© Glendon Mellow, The Flying Trilobite

the long habit, part III

twain

Death [is] the only immortal who treats us all alike.
MARK TWAIN’S last written statement, quoted in Moments with Mark Twain by Albert Bigelow Paine

Why is it, that those who die (or nearly die, depending on your definitions) and are revived, regardless of culture, religious beliefs or age, so often describe the near-death experience in the same way – a journey through a tunnel toward increasingly bright light, accompanied by out-of-body sensations, flashes of memory, visions of loved ones, and feelings of overwhelming peace and contentment?

The traditional answer, of course, is that the dying person has glimpsed a paradise beyond death. And the universally paradisaic nature of that moment seems to suggest we all make the grade in the end. Who ever heard of people coming back on the operating table with stories of flames?

Near the beginning of my midlife stare-down with the Reaper, I got to wondering if any competing hypotheses existed for the Everybody-Goes-to-Heaven explanation of the near-death experience. Not that I had any problem with that one, you understand: having taken Pascal up on his Wager, I’d be happy to have a free pass in the unlikely event that I and my fellow Sunday morning recumbents have it all wrong. But I’ll settle for the actual truth anytime. So I wondered.

Imagine my surprise to learn that not one of those phenomena – tunnel with bright light, out-of-body feelings, hearing what others in the room said after you’ve died, memory flashes, appearing loved ones, peace and contentment – not one of them is the least bit mysterious. We know why they all happen.

The Air Force puts its high-altitude pilots through intense testing. One of the tests involves sitting a pilot in the world’s largest centrifuge and spinning him or her until all of the blood runs out of the brain into the blood vessels on the periphery. (Call your local Air Force recruiter.) They pass out when this happens (wimps) – at which point the centrifuge slows, the blood returns to the brain, and they very often wake up laughing and woohooing. Ha ha ha, woohoo!

Guess what else? Tunnel, bright light, memories, loved ones, contentment. The works. These pilots report experiences that are essentially identical to the “near-death” experience. Why?

When your heart stops beating, the blood, not surprisingly, drains from your brain. The Air Force centrifuge simulates that blood-starved brain without stopping the heart. And we know, from these and other experiments, what happens when the blood drains out of the brain: billions of cortical neurons begin to fire randomly. Neurons in the visual cortex are more densely packed toward the center (fovea), so when those neurons begin to fire randomly, the person “sees” darkness at the periphery and increasing brightness toward the center. As more and more neurons fire, the bright center grows in size. The effect is one of moving toward a bright light down a long tunnel.

The neurons firing randomly in the prefrontal cortex trigger random flashes of memory, giving the effect of “life flashing before your eyes.” As the sensory neurons connecting us to our bodies fail, an out-of-body feeling naturally kicks in. Again—these aren’t guesses, a competing hypothesis to put next to heaven in the lineup. We know they happen, and how, and when, and why.

Hearing is the last sense to go, which explains reports of having heard what others have said after apparently being demised.

And the laughing of the pilots, the woohooing? This is the loveliest part, the experience that cured Montaigne of his fear of dying. As our head loses its lunch, the anterior pituitary gland, our private little opium den, floods the brain with endorphins. Whenever the body is stressed – and having the blood sucked out of your brain apparently qualifies as stress – these endorphins, powerful opiates that they are, suffuse us with feelings of tremendous happiness and well-being, an adaptive response that helps us make the best possible decisions in dangerous circumstances. We feel wonderful, peaceful, contented. This contentment combines with the fireworks in the prefrontal memory to produce scores of our happiest memories—like loved ones embracing us, accepting us, welcoming us. So that’s what’s most important to us: love. I’ve got to write that down. Hey, I just did! Woohoo!

The near-death experience stands fully explained not by guesses but by things we know for a fact occur. So why do we still opt for the other explanation?

Silly rabbit.

And it all fits with Montaigne’s description rather nicely, don’t you think? One minute you’re vomiting blood and writhing in pain; the next you can’t feel your body and you’re stoned on methadone. Going forward would have to seem more attractive than heading back. Hell, I’d push life off my lips, too.

There’s a symmetrical loveliness to the fact that my body’s lifelong tendency to cling to survival is reversed once it’s time to go — that the gears that now keep me impelled toward existence will, when the time is right, shift ever so gently, and impel me no less confidently toward nonexistence. I’m consoled by the way that underlines the naturalness of death, and by the further realization that this body of mine, yet again, seems to know what it’s doing. I can relax a bit further into my seat and enjoy the ride.

We’re never going to be free of our natural, adaptive, and understandable fear of losing the magnificent experience of being alive. But the thoughts of other mortals like Epicurus, Montaigne, and Lewis Thomas – who all had the same personal stake in the subject that you and I do – lead me further away from fear and closer to acceptance and understanding. Closer. And they can do the same for our kids as they get older and more sophisticated in their wonderings. The single most significant and profound thing about our existence is that it ends, rivaled only by the fact that it begins. The more knowledge I gather about the two profound bookends between which I find myself, the more I seem to settle into my seat.

I’m still not ready to give Death a big wet smooch, but thanks to some of these reflections, I can at least bear to look at it now. From a distance.

Let’s say about forty years.

***
For more on near-death research, see this article in The Guardian.

A summary of the study that first noted similarities between G-LOC (gravitationally-induced loss of consciousness) and near-death experiences can be found here (there’s also some hooey on this website–but this page, at least, is useful)

I first learned of the centrifuge studies from Intimate Universe, a simply spectacular video series about the human body and human development that was created by BBC Films several years ago. Discovery Education apparently issued an American version of the series, leaving out (imagine my surprise) the last segment, which deals directly and poignantly with death. Grab the BBC version if you can — many public libraries carry it.
***

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments

comments

This was written on Friday, 07. September 2007 at 09:52 and was filed under death. You can keep up with the comments to this article by using the RSS-Feed.

You can leave a Comment, or Trackback.

«  –  »

Comments »

  1. That it truly fascinating, I’d not heard it before. It makes perfect sense. The mind is such an amazing thing.
    -Kelly

    Comment: matsonwaggs – 07. September 2007 @ 12:18 pm

  2. […] Near Death Experiences Friday September 07th 2007, 11:26 am Filed under: death, science Fascinating post over at The Meming of Life by Dale McGowan about what the heck really happens during those near […]

    Pingback: Near Death Experiences « Anecdotes and Confessions – 07. September 2007 @ 12:26 pm

  3. Hadn’t known all that before, but from a biological/physiological point of view it all makes sense. I love it when science can succinctly explain the otherwise supernatural. More bullets in the gun…or some other, less violent analogy..

    btw, “having the blood sucked out of your brain apparently qualifies as stress” gets my vote for understatement of the year…hell, maybe even of the entire history of language.

    Comment: Jim Lemire – 07. September 2007 @ 5:37 pm

  4. I just had an interesting email from a gentleman who asked:

    Are you saying that because we can describe the subjective experience of neardeath in terms of brain chemicals, that somehow makes the subjective explanation incorrect or less valid?

    It seems to me that ALL human experience can be described either at the level of ordinary meaning (subjectively), as in talking about emotions, identity, needs, values, etc, OR in a more reductionist fashion (objectively), talking about molecules, neurotransmitters, etc, and that neither level of interpretation is more correct or higher than the other….

    You can describe LOVE in terms of endorphins, too. Are you going to then say that anyone who says “I love my wife and kids” is a delusional religious nut?

    I encountered this kind of question a lot as a college professor. It’s a very common concern.

    My post is meant to address a wholly objective question: Is the near-death experience best explained in terms of an afterlife, or is there another more likely explanation? Subjectivity, while entirely valid and indispensible to life, doesn’t enter into that particular question and need not be threatened by it.

    I’m reminded of (some of) my former music theory students who were repelled by the attempt to understand how music works, thinking they had a choice between understanding music and enjoying it. Anyone who thinks this, please read Richard Dawkins’ Unweaving the Rainbow, which is devoted entirely to this misconception.

    My correspondent got one thing exactly right: I’m entirely opposed to love.

    Comment: Dale – 07. September 2007 @ 5:51 pm

  5. OK, I’ll bite… Pray tell, why are you “opposed to love”?

    While you’re at it, can you give us your view on free will?

    Comment: Theo – 08. September 2007 @ 1:41 am

  6. There have been a long list of physiological and pharmaceutical explanations advanced to explain near-death experiences (NDEs). The best summaries of all of these, including the most recent articles published in research journals such as Neurology and Science – and why none of them offer adequate explanations – can be found on a DVD at the website of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (www.iands.org), a research organization founded 25 years ago to study NDEs. The DVD is of a presentation last fall at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center by Dr. Bruce Greyson, psychiatrist at the University of Virginia Medical School and one of the world’s leading researchers into the NDE phenomenon. The DVD can be ordered at http://www.iands.org/shoppingcart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=48_49&products_id=687. The cost is $25 but it is well worth the price if you are interested in seriously understanding this subject.

    The first website referenced above also offers extensive information about NDEs. In particular, you might want to check under the Research tab for published papers outlining new findings from the most current research, particularly the two articles written by medical researchers Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist and researcher in Britain, and Dr. Pim Van Lommel, a cardiologist in the Netherlands who was the lead researcher in the largest hospital based study of NDEs that was published in the British medical journal Lancet (see http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/).
    .

    By the way, none of these major researchers lend much credence to the centrifuge studies as an explanatory model for NDEs.

    Comment: allenupl – 08. September 2007 @ 9:27 am

  7. OK, I’ll bite… Pray tell, why are you “opposed to love”?

    Now PLEASE don’t make me resort to winkicons. I hate winkicons. It was a jest.

    While you’re at it, can you give us your view on free will?

    (The dilettante responds:)
    Oy jeez. I’ve…well, I’ve never found it interesting, I’m sorry to say, which usually indicates I haven’t engaged a topic enough–and I welcome any attempts to tickle my interest. A fully determinate position (all events are predetermined by past events) seems credible to me only in an abstract way, if at all. I think I end up in closest proximity to Daniel Dennett, who has been called a modern compatibilist, invoking both quantum mechanics and chaos theory to allow for a sufficient degree of indeterminacy to break the chain of determinate causes prior to any event. Something like that.

    Comment: Dale – 08. September 2007 @ 10:31 am

  8. Thanks allenupl for those excellent links! Yes, as in most areas of research, opinions vary and findings conflict. I am glad an organization like IANDS exists and that they seem to have some credible contributors.

    I’m cautious about statements like “none of these major researchers lend much credence to the centrifuge studies as an explanatory model for NDEs” for two reasons:

    (1) While it’s true that “none of these major researchers” find the centrifuge studies sufficient to explain NDEs, other equally major researchers differ (including, as noted, articles in Neurology, Science, and elsewhere). A quick reader might take the statement to imply that the centrifuge studies have been left behind, when in fact there is healthy and ongoing debate. That would be the reader’s fault, of course, but it’s a common error;

    (2) At least some of those researchers, van Lommel included, have specifically granted blood-oxygen starvation and random neuron firing a partial explanatory role, but simply think there is more going on as well. A link: http://www.nderf.org/FAQs.htm#misfiring%20neurons

    Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

    Comment: Dale – 08. September 2007 @ 10:51 am

  9. The myth of the mystical NDE shares shelfspace with the myth that the mind and the brain are separate entities. Some think this question hasn’t been settled, which is an urban myth not unlike the mexican water rat. Consciousness is based entirely in the organic strata of your brain; there are no 21 grams or other such nonsense. If consciousness weren’t based in the brain, why would chemicals alter it? why would physical injuries damage it? The contrary view is just religiousity disguised as science. It astonishes me how widespread is this misconception.

    Comment: jfarnold – 09. September 2007 @ 1:22 am

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.