Read the first bit, then scanned some, then read the closing, so fair warning: I may have missed some important parts. (I like The Atlantic, but I do not always

Read the first bit, then scanned some, then read the closing, so fair warning: I may have missed some important parts. (I like The Atlantic, but I do not always have time to consume it) I think the problem in digesting all of this that the author describes is due to the fact that this is not a science -- it's philosophy. That doesn't make it any less real, it just makes the issues and questions more difficult to grasp. I would find it odd if people traveled half-way around the world to go to a conference on NDEs and all thought the idea was hokum, so the author may be a little unfair in his observations. If you're looking for falsifiability and reproducibility in something that so far has been intermittant and subjective, then you are using the wrong tool. What's probably going to happen -- especially with some of the suspended animation stuff going on -- is that we'll start seeing an emerging "science of death". Assuming the suspended animation stuff keeps chugging along, the AI guys start augmenting/transferring small bits of consciousness, and we gain better and better instrumentation to look at what happens at death? We're going to start seeing a really cool field of study open up in another 20-40 years. But we ain't there yet, sadly. Right now it's just a lot of fumbling around in the dark.