|
These stories, legends and myths are taken from a vast array of so-called “near-death experiences” (NDE).
Some of the more recent accounts and many others are available at: NDE's website.
They form the evidence for what I have come to call “Parnia’s Paradox,” that stares in the face of the scientific approach.
Evidently such experiences have been part of the human condition for millenia.
They appear in numerous cultures and in numerous guises.
Many would claim that they arise out of the teachings of religion.
On the one hand experiences often mention that many elements are ineffible — interpreted in terms of natural language only with difficulty, if at all.
Indeed it appears that experiencers often over a considerable period of time subject their account to re-interpretation before committing it to writing.
On the other hand the individual experiencers also seem to add innovative interpretations novel to their inherited cultural matrix.
Those selections included here are simply such interesting cases as have piqued my fancy.
The goal in this work is to provide each account with a running commentary.
As has clearly happened with others, this has the effect of adding still another layer of interpretation.
The hope is that my attempts to understand the NDE might persuade the reader that such phenomena are at least valid objects of observation and analysis.
As with any fresh field of investigation, the first attempts at understanding are built without a firm theoretical basis.
A number of theories have been proposed, to dispell Parnia’s paradox, but none has as yet been very enlightening.
For the most part science has been unable to do much in this area.
To apply the scientific method the claims must first of all* be falsifiable.
It must be possible to find and select experiences that directly contradict each other.
Indeed such accounts are relatively easy to find.
Usually, however, it is possible to adjust the interpretation so as to harmonize with an appropriately modified hypothesis.
In fact this is the normal proven path of progress in science today.
Secondly, the account must be logical.
This criterion is hardly ever present in the data.
To make progress in this area the investigator must approach his work with utmost patience and tolerance.
Hopefully we can in the process avoid any self-deception, which is quite impossible to demonstrate.
Third, there should be some promise that the observations will be repeatable.
The fourth essential criterion for a theory to pass scientific muster is that it must be sufficient.
The very process of selection makes it impossible not to violate some of these ideals.
It seems that any devisable explanation is incapable of covering any and all new experiences that come to light.
Hopefully, however, this commentary will be a beginning to such an ideal.
*See Lett’s laws, enumerated in my grammar of English.
|
| |