet, as an anesthesiologist fascinated by human physiology, I do find that commonsense is sadly missing in some of the so-called "medical explanations" of NDEs.

For example, the occurrence of conscious experiences in 18% of the resuscitated patients in the otherwise excellent research of Pim van Lommel is readily predicted with a simple flow model of the effects of heart massage. Furthermore, the experience of Pam Reynolds as described by Dr. Michael Sabom is also explained by physiological facts, as well as the practical realities of anesthesiological practice. These physiological explanations of the NDEs described by Van Lommel, as well as that of the experience of Pam Reynolds can be found on my website: www.mortalminds.org.

The fact that I can explain these things with physiological explanations does not mean I consider NDEs as mere trivial byproducts of body function under certain conditions. Quite the contrary - I consider them to be amazing experiences giving profound insights into the deepest reaches of the mind of the individuals who undergo them, as well as giving insights into the effects of socio-cultural influences on the individual. Indeed, for many people they are a source of great strength and comfort.

But I do think that more reference to the physiological alternatives to purely spiritual explanations would provide visitors to your website with a more balanced view of the fascinating phenomenon of the NDE. Perhaps reference to my website would help.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, I am always available for discussion at the address: mortalminds@hotmail.com

From: "Kevin Williams" <http://www.near-death.com/contact.html>

Gerald,

Thanks for your email and your input. I checked out your website and found it to certainly be worth promoting on my website. So, if you don't mind, I would like to put a link in my next newsletter to your website. I am constantly trying to find new websites concerning the NDE - especially from researchers such as yourself.

So far, I have made it a point to stay away from the mechanics of death and the mechanics of other non-ordinary states of consciousness for several reasons. First, I am not a doctor, so I can only profile the opinions of those who are doctors and their opinions concerning this mysterious thing called consciousness. Second, the mechanics or cause of the NDE is not relevant to whether the experience is real or even transcendental. Third, recent studies have ruled out a number of brain anomalies as the cause.

So I try to keep my website focused mostly on the experience itself. And although anecdotal testimony is practically useless unless it is veridical, there are aspects to the NDE which are of great interest to quantum physicists and consciousness researchers toward understanding the new paradigm that is developing concerning the nature of the universe and how it relates to consciousness.

Give me some time to look over your website and I may have some questions for you. One thing I would be interested in reading your comment about is this quote by Peter Fenwick which I find fascinating:

Dear Mr. Williams,

Thank you for your rapid reaction.

Just as you, I also regard the NDE as a real experience undergone by people in any number of situations. However, as a physician fascinated by human body function, I do try and find if these experiences can be generated by the functioning of the body. And my book is a physiological study of just this.

You gave me a citation of Peter Fenwick to which you asked for my reaction, and thoughts. This citation of Dr. Fenwick puzzles and amazes me. Dr. Fenwick is a neurologist and as such should be familiar with the phenomenon of "coma vigil", a horrible neurological syndrome whereby a person is fully awake and aware, but because they are paralyzed, they appear unconscious. Unlike Dr. Fenwick, my work as an anesthesiologist means my thoughts are very clear - an unconscious person is just that - unconscious - no thoughts, no experiences, no memories - nothing. So a person who reports undergoing a NDE is reporting a remembered conscious experience. And they undergo this experience at a time they appear unconscious, even though they are conscious.

This phenomenon of people who appear unconscious or even dead, yet are fully conscious, seems to be a difficult concept for many people. Yet it is the daily reality for anesthesiologists such as me. During general anaesthesia, powerful painkilling drugs are administered to eliminate pain, and curare-like muscle paralyzing drugs are also administered which means people cannot breathe, move, or speak. If the anesthesiologist does not administer drugs to keep such a person asleep, then a person rendered immobile, pain free and totally paralyzed will appear unconscious, even though they are fully awake and able to hear, see, and observe everything in their surroundings.

The same is also true of people undergoing resuscitation from cardiac arrest. About 20% of cardiac arrest patients undergo very efficient resuscitation, and are fully or partially conscious, even though they have no heartbeat, are paralyzed by residual effects of brain oxygen starvation, and appear rather dead. Yet they are able to hear, sense, and visualize what occurs in their vicinity.

These are situations undergone by NDE-ers, and these situations explain why seemingly dead or apparently unconscious people can actually undergo conscious experiences such as NDEs. And these are my thoughts on this citation of Dr. Fenwick.

Gerry,

Thanks for your reply. I should have mentioned the context for that quote by Peter Fenwick. He is talking about unconscious patients who are clinically dead including those who meet the criteria for brain death where they are in "standstill" and "flatlined" with absolutely no sign of life. The famous case in point is that of Pam Reynolds whom you are probably already aware. Here is the full context of where Fenwick's quote came from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

There is also a large amount of veridical perception evidence found in NDEs which suggests a transcendental consciousness: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html

The bottom line is that this and other NDE cases show that there certainly is a biological component involved; but that at some point, when the biological component has ceased to function, consciousness appears to transcend the body. NDE research is only one scientific source where a transcendental consciousness is a theory. See my "NDE and Consciousness Research News History" for more about this.

Here is the way I see it. I believe that all these theories about the brain concerning the NDE, while interesting and important, are only attempts to, using an analogy, try to prove that the "music" coming from the "radio" is coming from the radio - which we all know is true. But the evidence also shows that the "music" coming from the "radio" does not originate in the "radio" and that, in fact, from quantum physics and consciousness studies, the "music" is coming from the "airwaves" and not just the "radio". This suggests the brain acts more like a "receiver" and to say that the "music" is simply a product of the "radio" is just not true given the body of evidence from various scientific research. I have two pages which gives a large amount of this evidence:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

So, until I read the medical evidence which explains how a dead or dying brain causes a person to see veridical events from great distances from their dead or clinically dead body, physiology does not interest me very much. There is too much disinformation from magician-skeptics and pseudo-skeptics who are only interested in dismissing the transcendental evidence to support their "religion" of scientism.

So you see where I am coming from. I would be interested to hear from you on this matter. You may be feeling the same way as I do about these things. Thanks.

Dear Mr. Williams,

I have worked through the various pages of your website as suggested. Indeed, when looked at superficially, there does seem to be an enormous amount of veridical information coming from NDEs that does not immediately seem capable of any other than a "paranormal," "quantum mechanical," there are "things we do not know about", type of explanation.

Even so, when confronted with such a mass of information, I revert to die-hard reductionism otherwise it is impossible get a general overview. You cite the case of Pam Reynolds, as well as the outstanding research of Pim van Lommel. My comments on these can be short.

As an anesthesiologist, I consider the case of Pam Reynolds to be one readily explained by the physiology of people under anaesthesia. I have dealt with this case in my website. Her OOBE is also explained by physiology, and her "veridical" information explained by alternative explanations. Her "NDE" is also capable of other explanations. All this does not mean I belittle her personally wonderful experience, merely that I explain it differently.

The research of Pim van Lommel is top-notch, but his conclusions are very dubious. I recently attended a lecture given by him in the town of Wassenaar near to The Hague and found him to be a very serious man who has conducted excellent research, as well as a man who really believes in his conclusions. The results of his research were outstanding, but predictable, as were the types of NDE he described. The veridical content of some of these NDEs is also explicable with purely physical phenomena.

I could continue - but I find physiological and physical explanations are possible for each NDE report. Even so, you do raise a fascinating problem, one that has puzzled and intrigued people for countless millennia - is the brain the generator of the radio signal or only the receiver?

I have devoted many chapters in my book "Mortal Minds" to an exhaustive step by step analysis of the evidence for either of these two viewpoints. The weight of the evidence for physiology was such that I could only conclude that the brain is the generator of the radio signal - there is no solid evidence to the contrary.

Gerry,

Thanks for your reply. I agree that veridical evidence from autoscopy does not always meet the higher standard of the strict scientific controls that the scientific method requires. And there is now the theory of "Super-Psi" which explains how a dying brain might observe veridical events at great distances away from it. But despite the relatively small amount of quality scientific and veridical evidence supporting the survival of consciousness after brain death (including the scientific proof of the existence of "God"), there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that does support it.

But my point is that (1) reductionism does not disprove survival, and (2) understanding how the brain causes NDEs to occur is not relevant to whether consciousness survives
bodily death. Using the analogy, we may someday perfectly understand how the "radio" plays the "music." The question is does the "music" continue to exist without the "radio"? The answer is: Studies say "Yes." And so does the circumstantial evidence. Here are some interesting links you may want to look at:

  Teleportation Discovered (instantaneous travel from one location to another)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040510/teleportation.html

  Particles Communicate with Each Other Suggesting a Transcendental Reality
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/spooky.jsp

These facts and others must be included in the equation and no amount of reductionism can explain this entire body of evidence away as of yet. So, the ball remains in the materialist's and the reductionist's court.

  Visit Gerald Woerlee's website at: http://www.mortalminds.org/

  His book, Mortal Minds: A Biology of the Soul and the Dying Experience, is available through a Dutch publisher from his website. See the book information below for finding and/or ordering his book at your local bookstore.

  Read an excerpt of Woerlee's book: http://www.tijdstroom.nl/show.php3?bid=104

  Send Gerald Woerlee a comment:  mortalminds@hotmail.com

  Book information: