independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 18th Apr 2014 4:16pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Eternal rest
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)

ERROR in DB::fetchSingle() on
Error (Table 'princeorg.databank' doesn't exist) on SELECT pagename FROM databank WHERE pagename='Ian'

Reply #30 posted 02/27/12 2:28pm

morningsong

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Phrased differently, would it mean Eternal Peace?

Pretty much sums it up for me. But then that's me.

"Twinkle, twinkle little star how I wonder what you are."
Not "Save the Planet", but "Save Life"
"The Price one pays for entering a profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 02/27/12 2:34pm

Tremolina

OldFriends4Sale said:

toejam said:


Love you back, Ian wink

How is my idea "poorly thought"?

All I'm saying is that it is already possible to "experience" this nothingness - we do it all the time when we're in deep sleep, i.e. have no conscious thought or feeling/experience of time passing.

In these deep sleeps our brain waves are incredibly less active that when we are awake.

So it's a perfectly reasonable thought to follow that when we die - i.e. when our brain activity is even less (i.e. no activity), that we will "experience" the same thing (i.e., no experience).

I've already said that there is no way that anyone can know for absolute certainty, but it is the most likely scenario given the evidence we have at the present time - that is, the relationship between brain activity and consciousness. One appears to correlate to the other. No brain activity = no consciousness.

I would love there to be something more after we die. I'm just not convinced by the "evidence" Christians or any other "afterlifers" like yourself present.

How is believing what you believe somemore more "thought through" than my hypothesis?

.

[Edited 2/26/12 13:14pm]

lol funny there are people who do that wide awake

Yes by meditation

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 02/27/12 3:07pm

lazycrockett

avatar

morningsong said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Phrased differently, would it mean Eternal Peace?

Pretty much sums it up for me. But then that's me.

Not if the mormons get ahold of you. smile

The Most Important Thing In Life Is Sincerity....Once You Can Fake That, You Can Fake Anything.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 02/27/12 6:22pm

IanRG

IanRG said:

toejam said:


I'll say it again, seeing as though you seemed to have missed it in the last post: My argument was responding your claim that my conclusion, i.e. that it is most likely that no brain activity = no conscious thought is "not thought through". How is this position "not thought through"? I've explained the reasoning (the "thought") that lead me to this. How is it "not" - or even "less" "thought through" than your position? That is what I was rebuking.

The fact that we agree that no brain activity is different to less brain activity is irrelevant to that point. However, my conclusion is perfectly reasonable: We can see a correlation between brain activity and conscious thought. So what prevents that correlation ceasing when one parameter goes to zero? I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume then that, mostly likely, the other parameter would also go to zero, i.e. continuing the pattern we see.

So again, I ask you: How is this thought process "not thought through"?

Round and round and round you go.

Death is not sleep - no conclusion based on death being sleep is valid. I first raised what was not thought through in you argument - an argument just raised so your could seek to change the topic to your pet topic.

What I raised as not thought through is sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, ...

Now that I am more awake (or is that less dead?), I can give a better and less rude (apologies) answer:

Two of the guiding principles fundamental to the scientific method are that:

  • If your assumptions are wrong then your conclusions are invalid, and
  • There must be a causal link between what was being analysed and the conclusion reached.

Your opening assumption was that you knew what death was like because you had experienced a bit of it in sleep. I have dismissed this assumption – you have not experienced death by being asleep at all. Strike one – your assumption is wrong

Your conclusion was that there (probably) is no God because a dead brain has no activity. Your attempt to link the discredited assumption above to this conclusion is wholly reliant on sleep being accompanied by a lower rate of brain activity and death being accompanied by no brain activity. Strike two – there is no causal link between levels of activity of a human organ at different times or at different levels of consciousness and the existence of God or an afterlife.

Your assumption is wrong and your conclusion is both invalid and is not supported by your analysis – or in short, you have not thought this through.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 02/27/12 11:54pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

Round and round and round you go.


It takes two to tango, Ian lol

Death is not sleep - no conclusion based on death being sleep is valid.

I've never said that death is sleep. Only that we already "experience" (on some level) what's it's like to experience "nothing" (or at least very "next to nothing" on a conscious level). It happens to us every night when we are in a deep sleep.

I've already admitted several times that no one can know for sure, but the reasoning that the correlation between brain activity and conscious thought suggests that no brain activity is equal no conscious thought is perfectly reasonable and "thought through". It's not about knowing these things for sure, it's about coming to the most likely conclusion. And that is the most likely conclusion I see, unfortunate as it may be. And this is what I take "Eternal Rest" to mean.

death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, sleep is not death, death is not sleep, ...


OMG... Did I finally crack IanRG?? shocked lol. I'm kidding dude. Don't fret, it's just conversation. I feel like replying like this to you sometimes too. Love you back.

Now that I am more awake (or is that less dead?), I can give a better and less rude (apologies) answer:

Apology accepted. It's all good.

Two of the guiding principles fundamental to the scientific method are that:

  • If your assumptions are wrong then your conclusions are invalid, and
  • There must be a causal link between what was being analysed and the conclusion reached.


Your statement here is valid "if" my assumption is wrong - i.e. that there is no correlation between brain activity and conscious thought, or that that correlation breaks down at some point. But this is not what is observed. There very much appears to be a strong correlation between the two - levels of sleep being a good indicator of the correlation.

And I think there is a link between what is being analysed (the correlation between brain activity and conscious thought) and the conclusion reached: If we continue that "pattern", no brain activity would suggest no conscious thought. Again, it's not definitive, and I could be wrong, but it's a totally logical, reasonable and "thought through" position to hold. That is all I have been saying.

It's no different to the "thought through" conclusion that the Big Bang happened. We can't go back in time to see it to know for absolute certainty that it happened, but we see the "pattern" in the sky (the red-shift expansion of the universe), and run it backwards to conclude it's likely starting point.


And on that note. I don't think I can say much more on this.

Time for some rest... If not eternal rest wink


.

[Edited 2/28/12 0:07am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 02/28/12 4:54am

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

Two of the guiding principles fundamental to the scientific method are that:

  • If your assumptions are wrong then your conclusions are invalid, and
  • There must be a causal link between what was being analysed and the conclusion reached.

Your opening assumption was that you knew what death was like because you had experienced a bit of it in sleep. I have dismissed this assumption – you have not experienced death by being asleep at all. Strike one – your assumption is wrong

Your conclusion was that there (probably) is no God because a dead brain has no activity. Your attempt to link the discredited assumption above to this conclusion is wholly reliant on sleep being accompanied by a lower rate of brain activity and death being accompanied by no brain activity. Strike two – there is no causal link between levels of activity of a human organ at different times or at different levels of consciousness and the existence of God or an afterlife.

Your assumption is wrong and your conclusion is both invalid and is not supported by your analysis – or in short, you have not thought this through.


Your statement here is valid "if" my assumption is wrong - i.e. that there is no correlation between brain activity and conscious thought, or that that correlation breaks down at some point. But this is not what is observed. There very much appears to be a strong correlation between the two - levels of sleep being a good indicator of the correlation.

No, your opening assumption was:

IanRG said:

For this is to be so you must think that you are only asleep when you are dead. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't believe this at all.


Actually, this is one of the things that lead me to believe that there is probably is literally "nothing" after we die. There are times in our sleep, when we're not dreaming, that we "experience" this nothingness. We wake up later and assume that the amount of time our clock is telling us has passed is correct, but we've had no real experience of that time. Consciousness it seems can be switched off.

This is what I said was poorly thought through. And it is. The "this" that you say lead you to believe that there is (probably) no afterlife is you thinking death is like sleep. I tried to give people who appeared to confused between the two the benefit of the doubt but you jumped in and linked the two and not jsut metaphorically - than somehow twisted it to be another reason to change the topic to your pet topic,

Your assumption is wrong - the this that is death can be extrapolated from sleep based on brain activity levels is as bogus as the sea can be extrapolated by analysing the difference between mountain and valleys based on altitude levels.

The links between your assumptions are non existent. You cannot link different concious states to probabilities of lack of the existence of God - If I tried the opposite you would go berko. You cannot draw any conclusions about what happens to us after our bodies die on the basis of what happens when the body is alive. The need for us to sleep and recouperate without our concious mind thinking constantly and us remembering every single thought, every single second with no interaction from others for around 8 hours every single night is much better explanation of why the brain rests and we don't remember things. As this is an alive resting mind, this says nothing about when it is not alive.

And I think there is a link between what is being analysed (the correlation between brain activity and conscious thought) and the conclusion reached: If we continue that "pattern", no brain activity would suggest no conscious thought. Again, it's not definitive, and I could be wrong, but it's a totally logical, reasonable and "thought through" position to hold. That is all I have been saying.

No one is saying that a dead brain is capable of concious thought - I commend you for an excellent example of the bleeding obvious.

It's no different to the "thought through" conclusion that the Big Bang happened. We can't go back in time to see it to know for absolute certainty that it happened, but we see the "pattern" in the sky (the red-shift expansion of the universe), and run it backwards to conclude it's likely starting point.

Equating extrapolations used in the development of the Big Bang Theory with your extrapolation may give you comfort but this is an excellent example of why your theory that there is no God because there is less brain activity while the brain rests and recouperates than when it is active is such poor science.

The Big Bang Theory is supported by a wide variety of observations including, and importantly our ability to go so far back into the past to almost be able to see the latter stages of it. It is based on assumptions that hold up to examination and these assumptions have causal links with the conclusion. Alterative explanations have been considered and tested against the theory and either rejected or have been added to enhance our understanding of the Big bang. The best you can do is extrapolate that a dead brain can't think.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 02/28/12 5:49am

toejam

avatar

^Ian, this conversation has nothing to do with proof of God.

I am simply saying that your labelling of my conclusion, that the most likely conclusion that consciousness ceases at the moment brain death, as "not thought through", or "poorly thought through", is not justified. It's a totally justified conclusion, based on the correlation between brain activity and conscious thought, as observed in the stages of sleep.


You're free to believe differently, but I find it somewhat antagonising of you to label what I see as a perfectly logical, thought through position as anything but. Once more, I am not saying this is the definitive truth, only it's the most likely outcome that my thought process has lead me to conclude.

But hey, if you want to believe that there is still some sort of consciousness that somehow manages to survive brain death, then you're free to do so.

[Edited 2/28/12 6:31am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 02/28/12 6:14am

RodeoSchro

avatar

I never got it either, and I don't use that phrase.

We don't rest when we die. We got to Heaven, which is paradise and not a place to rest. Or we got to Hell, and there is no rest there, for sure.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

Rocket Frog
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 02/28/12 9:37am

XxAxX

avatar

eternal rest sure sounds a lot better than eternal labor neutral

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 02/28/12 9:38am

lazycrockett

avatar

dirt nap and worm food.

[Edited 2/28/12 11:01am]

The Most Important Thing In Life Is Sincerity....Once You Can Fake That, You Can Fake Anything.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 02/28/12 1:51pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

No, your opening assumption was:

IanRG said:

For this is to be so you must think that you are only asleep when you are dead. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't believe this at all.


Actually, this is one of the things that lead me to believe that there is probably is literally "nothing" after we die. There are times in our sleep, when we're not dreaming, that we "experience" this nothingness. We wake up later and assume that the amount of time our clock is telling us has passed is correct, but we've had no real experience of that time. Consciousness it seems can be switched off.

This is what I said was poorly thought through. And it is. The "this" that you say lead you to believe that there is (probably) no afterlife is you thinking death is like sleep. I tried to give people who appeared to confused between the two the benefit of the doubt but you jumped in and linked the two and not jsut metaphorically - than somehow twisted it to be another reason to change the topic to your pet topic,

Your assumption is wrong - the this that is death can be extrapolated from sleep based on brain activity levels is as bogus as the sea can be extrapolated by analysing the difference between mountain and valleys based on altitude levels.

The links between your assumptions are non existent. You cannot link different concious states to probabilities of lack of the existence of God - If I tried the opposite you would go berko. You cannot draw any conclusions about what happens to us after our bodies die on the basis of what happens when the body is alive. The need for us to sleep and recouperate without our concious mind thinking constantly and us remembering every single thought, every single second with no interaction from others for around 8 hours every single night is much better explanation of why the brain rests and we don't remember things. As this is an alive resting mind, this says nothing about when it is not alive.


Ian, this conversation has nothing to do with proof of God.

The majority of my reply was about equating sleep with death by extrapolation not about prrof of God. But I accept your word that you are only seeking to disprove an after life in a thread about Christian beliefs about eternal rest with God in the after life.

I am simply saying that your labelling of my conclusion, that the most likely conclusion that consciousness ceases at the moment brain death, as "not thought through", or "poorly thought through", is not justified. It's a totally justified conclusion, based on the correlation between brain activity and conscious thought, as observed in the stages of sleep.


You're free to believe differently, but I find it somewhat antagonising of you to label what I see as a perfectly logical, thought through position as anything but. Once more, I am not saying this is the definitive truth, only it's the most likely outcome that my thought process has lead me to conclude.

But hey, if you want to believe that there is still some sort of consciousness that somehow manages to survive brain death, then you're free to do so.

As I have said before you have failed to justify except by unprovable pattern matching that you can determine what death is like from analysing different states of conciousness. Your premise is that less brain activity equates to less conciousness. From this you extrapolate that there is probably no afterlife but fail to provide any causal link - a correlation/causation error.

So what if more brain activity also equates to less conciousness?

This occurs in quite a number of cases. The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences No. 1129 Intrinsic Brain Activity in Altered States of Consciousness, How Conscious Is the Default Mode of Brain Function? by M. Boly, C. Phillips, L. Tshibanda, A. Vanhaudenhuyse, M. Schabus, T.T. Dang-Vu, G. Moonen, R. Hustinx, P. Maquet, S. Laureys identifies a few:

"Studies showed that states of extremely low or high brain activity (emphasis added) are often associated with unconsciousness."

These people are not merely asleep but unconcious but can show as high levels of brain activity as fully awake and aroused people.

"Global decreases in metabolic activity are observed in deep slow-wave sleep, although in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep brain metabolism returns to normal waking values."

We have a number of REM cycles in a normal night's sleep but we are only aware of, and remember the last part of the last one before we wake - all the other REM sleep time and dreams are lost as if they were "nothingness". YET our minds are just as active as if we are awake.

"As vegetative patients are fully aroused, global brain metabolism seems to correlate with awareness rather than with arousal in altered consciousness states."

The awake / asleep patterns of vegetative state patients are normal but a physical defect is preventing conciousness.

"Not all anesthetics suppress global cerebral metabolism. Some studies have also reported that ketamine, a so-called dissociative anesthetic agent, increases global cerebral metabolism and fast EEG rhythms at doses associated with a loss of consciousness.

More brain activity, less conciousness.

"In comatose patients with traumatic diffuse axonal injury, hyperglycolysis, leading to increased brain metabolism, has sometimes been reported."

More brain activity, less conciousness

"Loss of consciousness induced by generalized epilepsia and some absence seizures, where global brain metabolism is diffusely increased."

More brain activity, less conciousness

Now the obvious answer here is that all of these except REM sleep are not normal so the differences are explicable. Yes this is true, just like the differences between being asleep and the brain being dead are explicable - in this explanation the assumption that you can extrapolate death from experiences of being asleep breaks down because death is also not the normal state of an alive brain.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 02/28/12 11:21pm

toejam

avatar

^Some interesting info. Curious: Are there any examples of the opposite? i.e. Less brain activity, more consciousness?

But still, I feel my point still stands: There is still no evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist without it being confined to within a living brain. So to assume that there is consciousness after brain death is, to me, rather erroneous. On the contrary, it's a very "reassuring" position that may be beneficial to some for coping with the fear of death... Hence why we say comforting things like "eternal rest" as opposed to just bluntly saying "non-existence".

I think if there is consciousness after death, the most likely scenario would be some form of unintentional reincarnation (eg. the atom, or whatever material "unit" that my consciousness is built upon, is, by the inevitable processes of physics, used again as the building block for another conscious being), although the memory/responsibility/achievements of our previous life/lives would be completely lost. So, even if there is some form of afterlife, I very much doubt it will be "eternally restful!".

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 02/29/12 12:08am

IanRG

toejam said:

^Some interesting info. Curious: Are there any examples of the opposite? i.e. Less brain activity, more consciousness?

Not in that paper but there is decreasing brain activity, same conciousness with learned tasks.

But still, I feel my point still stands: There is still no evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist without it being confined to within a living brain. So to assume that there is consciousness after brain death is, to me, rather erroneous. On the contrary, it's a very "reassuring" position that may be beneficial to some for coping with the fear of death... Hence why we say comforting things like "eternal rest" as opposed to just bluntly saying "non-existence".

I think if there is consciousness after death, the most likely scenario would be some form of unintentional reincarnation (eg. the atom, or whatever material "unit" that my consciousness is built upon, is, by the inevitable processes of physics, used again as the building block for another conscious being), although the memory/responsibility/achievements of our previous life/lives would be completely lost. So, even if there is some form of afterlife, I very much doubt it will be "eternally restful!".

But, now you are just speculating.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 02/29/12 12:54pm

Tremolina

This topic reminds me of this:

In 2001 Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel[1] caused a sensation by getting his research on people who had had a Near-Death Experience (NDE) published in The Lancet, the British bastion of regular medicine.[2] (Click here for the original article.)

Briefly stated, according to Van Lommel his research has shown that:

  1. people who suffer a cardiac arrest and have zero brain function can have very clear and complex experiences,
  2. human consciousness may therefore not always be identical to the physical brain (contrary to what neurology tells us) and
  3. this consciousness can perhaps survive the death of this body, like all the religions of the world teach us.

from

http://www.integralworld....ommel.html

http://profezie3m.altervi...et_NDE.htm

The first clinical study of near-death experiences (NDE's) in cardiac arrest patients was by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist from the Netherlands, and his team (The Lancet, 2001).[70] Of 344 patients who were successfully resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest, approximately 18% experienced "classic" NDE's, which included out-of-body experiences.

The patients remembered details of their conditions during their cardiac arrest despite being clinically dead with flatlined brain stem activity. Van Lommel concluded that his findings supported the theory that consciousness continued despite lack of neuronal activity in the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...el_studies

[Edited 2/29/12 12:55pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 02/29/12 1:01pm

morningsong

lazycrockett said:

morningsong said:

Pretty much sums it up for me. But then that's me.

Not if the mormons get ahold of you. smile

No worries, I'm so far down on there list, the second coming will have happened by the time they get to me. I'll meet them at the pearly gates.

"Twinkle, twinkle little star how I wonder what you are."
Not "Save the Planet", but "Save Life"
"The Price one pays for entering a profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." James Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 02/29/12 1:09pm

Tremolina

Is there life after death? Theologians can debate all they want, but radiation oncologist Dr. Jeffrey Long says if you look at the scientific evidence, the answer is unequivocally yes. Drawing on a decade's worth of research on near-death experiences — work that includes cataloguing the stories of some 1,600 people who have gone through them — he makes the case for that controversial conclusion in a new book, Evidence of the Afterlife. Medicine, Long says, cannot account for the consistencies in the accounts reported by people all over the world. He talked to TIME about the nature of near-death experience, the intersection between religion and science and the Oprah effect.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/...z1no7XwLcK

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 02/29/12 1:10pm

toejam

avatar

Tremolina said:

This topic reminds me of this:

In 2001 Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel... [etc]


Interesting. I intend to look into this a little further and will get back to you. But I remain sceptical at this point.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 02/29/12 1:16pm

Tremolina

toejam said:

Tremolina said:

This topic reminds me of this:


Interesting. I intend to look into this a little further and will get back to you. But I remain sceptical at this point.

You don't really have to get back to 'me' lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 02/29/12 10:51pm

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

Tremolina said:

Is there life after death? Theologians can debate all they want, but radiation oncologist Dr. Jeffrey Long says if you look at the scientific evidence, the answer is unequivocally yes. Drawing on a decade's worth of research on near-death experiences — work that includes cataloguing the stories of some 1,600 people who have gone through them — he makes the case for that controversial conclusion in a new book, Evidence of the Afterlife. Medicine, Long says, cannot account for the consistencies in the accounts reported by people all over the world. He talked to TIME about the nature of near-death experience, the intersection between religion and science and the Oprah effect.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955636,00.html#ixzz1no7XwLcK

The Oprah effect? hmm

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 02/29/12 11:51pm

toejam

avatar

Tremolina said:

This topic reminds me of this:

In 2001 Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel... [etc]


Here's an interesting article that does an excellent job of debunking van Lommel's erroneous conclusions: http://www.ukskeptics.com...-brain.php

In summary:

Firstly, van Lommel suggested that the most widely accepted 'hallucination due to cerebral anoxia (i.e. lack of oxygen) hypothesis' could not be the cause for NDE because in his study only 18% of his resuscitated patients claimed to have had a NDE (actually only 12% by other standard definitions of NDE). He argued that if the 'hallucination hypothesis' were true, it should be expected that all of his patients should have experienced one because all experienced cerebral anoxia. Clearly this reasoning is flawed. That would be like saying: "Jumping off a cliff does not contribute to death because not all who jumped off a cliff in my study died". Interestingly, van Lommel provided no direct measurements of cerebral anoxia from his patient sample. He simply assumed all of his patients' anoxia was equal due to the fact they were not breathing. Returning to my analogy, that would be like failing to consider the height of the various cliffs jumped off, or the individual characteristics of the jumpers themselves, instead, just assuming the cliffs were all the same and the jumpers were all the same.

Secondly: the recognised inability of electroencephalograms (or "EEGs", the machines that measure the "activity" of the brain) to determine the moment of "total" brain death. Van Lommel's claim of "total" brain death was determined from then-current EEG readings. Yet it had been known for years before his study that a "flat line" was in no way definitive proof of "total" brain death. It is also implied in this article that Lommel's study failed to provide information on the level of gain employed on the EEG machine. And similarly, more recent advances in EEG technology has been able to pick up on "activity" that was not available at the time of the van Lommel study.

Thirdly, in this article, it is also stated that at least two of van Lommel's patients did not report their NDE until two years after their close call with death.

And fourthly, I'll also add this to the equation: Why is it that even after 10 years for van Lommel's "conclusions" to sink into the scientific consciousness, why are they still not accepted by the consensus of scientists? - or even the consensus of neuroscientists for that matter? Where are all the second, third and forth follow-up studies that confirm and validate his findings? It's one of those things: If his conclusions really were demonstrable, it would be taught as one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time! ... but alas. On the contrary, it is very easy for an invalid study like this to slip through the cracks of unscrutiny when it's used to validate something so reassuringly comforting as an afterlife. It happens all the time with things we would "like" to be true.

So for me, there are too many alarm bells going off in my head over the validity of van Lommel's conclusions. The claim that consciousness can exist separate to brain activity remains un-demonstrated to me.

.

[Edited 3/1/12 0:19am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 03/01/12 4:15am

damosuzuki

avatar

Whenever the topic of NDEs comes up, I’m reminded of the story Richard Feynman recalled about his wife’s death. Feynman was with her in the hospital when she died, and was present when the nurse recorded the time of death. He later discovered that the clock by her bedside had stopped at the precise moment of death - 9:21pm. That’s the kind of event the cosmically-minded immediately would cite as evidence of something otherworldly. Feynman was a little more grounded, and immediately recognized what must have happened. The clock was old and rickety, and the nurse must have picked it up when confirming time of death and dislodged some inner workings, causing it to stop running. Perhaps not completely relevant, but a reminder that the simplest, most plausible explanation is likely to be the correct one.

In addition to the article Toejam posted above, I’d like to add a blog post written by Steven Novella (academic neurologist at Yale) that does a very concise summary of the claims made by NDE proponents. There are a host of explanations of NDEs as being neurological events, and my belief is that these explanations are quite a bit more plausible than the notion that people are getting a preview of post-mortem consciousness. Many NDE proponents emphasize that brain activity was minimal or non-existent at the time of the experience, but the very fact they survived means they couldn’t have gone without oxygen for very long and should have had an adequate supply to generate some activity.

http://theness.com/neurol...log/?p=381

Neuroscientists are piecing together plausible explanations for each of the components of the NDE. The sensation of floating outside one’s body can be reliably induced by suppressing that part of the brain that makes us feel as if we possess our bodies. The experience is identical to that reported by those who have had an NDE. This experience can be replicated by drugs or magnetic stimulation. There are even reports (I have had one such patient) of people who have a typical NDE experience during seizures. The bright light can be explained as a function of hypoxia (relative lack of oxygen) either to the retina or the visual cortex. Any everything else is simply the culturally appropriate hallucinations of a hypoxic brain.

Critics of such explanation try to argue that during the experience the brain is not active, therefore the brain cannot be the source of the experiences. There are two problems with this argument. First, it has not been established that the brain is not sufficiently active to generate experiences. In all cases people survived the experience (by definition) to report what they remember. That means the brain did not go entirely without oxygen for very long or otherwise it would have been catastrophically damaged. During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) the cardiac output is about 20-25% normal – enough to delay damage to tissues. So the brain is getting some oxygen. Not enough to be conscious, but enough to have some function – perhaps generate a dream-like hallucination or out-of-body experience.

Second, the argument assumes without justification that the memories reported by those who survive CPR and have an NDE were formed during the CPR or when they were unconscious. It is more likely that some or all of those memories formed when the person was waking up and their sense of time is as distorted as all their brain function. Unlike in the movies, people do not wake up fully conscious and lucid after having their heart restarted. After minutes of CPR the brain has taken a hit due to the hypoxia. People typically wake from this event slowly – taking hours or even days, depending on the duration and quality of the CPR. They will necessarily pass through a phase where they are what is called encephalopathic (their brain is functioning but not well), which is a type of delirium. It is common to have bizarre thoughts and perceptions, hallucination, and illusions during this period.

When patients then fully wake up to report their experiences, all they have is their memories, which includes the memories of the transition period from unconscious, through a delirious period, and to fully conscious. They have no way of knowing when those memories formed.

The only way to definitively distinguish between memories formed during CPR and those formed during the period of encephalopathy is for the memories to contain specific details that could only have been obtained during the CPR. This claim is often made, but either there is a lack of compelling documentation, or the details are too vague to be definitive. People describing a typical CPR experience, for example, is not specific. Sometimes people after a NDE will claim to recognize the nurse or doctor who worked on them, but they may just be attaching those memories to people they encountered before or after the experience.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 03/01/12 11:41am

Tremolina

toejam said:

Tremolina said:

This topic reminds me of this:


Here's an interesting article that does an excellent job of debunking van Lommel's erroneous conclusions: http://www.ukskeptics.com...-brain.php

In summary:

Firstly, van Lommel suggested that the most widely accepted 'hallucination due to cerebral anoxia (i.e. lack of oxygen) hypothesis' could not be the cause for NDE because in his study only 18% of his resuscitated patients claimed to have had a NDE (actually only 12% by other standard definitions of NDE). He argued that if the 'hallucination hypothesis' were true, it should be expected that all of his patients should have experienced one because all experienced cerebral anoxia. Clearly this reasoning is flawed. That would be like saying: "Jumping off a cliff does not contribute to death because not all who jumped off a cliff in my study died". Interestingly, van Lommel provided no direct measurements of cerebral anoxia from his patient sample. He simply assumed all of his patients' anoxia was equal due to the fact they were not breathing. Returning to my analogy, that would be like failing to consider the height of the various cliffs jumped off, or the individual characteristics of the jumpers themselves, instead, just assuming the cliffs were all the same and the jumpers were all the same.

Secondly: the recognised inability of electroencephalograms (or "EEGs", the machines that measure the "activity" of the brain) to determine the moment of "total" brain death. Van Lommel's claim of "total" brain death was determined from then-current EEG readings. Yet it had been known for years before his study that a "flat line" was in no way definitive proof of "total" brain death. It is also implied in this article that Lommel's study failed to provide information on the level of gain employed on the EEG machine. And similarly, more recent advances in EEG technology has been able to pick up on "activity" that was not available at the time of the van Lommel study.

Thirdly, in this article, it is also stated that at least two of van Lommel's patients did not report their NDE until two years after their close call with death.

And fourthly, I'll also add this to the equation: Why is it that even after 10 years for van Lommel's "conclusions" to sink into the scientific consciousness, why are they still not accepted by the consensus of scientists? - or even the consensus of neuroscientists for that matter? Where are all the second, third and forth follow-up studies that confirm and validate his findings? It's one of those things: If his conclusions really were demonstrable, it would be taught as one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time! ... but alas. On the contrary, it is very easy for an invalid study like this to slip through the cracks of unscrutiny when it's used to validate something so reassuringly comforting as an afterlife. It happens all the time with things we would "like" to be true.

So for me, there are too many alarm bells going off in my head over the validity of van Lommel's conclusions. The claim that consciousness can exist separate to brain activity remains un-demonstrated to me.

.

[Edited 3/1/12 0:19am]

Dude puhlease, you "debunk" scientific research published in the Lancet no less with some "skeptics" website??

I thought you were so scientifically minded. All about the facts not beliefs, yeah right lol

"Undemonstrated"? It's a scientifally conducted research as they should be done with reliable and truthful data, peer review and all that. It proves that people with ZERO brain activity still can have clear and complex experiences. Why isn't there anything on wiki "debunking"it? Why can you only find some blatantly opinionated "skeptic" website to "debunk"?

You simply don't want to get along with ANYTHING that debunks your personal little ideas about life. That obsessed and afraid of being proven wrong you are.

By the way van Lommel isn't the only one who has done this research, as your little article falsely states. I showed you the interview with dr Long as well, published in Time magazine no less.

But I guess the ukscepticwebsite is much more reliable to you! What a laugh.

[Edited 3/1/12 12:02pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 03/01/12 12:01pm

Tremolina

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Tremolina said:

The Oprah effect? hmm

Read it. And toejam too. lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 03/01/12 1:39pm

toejam

avatar

^So Tremolina, the best you can do is attack the publisher, and not the actual ideas/rebuttals it presents? Pfff. And you call me biased lol

Sorry, but if van Lommel's conclusions are as "scientifically valid" as you're making out, why do the vast majority of scientists and neuroscientists continue to reject them? Can you actually state why you think the uksceptic article is wrong? Does the fact it's on a "sceptic" website automatically make it wrong by default? C'mon Trem... Address the actual rebuttals, not the messenger.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 03/01/12 2:04pm

Tremolina

toejam said:

^So Tremolina, the best you can do is attack the publisher, and not the actual ideas/rebuttals it presents? Pfff. And you call me biased lol

Sorry, but if van Lommel's conclusions are as "scientifically valid" as you're making out, why do the vast majority of scientists and neuroscientists continue to reject them? Can you actually state why you think the uksceptic article is wrong? Does the fact it's on a "sceptic" website automatically make it wrong by default? C'mon Trem... Address the actual rebuttals, not the messenger.

Pfff indeed.

You simply have nothing to offer yourself. Where is this "vast majority" huh?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 03/01/12 2:45pm

Tremolina

Literally hundreds of scholarly articles have been written over the last 35 years about near-death experience.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955636,00.html#ixzz1nuMFzfrS

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 03/01/12 11:42pm

toejam

avatar

Tremolina said:

Pfff indeed.

You simply have nothing to offer yourself.


Double Pfff. Why is it that I am required to "offer" something myself when the arguments against van Lommel's conclusions are already sound enough on their own? Even still, let's reverse it. Why should you be left off the hook?: What have you offered as evidence for consciousness existing outside of brain activity other than quoting other people's "research"? What command of the literature do you really have? At least I wrote my own summary of what I saw as as the most common criticisms of van Lommel's conclusions. What have you done - simply posted some links and pulled out some quotes...

So if you're going to throw that argument at me, I'll return it: You too simply have nothing to offer yourself.

Where is this "vast majority" huh?


You're right. Why take my word for it? Here's a little research project for you: Go to your local university or hospital. Ask for the neuroscience department. Ask the alumni/lecturers/doctors/brain-surgeons etc. whether or not they believe there is sufficient evidence within the scientific literature demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness can survive total brain death. I guarantee you the vast majority will say the evidence is, at best, unclear. Sure, you'll get the odd wacko like Jeffrey Long, who is happy to make money writing books about his mostly rejected conclusions, but they are few and far between.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955636,00.html#ixzz1nuMFzfrS


Let's look at some of what Long says here:

Jeffrey Long said to Time Magazine:
The reason [why NDE can't be biologically or physiologically based] is very clear: no one or several skeptical explanations make sense, even to the skeptics themselves. Or [else ]there wouldn't be so many.


Well, this is debatable. Are there really "so many" skeptical explanations as he's making out? Most skeptics/scientists agree that NDEs are most likely hallucinations of a dying brain. Sure, there are debates over the details of how this happens, but the hypothesis is completely plausible and even to some extent demonstrable: There have even been several experiments that can replicate the "outer-body" experience or the "white light" phenomena using various drugs/magnets/brain electrodes etc.

But even if there is debate about the nature/cause of NDE, is that evidence alone that the only alternative left is that that it can't be biologically or physiologically based? No. It may mean we simply haven't worked it all out yet.


Literally hundreds of scholarly articles have been written over the last 35 years about near-death experience.

Again, if this is so, why do so little scientists/neuroscientists not hold his view? I'm pretty confident that for every positive "scholarly article", you'll find an equally (if not more so) "scholarly article" that refutes its claims, or offers more reasonable naturalistic explanations.


What happens after permanent death — after we're no longer able to interview people — is an absolute. To that extent, the work I do may always require some element of faith. But by the time you look at [the] evidence, the amount of faith you need to have [to believe in] life after death is substantially reduced.


and I'll also add this one, of similar sentiment, written by van Lommel and published on Long's NDERF site (which appears to me to be not much more than a testimonial/media promotion site):

van Lommel / NDERF.com say:
Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion [that consciousness can extend beyond total brain death], because people with an NDE did not quite die, they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain.

So it seems even Long and van Lommel admit that their conclusions are not irrefutable scientific proof that consciousness can extend beyond total brain death. It seems to me as though the biggest problem in all of this (on both sides of the camp) is how we actually go about determining what a "functioning" / "non-functioning" brain actually is. The problem is that no one can really answer that yet. So, at best, even if we accept all of Long's conclusions as possibly plausible, we're still left in the position of the unknown. And that is still the position I hold.

I still have not seen demonstrable evidence that consciousness can extend beyond total brain death, and therefore I will continue to hold the position that it remains a mystery. But if I were a betting man my money would be on the 'hallucination hypothesis'. It just makes much more sense to me.

But hey, if you disagree, so be it.

.

[Edited 3/2/12 0:41am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 03/02/12 4:25am

damosuzuki

avatar

Tremolina said:

toejam said:


Here's an interesting article that does an excellent job of debunking van Lommel's erroneous conclusions: http://www.ukskeptics.com...-brain.php

In summary:

Firstly, van Lommel suggested that the most widely accepted 'hallucination due to cerebral anoxia (i.e. lack of oxygen) hypothesis' could not be the cause for NDE because in his study only 18% of his resuscitated patients claimed to have had a NDE (actually only 12% by other standard definitions of NDE). He argued that if the 'hallucination hypothesis' were true, it should be expected that all of his patients should have experienced one because all experienced cerebral anoxia. Clearly this reasoning is flawed. That would be like saying: "Jumping off a cliff does not contribute to death because not all who jumped off a cliff in my study died". Interestingly, van Lommel provided no direct measurements of cerebral anoxia from his patient sample. He simply assumed all of his patients' anoxia was equal due to the fact they were not breathing. Returning to my analogy, that would be like failing to consider the height of the various cliffs jumped off, or the individual characteristics of the jumpers themselves, instead, just assuming the cliffs were all the same and the jumpers were all the same.

Secondly: the recognised inability of electroencephalograms (or "EEGs", the machines that measure the "activity" of the brain) to determine the moment of "total" brain death. Van Lommel's claim of "total" brain death was determined from then-current EEG readings. Yet it had been known for years before his study that a "flat line" was in no way definitive proof of "total" brain death. It is also implied in this article that Lommel's study failed to provide information on the level of gain employed on the EEG machine. And similarly, more recent advances in EEG technology has been able to pick up on "activity" that was not available at the time of the van Lommel study.

Thirdly, in this article, it is also stated that at least two of van Lommel's patients did not report their NDE until two years after their close call with death.

And fourthly, I'll also add this to the equation: Why is it that even after 10 years for van Lommel's "conclusions" to sink into the scientific consciousness, why are they still not accepted by the consensus of scientists? - or even the consensus of neuroscientists for that matter? Where are all the second, third and forth follow-up studies that confirm and validate his findings? It's one of those things: If his conclusions really were demonstrable, it would be taught as one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time! ... but alas. On the contrary, it is very easy for an invalid study like this to slip through the cracks of unscrutiny when it's used to validate something so reassuringly comforting as an afterlife. It happens all the time with things we would "like" to be true.

So for me, there are too many alarm bells going off in my head over the validity of van Lommel's conclusions. The claim that consciousness can exist separate to brain activity remains un-demonstrated to me.

.

[Edited 3/1/12 0:19am]

Dude puhlease, you "debunk" scientific research published in the Lancet no less with some "skeptics" website??

I thought you were so scientifically minded. All about the facts not beliefs, yeah right lol

"Undemonstrated"? It's a scientifally conducted research as they should be done with reliable and truthful data, peer review and all that. It proves that people with ZERO brain activity still can have clear and complex experiences. Why isn't there anything on wiki "debunking"it? Why can you only find some blatantly opinionated "skeptic" website to "debunk"?

You simply don't want to get along with ANYTHING that debunks your personal little ideas about life. That obsessed and afraid of being proven wrong you are.

By the way van Lommel isn't the only one who has done this research, as your little article falsely states. I showed you the interview with dr Long as well, published in Time magazine no less.

But I guess the ukscepticwebsite is much more reliable to you! What a laugh.

[Edited 3/1/12 12:02pm]

Just a few further comments on this:

1) The fact that van Lommel was published in the Lancet does suggest positive things about his scholarship & the integrity of his research, but it doesn’t mean that his explanations now are established. They’re part of the discussion to be reviewed and considered, and his explanations may well be wrong. It should be noted that Andrew Wakefield’s MMR/vaccine study was published in the Lancet as well, and that study has subsequently been deemed fraudulent. Not saying Lommel is a fraud – just stating that being published, even in an esteemed journal, does not make the ideas established.

2) The paper does not prove that ‘people with zero brain activity can have clear and complex experiences.’ As noted in the blog post from Steven Novella I copy/pasted in reply #50, all of the people who survive NDEs could not have been deprived of oxygen for very long or else their brain would be too damaged to be able to form or recount memories, so the brain is getting enough oxygen to function, if only in a minimal state. Also, there can be no certainty as to when the memories are actually formed, since coming out of an NDE to a fully conscious state is a long process, so the memories could be a distortion of events/dreams/hallucinations that took place over days, not specifically at the time the individual was near death. Finally, we always have to take into account just how fallible and malleable memory is, even among those who witness an event fully conscious. Don’t mean to belabor a point I think we all know, but we had an example of that in our office recently when one of our staff passed out suddenly. After the paramedics left and I was putting together the document to log the incident with workplace health and safety, I asked people to recount the events and got four different accounts – some subtly different, some radically different.

NDEs are absolutely a real thing, but what they are exactly is not established, and that’s where we get into reviewing things like the plausible mechanisms that could induce such experiences and whether the events have a materialist, non-spiritual explanation. I think the blog I linked to from Steven Novella gives a good summary of those explanations, and it seems to me those are more plausible than the notion that we’re getting a preview of eternity in the afterlife. We can’t speak dogmatically about these things, but there are degrees of certainty and levels of plausibility that can be established, and the materialist explanations seem to be the ones where a consensus is being built. If van Lommel can make his case and show that there is a post-mortem consciousness, then Yahtzee! I would love to be wrong on that one – but I think the skeptical view of NDEs if far more likely to be the correct one.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 03/02/12 5:22am

IanRG

Personally, I obviously believe in the afterlife - However I am ambivalent as to whether NDEs are proof or not of this.

I found this recent peer reviewed paper:

Near-Death Experience: Out-of-Body and Out-of-Brain?

Agrillo, Christian

Department of General Psychology, University of Padova

Christian Agrillo, Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, via Venezia 8, I-35131 Padova, Italy christian.agrillo@unipd.it

Submission August 14, 2010. Revision September 14, 2010. Accepted October 25, 2010.

Conclusions

The study of NDEs represents one of the main challenges of modern neuroscience, given the high scientific, theological and philosophical implications related to this topic. Many popular books on NDEs have become best-sellers, probably because a large number of people wants to believe that immortality is scientifically possible, so lessening and making more tolerable our fear of death. From a traditional scientific perspective, the occurrence of these experiences might initially be considered improbable or paradoxical. However, the incidence of the phenomenon and the partially similar features reported among cultures have raised some questions regarding the biological/psychological interpretations of NDEs, as well as the nature of human consciousness and its relationship with the brain.

Even adopting a rigorous scientific methodology, the theoretical debate is largely open and, to date, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions about the origin of such experiences. According to out-of-brain theorists, the mind might be separable from the brain and therefore survive even after body death; others (in-brain theorists) suggest that these experiences may be mainly a by-product of biological processes or psychological reactions to death. Lights and tunnels would merely be hallucinations or final visions produced by a dying brain (see Table 3 for a short summary about the two perspectives).

We have to hope that physicians and other caregivers will be more and more aware of these experiences and advise patients accordingly. In general, more research involving cooperation among several hospitals and research groups is welcome in the effort to provide more exhaustive explanations of the occurrence and content of NDEs. In 2008 a new international project called AWARE—“AWAreness during REsuscitation”—was launched, with the purpose of studying the relationship between the brain and the mind during clinical death. This project, recruiting over 1,000 cardiac arrest survivors, is the first multidisciplinary study using both cerebral monitoring techniques and planning innovative tests. In one of these, for example, it is planned to install a small picture shelf above patients' beds. This shelf will not be visible from the floor and it might be possible to have a glimpse of the picture only by “floating.” Researchers will try to see whether patients who report out-of-body experiences will be able to recall seeing the picture during the intermittent state. This would surely represent compelling evidence for the out-of-brain hypothesis, even though we would have to record that a null result (no recall of the picture) would not necessarily imply the absence of the phenomenon. Why would a dying individual have to focus attention on this nonrelevant cue when seeing his or her body from above and living such an unknown experience?

It is worth noting that most of the recurring features are visual experiences (seeing a light, seeing a tunnel, deceased people, or heavenly or hellish landscapes). This raises an interesting question: why would an out-of-body mind still perceive the reality mainly driven by visual information? Visual modality is the most important one used by humans to perceive the world. Nonetheless, there is no reason to believe that the same preference for visual inputs should be observed after biological death. For instance fewer accounts on tactile or kinaesthetic information seem to be reported. This may be interpreted as indirect evidence of a mind still “trapped” in the brain. However, the problem may simply rely on the verbal account of patients. Indeed, when people have to describe a landscape, in general they tend to use words evoking images instead of tactile information or gustative information; therefore it becomes complicated to disentangle the effect of language (usually imagine-biased) and the real nature of perception in NDEs (that is supposed to be modality independent).

Even assuming the most intriguing hypothesis that NDEs are evidence of life after death, it would be unclear whether NDEs really support the belief in what we may call “maximal” life after death (immortality) or merely in a “minimal” life after death, a sort of limited consciousness for some time after death (Dell'Olio, 2009). Experiences themselves are a matter of minutes. As the brain can still survive for a few minutes in the absence of blood support, it is theoretically possible that the human mind might really be dissociable to the brain, but cannot survive for long in the absence of neuroanatomical structures.

Regardless of these speculations, it is undeniable that NDEs can help us to deepen our comprehension of human consciousness. It has been argued that consciousness is the result of interaction among large neural networks (Fenwick, 2000). This is supported by neuroimaging studies where, using functional MRI and PET, specific brain areas have been found to be active in response to a thought or feeling (Frackowiak, Friston, Frith, Dolan, & Mazziotta, 2003). However, those studies do not necessarily imply that neurons also produce consciousness; neuronal networks may be considered as a sort of an intermediary for the manifestation of consciousness. As outlined by Parnia and Fenwick (2002), direct evidence of how neural circuits can assess the subjective essence of the mind is currently lacking, and provides one of the biggest challenges to neuroscience. Gestalt theories have widely demonstrated that our ways to perceive reality are surely based on single elements of the whole scene but are not the mere sum of them. Similarly, the human mind is supported by neural networks but may not be only the sum of the single parts. The mind and the brain might not be related by one-to-one correspondence. The claims made by the out-of-brain theorists should not be underestimated by cognitive neuroscientists: if true, this would imply a new relation between the brain and consciousness.

In 1996 Blackmore said: “it is probably a matter of personal preference whether to interpret the NDE as a glimpse of the life beyond or the product of the dying brain” (p. 75). Unfortunately, even though more biological correlates have been reported during the last 14 years, we are far from solving the question. In the absence of a more adequate explanatory framework for NDEs, it will be useful to remain open to both interpretations.

All in all a pretty fair paper and without the clear bias of the article for a sceptics website by Braithwaite. From this paper - Yes this is a issue that is taken seriously by scientists - very seriously because if the "out of brain" hypothesis is proven beyond reasonable doubt then this is a game changer. Rather than debunking, the "in brain" hypothesese arguments are just as unproven positions - this is agreed by Blackmore above - a major player in the dying brain hypothesis. Note this paper is from a psychologist who studies the mind - a neuroscientist, like Braithwaite is far more likely to be a "in brainer" because they study the brain.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 03/02/12 9:21am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

Tremolina said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

The Oprah effect? hmm

Read it. And toejam too. lol

Ha! lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Eternal rest