Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[John Jones]

Not really, because if the person is brain dead then none of this should happen, period, whether it's a chemical or an electrical process.

Good point. Truly brain dead people should not report any such experiences. Let's ask someone who has been dead for two weeks (that ought to be long enough), and get their take on it.

 

[dlorde]

Is the "Occam's Chainsaw" article available to read without having to sign up for Academia.edu? I do not qualify to sign up, evidently...

I get straight to it without signing in, via Occam's Chainsaw.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I get straight to it without signing in, via Occam's Chainsaw.

TY!

For some reason, my browser was sending me straight to the "download" option. Off to read...

 

[Wolrab]

Here is the link to one paper

https://www.academia.edu/10060970/O...ist_notions_of_the_Near-death_experience_NDE_

and a link to an earlier one

https://www.academia.edu/574245/Towards_a_Cognitive_Neuroscience_of_the_Dying_Brain

Papers? Academia? .edu?

Get with the times! It should be: videos, godlikeproductions, and youtube!

 

[Dr B]

TY!

For some reason, my browser was sending me straight to the "download" option. Off to read...

I was about to say, send me a PM - but thanks to dlorde I dont need to. Many thanks!

Might I also suggest reading the one from 2008 on the dying brain....its a deconstruction of the fallacies of van lommel et al's paper....

Together they should form a useful and helpful scientific / skeptical resource (I hope!)

 

[Dr B]

You and I both agree. Me from a simple application of logic and you from your greater education, understanding and experience.

Too bad there are so few of either of us.

You are very kind, and I thank you for your words. Yes, I also worry that we are so few. Shame. But then, discussions like this one may help in the long term.

Regards
Dr B

 

[Dr B]

I think there is often confusion in anecdotal reports of 'death' or 'brain death', between the common term 'clinical death' (no breathing or circulation), a clinical diagnosis of death (a variety of tests invcluding reflex tests of brainstem activity), casual diagnosis of 'brain death' (e.g. no detectable signs of brain activity on EEG), and real, permanent death.

The significant difference being that the casual terms are guesswork; the diagnoses are clinical judgements that can be flawed - as demonstrated by patient recovery; and real death or brain death is terminal cessation of activity - so there can be no subsequent reports of any experience.

There may also be exaggerated play on these differences for melodramatic effect - a temporary flatline ECG or apnoea might be reported as, "The doctors told me I died on the operating table!" - to which an appropriate response is, "Really; were you buried or cremated?"

Great points well made. You have also summarised the fundamental folly of Parnia, who is a medic from the crash room - not a psychologist or neuroscientist. He does not understand the distinctions you have outlined.

 

[dlorde]

Great points well made.

Thank you, kind sir

You have also summarised the fundamental folly of Parnia, who is a medic from the crash room - not a psychologist or neuroscientist. He does not understand the distinctions you have outlined.

Disturbingly, not what one would expect from the man chosen to lead the AWARE study, and whose credentials are 'Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Director of Resuscitation Research at The State University of New York'...

I guess he was too busy to do the background study

 

[Jodie]

I would appreciate it if you would provide links to these studies, ta ever so.

Here is the research being done in applying biological neural networks onto microchips:

http://http://apt.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ftp/pub/amulet/papers/MMK_IJCNN08.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v12/n7/abs/nmat3630.html

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...yrl9reWuYjNg3KdLcVRgtUSug&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/44529.wss

This article lists several studies with conflicting results from what has been previously posted. The conclusion is that more research needs to be done into the phenomena:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full

The available scientific explanations are very relevant in the process of understanding NDEs, but they still remain hypotheses, given the persistent lack of proofs. There is a need for further efforts undertaken with an open mind and a truly skeptical stance (that is, neither accepting nor refusing any possibility a priori) to avoid the risk of putting belief and faith (not just scientific ones) before facts, with the implicit risk of giving rise to new wrong beliefs and dogmatic drifts. According to (van Lommel 2010), “true science does not restrict itself to narrow materialistic assumptions but is open to new and initially inexplicable findings and welcome the challenge of finding explanatory theories” (p. 331).


http://aihub.net/architects-mind-blueprint-human-brain/

http://http://aihub.net/emergent-inference-or-how-can-a-program-become-a-self-programming-agi-system-sergio-pissanetzky/

And this one just because it reinforces my bias that our consciousness uses our organic bodies as "avatars".

http://http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847


There is much more out there than just this, it's really amazing stuff! Anyway, I don't see why using organic AI wouldn't give us a better idea of what actually happens during an NDE.

 

[Jodie]

It's actually quite a complex explanation.

I think you are confusing "process" with "explanation". Hypoxia/anoxia alone is a simplistic explanation for NDE's, it has nothing to do with how complex that process might be.

 

[Giordano]

It is odd, Jodie, that as I posted, your references on chips and neurons only confirms that neural actions are just physical exchanges of ions that can be induced and sensed by electrodes and electronics, as has been known for many decades. The electronics discussed in these articles are more complex than many used before, but are no different in principle, and only highlight the idea that the actual forms of neural conduction and electronic conduction differ in their nature, but that one can be "converted" into the other. Just as in computer electronics, if you turn the physical components fully off (kill them) the neural pulses that make up our thoughts disappear and our thoughts disappear. Your citations argue against your viewpoints.

 

[Giordano]

I think you are confusing "process" with "explanation". Hypoxia/anoxia alone is a simplistic explanation for NDE's, it has nothing to do with how complex that process might be.

The explanations, which you only summarize in two words, are actually as complicated in detail as the processes that they describe.

 

[Navigator]

"Does individual consciousness exist after the body has died?"

This is a question that scientific method cannot (at least for now) claim with certainty to be able to answer one way or the other.

It is still very much a personal thing - to believe or not believe. I remain open to the possibility but think it is one of those things that only death will provide an answer for (if indeed individual consciousness does survive the body) and if circumstances allow for me to contemplate such, nearer the time of my bodies death, I feel certain that I will retain the attitude that I will not be surprised if indeed it did.

Clearly others who have posted in this thread have far stronger views for and against, but I do not understand why they feel they actually have to.

 

[Nonpareil]

"Does individual consciousness exist after the body has died?"

This is a question that scientific method cannot (at least for now) claim with certainty to be able to answer one way or the other.

Well, yes. It can.

It just isn't an answer most people like.

 

[Navigator]

Well, yes. It can.

It just isn't an answer most people like.

What do 'most people' like in the way of an answer?

I have seen no claims (and expect to see no such claims) from the scientific community verifying with certainty through scientific method that individual consciousness does not continue on in some non physical state once the body has died.
The only physical thing scientist have when a body dies is a cadaver. In this they can positively verify that there is no consciousness expressing anything, which is why the body is called 'dead'. This in itself does not verify that the consciousness which once inhabited said cadaver has not survived the death of the body - it only verifies that consciousness no longer inhabits that body


I don't think you're suggesting that there are scientific instruments which can penetrate and examine a possible non physical reality. Scientists deal with the study of the physical reality, and have barely scratched the surface of the physical reality. I would suggest that for the most part, scientists see no value in trying to find ways to penetrate and examine what might be, when there is simply so much of what is to explore and even profit from.

For the individual consciousness, death of the body is the only thing which will provide an answer with certainty to the question
"does the individual consciousness survive the death of the body?" if indeed that be the case.

If it be not the case, then there will be no answer for the individual consciousness , because that individual consciousness will cease to exist.

Now of course, some (or perhaps even most) individuals like to believe one way or another and argue about things that can't really be known with certainty. What can be known is that their bodies will die eventually and they might then discover for certain they continue on (consciously speaking).

I quite like not knowing. When I die there will either be nothing more or something more. People who claim there is something more - or nothing more - do so without being able to verify with certainty either way.

It is physically impossible to verify with certainty, a possible non physical reality.

I understand both arguments and am pretty sure I know why so many individuals feel the need to choose to believe one way or the other.

Many individuals seem to prefer, believing one way or the other. It is as if they have a need to do so. Probable they do indeed have a need. Why else would they choose to believe?

What is your belief on the subject and why do you think you need to believe one way or the other?

 

[Donn]

According to (van Lommel 2010), “true science does not restrict itself to narrow materialistic assumptions but is open to new and initially inexplicable findings and welcome the challenge of finding explanatory theories”

Sure, but let's have the inexplicable findings first.

 

[Donn]

It is physically impossible to verify with certainty, a possible non physical reality.

It's also impossible to experience, making it a nonsense.

What is your belief on the subject and why do you think you need to believe one way or the other?

For myself, I don't feel a need or a belief in my matter-of-fact death-is-the-end outlook. I actually feel ashamed to entertain the idea of living beyond death. It's akin to thinking I'm bullet proof, or I can bounce from a high fall.

 

[Pixel42]

What do 'most people' like in the way of an answer?

I would like to believe that my consciousness will survive death. I don't believe that, because all the evidence says otherwise.

For some people wanting something to be true seems to be sufficient reason to believe it. For others that's the worst possible reason to believe something, in fact it's a reason to be particularly careful about evaluating the evidence as objectively as possible.

 

[Aepervius]

Not really, because if the person is brain dead then none of this should happen, period, whether it's a chemical or an electrical process. As you say, we don't completely understand the process, or the timing of the events that are remembered. There are questions about redefining death medically and legally, maybe what we term brain dead isn't as dead as we think it is. Until then, we can't discount the experience based on a simple explanation like hypoxia.

No. AGAIN. Evidence shows only PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL process. NDE have explanation involving those. There is no evidence whatsoever of phenomenon NOT involving those.

Your wishful thinking simply refuse to accept that fact.

 

[tsig]

What do 'most people' like in the way of an answer?

I have seen no claims (and expect to see no such claims) from the scientific community verifying with certainty through scientific method that individual consciousness does not continue on in some non physical state once the body has died.
The only physical thing scientist have when a body dies is a cadaver. In this they can positively verify that there is no consciousness expressing anything, which is why the body is called 'dead'. This in itself does not verify that the consciousness which once inhabited said cadaver has not survived the death of the body - it only verifies that consciousness no longer inhabits that body


I don't think you're suggesting that there are scientific instruments which can penetrate and examine a possible non physical reality. Scientists deal with the study of the physical reality, and have barely scratched the surface of the physical reality. I would suggest that for the most part, scientists see no value in trying to find ways to penetrate and examine what might be, when there is simply so much of what is to explore and even profit from.

For the individual consciousness, death of the body is the only thing which will provide an answer with certainty to the question
"does the individual consciousness survive the death of the body?" if indeed that be the case.

If it be not the case, then there will be no answer for the individual consciousness , because that individual consciousness will cease to exist.

Now of course, some (or perhaps even most) individuals like to believe one way or another and argue about things that can't really be known with certainty. What can be known is that their bodies will die eventually and they might then discover for certain they continue on (consciously speaking).

I quite like not knowing. When I die there will either be nothing more or something more. People who claim there is something more - or nothing more - do so without being able to verify with certainty either way.

It is physically impossible to verify with certainty, a possible non physical reality.

I understand both arguments and am pretty sure I know why so many individuals feel the need to choose to believe one way or the other.

Many individuals seem to prefer, believing one way or the other. It is as if they have a need to do so. Probable they do indeed have a need. Why else would they choose to believe?

What is your belief on the subject and why do you think you need to believe one way or the other?

Consciousness can only survive the body if it is somehow separate from the body. This implies dualism which brings us to the idea of a soul. Looks like you're trying to drag religion into science by the back door.

I call "non physical realities" fairy tales. Any thing you can imagine can happen in a "non physical reality" unlike (no adjective) reality.