I just finished reading Chris Carter's new book called Science and the Near Death Experience. Some of the information is old stuff but he makes some great arguments for consciousness beyond the body. He refutes Susan Blackmore very well and it could possibly be the reason she has given up her persistence that the brain creates the mind and decided not to pursue the issue any further. Best of all he discusses G forces on pilots giving a sense of a NDE and how its not the same thing.

Of all the books I've read I find his to be informative as to the real science investigation vs the dogma of materialism. It's definitely worth a read if you need some prodding to seek your own evidence.

Check out the reviews he's getting. That's what convinced me to give him a read: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/15...

Yours,
Beau

Thanks, Beau. 

The study of NDEs, OBEs, and ADCs provides the best evidence for survival. But recent anecdotal books do not seen to break new ground.  So I'm grateful to discover a new researcher with both scientific and  philosophical sophistication.  His first book (on parapsychology) looks very interesting as well.  What we need now is more cross-cultural studies of NDEs and related phenonomena. 

Don

Thanks for posting the link to Carter's book, Beau. It seems like one I'll definitely have to order.

I'm sure the old materialist predominance is fraying at the edges, and starting an inevitable decline. Whether it finally gets discarded sooner rather than later remains to be seen. But with its passing, science itself will be unleashed to make huge progress, no longer held back by a false view of reality which has held sway now for far too long.

Alfred

Have just finished Chris Carter's book. I found it to be well written and researched; rather less technical than Pim Van Lommel's book but written from a more philosophical perspective I feel.

One thing that interests me, given the number of researchers ( Van Lommel, Sabom, Fenwick, Grayson to name a few) who give solid scientific evidence that NDEs can't be accounted for with materialist explanations, why is the medical community so reluctant to change their standard position ? This was brought home to me when chatting with a doctor friend; when the subject of NDEs came up I said that I felt that the scientific community were slowly changing their minds. She said that was'nt her experience at all in her medical circles . I thought it interesting that Chris Carter made the point that the biological sciences still embraced a classic determinism which had been abandoned by physicists a long time ago... I know that in the UK skeptics such as Susan Blackmore are given a lot of prominence and air time so maybe its more to do with scientific politics than scientific rigour.

I'd be interested to hear Mathew's take on this...

A skeptic, but an open-minded one Beau. As far as I can see she has never had access to non-material evidence because it never comes within her radar (she's a GP). I get the impression that, in her circles, the dominant view is that the NDE has been satisfactorily explained as due to chemical processes in a dying brain. If no contrary evidence is presented then its not surprising that that view is maintained !

I was looking into Vin Lommel's book when I came across Chris Carter's. And I have thought about looking at Jeffrey Long's book too. I would just like to read about some new evidence where the people involved in the anecdotes haven't disappeared and could validate the stories. Just first person validation would be superb for me. I suppose I'll get Van Lommel's book next unless something else comes out in the next few months that strikes my interest.

Thanks Beau.

Did he say anything about the NDE effects of ketamine?

R

Beau wrote on Jan 10^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
.  Beau and others, for a very interesting, and sometimes hilarious, but always damning view of science, read anything by Charles Fort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned.
He wrote in the 1930's and catalogued thousands of occurances of phenomena that organized science systematically "conventionalized" and then ignored. Of his three big bboks, I have only read "Lo!", which they say is the most readable. Its pretty amazing.