Friday, October 14, 2011

Spiritual Doorway in the Brain Chapter 4: The Varieties of Near-Death Experience

What are the criteria for a spiritual experience or near-death experience? How do you know you’ve had one? What is the most common feature of a near-death experience? Does having a spiritual or near-death experience prove that God exists?

Nelson reiterates in this chapter his reasoning behind choosing the brain stem as his area of the brain to focus on for the near-death experience.

“The part of our brain responsible for these stories extends backward to our primal origins, thousands of millennia before our brains developed language and we could tell the stories. My research unites our brain’s survival reflexes with other ancient regions where we can reasonably say our ‘god impulse’ resides; an area responsible for dreaming and emotions.”

He offers that the idea of deities or a (many) creator(s) dates back to the time when language was made. This is a very important evolutionary time stamp; because it allowed us to talk about religion (we haven’t taken a break yet!). But Nelson thinks we had the idea of a deity before we gained language because the two came about simultaneously, giving us the mega phone (so to speak) for our ideas (God/afterlife).

Nelson discusses NDEs which have been recounted by some unlikely characters, skeptics. “It’s probably safe to say that millions of Americans consider these experiences as proof that an afterlife exists and that our consciousness or souls can separate from our bodies. Skeptics, on the other hand, maintain that the spiritual dimensions of NDEs are drug-induced or illusory, the product of a blood-starved brain, wishful thinking, or both.”

Many different cultures ascribe their own set of beliefs about death and the process that it entails. Americans see the typical white light, encounter dead relatives and spiritual beings; they have a life review, approach a boarder or have and out-of-body experience. Any grouping of those is very typical for those of the American culture or western culture. However, the Japanese view the boundary as a brook or river. Few tunnels in Japan and their religious views lend their NDEs to be different in detail.

In India, if a person’s name is not called off of a roster then the person returns to “life”. They were not meant to move onto the afterlife. Nelson uses this analogy: “All people feel and satisfy hunger. Yet comparing the means by which different societies obtain, prepare, and consume food tells us little about what nutrients are necessary for the body or the biochemistry of how the gut extracts those nutrients during digestion. So with near-death experiences our common biology produces shared features, but each culture imparts it own distinct flavors.”

18 million Americans may have had a NDE including Sharon Stone during a brain hemorrhage and Gary Busey after a motorcycle accident. Some people who have had NDEs wish to go back to that comforting place and beg to do so like William James’ friend; Symonds.

A young man in Dr. Nelson’s care described a NDE in which he floated to high above the gurney he was physically on, he was afraid that the light in the hospital room would burn him. Nelson found this interesting because he was suggesting that he was levitating and was afraid he’d burn this physical body. He’s noticed this exact scenario in his patients who suffer from vertigo. This is a semi-common inner ear problem. The issue makes a person feel like their spinning like after you’ve left a rotating merry-go-round. This phenomenon, his patient experienced, was an illusion of the brain which is similar to the illusion of the brain creating an extra limb.

Nelson references the work of Dr. Bruce Greyson who studied the psychological effects of a NDE. Sixty-seven cases were studied and he used eighty characteristics of these typical experiences to make up sixteen questions that fell into four categories: Cognitive (thoughts), Affective (feelings), Paranormal, and Transcendental. Each question had a value between zero and two. A total score of seven was minimal to be considered a NDE.

Nelson used this scaling procedure (the Greyson scale) as reference for his own experiments. Out of the fifty-five research subjects, no one scored a perfect, max score, of thirty-two and the average score of his subjects was sixteen. Nelson admits that this system is not fail proof either. Nelson’s research group found it interesting how little of the paranormal they found during their experiments.

A renowned neurologist, Oliver Sacks referred a woman named Margaret to Dr. Nelson. During a procedure in which most patients are anesthetized, but Margaret couldn’t be for medical reasons, she experienced herself going down a silky pink tunnel that was warm and the farther down she went the redder the tunnel became. She heard the sounds of people talking and music playing down in the tunnel and likened it to a brothel. People told her they assumed she was going to hell when she died because of society’s association of hell with red and being hot etc. she didn’t seem to mind at all. Nelson discovered that Margaret has trouble being able to tell if she’s awake or asleep.

Sir Alfred Ayer, well-known atheist, recalls a NDE he had when he nearly choked to death at age seventy-seven. He went into a coma and correctly determined that his brain remained active although his heart had stopped. As a very well learned man he was able to add insight on his experience which was very uniquely his own.

He mentioned and reflected on the fact that “nearly all of our cells (except neurons) are replaced every seven years. And even the molecules are exchanged that make up all the cells that remain with us throughout our lives. He also pointed out an excruciatingly common fallacy: “that every near-death experience including his own, seems to spawn: life after death proves that God exists. He argued that since this life is not proof of God, why should the next be different? There might be evidence of God in the next life, but, he reasoned, ‘we have no right to presume on such evidence when we have not had the relevant experiences’.” He remained an atheist and maintained that his experience did not prove that God exists.

Nelson believes that the moment when a NDE occurs is essential to his studies. We’ll talk more about this later. Jung, the ground-breaking psychologist, also had a NDE which occurred during a bout of pneumonia. This NDE consisted mostly of past experiences and memories. Like Ayer, Jung’s NDE weaved his autobiographical memory into a narrative.

Children have also reported NDEs. Theirs are quite different from those of adult, possibly due to their lack of life experiences to recall during their NDE. Kids don’t experience the life review that an adult might. Their ideas of the afterlife generally involve things like castles, rainbows, wizards, past pets, and guardian angels.

Sometimes kids will see relatives and religious figures too. A big question is: why do children have NDEs anyway? They have little to no understanding of death. Many of the core features of NDEs mentioned earlier in the book are present in child NDEs as well. Seeing relatives that may be dead or may not be dead, feeling peace or joy and consciously deciding to return to “life”. These children reacted in much the same way an adult would, by comforting their friends who were in the hospital and their parents. They like adults usually come to some peace and understanding about their own mortality. Other differences are that there is no feeling of unity with the universe, nor the alteration of time during their NDEs. Nelson has discovered that at the root of every NDE is a narrative with a beginning, middle and end.

Eyewitness testimony has proven faulty in the past and continues to do so. Some people have been wrongly convicted, as brought to light by current DNA evidence, by eyewitness accounts used as actual evidence. Usually, these are mistakes anyone can make not a plot or intentional lie to incarcerate someone.

“Most of us regard ourselves as expert witnesses to our own experiences, and spiritual experiences are no exception, especially because they’re often so vivid and compelling… it is stunning how often our perception can be distorted without giving us the slightest hint that this has happened… we have to distinguish when we’re operating in an area of faith or speculation rather than empirical evidence or proof.”

Nelson states that most NDEs occur because of lack of blood flow to the brain. Memory structures are the first in the brain to be injured (due to survival techniques of the body, cleaver right?). Damage to memory structures means that memories coming from visual experiences start with a falsehood. As an example of how your mind distorts things: there have been accounts of the blind being able to see what is going on around them during a near-death experience. Could this be due to some kind of miracle? Is there a neurobiological reason for this? Nelson believes that some of the aspects of a near-death experience may come from “eyes half open or conversations overheard while medical personnel and others are preoccupied.”

Dr. Nelson makes it very clear in this chapter that he sees little of the supernatural in spiritual experiences. He admits that it is significant to the person having the experience. However, the accounts of these experiences can be distorted due to the common human error that is ingrained in our very being. We only actually see the light waves that reflect off of objects.

Our eyes and brain individually process this input and any error (incredibly common) or slight difference (as in color blindness, astigmatism and the like) can cause exponential alterations in perception. Actually, our brain actually does so much filtering and changing during the data processing system for any sensation it is unrealistic to think that while a person is in any situation that may alter their brain’s usual functioning they are fully aware of what is happening in reality. “…but with eyes wide open to the ways our brain distorts through subtly filtering, shaping, and interpreting the raw data of our experiences.”

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The Kinds of Evidence- Arguments from Origin

After several years of research, I have found that the arguments for/against the validity of a certain belief system, including topics which apply to the existence of God, all fall into a few simple categories. It can be helpful to understand these categories while performing your own research. The first and most common type of argument, which will be examined in this post, are arguments from origins.


  1. Arguments From Origin
Consider, if you will, the following sand castle:


Castle #1
If you were to walk along a beach and see castle #1, you might stop and ask yourself "where did this come from?" You notice the fine detail and purposeful organization of the sculpture. You see repeating patterns, such as the multiple trees or the multiple towers. You take note that there are no other piles of sand which resemble it anywhere else on the beach. In addition, you recall the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe increases over time (the amount of disorder in the universe is always increasing). You would have a hard time figuring out how Castle #1 could have come into existence by purely natural means. Some would say that it is impossible for something like Castle #1 to come into existence unless there is some force outside of nature acting upon the sand! (For how could the wind or the tides cause the sand to pile up in such an ordered fashion?) You would rightly have a high index of suspicion that the particles of sand which make up Castle #1 were specifically placed by an intelligent being for a specific purpose. You would be asking and looking for an answer to a Question of Origins.


A few examples of a arguments from origins are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the argument from the origin of life. In the case of the cosmological argument, you walk along the beach and notice the entire universe and say "hmmm... This is a heck of an interesting thingy we have here... I wonder where it came from?" In the case of the teleological argument, you walk along the beach and notice objective morality (or at least the perception of objective morality) and say "I wonder where right, wrong, good and evil come from?" Finally, with the argument from the origin of life, you walk along the beach and see thousands of highly complex organisms, including yourself, and ask "Where could all of the diversity, order, and complexity that is life have originated?"




In each instance we must decide what the best explanation for the origin of the entity is. Two possible explanations for the origin of life, for example, are an intelligent designer (i.e. God) and evolution. Even more importantly, there are occasions when we must recognize that we do not have enough evidence to be able to say with certainty that "X must have caused Y!" or "The best explanation for Y is X!" Sometimes the best answer is "We don't know right now." (The implication being that we will continue to search for more evidence so that we will be able to come to a conclusion some day)


Tune in next time for more kinds of evidence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------


For fun, here are two more sand castles. They are unnecessary for the previous conversation, but I find them philosophically interesting.
Castle #2
Do you think that we should have an index of suspicion for a non-natural influence on this conformation of sand? Should that index of suspicion be as high as with Castle #1?


This castle lacks the minute detail found in Castle #1. However, one would still have difficulty in writing this conformation off as a purely natural phenomenon (especially in light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). One can see what could appear to be remants of old towers and the remains of two courtyards encircled by walls. On the other hand, one also notes the 'naturalness' of the eroded portions of the castle.


What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------


One more castle:
Castle #3
(The guy in the upper left corner is scratching his head and wondering, "did this configuration of sand come about through natural or supernatural means?")
Could this conformation have been created by natural means? Could it have been created by a higher power? Do we have a high index of suspicion that it was created by a super-natural force? How about compared to Castles 1 and 2? The guy in the top left of the photo is trying to figure out just that.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Dead Fish Make No Babies

After unsuccessfully attempting to calculate the volume of every species of animal on the planet, I started to look for alternative methods for determining whether or not the Biblical account of Noah's flood could have actually happened.

It was not long before my thoughts turned towards what would be going on everywhere else in the world, as opposed to just the happenings on the ark itself.

If a gigantic flood occurred which covered the highest mountain in the world (Mt. Everest, 5.5 miles high), or even if a somewhat less cataclysmic flood took place which covered the highest peak in the region (Mt. Ararat, 3.2 miles high), then all of the bodies of water below these elevations would unite into a single super-ocean.

All of the fish in the oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, estuaries, etc. would now be swimming in the same body of water, which would have a fairly uniform concentration of salt.

If this super-ocean was high in it's salt concentration, then most of the freshwater fish would die. If the super-ocean had a low salt concentration, then most of the saltwater fish would die. Either way, diverse species which require differing concentrations of salt in their environments in order to survive would all now be clumped into a single gigantic puddle.
---------------------------------------------------

But what does this mean? Well, first you have to decide whether or not you agree with evolution.

First let's examine the scenario if you don't agree with evolution:

Scenario #1: No Macro-Evolution
  • Huge categories of fish would have died during the flood.
  • Let's say that the flood happened to have a high salt concentration, and all the fresh water fish died (although the same scenario applies with super low, low, moderate, high, and super high concentrations of salt- no matter what, the salt concentration would be about the same throughout the super puddle and this would cause someone to lose).
  • There is a mass extinction of all fresh water fish (except for the few that already have the ability to survive in various levels of salinity).
  • The flood recedes.
  • From that point on, there would be essentially no more fresh water fish anywhere beneith the level of the flood (either 3.2 or 5.5 miles), because species do not change.
This is obviously false, because I myself have caught and eaten fresh-water fish at low elevations many times.

Conclusion: If you don't believe in evolution, then it is impossible for the account in Genesis concerning the flood to be factual. This would be considered an error in the Bible.

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

Scenario #2: Yes Macro-Evolution
  • Once again, let's say that the salt concentration of the super puddle remains at about the same level as the ocean before the flood.
  • Once again, most of the fresh water fish die.
  • The flood recedes, and we are left with just salt water species, and an extreme minority of freshwater fish that pulled through.
  • Now, because it is possible for species to undergo macro-evolution, they are subject to slow changes over time.
  • Unfortunately, 6000 years is not even close to enough time for speciation to occur (take humans for example- we haven't changed that much in 6000 years). This is especially true when we consider the huge number of species of fresh water fish that would have had to evolve.
Conclusion: Even if macro-evolution occurs, there is not enough time for the diversity of fresh water species to evolve. Because we have a great diversity of fresh water fish, the account in Genesis concerning the flood cannot be factual. The account of the flood in Genesis is an error in the Bible.
---------------------------------------------
 

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Radiometric Dating

Is there a way to determine how old a fossil is? What about a rock? How about the earth? Are they under 10,000 years old, or more than 1,000,000,000?

There are several ways to scientifically determine the time when certain entities were formed. In this post, we examine radioactive decay in general. In the following posts, we will take a look at some specific examples of dating methods, such as Isochron Dating. As always, we will be using a skeptical eye to determine whether or not such methods are reliable.

Radiometric Dating for Chemistry Beginners

The first thing one needs to understand radioactive decay is a little basic chemistry. More specifically, we need to understand isotopes. Here is a copy of the Periodic Table of the Elements (if you have trouble reading this copy, then google "periodic table with atomic mass and atomic number").


The periodic table is astoundingly complex and gives us vast amounts of information, but right now we just need to know a few basics.
  • The large, bold letters are the symbols of the individual elements. For example, the large "H" at the top-left corner stands for Hydrogen, the "He" at the top-right corner stands for Helium, and the "Li" underneath Hydrogen stands for Lithium.
  • The numbers above the symbols are the atomic numbers. The atomic number equals the number of protons that an element contains.
  • The number of protons that an element contains defines it's identity. If you change the number of protons, you change the element. (Add a proton to Hydrogen and you get Helium)
  • The number below the symbols is the atomic weight.
But what makes up an element's atomic weight? Well, protons, neutrons, and electrons! (electrons are so small that we won't need to take them into account during this discussion)

For our purposes, the atomic weight of an element equals the weight of the protons plus the weight of the neutrons:

Atomic Weight = Protons + Neutrons

The atomic weight of both protons and neutrons is about 1 atomic mass unit (1 amu). So, if an element has 2 protons and 2 neutrons, it has an atomic weight of about 4 amu's. If an element has 6 protons and 7 neutrons, it has an atomic weight of 13 amu's.

2 protons + 2 neutrons = 4 amu's
6 protons + 7 neutrons = 13 amu's
----------------------------------------------------------
Now we are ready to take a look at isotopes, which are the basis for radiometric dating. An isotope is a variant of an element. Where does this variation come from? It can't be a variation in the number of protons, because if you change the number of protons you have a different element entirely. What can change is the number of neutrons. So, isotopes of an element have the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons.

Let's take a look at some of the isotopes of carbon.

Carbon-12: has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, and an atomic weight of about 12 amu's
Carbon-13: has 6 protons and 7 neutrons, and an atomic weight of about 13 amu's
Carbon-14: has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, and an atomic weight of about 14 amu's
---------------------------------------------------

There is an extremely important property of Carbon-14: it undergoes radioactive decay. There is much to be said about radioactive decay, but right now all we need to know is that over time, Carbon-14 will turn into Nitrogen-14 (7 protons, 7 neutrons) through beta decay.

The amount of time that it takes for half of the Carbon-14 in a sample to turn into Nitrogen-14 is about 5730 years. Therefore, the half life of Carbon-14 is about 5730 years.

Here is a chart to help understand what takes place after a certain number of half lives have taken place.

Number of Half-Lives Elapsed
Fraction of Isotope Remaining
0
1/1
1
1/2
2
1/4
3
1/8
4
1/16
n
1/(2n)

Here is are a few examples:

  • You start out with 50 grams of Carbon-14. How long will it be until there are 25 grams left? Since the half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, it will take 5730 years.
  • You start out with 50 grams of Carbon-14. How long will it be until there are 13.5 grams left? Since 25 is half of 50, and 13.5 is half of 25, two half lives must have taken place. Therefore, 5730 X 2 = 11460 years.
----------------------------------------------------------

Now we have all of the tools necessary to understand the basics of radiometric dating. Once you know 1) the half life of an isotope, 2) the current mass of the sample, and 3) the original mass of the sample, you can determine the age of the sample.

In the case of Carbon-14, we know the half life and the current mass of samples is easily obtainable. The hard part is determining the original mass of the sample.

Fortunately, there is an interesting way to determine the original amounts of Carbon-14 in organic remains. Plants fix carbon from the atmosphere, and the ratio of the isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere remains relatively constant over time (this last sentence is a point of contention, and will be the subject of future posts). Therefore, the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in a living organism is at a set value. When that organism dies, it no longer takes in atmospheric carbon, so the amount of Carbon-14 starts to decrease through beta decay. By examining the ratio of Carbon-14 to carbon-12 in organic remains, one can determine approximately how long ago that organism died.

A special thank you to Nobel Prize winner Willard Libby and his colleagues for developing this technique!