Near death experiences: a multidisciplinary hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, we proposed a novel biophysical concept regarding on the appearance of brilliant lights during near death experiences (NDEs) (Bókkon and Salari, 2012). Specifically, perceiving brilliant light in NDEs has been proposed to arise due to the reperfusion that produces unregulated overproduction of free radicals and energetically excited molecules that can generate a transient enhancement of bioluminescent biophotons in different areas of the brain, including retinotopic visual areas. If this excess of bioluminescent photon emission exceeds a threshold in retinotopic visual areas, this can appear as (phosphene) lights because the brain interprets these intrinsic retinotopic bioluminescent photons as if they originated from the external physical world. Here, we review relevant literature that reported experimental studies (Imaizumi et al., 1984; Suzuki et al., 1985) that essentially support our previously published conception, i.e., that seeing lights in NDEs may be due to the transient enhancement of bioluminescent biophotons. Next, we briefly describe our biophysical visual representation model that may explain brilliant lights experienced during NDEs (by phosphenes as biophotons) and REM sleep associated dream-like intrinsic visual imageries through biophotons in NDEs. Finally, we link our biophysical visual representation notion to self-consciousness that may involve extremely low-energy quantum entanglements. This article is intended to introduce novel concepts for discussion and does not pretend to give the ultimate explanation for the currently unanswerable questions about matter, life and soul; their creation and their interrelationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".