Near Death Experiences (NDE): Can They be Explained?

I remember reading Raymond Moody’s book “Life After Life” as a kid. Since then I've read about other people who claim to have had near death experiences. Amazing tales abound of people, who having "died" (or nearly died) on the operating table or in accidents, are resuscitated and able to relate amazing accounts of how, generally speaking they walked down a sort of tunnel of bright light, many experiencing great peace, some having a life-review, and sometimes being told that their time was not up, and that they should go back, or words to that effect.

 

Sometimes this message is given to them by loved ones gone before or by beings clothed in light, all of which fuels, or confirms, a belief in life hereafter. Allegedly about 3% of Americans claim to have had such an experience. This is not too dissimilar to the percentage who believes they have been abducted by aliens. I must say I find it all a bit hard to believe.

What "being dead" actually means isn't that simple either. It is when the heart stops, or the brain becomes incapable of further thought or activity, or when cell decay commences and all electrical and chemical activity ceases?. It doesn't all happen at once and parts of us may be “dead” whilst others are still alive. Some NDEs have even been reported when the individual was not anywhere near death (for example, when fainting) which points to a physical and not supernatural experience.

 

The broad similarity of the experiences recounted suggests that, when the brain is in the process of shutting down, perhaps under highly traumatised circumstances, certain reactions occur. Under such conditions the ability to filter and make sense of information may become compromised, or stop working altogether. Imagine if certain parts of the brain continue to try to function whilst others stop. Mix in with that potential surges in adrenalin and other chemicals at such a traumatic time and, perhaps unavoidably, the experiences and memories are going to be very much out of the ordinary.

 

Many people also have very fixed beliefs in the afterlife and its format. Should we be surprised then that sometimes these beliefs surface at times like this, perhaps when the brain (the individual) most expects them to become manifest? Is it surprising that those who expect to meet up with the loved ones, in fact experience meeting up with them? Likewise, those perhaps expecting to be met by angels, then experience these “beings of light”.

Our memories may also play a part here too. There is the well-known saying “my life flashed before me”, normally uttered as a reaction to some life-threatening event. Perhaps there is some part of our brain which, at these critical moments, pushes these memories to the fore; thereby explaining the meeting of deceased loved ones and the "life review" during the NDE ".

Given its incredible complexity and power, the psychological impact of experiencing one’s brain partly or even totally shutting down during a near death event (or even when thinking one is nigh) may give rise to all sorts of unavoidable dream-like or hallucinatory experiences that when combined, trigger the NDE. However, whilst the brain is quite possibly the most complicated, sophisticated product of evolution, it is an organ and its workings should have natural explanations. Just because we cannot yet fully understand all its working, does not mean we should fill those gaps with supernatural assumptions.

I suspect the explanation for these undoubtedly powerful, sometimes life-changing experiences lies deep within our minds. The brain’s extraordinary power to shape our perceptions and to fire our imaginations in ways we do not yet fully understand is more likely than not, to be the basis for these supernatural and paranormal experiences. It would be wonderful to know that upon death some essence of consciousness is to be magically spirited away, down a tunnel of light to some other plane where it is going to be greeted by the spirits of loved ones gone before and where everything will be alright.

Irrespective of how tempting this is though, we may once again be at risk of letting our imaginations run away with ourselves.......

NORTH KOREAN ROULETTE: FATTY THE THIRD THROWS HIS WEIGHT AROUND

Chinese bloggers don't like Kim Jong-un. They refer to the chubby ruler of North Korea as either Fatty the Third, or Fatty Kim. No longer the revered brother in the struggle against capitalism, but now a figure of caricature and ridicule?

That's where the joking ends through. With their frequent and blood-curdling threats to engulf South Korean cities in Nuclear "seas of fire”, Kim's spokespeople mix clumsy horror/sci-fi prose with chilling possibility. At the moment the risk to an already very fragile geopolitical balance is at its greatest. With emotions taunt and mistrust high, a simple miscalculation or misreading of  signals from the other side could easily tip the entire region into disaster and war. As North Korea plans to launch its next “test” missile, any mishap there, say it crash lands in South Korea or Japan (a not indistinct possibility) or the North claims the US shot it down (say to cover a failure or malfunction), could trigger a conflict.

Everyone hopes that Fatty the Third is making these hair raising threats with no serious intention of carrying them out. The pundits ensure us nothing is changing on the ground and that it’s all just bluster and sabre rattling. Let’s hope they’re right. But it’s difficult to know just who is in control. Is Kim Jong-un telling his generals what to do, or are they pulling the young dictator's strings behind all those Stalinist banners?  Or, as is so often the case with Dictators, their henchmen tell them what they want to hear. Does Fatty the Third believe his own propaganda?

And China? As ever, it has its own geopolitical agenda. It wants to ensure that North and South Korea are not reunited as one democratic Korea on its border; open, liberal and friendly to the West and America. North Korea is its barrier and buffer zone to this risk. So, whilst it wants North Korea and Kim to behave a little better, it still wants its bothersome ally to be a thorn in the flesh of both South Korea and the USA. However a destruction-threatening Fatty the Third, acting like some upstart megalomaniac playing dare with his nuclear bombs and missiles is the last thing in their plans.

In the event of a war, even a small one, China would be in a quandary. Would it come to the aid of its ally to prevent the fall of the regime with all its negative consequences and thereby risk a much greater conflict with powerful enemies? Could it afford not to come to Kim's aid and, in the event his being toppled (very probable) end up with the South Korean and US military on its north east border? It would suffer enormous loss of face and shame – a huge deal for China. But what would be the impact on its other, already uneasy Asian neighbours, of a display of Chinese militarism? It could well push them into an alliance with America and Japan to counter growing Chinese might and influence. For China, such a war would be North Korean style roulette with no empty chambers.

And what of Japan in the event of a Korean war? With China's attention diverted, Japan might well size that moment to press is claims in the South China Sea, a hotly contested area of rich natural resources and some unoccupied islands that both it and China claim as their own.

Any outbreak of hostilities in the Korean Peninsula would understandably become the all-consuming focus of the political world. That could well have repercussions elsewhere, notably in the Middle East and Syria. With the world's focus suddenly and totally diverted, what new outrages might Assad be tempted to perpetrate in Syria, possibly involving his chemical weapons. The likelihood is that Assad deployed a non-lethal chemical bomb last month. What might he be tempted to do next, with the world's attention diverted and the Syrian opposition increasingly a focal point for Islamic and Al Qaeda based extremists and therefore Western unease. He might even be encouraged by both Russia and China to take this next step in the event of a Korean crisis.

The most likely outcome, we are being assured, is that it will all fizzle out, with North Korea making grand claims that it's threats have once again ensured the safety of their state, having frightened South Korea and the USA into backing down. Perhaps a “successful testing of its latest missile will enable this?

Yet, even such an outcome is not all that great. China's influence over its neighbour and increasingly dubious ally will have been exposed as less influential that everyone had hoped. It will stand somewhat diminished within its sphere of influence. It will have lost some face. The US will be increasingly alarmed. Its military presence in the area is not likely to diminish anytime soon – and the proposed slashing of its military defence spend may be reconsidered in light of the threats it believes it faces.

Kim Jong-un, left untouched and reputation as a strongman secured, will be even more emboldened to develop his weapons (and probably less likely to be parodied as Fatty the Third). Others will also have been watching and may be tempted to think about a nuclear deterrent of their own?. Iran will be encouraged. It has cooperated with North Korea in the past with nuclear technology. Would it be surprising to see a defence pact between these two countries next, each relying on the other's nuclear deterrence and between them, being able to cast an ever wider nuclear shadow with their combined weapons?

That cooperation may be even more overt now, since one of the messages emerging from all of this, is that if you really want to develop nuclear weapons, no one will really be able to stop you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------