# Why the Brain-Only Model Cannot Fully Explain Near-Death Experiences

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Philosophy\
**Created:** [September 12, 2026, 4:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052 "2026-09-12T04:06:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 10:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/122 "2026-09-28T22:26:14Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> To complete my thought on this matter: if experiencers were simply reporting ordinary eyesight or describing mental images and imagination, it would be easier to argue that the experience was entirely generated by normal brain processes.
> 
> However, when experiencers describe it as a different kind of “seeing” — not through the eyes, but as a form of direct awareness or perception — it raises the question of whether something beyond ordinary sensory processing might be involved.

So, I will repeat my question, because you did not really answer it: When people dream that they can fly, does this “raise the question” of whether people can actually fly?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 11:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/123 "2026-09-28T23:57:31Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> This question is not a minor detail; it is at the very heart of the physicalist claim that consciousness arises from brain activity. A model that explains the neural correlates of consciousness but cannot yet explain how those physical processes produce subjective experience still has a fundamental question to address.The model stands and fall on this.

Interesting that you remained silent on the second paragraph:

This question is not a minor detail; it is at the very heart of the physicalist claim that consciousness arises from brain activity. A model that explains the neural correlates of consciousness but cannot yet explain how those physical processes produce subjective experience still has a fundamental question to address.The model stands and fall on this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 11:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/124 "2026-09-28T23:57:34Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> You keep repeating this, but I am not clear on what you actually mean. Are you saying non-physicalist understandings have no corresponding obligation to explain how subjective experience arises from _non-physical_ processes? Or that such explanations have been provided? If the latter, can you please describe what these explanations are?

Physicalism has to explain how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective conscious experience. Dualism has to explain how consciousness interacts with, or relates to, the physical brain and body.

Neither camp has provided a definitive explanation for its respective problem.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 11:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/125 "2026-09-28T23:57:38Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> here is what Satori thinks about target rooms

This report sure seems like ordinary sight. All the experienced are reports of things _seen_ from a particular viewpoint, focused in a particular direction. If there were some kind of direct perception why would it matter whether the subject were “high enough” to see the symbol?

> [@LRT](#):
>
> If, however, the experience involved some form of expanded or non-ordinary awareness, as some experiencers describe, then one could speculate that the perception may not be constrained by the same limitations as normal eyesight.

Nor, one supposes, would experiences involving no actual perception, just a sort of dream.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 12:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/126 "2026-09-29T12:28:13Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> Physicalism has to explain how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective conscious experience. Dualism has to explain how consciousness interacts with, or relates to, the physical brain and body.
> 
> Neither camp has provided a definitive explanation for its respective problem.

Once again, you have not answered my questions. Those questions, in case you need a reminder, were:

_Are you saying non-physicalist understandings have no corresponding obligation to explain how subjective experience arises from **non-physical** processes? Or that such explanations have been provided? If the latter, can you please describe what these explanations are?_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 2:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/127 "2026-09-29T14:00:49Z")

</div>

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> > A larger study comprising 1,595 patients from the cardiac units at the University of Virginia Hospital was published by Bruce Greyson.68 Of these patients, 5% reported a previous NDE. The comparative study examined 116 cases of cardiac arrest: a total of 15.5% reported an NDE. This study, too, tested the veridical component, but again, none of the patients identified the hidden target.
> 
> Attributed to Greyson, B. (2003). Incidence and correlates of near-death experiences in a cardiac care unit. _General Hospital Psychiatry_ 25, 269-76. The paper does not report by such tests, so I cannot confirm it. But it seems an odd thing to invent - especially as the page seems sympathetic to non-physicalist interpretations.

I see no hidden targets being used in this study to objectively test for veridical perceptions.

[https://afanporsaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Incidence-and-correlates-of-near-death-experiences-in-a-cardiac-care-unit.pdf](https://afanporsaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Incidence-and-correlates-of-near-death-experiences-in-a-cardiac-care-unit.pdf)?

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> (Satori) that’s still two clear failures - and one really wonders how 360 degree vision could be so limited.

Reports of 360-degree or “spherical” vision are common in NDE literature, but they are only one pattern among several and are far from universal.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 2:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/128 "2026-09-29T14:01:04Z")

</div>

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> And you are still trying to rescue your objection! Again I must point out that since the reports of new colours are associated with visions of the afterlife there is no reason to think that they refer to any form of visual perception at all.
> 
> The problem is that claims of actual visual perception - when what is seen is in the physical world do not seem to be significantly different in terms of colour vision - from ordinary sight.

I am exasperated at having to repeat the same point: the type of “vision” described in many NDE accounts does not appear to correspond to ordinary everyday eyesight, and the same applies to the way colours are described. I am not imposing an interpretation or claiming to know what these experiences ultimately mean; I am simply pointing to what experiencers themselves report about the nature of their perception.

Here are numerous NDE accounts. I will leave it to you to consider what they suggest.

- I can’t say there was any vision, just awareness. I KNEW what it looked like and what I was. I didn’t see it with my eyes, I just knew.
- It was like watching on a big screen TV, then being able to zoom in to whatever specific area to see and hear clearly
- I could see clearly without glasses. I could see distant and near without restrictions. In this world I am legally blind even with glasses
- Everything was crisp, sharp and glowing… I also felt it with my senses. The visuals had emotions contained within them
- “I’m not sure it’s a vision — because you don’t have eyes over there — but your mind sees and knows everything.
- I was and am very near sighted. Of course I could ‘see’ perfectly without a body or eyes.
- **Vicki Noratuk** , blind from birth, reported colour images during her NDE, including meeting two childhood friends, and gave accurate physical descriptions of them although she had never seen them.
- **Frank** , also blind, described the pattern of colours and designs on a necktie he had been given.
- My vision was like being on top of the tallest building in the world on a clear day able to see the entire surroundings up to the horizon.
- I didn’t need to see with my eyes. I saw with my mind.
- No central local of perception, could see from any perspective, 360 degrees. Colours brighter and more alive than with physical eyes
- I was able to see and assimilate everything that was going on… my eyes were able to watch one thing [and] another staff member enter the room… all at the same time.
- I continued rising toward the purest white light I could ever imagine.
- I traveled along a soft, grassy passageway lined with gardens filled with the most astonishing palette of colors I had ever seen. Once again, none of these colors seemed to exist within our ordinary vision of the universe.
- My attention became fixed upon flowers composed of what seemed like trillions of colors, colors I had never seen before and could never have imagined. They were brilliantly illuminated from every direction, as if the purity of the white light surrounding them enshrouded every individual petal.
- She found herself in a beautiful green meadow with flowers, lit by a radiant light unlike any she had known, and remembered thinking she had never seen some of these colours. Greyson reports that about two-thirds of the NDEs he collected involved unusually vivid senses, including unfamiliar colours and sounds.
- As I came close to the bright light, all of a sudden I found myself in a field surrounded by beautiful trees, flowers with colors that I had never seen before. I stood up in amazement. Nothing had ever felt so real in my life.
- I often describe it as being in the chest, but I do not mean that I literally saw a physical flame inside the body with my normal eyes. It was more like another kind of perception or vision.
- I was not looking through eyes, but I could see in all directions. The blackness looked solid and opaque, but was light as fog. It gave way freely. I felt profoundly exhausted. Thankfully, it began to dissipate rapidly, and I beheld the most beautiful light I have ever seen, with colors I have never seen in this world.
- Colors were saturated, and it was like my vision would zoom in and out depending on what I was looking at.
- There were colors flying around everywhere in this dark space, like shooting stars in the distance… I remember that I saw colors that I’ve never seen before. When I saw the new
- During the experience I could see very vivid colours that I didn’t know existed. There were so many shades of colors that were blending in and out.
- The palette shifted constantly, with whites melding into blues, reds, purples and greens, and included some shades I had never seen and do not exist on earth.
- One person saw no tunnel or white light, but saw colours so bright, deep and rich that human eyes couldn’t perceive them, and so vivid they seemed tangible.
- Another, buried in a landslide, described rising above their body into a “beyond” with incredible colours and a feeling of peace.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 2:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/129 "2026-09-29T14:01:08Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> So, I will repeat my question, because you did not really answer it: When people dream that they can fly, does this “raise the question” of whether people can actually fly?

That is a loaded question because it assumes, from the outset, that NDEs are dreams or dream-like experiences. I am not making that assumption either way. I am only relaying how experiencers themselves describe their experiences.

Whether those descriptions reflect something beyond normal brain processes, an altered state of consciousness, or another explanation is a separate question. Personally, I remain very skeptical that NDEs represent a phenomenon beyond conventional explanations, but that is my own interpretation. The point I am making here is simply to accurately represent what experiencers report.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 2:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/130 "2026-09-29T14:01:16Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Nor, one supposes, would experiences involving no actual perception, just a sort of dream.

Let me know whether, based on these accounts, you think experiencers are describing something that feels like a dream or dream-like experience.

- Nothing about it was like a dream. It was the most real I’ve ever known.
- It seemed real, not floaty and jumping between topics as in dreams.
- Unlike anything my imagination could create.
- The experience seemed more realistic than reality itself for several weeks and years after.
- Not a chance! It is as vivid today as it was forty-two years ago.
- I was unconscious physically, but more alert/conscious than I had ever experienced before or since. Like a window had been cleaned that you did not know was dirty until you saw the difference.
- No, very real, I will never forget! It was very real to me, the power and energy was nothing like a dream.
- Very real, not unreal, reality is over there, like being there, felt like I was awake.
- I knew what I had seen. I remember the feeling of ‘I am home’ and how vivid the experience was. It did not feel like a dream at all. It felt like it was me and that my earthly body did not belong to me. It was the real reality…
- Because I will never forget what I experienced. It was not like a dream which I don’t remember most of the time but a real feeling.
- I NEVER HAD A DREAM LIKE THIS, NOT A DREAM, BEEN INTO SURGERY MANY TIMES, NOTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENED.
- My view of the experience is that it is more real than any so called life.
- The experience was more real than anything that happens here on Earth.
- It happened. There is no doubt in my mind.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 2:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/131 "2026-09-29T14:01:20Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Are you saying non-physicalist understandings have no corresponding obligation to explain how subjective experience arises from _non-physical_ processes? Or that such explanations have been provided? If the latter, can you please describe what these explanations are?

Non-physicalist understandings have an obligation to explain how subjective experience arises from non-physical processes. No such explanation has been provided.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 3:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/132 "2026-09-29T15:33:05Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> Let me know whether, based on these accounts, you think experiencers are describing something that feels like a dream or dream-like experience.

Yes. Claiming your dream wasn’t a dream is not evidence that it isn’t a dream.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 3:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/133 "2026-09-29T15:33:43Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> That is a loaded question because it assumes, from the outset, that NDEs are dreams or dream-like experiences. I am not making that assumption either way. I am only relaying how experiencers themselves describe their experiences.
> 
> Whether those descriptions reflect something beyond normal brain processes, an altered state of consciousness, or another explanation is a separate question. Personally, I remain very skeptical that NDEs represent a phenomenon beyond conventional explanations, but that is my own interpretation. The point I am making here is simply to accurately represent what experiencers report.

People also report the experience of doing things in their dreams that are otherwise physically impossible, such as flying. You still have not explained why, in one instance, we should seriously consider that the things they report may have actually happened, but not in the other. We no better understand how REM-stage brain activity produces the conscious experience of a dream than we do any other aspects of how the brain produces conscious experience (if it does), so that doesn’t seem to be the reason.

> [@LRT](#):
>
> Non-physicalist understandings have an obligation to explain how subjective experience arises from non-physical processes. No such explanation has been provided.

Great, thanks. So non-physicalist understandings are of no value in answering the questions raised by physicalism. Plus they raise _additional_ questions which they also cannot answer, but which do not arise under physicalism.

Those are among the reasons that I don’t think non-physical models warrant much serious consideration at this time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/134 "2026-09-29T18:17:54Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> I see no hidden targets being used in this study to objectively test for veridical perceptions.

And I already told you that. However that doesn’t mean that they weren’t used - that‘s not what that paper is about.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/135 "2026-09-29T18:18:00Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> I am exasperated at having to repeat the same point: the type of “vision” described in many NDE accounts does not appear to correspond to ordinary everyday eyesight, and the same applies to the way colours are described

Repeating a point that I have already rebutted - and when your only objection to the rebuttal was implausible speculation is obviously a waste of time. You do not have to do it - it is your choice, and to my mind a poor one. According to your own words the differences in colour vision occur in visions of the afterlife and there is no reason to think that it is actually seeing or that there are colours in the ordinary sense to be seen.

And yet you provide a long list of quotes none of which clearly helps you. Some say nothing of relevance. some are definitely afterlife visions. Others are unclear on that point. Others support the point you are objecting to:

E.g.

> [@LRT](#):
>
> - **Frank** , also blind, described the pattern of colours and designs on a necktie he had been given.

If it is easier for you to find examples that support my point than examples that rebut it - as seems to be the case - then why on earth should I change my mind?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/136 "2026-09-29T18:18:06Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Great, thanks. So non-physicalist understandings are of no value in answering the questions raised by physicalism. Plus they raise _additional_ questions which they also cannot answer, but which do not arise under physicalism.
> 
> Those are among the reasons that I don’t think non-physical models warrant much serious consideration at this time.

Non-physicalist perspectives do not answer the questions raised within physicalism because those questions arise from physicalism’s own assumptions. They do not **add** another layer of problems; they **replace** one set of explanatory challenges with another.

Dualism and idealism have not, at this point, demonstrated that they can replace physicalism, and whether they ever will remains uncertain.

How about resolving the problems within physicalism rather than deflecting by pointing out the flaws of other models?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/137 "2026-09-29T18:18:09Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Yes. Claiming your dream wasn’t a dream is not evidence that it isn’t a dream.

And dismissing them as dreams does not constitute evidence either; it is merely an assumption that requires justification.

When people consistently report that the experience was fundamentally different from a dream, that claim should be investigated rather than simply dismissed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/138 "2026-09-29T18:18:12Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> People also report the experience of doing things in their dreams that are otherwise physically impossible, such as flying. You still have not explained why, in one instance, we should seriously consider that the things they report may have actually happened, but not in the other. We no better understand how REM-stage brain activity produces the conscious experience of a dream than we do any other aspects of how the brain produces conscious experience (if it does), so that doesn’t seem to be the reason.

Why, exactly, am I required to justify why we should seriously consider that what experiencers report may have actually happened? I am not claiming that it did happen; I am saying that we do not know.

Is proof that an experience reflects external reality a prerequisite for studying it? If that were the case, why do we study dreams, knowing that the events experienced in dreams are not physically occurring?

A comparison between dreams and NDEs does not eliminate the need for investigation; it is a hypothesis to examine, not a conclusion that ends the inquiry.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 10:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/139 "2026-09-29T22:31:50Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> Non-physicalist perspectives do not answer the questions raised within physicalism because those questions arise from physicalism’s own assumptions.

Wrong. Under physicalism all that exists is the physical, therefore consciousness only arises from the physical.

Under dualism, there exists the physical and then there is some other stuff, and the other stuff is what they believe produces consciousness.

Both views have in common the unanswered question of how consciousness is produced by the stuff that is presumed to produce it. That question does not exist under physicalism alone.

> [@LRT](#):
>
> They do not **add** another layer of problems; they **replace** one set of explanatory challenges with another.

Wrong. In addition to the challenge of explaining how consciousness arises from the stuff that is presumed to produce, non-physicalism also has at least two additional challenges that do not pertain under physical:

1. How does the non-physical interact with the physical in the production of consciousness.

2. What evidence is there that the non-physical even exists in the first place? (Physicalists do not have to convince anyone that the brain exists.)

> [@LRT](#):
>
> How about resolving the problems within physicalism rather than deflecting by pointing out the flaws of other models?

I’ll give you a moment to appreciate the irony of what you just wrote there.

> [@LRT](#):
>
> Why, exactly, am I required to justify why we should seriously consider that what experiencers report may have actually happened? I am not claiming that it did happen; I am saying that we do not know.
> 
> Is proof that an experience reflects external reality a prerequisite for studying it? If that were the case, why do we study dreams, knowing that the events experienced in dreams are not physically occurring?

You are misconstruing my point. By all means, we should study both dreams and NDE’s. I am not saying that we shouldn’t. I am, rather, asking: In studying the two phenomena (which I have never denied can be distinguished from one another) why should we more strongly consider that the physically impossible things reported in NDE’s might actually have happened, than we do with the physically impossible things reported during dreams?

While his brain was being turned to mush by acute meningitis, [Dr. Eben Alexander](https://www.wired.com/2013/12/butterfly-riding-neurosurgeon-hits-turbulence/) actually believed he was riding on the back of a giant butterfly. IMHO, this is not good reason consider that this actually happened. At least, no more than if I had dreamed the same thing last night but had the good sense to realize it was just a dream.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 10:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/140 "2026-09-29T22:32:34Z")

</div>

> [@LRT](#):
>
> And dismissing them as dreams does not constitute evidence either; it is merely an assumption that requires justification.

The great thing about the dream hypothesis is that it requires no new and unevidenced forces of nature. It thus avoids the multiplication of entities that Occam was on about.

> [@LRT](#):
>
> When people consistently report that the experience was fundamentally different from a dream

Consistently? Fundamentally? We can grant that these were not literally dreams; no REM sleep involved. “Dream” is just a stand-in for “vision presenting no evidence of involvement with the actual world”. That people found them convincing is no evidence. People find all manner of false claims convincing.

> [@LRT](#):
>
> Why, exactly, am I required to justify why we should seriously consider that what experiencers report may have actually happened?

Because it requires fundamental features of nature for which there is no evidence. How about this: rather than comparing to dreams, how about comparing to manufactured memories?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LRT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LRT](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LRT)\
**Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 12:19am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052/141 "2026-09-30T00:19:36Z")

</div>

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> Repeating a point that I have already rebutted - and when your only objection to the rebuttal was implausible speculation is obviously a waste of time. You do not have to do it - it is your choice, and to my mind a poor one. According to your own words the differences in colour vision occur in visions of the afterlife and there is no reason to think that it is actually seeing or that there are colours in the ordinary sense to be seen.
> 
> And yet you provide a long list of quotes none of which clearly helps you. Some say nothing of relevance. some are definitely afterlife visions. Others are unclear on that point. Others support the point you are objecting to:

Examples were given to show that vision and colour experiences reported during NDEs can differ dramatically from normal perception, and that difference itself requires an explanation. What exactly is your point?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052.md?page=6)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-the-brain-only-model-cannot-fully-explain-near-death-experiences/18052.md?page=8)