Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.misc
Subject: Re: NDE's in childhood
Message-ID: <1315@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Nov-86 21:54:44 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1315
Posted: Tue Nov 11 21:54:44 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Nov-86 06:32:37 EST
References: <2303@bucse.bu-cs.BU.EDU> <6931@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 42
Xref: watmath sci.med:204 sci.misc:54

In article <6931@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, dcohen@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (dawn) writes:
>> From: AJDC Vol.140 p 1110 (Nov. 86)
>
>> The article also goes into some detail as to a possible pathophysiology
>> for NDE's. "Within the temporal lobe there are neuronal connections that,
>> when electrically stimulated, produce the sensation of being outside the
>> physical body....
>> We present this model
>> as a first neurophysiological attempt to analyze NDEs."
>
>   This is probably the most sensible explanation of NDE's I've seen
>yet.  The only thing that puzzles me about it is that I can't think of
>a good evolutionary advantage to having this neuronal structure
>around.  Why should it be useful to devote a chunk of brain circuitry
>to creating hallucinations of leaving the body?
>
>   Please don't answer that not every natural phenomenon has
>evolutionary advantages!  Most of 'em do, and besides it would
>probably be a DISadvantage to keep around brain tissue not meant to
>be used at some point or other.

Gee, you have just argued against the existence of the appendix :-).

Also, the artificial electrical stimulation of a brain region might be
a coarse-resolution event, affecting a large region of cells where normal
function might only involve only a few, separated cells in the region.
It's as if you shorted out an entire RAM chip in an operating computer to
see what that part of memory was being used for.

What I wonder, however, is whether the induced out-of-body "hallucinations"
referred to in the original article might not still BE the "real thing"?  The
article didn't say whether the subject was then asked whether he could
"see" things (like objects on a shelf overhead or in another room) which
would be possible to see if it were really an out-of-body experience.
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
	   go for it!  			allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy