Sam Parnia, a British doctor, developed in interest in Near Death Experiences (NDE) during his training and subsequent employment. In this book, he reviews published accounts of NDE and, as his interest became known, a number of people came forward to provide their accounts of what happened when they were near to death, or technically dead.
Many of these accounts make for fascinating reading, particularly given that a substantial number of these people were “flatlining” at the time of their experience – i.e. they were showing no brain activity, no consciousness and had no readily explainable way of having conscious awareness, or memory of what they were experiencing. Sam P discusses the range of explanations that have been put forward to explain NDE, such as chemical changes in the dying brain, that people are actually getting enough oxygen to have a degree of consciousness etc etc. None of these explanations really stacks up, however, being unable to explain the fact that those who experience NDE are often able to relate clearly and accurately what health professionals did and said during attempts at reviving them as they watched from above. Nor do these people demonstrate the confusion that oxygen starvation causes.
This leads to a discussion of the nature of consciousness and how it is created, or generated in the brain. This is still a mystery to neuroscience. The nature of consciousness has occupied the experts for a long time and there are whole journals dedicated to the subject. As to what it really is, however, we don’t seem really to be close to an answer, and, some say, we never will be.
Sam P tells how he attempted to set up an experiment to see if those undergoing NDE were able to see “targets” that he set up around wards and which could only be seen from above. Great idea, but it fell over when word of what he was doing leaked and everyone ended up knowing about it. He reckons he will try again.
On the evidence available, NDE is a strong indicator that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. He provides good discussion of this and draws on the opinions of some experienced neuroscientists who support the notion. His concluding discussion is, however a bit disappointing – rather than develop some of the ideas that flow on naturally from his findings, he mostly bats around old theories and ideas. Still, it is an interesting and thought provoking book. I would be interested in hearing whether he manages to get a proper experiment going at some time in the future.
Merlin's Book Reviews 