Interaction between body and soul

[Darat]

NDErs often mention out of body experiences and that it felt very real, even hyper-real, vivid and with heightened empathy toward other people.

That sounds like how you lucky people who get movies played when you are asleep describe dreaming. Are dreams then the soul downloading memories from the brain?

 

[litewave]

These days Parnia even says he thinks NDEs are just an "illusion."

I remember he said in an interview that he doesn't know whether NDEs are just illusions, only that it is possible they are.

This is what he noted in a paper from 2016:

Two recent, but separate, studies have attempted to indirectly address the issue of reality with respect to NDE’s through an examination of memory quality.18,19 Both studies used a standardized instrument designed to differentiate between imagined events and real events, relying on the principle that memories of imagined events have fewer phenomenological characteristics than those of real events. Thus, to test the hypothesis that NDEs are imagined experiences brought about by abnormal or ‘awry’ cerebral mechanisms, these studies analyzed the phenomenological characteristics of real and imagined memories. Both concluded that NDE recollections are not consistent with illusory experiences but with memories of real life events. In fact NDE’s appeared ‘more real’ than actual real life events that were used as controls.18,19. One study also explored brain waves during re-call of NDEs which indicated that NDE’s were processed in a manner similar to memories of real events.19 In this respect they were found to be unlike hallucinations.

Only a handful of studies have examined the mental and cognitive experience of cardiac arrest.2,3,15,22–24 The first demonstrated that 6% of 63 cardiac arrest survivors reported lucid, well-structured thought processes, together with reasoning and memory formation compatible with the previously described NDE.15 No evidence to support a specific role for drugs, hypoxia, hypercarbia, or electrolyte disturbances in association with the experiences was found.15 Another study interviewed 344 cardiac arrest survivors from 10 hospitals over a 2-year period. Here 12% reported experiences similar to those from the British study,2 and at least one patient reported a sensation of separating from the body and observing the events from his own resuscitation. Hospital staff corroborated the accuracy of his claims.2 As the recollections were compatible with real and verifiable events this account is clearly inconsistent with a hallucinatory or illusory experience.2

https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article-pdf/110/2/67/10433732/hcw185.pdf

And this is what he said a few months ago:

The fact that people seem to have full consciousness, with lucid well-structured thought processes and memory formation from a time when their brains are highly dysfunctional or even nonfunctional is perplexing and paradoxical.

I do agree that this raises the possibility that the entity we call the mind or consciousness may not be produced by the brain. It’s certainly possible that maybe there's another layer of reality that we haven't yet discovered that's essentially beyond what we know of the brain, and which determines our reality.

So, I believe it is possible for consciousness to be an as of yet undiscovered scientific entity that may not necessarily be produced by synaptic activity in the brain.

https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/academy-news/is-there-life-after-death/

 

[litewave]

Not if you want it to interact with the brain, there is simply no place for such a force, because we would have detected it as an "anomaly" in the data from actual experiments, never mind that there is simply not the space for such a new "force".

Did you even read my OP?

 

[Belz...]

We can only speculate.

And how about the tiny elves that move atoms about? We can only speculate!

When the only thing you can do is speculate, you might want to consider not believing in the speculation.

The soul may have its own memory system and the material body may serve as a tool through which the soul interacts with the material world.

Or, more simply, the soul might not exist and NDEs, which are not evidence of anything after death -- as indicated by the "N" part --, are just oxygen-deprived malfunctions of the brain.

 

[Belz...]

NDErs often mention out of body experiences and that it felt very real, even hyper-real, vivid and with heightened empathy toward other people.

And? Some people report indigestion and are actually having a heart attack. What does their interpretation have to do with reality?

An NDE is often accompanied by an experience of being out of one's body or of having died and entering a spiritual realm, so it seems obvious to me that the patient feels as if he was a soul that has left his body.

Have any atheists reported this? Have you considered that people's religious beliefs may strongly affect their perception during the event and their interpretation after the fact?

Maybe the NDEs are products of a distressed or dying brain but that's a speculation too

Oh, no it's not! We KNOW that oxygen-deprived brains hallucinate. You cannot possibly in all seriousness claim that something that already correlates to the events in question and is known to occur is on the same level as a magical soul for which we have otherwise zero evidence!

 

[Belz...]

If there are patients who had an NDE with an out of body experience or with a sense of having died and they don't interpret the NDE as involving a soul, they appear to be in a minority.

Woah Nelly.

You don't know that. In fact, I find it very likely that non-believers who experience NDE might either report it differently or not at all, simply because they don't interpret the experience religiously.

You are seriously cherry-picking your arguments and evidences.

 

[Belz...]

Loss Leader asked for names. He's a lawyer and that's what persuades him. I work differently. Show me the numbers.

Lawyer wants names and testimonies. Scientist wants numbers. Programmer (me) wants logic. None of us are getting what we want, despite covering pretty much the entire spectrum of what you need to make a case for the soul.

The OP has nothing.

 

[Belz...]

Why should I look up patient names for you?

I think you should familiarise yourself with the concept of burden of proof.

 

[I Am The Scum]

"Possible" as logically possible, without an obvious contradiction.

I wouldn't even grant that. The classic NDE is the "soul" hovering above the body, looking down, during a medical procedure. If the soul is non-physical, then how does it exist in this physical location? How is light interacting with its "eyes?"

 

[litewave]

I wouldn't even grant that. The classic NDE is the "soul" hovering above the body, looking down, during a medical procedure. If the soul is non-physical, then how does it exist in this physical location? How is light interacting with its "eyes?"

It depends on what you mean by "physical". My hypothesis is that the soul consists of yet unknown particle-fields that can under certain conditions interact with known particle-fields and could potentially be added to the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

[JayUtah]

Why should I look up patient names for you?

Because you're the one responsible for showing that your evidence says what you say it says.

Do you doubt that the thousands of NDE reports collected by doctors according to the Wikipedia article on NDEs came from real people?

I doubt they have the characteristics you attribute to them. And I doubt whether you even know if they do or not. You seem to be making up a lot of your argument out of whole cloth.

I said there are neuroscientists and doctors who don't regard neurological explanations of NDEs as sufficient. For example:

Bruce Greyson:
Sam Parnia:

Names you merely Googled and whose contributions you can't knowledgeably discuss. I gave an in-depth rebuttal to your insinuation that these men represent neuroscience, and that they represent a legitimate dissent in the field.[/quote]

 

[JayUtah]

I remember he said in an interview that he doesn't know whether NDEs are just illusions, only that it is possible they are.

That's probably what I'm recalling.

This is what he noted in a paper from 2016:
And this is what he said a few months ago:

Fair enough. Interesting claims, though, coming from a cardiologist.

 

[JayUtah]

I argue that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, that NDEs provide data in favor of the existence of a soul...

Yes, that's exactly what it means to argue for the existence of a soul and to proffer NDEs as evidence of that existence. But when Abbadon said, "[A]ny answer I might provide is likely to be promptly dismissed by you since it will not conform to your presuppositions. You have already decided that any NDE is evidence of a 'soul,'" you said

I said that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, not that they are evidence of it, let alone any NDE.

What's going on here? Did you misread Abbadon's post? Are you changing your position? A number of posters have belabored that going from some selected set of reported medical symptoms to the notion that a soul exists is a giant non sequitur. We're gradually homing in on how you think one relates to the other. But there doesn't seem to be any legitimate question that you believe one does relate to the other.

I also said that I don't have enough data to make a conclusion about the existence of a soul.

That doesn't help you. All your analysis of NDEs presuppose the existence of a soul. Telling us you don't have enough data to support your presupposed premise, and then aiming the argument at the matter the premise asserts, is exactly circular reasoning.

 

[Belz...]

My hypothesis is that the soul consists of yet unknown particle-fields that can under certain conditions interact with known particle-fields and could potentially be added to the Standard Model of particle physics.

Your theory seems to be in search of an observation. Not sure why you'd work in that direction.

 

[JayUtah]

You are certain that a majority of patients who had an NDE don't interpret it as involving a soul?

No, that's clearly not what I said. I said I'm certain you don't have evidence to support your claim. I didn't opine about the matter asserted.

The reason I am certain you don't have evidence to support your claim is that your authority for the "thousands" of NDE subjects was a single source you admit you hadn't read. The source itself is not clear on the matter you assert.

You really need to just stop making stuff up. No one is persuaded by what you "imagine."

Here is the same quote I gave to Loss Leader.

Have you read the article that Wikipedia uses as its source? It's a single-sourced paragraph, the kind Wikipedia is rather infamous at times for. The source discusses what are prevalent theories among researchers. You were asked to support your claim that the majority of patients interpret their experience in terms of a soul. As you can imagine, there is a lot of interest among spiritualists regarding NDEs, and the most popular interpretation among them is that it's some sort of expression of spirit-body dualism. That in no way supports your claim that the number of NDE patients who do not interpret their experiences in terms of a soul "appear to be in the minority."

 

[JayUtah]

Your theory seems to be in search of an observation. Not sure why you'd work in that direction.

He's trying to rebut the claim made by physicists that our present knowledge doesn't allow for spirit-body communication to occur undetected by any known means. He's trying to argue that if we allow unknown means, that could allow for communication that goes undetected. It's just a classier version of the argument that science can't know enough to refute supernatural claims.

But you're still right. There's no evidence any spirit exists, or evidence of the consequences of any communication between it and its host organism. There's no errant observations that require us to reach into the unknown to solve them. That's why it's anti-parsimonious. He postulates a problem that doesn't exist, then speculates there might be a solution for it.

 

[Darat]

I remember he said in an interview that he doesn't know whether NDEs are just illusions, only that it is possible they are.

This is what he noted in a paper from 2016:




https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article-pdf/110/2/67/10433732/hcw185.pdf

And this is what he said a few months ago:


https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/academy-news/is-there-life-after-death/

One of the issues is that we know memory doesn't work like a hard disk, so someone's memory of something can be very different to actually what happened. Our brains in effect create a new narrative when recalling memories, so it should be expected when attempting to recall the NDE the brain would produce a story. Indeed our fine member who experienced one of these NDEs account is exactly that, some real facts and happenings mixed into a narrative the brain comes up with to make the memories "make sense".

 

[Darat]

Did you even read my OP?

Yep, which is why I have tried to explain to you your misunderstanding.

 

[Darat]

It depends on what you mean by "physical". My hypothesis is that the soul consists of yet unknown particle-fields that can under certain conditions interact with known particle-fields and could potentially be added to the Standard Model of particle physics.

Which just goes to show you don't know and understand the ramifications of what we currently know about the energy levels that would allow something to interact with our brain. And hint: your resonance idea still at some point has to react with the brain.

 

[JayUtah]

One of the issues is that we know memory doesn't work like a hard disk...

This poses a special problem for the data sets most commonly referred to by people who favor some kind of dualist explanation. Those data sets roundly ignore occurrences when the symptoms of NDEs occur without an attendant threat to life. This subset of data involves a number of precipitating events and circumstances, but doesn't present any reason to doubt that the mind is operating and thus no reason to suppose the intrusion of some as-yet unevidenced component to explain the NDE-like reports.

As to the recall of such events, some cases refer to seeing something surprising or shocking, prompting such things as a life review. Popular belief says that such notorious happenstance events are "seared into the mind" such that they are recalled with great fidelity later. But our evidence conclusively shows the opposite. As you correctly note, the fidelity of recall suffers from the narrative-building bias. So when NDE's aren't really ND, the apparently vivid coherence in the recall still occurs, but can't really be considered related to anything hypothesized around death or near-death.

Another big issue is that neurologists and cardiologists seem to have a very different idea of what constitutes a "cessation of brain activity." So when a cardiologist says, "The patient was clinically dead," as a means of forestalling explanations having to do with anomalous cerebral activity, I'm told that neurologists sort of roll their eyes. And this is a big risk of bias when so much of the proffered data comes from cardiac arrest patients.

A common assumption for that data set is that the real time at which the NDE is believed to occur is only conjecturally correlated with the real-time period in which cerebral activity is argued not to be a plausible explanation. The patient is rarely, if ever, able to pinpoint the time of the NDE within the interval between when he lost consciousness and when he regained it. Time markers in the data are practically non-existent, and only poorly controlled when they can be found. Those who favor a spiritualist explanation argue that the observation we must explain is the foreclosure of any natural explanation. This assumption means that foreclosure is overstated.