Does consciousness survive death? A BBC investigation.

[JaredJames]

Here is the full text:
http://folk.uio.no/benjamil/neardeath/neardeath3.pdf

I recommend you read the conclusions in this.

They make it very clear that they haven't confirmed a thing you've said.

They start by saying people report NDE's and finish by saying they may be possible but have no evidence.

Frankly it seems a waste of a good paper because they don't actually achieve / report anything useful.

 

[nismaratwork]

Honestly, I have no idea why you haven't been infracted to the point of banning test... you must have a guardian angel to shovel this much stercore and still 'live'. As Jared says, you clearly don't read what you post... churn and burn, and move on, that's all I'm seeing, with the topic lost in the flood.

 

[pftest]

Heres another interesting quote from the paper:

With our current scientific understanding a neurobiological mechanism to explain how cerebral chemical and electrical processes may lead to subjective experiences has yet to be discovered [44,45]. Direct evidence of how neurones or neural circuits can produce the subjective essence of the mind and thoughts is currently lacking and provides one of the biggest challenges to neuroscience [50].
http://folk.uio.no/benjamil/neardeath/neardeath3.pdf

 

[pftest]

They make it very clear that they haven't confirmed a thing you've said.

Can you be more specific? What thing that i said do the papers i mentioned not confirm?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't even begun to get caught up here.

Pftest, it sounds to me like you need to respond to the assertion below with specific quotes supporting your position. Jarednjames, you should do the same. Direct quotes remove any doubt that you are stating the case accurately and not paraphrasing. There is still the issue of context, but this will remove one element of contention.

I recommend you read the conclusions in this.

They make it very clear that they haven't confirmed a thing you've said.

They start by saying people report NDE's and finish by saying they may be possible but have no evidence.

Man, I need a vacation!

 

[pftest]

Btw, my position on NDE's is mentioned in my second post in this topic: I am not convinced either way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, my position on NDE's is mentioned in my second post in this topic: I am not convinced either way.

You need to support your position with specific quotes before making another post here. If you have been misrepresenting factual information, you might be banned by the time I get caught up here. Now is the time to clear this up one way or the other.

 

[JaredJames]

From the conclusions of that report:

These experiences are generally pleasant and have positive life changing effects on the individual. The majority of patients with NDEs find it difficult to discuss their experiences with caregivers as well as family and close friends. Physicians and other caregivers therefore should be aware of these phenomena and advise patients accordingly. Interestingly, there are a small proportion of cardiac arrest survivors who have reported being conscious and aware of events during resuscitation and have recalled ‘seeing’ specific details that would not have been known to them.

Straight in, we have them advising people that they should be aware of NDE's - fair enough, if there's something weird people should be aware there could be side effects. But, we have what I like to look at as a key phrase: "survivors who have reported". So straight away, we're working on anecdote not something scientifically tested.

These experiences have been recalled, while cerebral function has, through many studies, been shown to be severely compromised and electrical activity in both the cerebral cortex and the deeper structures of the brain have been shown to be absent.

Note the use of "compromised" and not non-existent. So we have compromised function, and yet electrical activity is "absent". Which is it? Or am I missing something where the brain can function (all be it not as normal) without electrical activity?

I also note that they reference a lot here, but not the studies that show this "absence of activity". Not saying it's BS, but that would be a key point to have backed up.

From a scientific point of view, the occurrence of these experiences would therefore seem highly improbable and paradoxical. However, the fact that they do occur, raises some questions regarding our current views on the nature of human consciousness and its relationship with the brain.

They aren't showing evidence they occur outside of anecdote, simply going in with a blanket "they occur". They then move swiftly on to a "what is consciousness debate" which you can read in the conclusions yourself.

If the occurrence of NDEs during a cardiac arrest, when the mind (the collection of all our thoughts, feelings and emotions) and consciousness (self awareness) appear to continue at a time when the brain is non-functional and clinical criteria of death have been reached, can be proven objectively through large studies, then this will lend some support to this view.

Here we have them making it clear that they have nothing to support the whole "NDE's whilst brain dead" etc arguments. They are also (if you read above this briefly) bringing spirituality into the equation and their view is that it is potentially a new branch.

Such studies are currently possible, and it has been proposed to test the claims of ‘consciousness’ and being able to ‘see’ during cardiac arrest objectively by use of hidden targets that are only visible from a vantage point above.

Bingo, they are pointing out what needs to be done, but not actually doing it.

My problem here lies in that there is (as indicated above) a very simple way to test these claims. If you really want to be scientific, do as I said earlier and perform an act that is incredibly out of keeping with the environment of a hospital (my clown in the theatre idea).

If a person wakes up and says they saw a clown in the theatre - you know there's something going on.

It is the lack of control and the fact that current studies are based heavily on anecdote that reduces the plausibility of them. Definitely let them go as a good start, but they don't prove anything outside of NDE stories (and that's all they are right now) existing and capturing peoples attention.

As I said before, they start off saying "people report NDE's" and then finish with exactly the same thing. No explanation, no support the exist, no nothing.

 

[JaredJames]

Quick question:

"Conscious" is being thrown around a lot. Now would I be right in thinking medically there is a strict definition of what being conscious is?

For example, I sit typing on my computer - I'm conscious. Brick comes through the window and smacks me on the head - I'm unconscious.

So surely, the moment a person is considered no longer conscious - by this definition (if correct) - why is it even an issue?

Are you conscious or unconscious during the final stages of cardiac arrest (or whenever the NDE occurs)? Or to put it simply, what would you be considered in hospital during this point?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From the conclusions of that report:


Straight in, we have them advising people that they should be aware of NDE's - fair enough, if there's something weird people should be aware there could be side effects. But, we have what I like to look at as a key phrase: "survivors who have reported". So straight away, we're working on anecdote not something scientifically tested.

Your point is moot if evidence is shown that they have specific knowledge of events they couldn't have known about. You seem to be ignoring the most significant comment.

Note the use of "compromised" and not non-existent. So we have compromised function, and yet electrical activity is "absent". Which is it? Or am I missing something where the brain can function (all be it not as normal) without electrical activity?

and electrical activity in both the cerebral cortex and the deeper structures of the brain have been shown to be absent.

I think the whole point here is that this should not be possible.

I also note that they reference a lot here, but not the studies that show this "absence of activity". Not saying it's BS, but that would be a key point to have backed up.

I think this can be inferred through knowledge of the patient's condition at the time, and existing models for brain function. If not, then I would not expect the paper to be published in the first place.

They aren't showing evidence they occur outside of anecdote, simply going in with a blanket "they occur". They then move swiftly on to a "what is consciousness debate" which you can read in the conclusions yourself.

I would have to say this is the most salient point: If they have shown evidence for brain function where there should be none, we first assume that the model for brain function is incorrect, not that conciousness resides outside of the brain. They may be inferring their conclusions based on the assumption that it is impossible to have function with no EEG. That question is above my pay grade. We need specific sources to determine confidence here.

Here we have them making it clear that they have nothing to support the whole "NDE's whilst brain dead" etc arguments. They are also (if you read above this briefly) bringing spirituality into the equation and their view is that it is potentially a new branch.

Where do they use the word "spiritual". On a first pass it seems like you are inferring and not citing it.

Bingo, they are pointing out what needs to be done, but not actually doing it.

Well, this is being done. It has been in the news many times.

My problem here lies in that there is (as indicated above) a very simple way to test these claims. If you really want to be scientific, do as I said earlier and perform an act that is incredibly out of keeping with the environment of a hospital (my clown in the theatre idea).

That is precisely how the tests are designed. So you are passing judgement in a vacuum.

It is the lack of control and the fact that current studies are based heavily on anecdote that reduces the plausibility of them. Definitely let them go as a good start, but they don't prove anything outside of NDE stories (and that's all they are right now) existing and capturing peoples attention.

Again you ignore the aspect of obtaining specific information that shouldn't have been possible. And they are trying to provide better controls. However, it is also true that the paper was published, and published work always trumps personal opinion, so you would need to show published objections to the work in question. One can hardly require peer review for one side of the debate but not the other.

 

[JaredJames]

Your point is moot if evidence is shown that they have specific knowledge of events they couldn't have known about. You seem to be ignoring the most significant comment.

Evidence of knowledge says nothing about how that knowledge is gained.

My point is that people say "ooh you know about X, the only way I can think you got that is if you were actually there." Non-sense.

I know Derren Brown is a lot more involved, but you only have to watch what he does (and he himself explains it in everyday life) to see how things can influence us and create memories that are false.

Where do they use the word "spiritual". On a first pass it seems like you are inferring and not citing it.

An extension of this has been the view that contrary to popular perception, what has traditionally been perceived as spirituality, is therefore also an objective branch of knowledge with its own laws, theorems and axioms [53].

Like I said, they are basing a new branch of science on what we currently consider 'spirituality' to be.

Well, this is being done. It has been in the news many times.

That is precisely how the tests are designed. So you are passing judgement in a vacuum.

In the news many times =/= had results.

Despite the relative ease with which you can conduct these tests (finding a dying person aside), there is nothing out there which says "we did X, patient reported X". It all comes back to anecdote and uncontrolled tests.

They say "we can do this test" and then report results from anecdote, not the tests. What happened?

Again you ignore the aspect of obtaining specific information that shouldn't have been possible. And they are trying to provide better controls. However, it is also true that the paper was published, and published work always trumps personal opinion, so you would need to show published objections to the work in question. One can hardly require peer review for one side of the debate but not the other.

You've missed my point.

This thread starts with "consciousness surviving death" and there are a number of posts here who claim that. As I've read, pftest's posts (see his initial which jumps straight in with it) are in support of forestman - who made that claim.

This is how I'm reading everything. In respect to this initial comment.

The paper is fine, I don't see anything wrong with what it says, but it doesn't back up this claim. Hence my problem with them being used to support it.

Right now, I have a claim of "consciousness surviving death" with no support. Last time I checked, you backup what you claim. Or should I be providing a paper which says consciousness doesn't survive death?

 

[pftest]

You need to support your position with specific quotes before making another post here. If you have been misrepresenting factual information, you might be banned by the time I get caught up here. Now is the time to clear this up one way or the other.

I did that a few pages back:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3185707&postcount=80

Other than that, i don't know what the chaps here are saying that i claimed or misrepresented.

 

[pftest]

I also wrote:

... When a patient has an abnormality in the brain and also reports an abnormality in his perceptions, then this is very useful information for neuroscience. One example is a woman with epilepsy in switzerland who had part of her brain stimulated with electrodes and reported an out-of-body experience...

Heres the link for that one:
http://www.nature.com/news/1998/020916/full/news020916-8.html

 

[pftest]

This thread starts with "consciousness surviving death" and there are a number of posts here who claim that. As I've read, pftest's posts (see his initial which jumps straight in with it) are in support of forestman - who made that claim.

This is how I'm reading everything. In respect to this initial comment.

I see the problem. Please read my posts without thinking that I am trying to support Forestman's views or that i am claiming what he claims. I am merely putting a few scientific sources on the table, and, as i mentioned, I am not convinced either way.

 

[nismaratwork]

@pftest:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3182298&postcount=22
In which you offer support directly for Forestman’s point.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3182392&postcount=24
In which you seem to be making the same point.

Then here… where you do it again: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3182421&postcount=27

Originally Posted by jarednjames
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 don't 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.

Then follow up with your own particular version of the burden of proof, which in this thread, and in at least one other was explained to you by Berkeman.

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 separate 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.

You then, “drop it” here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3182456&postcount=35
And take it up again in the next post… about 7 minutes later… still it seems your point is either never made, or you’re posting in support of the thesis of the OP. You’ve made no other point up to this point.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3182456&postcount=35

You call this, “A relevant paper”: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3185366&postcount=58
Relevant to what? So far, again, you’re only acting in support of the OP, with no independent point made.
You continue to cite papers in support of… what?... in post 64,
Then say this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3185427&postcount=66
|”An abstract offers a short description of the content of the paper. I am simply putting some published work forward. Like Ivan said, this isn't an opinions column.”
OK, you’re putting published work forward, in service of what? What point are you making that isn’t the OP’s… to this point, you’d done nothing else.
It isn’t until post #74 that you actually bother to respond without a link to JnJ:
“The papers speak for themselves, there is no need to rephrase them. The overall picture is that there are many indicications that, contrary to the popular assumption, awareness continues when brainfunction is severely impaired, or even in the case of clinical death. This is what needs further investigation. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it may very well be a duck. As far as i know, Parnia is currently researching this on a much greater scale. Specifically he is testing if during OBE's (occuring during cardiac arrest), people can see specific tags attached to emergency room ceilings, or if they can recall specific sounds that were played.”

Here you mention Parnia… from the Nour Foundation page:

...A graduate of the Guys and St. Thomas' medical schools in London, Dr. Parnia obtained his doctorate in cell biology from the University of Southampton. He has published numerous articles in peer reviewed scientific journals in the field of pulmonary medicine as well as near-death experiences, and is a current reviewer for The New England Journal of Medicine. He has also served as a member of the Southampton University Trust Hospital Resuscitation Committee, where he launched the first ever study of near-death experiences in the UK. The results of the study received widespread coverage and were published in the medical journal "Resuscitation." Dr. Parnia is the author of What Happens When We Die? , and his groundbreaking research has been featured on the BBC and Discovery documentary, The Day I Died and will be highlighted in an upcoming National Geographic episode entitled Explorer: At the Moment of Death.

So... he’s a pulmonologist, and an NDE ‘expert’ who makes money through books and features relating to NDE’s. In particular, he’s involved with the BBC documentary Forestman originally started the thread about... so... You’re still just commenting?

At post 82, you finish your pivot having been sufficiently challenged by Thorium, that you explain you’re not showing proof, just... ‘stuff’. Then, you start the line you’ve been on recently, but one that is divorced from your previous posts.
Then you move on to this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3185951&postcount=85 And we’re back at Parnia, and your wish that papers about “mights” would be published... which is already done more than not, but hey, let's not weigh you down with facts. You do express surprise at Thorium’s conclusions, although your stance had only changed in response to him, and only after repeated attempts. After that, you return to posting the same papers, this time in full.

I'm not impressed.

Parnia is also the guy who founded: http://www.horizonresearch.org/

Which is a charitable organization funding... the very research he does, but it's OK, they're friends with the Nour Foundation, which is friends with sites that PF finds Kosher. Nothing to be concerned about there.

Beyond my own suspicious bent, his "experiments" don't follow the scientific method, and I'd strongly question the value of him as an expert, just because he's a pioneer in a field he... well... according to The Nour Foundation, started in the UK.

I'm curious how the equivalent of a peer-reviewed blogger, and practically a world unto himself in his extremely questionable research (the methods, not the goal), passes muster as a source here.

Then we have him actually submitting to some form of interview that isn't paying or praying to him... and we get this:

http://www.prunderground.com/dr-sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-probably-an-illusion/004376/

Interview with NDE researcher and AWARE Project leader explores limits of experiments on near-death experience.

San Diego, CA (PRUnderground) October 15th, 2010
Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with the NDE expert and author of, What Happens When We Die?, Dr. Sam Parnia. During the interview Dr. Parnia is asked why he suspects NDEs are an “illusion”, a “trick of the mind”. When pressed, Dr Parnia stated, “…It may well be. You’re pushing and I’m giving you honest answers. I don’t know. If I knew the answers then I don’t think I would have engaged and spent 12 years of my life and so much of my medical reputation to try to do this. Because to appreciate people like me, I risk a lot by doing this sort of experiment. So I’m interested in the answers and I don’t know. Like I said, if I was to base everything on the knowledge that I have currently of neuroscience, then the easiest explanation is that this is probably an illusion.”

While Parnia’s position regarding the validity of the NDE phenomena stands in contrast to most other near death experience researchers he continues to push forward. His AWARE Project asks cardiac arrest patients who experience a NDE to recall hidden pictures placed above their bed. This methodology has been criticized by NDE experts who give it little chance of yielding positive results. Dr. Parnia responds, “I don’t know if [the tests will] be successful or not. That’s an important point to make. As I said, I don’t have a particular stance. It’s possible that these experiences are simply illusionary and it’s possible that they’re real. Science hasn’t got the answers yet. So we have to go fair-minded. Right now what we have is a setup that can at least, we hope, objectively determine an answer to the question.”

The Skeptiko interview (audio and transcript) is available at: http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-probably-an-illusion/
The Skeptiko interview (audio and transcript) is available at: http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-probably-an-illusion/

About Skeptiko
Skeptiko.com is the first scientifically oriented Podcast exploring new research in controversial areas of science such as telepathy, psi, parapsychology, near-death-experience, psychic detectives, medium communication, reincarnation, and after-life encounters. Each episode features open, honest debate on new scientific discoveries. The show includes interviews with top research scientists and their critics.

Contact:
Alex Tsakiris
news@skeptiko.com
858 952-0870

http://www.skeptiko.com

(The above is a press release, fully available to share in any form, complete or otherwise. Please do not remove or alter portions of it if you wish to repost.)

I'm not seeing a whole lot of consistancy, or his expressed views contradict your earlier ramblings about the brain. I'd add, while he's in the afformentioned BBC bit, his area of research is limited to cardiac arrest, which is hardly clinical OR brain death.

 

[JaredJames]

I see the problem. Please read my posts without thinking that I am trying to support Forestman's views or that i am claiming what he claims. I am merely putting a few scientific sources on the table, and, as i mentioned, I am not convinced either way.

Your initial post here jumps into support forestman's claim of "consciousness surviving death", which you have continued to do throughout this thread.

So far, I have not seen anything in the papers provided that is even remotely relevant to this. Support for NDE's happening at the point of nearly dying, certainly. But nothing to support the initial claims. This is where my problem stems. Claims made and evidence provided aren't discussing the same thing.

@Ivan: There is a lot of confusion here, but I hope you understand my point above and it clarifies my stance in this thread.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm locking this until I've had time to review the information in detail. I was in PF withdrawal and needed some play time today.