Near-death experiences aren’t anecdotes, they’re data neuroscience still can’t explain. Come argue it out inside The Giant’s Shoulder →
Neuroscientist Marjorie Woollacott spent three decades as a hard materialist before near-death experience research convinced her the brain does not simply switch off during cardiac arrest. In this clip she walks through the prospective hospital studies that track corroborated, verifiable details reported by clinically dead patients, including a comatose man with zero brain activity who accurately described a nurse hiding his dentures, and a physician’s own detailed near-death experience during a near-fatal C-section.
The clip closes on a striking aside: philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, a committed proponent of analytic idealism, privately told Woollacott that certain near-death evidence is strong enough it would force him to abandon his own framework. It’s a rare moment where the data itself, not just competing theories, becomes the centre of the argument.
Expect to learn:
– Why a career neuroscientist who once taught hard materialism now says near-death experiences cannot be dismissed as anecdotal
– What a prospective NDE study actually measures, and why it matters for scientific rigour
– The story of a comatose cardiac arrest patient who accurately reported where his dentures were hidden
– How a physician’s own near-death experience during a life-threatening C-section became a documented case study
– Why philosopher Bernardo Kastrup’s analytic idealism nearly couldn’t withstand this evidence
– What analytic idealism actually claims about consciousness and physical reality
– Why mainstream neuroscience still has no accepted mechanism for any of this
Watch the full episode here —
Subscribe to the main channel:
Follow on Spotify:
Follow on Apple Podcasts:
source
Thank you for pointing out that physicists really DO get a pass when they put forth the wildest possibilities imaginable concerning the unknown. These include theories about consciousness, parallel universes and about why (“they claim”) that aliens “haven't contacted us.” The theories that they suggest are definitely extraordinary claims, with very un-extraordinary evidence to back them up.
While stating the above doesn't mean that people necessarily believe all of these physicist’s truly wild ideas, the physicists definitely don't get the type of backlash from the scientific community that those seriously discussing near-death experiences do.
Near-death experiences where a patient verifiably gains previously unknown knowledge are documented to exist. For me, that strongly indicates that something paranormal is occurring in some patients after clinical death. It could mean that the dying brain sometimes exhibits an unknown form of esp just before death. Or, they could be true glimpses into an afterlife. Either way, they deserve serious study, rather than ridicule.
I suppose Near Death is interesting but get back to me when we have some Actual Death experiences. Minute 11 is kind of funny. People can see what is happening all around them and describe it in detail. Except for numbers. Somehow numbers are visually blocked.
There's ONLY conciousness. And there's only one, many many names and formes of it, but only one cociousness. Mind can not understand it, but luckily we are not the mind. Peace and love to all of you.
Like to view ratio is atrocious 😂
The problem as I see it is that scientists will avoid questions they can't create a theory for because they can't create an experiment that proves anything. To create a theory, one most be able to identify certain bits of matter that can be subjected to a process that has general acceptance in order to prove a point which, itself, is basically unknown. You won't be able to publish a report on the matter, the process and the outcome.
Consciousness is an unknown substance. Its genesis is unknown. Its domain is unknown. You can't prove an unknown using other unknowns. You're right back at square one which is "There is what I think is a substance, but that substance is unknown, how it originates is unknown, and how it functions is unknown.
If scientists were to take a guess at a substance and then devise experiments that might prove such a substance exists, only then do you have the starting point for a provable phenomena. It will be extremely difficult to find support for such a study because who is going to support a study for which the matter, the process, and the outcome have yet to be proven.
On the bright side, I have come across a few physicists in the past year who believe consciousness is a substance and therefore experiments to prove this have some possibility of working. But, we're clearly at the very beginning stages of tackling this stickiest of all scientific questions.
12:10 – Yes… "Context" is exactly WHY every detail of every anecdote CAN be easily explained by the Flow-Of-Thoughts in our neurological processes. "The Narrative", "The Story", "The Anecdote" FOLLOWS the Physical Sensory Input.. the brain Processes that data, and Before you are even aware of that "Sensory Information", your brain is already providing a "Story" to "carry" that sensory data to your Pre-Frontal Cortex. It's ALSO why we cannot use "collective" anecdotes from the patients and the doctors… because the context is not, "focus on moment-to-moment details in order to corroborate an NDE claim"… therefore, any GENERAL DESCRIPTION of events that could be discerned or inferred from Fragmented Sensory Information, will likely be CLOSE ENOUGH to the actual events that the other people will indeed corroborate the "General Description of events"
– For the "Read a Number" Test… they have also used solid colored paper with no improvement in the results.
– For the woman who knew the procedures done to her… do we have recordings of every conversation that took place around her during recovery?? Probably not… and without THAT, there are too many unknowns to properly determine ANY causal relationships.
Bottom line: Science determines what is true by a Focused Dedication toward Trying to Prove the Hypothesis WRONG… NOT by trying to collect information to validate it – That's called Confirmation Bias. Papers / Studies that are entirely based on Anecdote provide nothing more than Data Points… Conclusions about what an Unknown 'IS", cannot be "properly" formulated without defining what it "IS NOT" via confirmation through replication of controlled experimentation.
– Example: Exactly how much effort have these "scientists" put into any attempt to artificially produce ANY similar results? I'm almost certain we have the technology to artificially activate a brain-state that would mimic some of the brain-states observed under conditions where NDE's typically arise…. has that even been a Thought for these "scientists"?
Minimum Requirements to perform a PROPER Study on NDEs – currently impossible due to legal reasons:
Get EVERBODY's Buy-In and setup PRELIMINARY Baselines for Each Patient.
– Get a FULL BRAIN SCAN using the latest methods.
– All Patient Rooms and ORs for these patients would be equipped with the necessary equipment for monitoring and review to corroborate data following any claim of an NDE.
– Each Patient should be given the various tests used to Induce NDE experiences and record those results with the same level of preliminary data collection and monitoring for post-assessment and review.,
– Make note of all the times an NDE did NOT Happen… The "Criteria" for noting when it did NOT happen will be defined by the environmental conditions associated with the SCOPE of conditions present for "Accepted Claims of NDEs"
– Perform Full Brain scans afterward and compare the results for any change in brain activity and or functional neural connectivity.. etc, etc.
– OH… and Perform the Exact Same level of Pre and Post diagnostics on the Control Group who ONLY receive the "Induced NDE" testing.
WIDE SCALE Study with a Huge Scope.
– Multiple hospitals
– Multiple doctors
– LOTS of older patients…
That's the MINIMUM number of considerations to setup this experiment PROPERLY.
I have long believed that consciousness is more than some program running in the brain. I experience something every night before sleeping. I wear a sleep mask, for two reasons: (1) to keep my eyes from drying out (I am old and my eyelids don't close completely), and (2) to exclude light so I don't awaken early in the summertime. The sleep mask is an old black cloth Covid mask–I've found it works better than commercial products. A key fact is that the cloth wrinkles a little so the light coming through it, before I turn off the light, is uneven. After I turn out the light, with the mask on and my eyes closed, I can see. Not like regular sight in a well lit room. Very dimly and blurry. It is like night vision by starlight; no colors. Crucially, it is not unevenly lit like it would be if I were "seeing" by light coming through the sleep mask. When I turn my head I can see the windows, the objects in the room, and my own body and/or bedclothes. I have considered that what I am actually "seeing" is my vision system anticipating the usual scene, and preparing to see anything that differs from "the usual". After all, our vision system has firstly a protective function, so detecting differences is critical for noticing potential dangers. I don't know if you or anyone there has a way to contact me, but I'd be interested to know what neuroscientists think of something like this.
13:20 "Because I KNOW it can't be true" – First… I doubt she "said that", this is Your Own Emotional Projection… a direct mirror reflection of your own conviction for "knowing that it IS true"
I 100% resonate with Kastrup. Analytic idealism was the gateway drug to subjective experience being fundamental. After 30 years an atheist and physicalist, I realized the error in my ways. But shifting that thinking was an incredibly difficult mental shift. Fortunately as someone who has studied computer science and built hardware for decades, I can see the flaw in connecting computation to subjective experience. And even more interesting is how physics has a big gap as well in understanding the ontology of matter beyond how it applies to function.
Long story short, I think Kastrup unfortunately does not go far enough to explain much of the data (OOB, NDE), but a deeper ontology where subjective experience is not just one to one with matter better explains what we observe about physics, computation, and real world experience. Instead, the brain is interfacing deeper within entirely, not simply extrinsic appearance of mind.
This is a life changing rabbit hole and encourage everyone to deeply examine your fundamental metaphysics. Don’t be the guy playing neuralink VR your entire life thinking pixels is all there is, and that the right combination and movement of pixels generates mind.
Best of luck. Remember the ground of being is love. ❤ love others and love itself. Hit me up on the other side.
2:45 What scientists count as "data" is what can be defined intersubjectively via quantification. In other words, the notion of "data" rests entirely on a prior intersubjective agreement that defines a validating set of exclusive criteria (quantities) which is then presented as "objective" because it is publicly verifiable. However, such agreement remains invariably rooted in the subjective qualitative experience to which we have no epistemic access. We have no epistemic access to the qualitative subjective experience because it must always remain private by ontological necessity. So basically, to demand public verification of the subjective experience is ontologically impossible. That applies equally to all subjective experiences including the subjective experience that motivated the adoption of the scientific method.
Today, our priests wear lab coats. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence (and it is evidence) takes a backseat at best in favour of repeatable controlled experimentation. The scientific establishment is filled with oppressive oversight, monetary control, dogma and hubris. Which is a shame, because the scientific method is a wonderful tool set.
The beginning turned me down. Words like rigorously, scientifically… 😢 Noone says… We study this as a part of particular religious community. Where through practice you gain experience and capabilities for the moment of death. Just leave out science if teachings are not mentioned or involved.
Come out and say it already. who or what is conscious of consciousness?
Consciousness is conscious of consciousness? Awareness is aware of awareness?
Schizophrenia = multiple personality – no
Did disorder = multipe personality – yes
Schizophenic people don't have multiple perosnality
My Old Dad:
How do I know what I know? 🪁🤏🏼
This "GRANDPA" told me during the 1950s:
"On his arms you lie,
We are from that Star" 🌠, he pointed out. "You too my son," Grandpa emphasized. You will study the Blue Light day by day and then you will Know."
I've tried climbing higher. "Every" tree bears my name carved,
Every pride knows my track because I am now with a Rock ⚕️.
Where there is water, there is rest.
The Stars have been shamed into the Blue Light and now Walk loose on the Earth.
Fewer people and more Stars can be our Salvation. 😲🤣😷
Build on the Rock and Flip so that Zero explodes.
Stars that arrived on Earth to provide a "New Bubble" in the self (each one).
Stars are available. Ask the Question:
Grandfather told, and so I found out That I can live inside and outside. I know that there are many people who know.
Don't be shy, you won't disappear from the blue light. Everyone can be stars. It is not a Virus but it is Contagious. 🧚♀️
💫
PLB
There's a clear difference between a "sceptic" and an outright denier of evidence that is simply nott comprehended or recognized. I'd say that most people are "sceptical", i.e. view things through their own five-sense, materialistic lens, until that lens shifts. Once, everyone was sceptical about the shape of the earth, or what revolved around what. Interview some of these people: Raymond Moody, Bruce Greyson, Kenneth Ring, Pim van Lommel, Eben Alexander, Anita Moorjani, Peter Panagore, Jeffrey Long, Jeffery (sic) Olsen, Howard Storm, Betty Eadie, Nanci Dannison, Mary Neal, Tricia Barker. There are thousands more. Are they all hallucinating, or making it up? How about the volumes of veridical evidence: those who observed events while they were "absent", which were later independently verified? So, scepticism is necessary, and useful; denialism in the face of evidence, and a failure to recognize certain kinds of evidence, is not.
As the brain dies, all the neural connections are opened up with no inhibiting impulses restricting the connections. It's a grand influx of everything at once. The experiences are real, but what does that tell us? It seems that our waking consciousness makes an artificial distinction between us and our surroundings when there is no real separation. Does this explain out of body experiences? Maybe the neural connections are not so much the cause of consciousness, but rather, the mechanism of shaping consciousness into a usable way of navigating the world by giving it focus so we aren't overwhelmed when we go about our everyday lives. We can realize all this and still be an atheist with respect to organized religion, which is based on fairytales. God is not the God of religion.
🇬🇧 👍🏽 August 2026
An atheist can experience all this & actually need not give up atheism, & its various logical facets – given that most of the issue is with the 'man in the sky' notion of God.
What it does do however is prove that we exist outside of our bodies – did before, & will continue to do so afterwards.
~
Who is liar ?
NDE;s are the ONLY true PROOF we have the soul in FACT moves on. … YOUR science has no place here….
I have a challenge for you. It's simple really. Have a conscious OBE. Work on becoming lucid in the dream state. Practice astral projection, which is much more difficult than LD but you can certainly try. But, yes, have a fully conscious OBE. I guarantee that, when you do, you will know what the rest of us know about consciousness and what it is. And what and who you are as a being of consciousness that just happens to be tethered to a physical body. Leave your physical body. You do it every night when you sleep. It happens naturally. Don't sleep through the experience. When you awaken in the dream state, you'll know. Good luck and travel well.
Oh, and the beautiful thing about physicalist pseudo-skeptic pathological debunker science-ists is this: It doesn't matter whether or not they're ready, willing, or able to accept the facts regarding consciousness. It's doesn't matter. Let them deny, refute, and argue against reality. It. Doesn't. Matter. 8.5 billion people are never going to agree on anything. They're the minority. Let them believe what they will. They will, eventually, all learn the truth. When they die. Imagine their chagrin. It makes me chuckle.
The problem with sceptics is that they aspect others to convince them saying that till that point they have a patent on the truth
Anyone who has had an NDE knows that consciousness continues after death, and wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. It sucks to have a foot in two worlds. How people want to interpret "real" is up to them. For some the only reality is what they are currently experiencing.
I suffered a severe but non fatal heart attack stage 62 that required 4 stents – 3 were inserted the next day needing me coming back for the 4th some 3 weeks later – on completing the cardiology team told me there was one more procedure – a pressure test that required slowly injecting a dye over 2.5 mins and that I might have some trouble breathing, which I did – they then informed me that they needed to flush out the dye and it would again take 2.5 mins, that my breathing might be even more uncomfortable – the instant the flushing started I couldn't get any air – after around 10 gasping breaths I arrested from anaphylactic shock, it took the cardiology team around 3 minutes to resuscitate me, I had nil after effects, I was fine – just as I was for that same 3 mins – during that whole time I never lost conscious awareness, not even a milli-second, I was instantly in another place and definitely still me…fully and completely lucid and aware. My experience pales in comparison the best NDE account I've ever read, that of Nanci Danison and what she reports – if interested go to nancidanison.com – click on 'About' and check out her bio, you tell me whether someone with her credentials can believed – like wise with renowned neuro-surgeon Dr Eben Alexander at ebenalexander.com – please don't suggest he's making it all up.
Great discussion! Thanks….I am a retired pathologist MD and am profoundly intrigued by NDE's. I also believe consciousness is primary in our universe 👍
Woollacott and others present NDE cases as strong evidence that consciousness survives brain shutdown, science sees this as huge overinterpretation of very weak data.
e.g. Nobody has passed the NDE OBE target test. A physical target, a printed number or symbol, placed somewhere the subject cannot see from their bed position—commonly above the bed, on a light fixture, high shelf, or ledge.
Anecdotal reports and some experimental CLAIMS exist, but no robust, replicated evidence shows that people reliably perceive these hidden targets during OBEs or near-death experiences.
OBE target test failure rate = 100%
Comment section full of people saying "pretty" words. The experiences are personal so why would anyone believe you?
What I usually see with all of the available videos of NDEs is people commenting on whether or not believe the individual or often whether or not they believe in reincarnation. What I've never seen someone ask, if you believe the individual and/or in reincarnation is, WHAT ARE WE? (If you can live in a body or multiple bodies … you aren't them … What are you then????) Just trying to get people to think.