Register to reply

The day I died (By the BBC)

by Forestman
Tags: died
Share this thread:
Evo
#19
Mar10-11, 08:58 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,524
Quote Quote by Forestman View Post
Evo, I just read the link about the brain storm, and while it is very convincing I still do not believe that it is the causes the the NDE, I say this because of the experience of Pam Reynolds. Pam Reynolds had a massive blood clot (I don't remember what the technical word was) in the base of her brain. And in oder to remove this clot she would have to be put to death literally. Her body was chilled down so that it would not decay, her heart was stopped from beating, and all the blood was drained from her head, causing her EEG to flatline. If I remember correctly she was in this state for an hour. During the surgery when she was technically dead her mind left her body and observed what was going on. She observed the special instruments that were being used, and she over heard conversations that were going on. All of this happened after any electrical brain activity could have taken place. Also during this experience she experiences going through a tunnel with a light at the end and meeting family members who had already died. After being brought back to life she had a very vivd memory of this experience. Also her recollection of the instruments and conversations were accurate. Which all took place while she was clinically dead.
Actually, the hallucination could have happened as she was being prepared for surgery or as she was being brought out, there is no telling. She may have been "technically dead", but she was not really dead. We have the ability to revive people that are very near death, but we do not have the ability to bring people back from the dead. Scientists are not sure when the moment of complete irriversable death happens, they've found that it is a process, and cold delays that process.

I've had several operations where I came to during the operation, and could hear and see what was being said and done in the operating room. When having brain surgery, there was most likely a mirror or reflective object where she could have seen what was happening to herself. I know that when I've been wheeled into surgery, sometimes there were large reflective silver discs where I could see myself. But let's not consider practical explanations, let's jump to the supernatural.
JaredJames
#20
Mar10-11, 09:02 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by Forestman View Post
Evo, I just read the page by Skeptical Inquirer.

I used to get Skeptical Inquirer myself, but after reading many of their articles it came apparent to me that they just pick on the cases that are easy to explain away, and ignore the ones with real evidence. I think of them as pseudo skeptics. While a real skeptic looks at all evidence, they on the other hand are more of debunkers. And debunkers already have their minds made up.

I have read about the debates going on over the Dutch studies in Pim Van Lommels book. I am also aware, but I can't back myself up because I don't remember what was said in the book, but Pim Van Lommel pointed out why much of the criticism of his work was wrong.
Again, I'd really like to see this "real evidence" because I can't find any.

I'd also like to restate my question to you regarding why these people are only in "buy me" books and not published papers?
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Actually, the hallucination could have happened as she was being prepared for surgery or as she was being brought out, there is no telling.
My line of thinking precisely!
I've had several operations where I came to during the operation, and could hear and see what was being said and done in the operating room. When having brain surgery, there was most likely a mirror or reflective object where she could have seen what was happening to herself. I know that when I've been wheeled into surgery, sometimes there were large reflective silver discs where I could see myself. But let's not consider practical explanations, let's jump to the supernatural.
I'm glad I'm not alone in my experiences! Ok, slightly different but still all adds up to the same thing.
disregardthat
#21
Mar11-11, 08:38 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,794
What cannot be explained away is detailed memories of a conversation happening while not having observed brain activity, or knowledge of objects not in the line of sight of the patient. Are there any concrete research on this? The interesting thing to debunk is research verifying physically impossible feats such as this. Of course, anecdotal evidence is not of interest, as they are very prone to bias from the method of interrogation. E.g. asking "Do you remember us talking about [detail]?" would certainly not yield reliable results. As we all know our brain loves to forcibly insert memories of things that never happened if we are merely told they happened. Also, stories about heaven or hell from patients would certainly not verify that the memories were formed when the patient have no brain activity, as Evo points out.
pftest
#22
Mar11-11, 12:55 PM
P: 271
Quote Quote by Forestman View Post
I admit I don't have links to research papers to back me up, but I do know that research has been done. Especially by Pim Van Lommel a doctor in Holland. You can read about his research in his book called Consciousness beyond life
Here it is:
With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31

Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/arc...Lancet_NDE.htm
It was published in The Lancet.
nismaratwork
#23
Mar11-11, 01:41 PM
P: 2,284
This is reallly not that complex... the brain takes time to die, and that process is somewhat mysterious. If you actually DIE however, as in, no meaningful neurological activity... you're dead, no "Near death".

There is only evidence of the cascade of apoptosis, runaway cholinergics and more.

This is all difficult to explain only if you think the person was dead... they're not... a heart stopping may be lethal, but death occurs in the brain. You suffer brain death, you're dead, not "Near Dead", and there's no coming back AFAIK.

This is a ridiculous claim based on non-evidence in the face of MASSIVE contrary evidence... in my view, this is pure bunk and probably should have been report-worthy....even for S&D.

It's one thing to ask a question, it's another to just throw out a hunk of bull and then see how it plays out.
pftest
#24
Mar11-11, 01:55 PM
P: 271
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
This is reallly not that complex... the brain takes time to die, and that process is somewhat mysterious. If you actually DIE however, as in, no meaningful neurological activity... you're dead, no "Near death".

There is only evidence of the cascade of apoptosis, runaway cholinergics and more.

This is all difficult to explain only if you think the person was dead... they're not... a heart stopping may be lethal, but death occurs in the brain. You suffer brain death, you're dead, not "Near Dead", and there's no coming back AFAIK.

This is a ridiculous claim based on non-evidence in the face of MASSIVE contrary evidence... in my view, this is pure bunk and probably should have been report-worthy....even for S&D.

It's one thing to ask a question, it's another to just throw out a hunk of bull and then see how it plays out.
Just a note: the idea that the brain creates consciousness (and that consciousness is limited to a functioning brain) is just an assumption, although a very common one. I do not know why people are so fully convinced of this. And there certainly isnt massive evidence for it.

Me? Im not convinced either way.
JaredJames
#25
Mar11-11, 01:57 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by pftest View Post
Just a note: the idea that the brain creates consciousness is just an assumption, although a very common one. I do not know why people are so fully convinced of this. And there certainly isnt massive evidence for it.

Me? Im not convinced either way.
Are you saying that another part of my body, my feet perhaps, are responsible for it? Or are you trying to say there is something spiritual that causes it?
nismaratwork
#26
Mar11-11, 01:59 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by pftest View Post
Just a note: the idea that the brain creates consciousness (and that consciousness is limited to a functioning brain) is just an assumption, although a very common one. I do not know why people are so fully convinced of this. And there certainly isnt massive evidence for it.

Me? Im not convinced either way.
I'm sorry... it's an ASSUMPTION?! I'm going to ask you to back that up with a study, or SOMETHING, or retract. That's painfully laughable, as JnJ has pointed out, and if you're arguing for Dualism, that's a seperate issue entirely.
pftest
#27
Mar11-11, 02:09 PM
P: 271
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
Are you saying that another part of my body, my feet perhaps, are responsible for it? Or are you trying to say there is something spiritual that causes it?
No, even if we look at it purely physically. I dont think "being responsible" is a physically meaningful term. For example: is the brain responsible for its atoms? Are the feet responsible for its atoms? These arent really meaningful questions. If we stick with a purely physical view on the body, then we have physical ingredients that change their position in space. Evo linked to an article earlier that mentioned that "a surge of electrical activity" may be the cause of NDE's. Yet physically, electrical activity simply goes somewhere else. How does this fit with the idea that consciousness goes nowhere and vanishes.
pftest
#28
Mar11-11, 02:11 PM
P: 271
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
I'm sorry... it's an ASSUMPTION?! I'm going to ask you to back that up with a study, or SOMETHING, or retract. That's painfully laughable, as JnJ has pointed out, and if you're arguing for Dualism, that's a seperate issue entirely.
The burden 'o proof. Show the evidence that consciousness is created by the brain (as opposed to merely interacting with it or influencing it). Also, there are many types of monism, and materialism is just one of them. The idea that abandoning materialism leads to dualism is therefor false.
Ivan Seeking
#29
Mar11-11, 02:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
I'm sorry... it's an ASSUMPTION?! I'm going to ask you to back that up with a study, or SOMETHING, or retract. That's painfully laughable, as JnJ has pointed out, and if you're arguing for Dualism, that's a seperate issue entirely.
The idea is that the brain acts more as a transducer than a source. Parnia claims this notion is a logical consequence of his work. But this point is moot for our purposes. It would only be worthy of consideration if the basis for the speculaltion - the claim that thought can occur and memories can form whle there is no brain function - were validated.
nismaratwork
#30
Mar11-11, 02:13 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by pftest View Post
The burden 'o proof. Show the evidence that consciousness is created by the brain (as opposed to merely interacting with it or influencing it). Also, there are many types of monism, and materialism is just one of them. The idea that abandoning materialism leads to dualism is therefor false.
You really don't understand the concept of the burden of proof any better now than the last time you went down this road, and was stomped, do you? Do you truly not understand, in which case we can talk about it, or are you just trying (and failing) to be clever?
nismaratwork
#31
Mar11-11, 02:14 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
The idea is that the brain acts more as a transducer than a source. Parnia claims this notion is a logical consequence of his work. But this point is moot for our purposes. It would only be worthy of consideration if the basis for the speculaltion - the claim that thought can occur and memories can form whle there is no brain function - is validated.
I disagree... all I see is that in times where an EEG is no longer sensitive enough to be accurate, this occurs. The notion of memory formation without the involvement of the hippocampus and related structures is bordering on insane.
Ivan Seeking
#32
Mar11-11, 02:25 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by pftest View Post
Im actually looking at this entirely from a physical point of view. Physically speaking, "data" on RAM is not "represented", (except to a human interpreter), it simply consists of atoms (or their elementary particles) and the electrical activity. When the power is shut off, electricity leaves the computer, it doesnt vanish.
This discussion is not appropriate. Everyone, please drop it.

The focus should be whether real memories formed while there was no brain function. Has this claim been published in a reputable journal or not?
nismaratwork
#33
Mar11-11, 02:26 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
This discussion is not appropriate. Everyone, please drop it.

The focus should be whether real memories formed while there was no brain function. Has this claim been published in reputable journal or not?
The claim that memories can be formed when brain function is not detectable has been published, but it's a loner in a world of contradiction, its conclusions incredible in the face of such moderate evidence.
Ivan Seeking
#34
Mar11-11, 02:28 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
The claim that memories can be formed when brain function is not detectable has been published, but it's a loner in a world of contradiction, its conclusions incredible in the face of such moderate evidence.
Then you will need to provide papers refuting the published work. This isn't an opinions column.

Nor is it appropriate to speculate on theories of consciousness to explain the results. We need published papers here.
pftest
#35
Mar11-11, 02:29 PM
P: 271
ok i drop it
pftest
#36
Mar11-11, 02:36 PM
P: 271
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
The focus should be whether real memories formed while there was no brain function. Has this claim been published in a reputable journal or not?
This is from the lancet study:

Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/arc...Lancet_NDE.htm


Register to reply

Related Discussions
My Doggy Died General Discussion 14
Hi, Iím Art Buchwald, and I Died General Discussion 0
Pixels Died in my TI-89! Calculators 2
My HD died. Computing & Technology 5