What Convinced Two Skeptics that There is an Afterlife? - Darren McEnaney of Seeking I. Part 1: Episode 7
WTF Just Happened?! the podcast is also available on:
Anchor | Apple | Overcast | YouTube | Spotify | Google | Breaker |Radio Public | Stitcher | Pocket Casts | Castbox
What is the strongest evidence that there is something after we die?
Listen to part 1 of Liz’s talk with Darren McEnaney of Seeking i. Darren describes himself as a “a lay researcher of consciousness focused on anomalous experience and life beyond physical death.” Listen to his podcast Seeking-i to follow his “research into the nature of life, death and whatever comes next.” Darren speaks with some of the most influential and intelligent people in the scientific investigation of what happens after we die. Many of these people have been instrumental in helping convince Liz that death is not the end.
Darren explains that like Liz, he always assumed consciousness outside of a brain and an afterlife was complete nonsense. However when he was only 12, he fell into a deep depression and needed to search for meaning. He discovered NDE’s. Near Death Experiences. He at first assumed they were nothing more than a hallucination to cope with death. But he was interested that all these different people seemed to have such similar experiences and “hallucinations.” This intrigued him to research further, and he was amazed that many of these people who had NDE”s actually reported verifiable information.
He discusses one of the mist famous and evidential NDE cases, which is the Pam Reynolds case. Pam Reynolds had emergency surgery from an aneurism. During this surgery, blood was drained from her brain, her body was froze, an EEG showed no brain activity. Yet, she shared how during this time she was pours ode her body. She gave accurate information about what occurred during her procedure, and she described a very profound experience. Darren also explains you do have to look at other explanations such as that of the well-regarded skeptic Dr Gerald Woerlee who looked into this case.
Liz shares that she also has been pretty impressed by all she has learned about NDE’s. She shares a case she was pretty impressed by in Dr. Bruce Greyson’s new book. In fact it was the first case Dr. Bruce Greyson (a traditional medical psychiatrist) had ever encountered and he was baffled when this woman who was not conscious, gave accurate information about something that was going on in the room next door to her hospital room.
But Liz and Darren agree that while there is no proof of an afterlife, and there probably never can be, there is very strong and compelling evidence that we survive death. Liz explains that when all the evidence comes together, that is what makes such a strong case. They both discuss why proof is not needed to still thing there is a logical reason to conclude we do survive death. In fact proof is not as important in science as we think.
Darren gives some compelling reasons why we should not be so discouraged if we hear that brilliant scientists and skeptics dismiss afterlife evidence. While many of them are experts in one area, that does not mean that are experts in every area. He listens to experts and there are plenty of NDE experts whose opinion he will value even over renown scientists when it comes to this topic.
Both discuss that there is no clear explanation for how a brain that is mass and matter could create consciousness. It is no more scientifically verified how a brain could create consciousness than download it from a cloud.
Liz and Darren admit that they are of course emotionally invested in the results. How can anyone be neutral when it comes to life after death. Of course that is something we all desperately want. However, they both share valid reasons why they don’t think they are fooling themselves out of desperation.
Liz then explains how the medium readings she has received, and a time she bent a spoon, and another time she couldn’t bend one, all help add to her conclusion that there is strong evidence of life after death.
Follow Darren: seeking-i.blogspot.com | YouTube | seeking.com
Complete Summary:
Afterlife evidence is strong enough to convince skeptics.
Darren introduces himself, explaining he always has been a skeptic. He never thought there was any chance of an afterlife or consciousness outside of a brain. He began looking into it out of necessity. Darren developed a severe depression and anxiety caused by a fear of death. When he began really examining the evidence, he changed his mind. He first took for granted it was all bunk so there had been no point in even looking into any of the evidence. Talking to the experts in life after death research who he has on his podcast, further convinced him that we survive death. Liz really relates, although her motivating factor was grief.
Are NDE’s - Near Death Experiences - hallucinations?
Liz asks Darren about his first steps. What was the very first thing that made him think something must be going on beyond materialism. Darren explains that he began looking into what happens when we die when he was only 12 years old. He is now 25, so it has been some time. When he was 12 he fainted during a science class at school. This experience triggered anxiety and depression, fear around people and a fear of death. He thinks the first thing he found was NDEs - Near Death Experiences. Logically, the first thing he thought was that these were hallucinations of a dying brain. What he did find interesting after reading about a few different ones was how similar they all were. He still thought that they were hallucinations, but thought it was interesting how so many people seemed to have the same type of hallucination. So he decided to look further into them.
Once he began looking into NDE’s, he was fascinated to learn that some were veridical - meaning that what people would be “hallucinating” was accurate. People would report back conversations and occurrences in the operating room, the waiting room, and at times other places outside the hospital and at times other countries. These would turn out to be true. He didn’t understand this and could not make sense of it, but was very intrigued.
Liz adds to this explains NDEs helped convince her too that we survive death. The first time she heard about them, also as a kid, she assumed they were people’s brains coping with the terror of dying. After a neuroscientist her mom works with dismissed them as brains making sense of trauma, she never gave them a second thought until her dad died. Then she started reading about them and was amazed at how many people did get verifiable information.
The Pam Reynolds case.
Darren explains that one NDE story that stands out to him is a very famous and remarkable case called the Pam Reynolds case. There is also so much medical data surrounding this case, which makes it even more verifiable. Pam Reynolds was undergoing emergence surgery for an aneurysm and her brain was drained completely of blood and her body brought to a below freezing temperature in this remarkable surgery. She came back with accurate information of what went on during her surgery during a time no perception should be taking place. She wasn’t only under anesthesia, her brain was drained and the EEG was measured during the entire procedure, and it was flat throughout the time the perceptions took place.
Darren explains that this case however, is contested by a well-regarded skeptic Dr Gerald Woerlee who is of the opinion that it was all very much explainable physically. And it is very important to always look at both sides of cases like this. When you hear about a case like this look at what experts who have researched the case in depth and have come up with different explanations have to say. Compare what they say. But after doing this Darren still thinks this case is one of the strongest.
Liz mentions that there's a preponderance of very, very strong evidence of an afterlife, but there isn't concrete proof, and there most likely never will be. But there is hardly actual proof of anything. There almost always is an alternate explanation. The “debunkers” are just offering another theory of very complicated, inexplicable, “go against physics as we understand it,” experiences that are happening. And yes they are drawing logical conclusions still and they are putting together theories that are important to listen to. For the most part, minus some absurdities, people should always be at least listened to and respected, because it's how people are putting together information. It is an essential part of the human experience to process and put together information. However, Liz has noticed that once all of the evidence together, it seems that the materialist explanations don’t hold up with the same strength. They can explain one case, but coincidence can only happen so many times. Survival and consciousness not in a brain is a common thread that runs though all these experiences and research, but the materialist conclusion can apply to individual cases but does not have a common thread.
Liz shares one of her favorite NDE stories that turned out to be verified that Dr. Bruce Greyson wrote about in his book that firs made him begin to wonder what is going on. Dr. Bruce Greyson is a logical and traditional psychiatrist who began examining NDE’s after patients kept reporting and then verifying inexplicable experiences when they were unconscious or clinically dead before being revived. If there was just his case and the case of Pam Reynolds, the materialist (these were some forms of hallucination and coincidence) explanations would make the most sense. The anomalies could be dismissed. But these are two of many. Thousands and thousands. Probably more. There are also so many unreported ones, where people confess to friends that they experienced an NDE, didn’t have the words for it, or the context, and hardly told anyone.
Proof of an afterlife or even evolution isn’t possible.
Darren brings up what Liz said about proof being impossible. Scientists themselves don’t even deal with proof. Science only deals with strong or weak evidence, never actual proof. And it looks for the most likely explanation for a certain set of data. That is the same with mathematics when you get into the highest levels. Darren explains that's what a theory is. It's the most plausible explanation to a phenomena that's measured. Take evolution. It is the leading theory because such strong evidence supports it. But there is no actual proof of evolution. Then there are people who say since it’s just a theory, not a fact it’s not true. But a theory is the highest level of scientific accuracy.
Darren explains he doesn’t like the word debunk because it is assuming there is bunk. What he’s also noticed is that people who are vocally opposed to afterlife, psi abilities, and that kind of thing is that they work off their common sense based on what they've understood throughout their other experiences and their other research into different areas. For example Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is a brilliant astrophysicist and a brilliant man gave his opinion on NDE’s. But no matter how smart he is, he never examined NDE’s. Consciousness and brains are not his expertise. However smart Neil deGrasse Tyson is, Darren will listen to the people who have dedicated their lives to studying NDE’s even over a scientist as brilliant as Neil deGrasse Tyson. An intelligence in one area doesn't imply that you have knowledge of any other specialist subject. Darren has noticed that a lot of skeptics and even scientists have an almost fundamentalist type of approach to afterlife evidence and anything labeled paranormal. They have a strong opinion without having looked into any of the data or information. To get valid opinions on NDEs go to the experts who have been studying them such as Jan Holden, Bruce Grayson, Raymond Moody, Michael Sabom. Darren also explains he has a lot of respect for Dr Gerald Woerlee on this topic. Even if he disagrees with Dr Gerald Woerlee’s conclusion, he has examined the NDE research in depth before drawing a conclusion.
Does our brain create consciousness?
Liz agrees that how can you really know something if you don’t dive into it. People can be brilliant in one area, but not another. Take something like consciousness, no one can understand it. Scientists are still baffled by it. How can brains, which are material matter create consciousness.That makes no more sense than the theory that consciousness is non-local and stored in a bank somewhere downloaded by a brain.
Liz explains that she often thinks if consciousness was only material, it would be more survival based. Getting food and surviving would be all that matter. Not that those don’t matter, they are obviously essential but the human experience is so much more complex than that. We often put our basic survival to the side for things that are more deeper spiritual meaning such as love. It’s not convenient to give money any to causes and to help others. Having animals as pets is a burden, but loving them is more important. Our consciousness has so much more depth and complexity than pure evolution. Liz explains she is an atheist and believes evolution makes the most sense, but just that we are so much more than only Darwinian evolution.
Darren agrees that following the line of reasoning that the theory of evolution is going to be the most accurate way of determining where the human animal really came from. It certainly makes more sense than creationism. But just because the evidence is strong, does not mean it’s complete.
Darren returns to talking about how our brains are all matter and neurons and how difficult it is to explain how this matter creates consciousness. He brings up Bernardo Kastrup who made an analogy of the Brian as pipes, taps and pressure valves. You’re be able to make that system conscious just by turning on some taps in a certain order. Darren finds this a good thought experiment because no, taps and valves, no matter how complex, still don’t create consciousness. And brains are essentially that kind of system, just neurons firing or not firing, electrical impulses, all of which are matter, non-conscious matter.
Daren explains that while yes, we don't have a mechanism as to how consciousness could exist outside of a brain, we don’t have a mechanism for how it is created by a material brain either. It is just cultural that our society assumes the brain creates consciousness, it’s not scientific.
Is concluding there is life after death just wishful thinking?
Liz then asks Darren, since this was something she experienced. She initially was amazed that there was all this evidence of an afterlife and psi abilities, but thought there was a catch. There was no way this could be true. But then she hit a turning point where all this evidence of surviving death and psi accumulated, and she was amazed. It really seemed to be real. Did Darren have a turning point like that?
Darren explains that if he had not fainted which threw him into a deep depression and state of anxiety, he would never have looked into the evidence of an afterlife. He even got to feeling suicidal and that forced him to look for meaning. But this need can be dangerous he explains, because then you've got a natural bias that takes over for wanting something to be true. With his fear of death too, he really wanted the evidence that we survive death to be true. He wasn’t neutral, so there was a huge risk he was biased. So his turning point definitely was as his anxiety developed, it started really focusing around the fear of death.
Liz agrees that she is concerned it is all biased wishful thinking that she thinks there is string evidence of life after death. This is not a neutral investigation. How do you know your brain or your unconscious isn’t lying to you. Or isn’t just telling you a story and putting the evidence together in a way so you can function.
Spoon Bending
Darren explains that if he focuses only the subjective aspects of this inexplicable phenomena, he would think this was true. He sees many people doing that and believing and seeing what they want, such as posting a photo and saying there is something going on in it, such as a ghost, but when you look there is absolutely nothing. But Darren has focuses on the empirical evidence. It is unfortunate too that so many scientists are dissuaded from studying this data or even looking into it. There is is much stigma that parapsychological research is extremely underfunded. And it would hurt people’s careers if they were to pursue it. This is part of why it keeps getting dismissed as woo-woo.
Liz agrees and explains that people often will tell her she is lying to herself in how she perceives the evidence because of her need for it to be true. But along with all the books she has read, she has had inexplicable and tangible experiences that she cannot deny. She has gotten medium readings and some of the good mediums have known things they could not have just known, especially since Liz took all these precautions to hide her identity. She wondered if she was missing the catch or way they were cheating and reached out to skeptics to see what they thought. However she got no insights - all the skeptics seemed to say was no more substantial than this is not true because it’s not true. She has also had very concrete ecoeriynes such as a time she bent a spoon, and times she witnessed many others bend spoons, which she had verified and tested.
Darren confirms Liz meant bending a spoon with energy and mind not physical strength.