Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

[Jeremiahcp]

You know what Mr. Twain that is a very good point, and prob. better if I just put them on ignore.

 

[Koldo]

Then cite a fact by which we can conclude that a functioning brain is necessary for someone to have a veridical perception from a perspective outside of his/her body.

I don't have to. That's not my line of argumentation.

I'm not sure you have understood the facts of the 3 cases (the experiences and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective) I asked you to account for--have you? Obviously you haven't accounted for the facts of their experiences and veridical perceptions, despite my repeated requests.

And I think it might be because you haven't understood the facts of these cases, that you are conflating the issues of veridical perception from an out-of-body perspective and non-functioning brain. Let us take the opportunity to be clear on these issues:

The fact that NDErs have been shown to have and retain in their memories complex, coherent experiences and utilize logical thought processes when their brains have been deprived of oxygen sufficiently long to be unable to support neural activity (or where there may be only residual activity of the brain stem) is a fact that defies explanation of these experiences and logical thought processes as a physiological artifact. Just as I pointed out in the OP:

Even disregarding other aspects of NDEs, such logical thought processes and the having and retention in memory of complex, coherent experiences during the severely compromised neurological states in which NDEs commonly occur confound explanation of these experiences as a mere physiological artifact. In a 2006 article, Dr. van Lommel, after explaining that “[m]onitoring of the electrical activity of the cortex (EEG) has shown that the first ischemic changes in the EEG are detected an average of 6.5 seconds from the onset of circulatory arrest, and with prolongation of the cerebral ischemia always progression to isoelectricity occurs within 10 to 20 (mean 15) seconds,” elaborates this issue:

The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain. Parnia et al. (2001) and Parnia and Fenwick (2002) write that the data from several NDE studies suggest that the NDE arises during unconsciousness, and this is a surprising conclusion, because when the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures, which underpin subjective experience and memory, must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise or be retained in memory. Such patients would be expected to have no subjective experience, as was the case in the vast majority of patients who survive cardiac arrest, or at best a confusional state if some brain function is retained. The fact that in a cardiac arrest loss of cortical function precedes the rapid loss of brainstem activity lends further support to this view. An alternative explanation would be that the observed experiences arise during the loss of, or on regaining consciousness. The transition from consciousness to unconsciousness is rapid, and appearing immediate to the subject. Experiences that occur during the recovery of consciousness are confusional, which these were not. In fact, memory is a very sensitive indicator of brain injury and the length of amnesia before and after unconsciousness is an indicator of the severity of the injury. Therefore, one should not expect that events that occur just prior to or just after loss of consciousness should be clearly recalled.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Near-Death Experience_Consciousness and the Brain.pdf​

The fact that people have been shown to have veridical experiences from a perspective outside of their bodies, in which they can accurately report events that they could not see with their eyes, is also a fact that defies explanation of the conscious experience and perception as an artifact of brain activity. A person might indeed have an entirely functioning brain during a veridical perception from an out-of-body perspective (there are reports of such), but his/her perceptions and conscious experience would be spatially separated from that functioning brain.

The above facts are why the hypothesis that consciousness is somehow (inexplicably) a by-product of the electrical activity of neurons does not account for the facts of the veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective and the complex, coherent experiences and logical thought processes had by Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the Parnia 2014 patient.

See Dr. van Lommel's description above. Twenty seconds after the onset of circulatory arrest, a brain should not be having and forming memories of complex, coherent experiences and engaging in logical thought processes, if consciousness were merely the by-product of the electrical activity of the brain. Twenty seconds after the onset of circulatory arrest, a person should have no experiences, form no memories, and be unable to engage in logical thought processes, if consciousness were merely the by-product of the electrical activity of the brain.

Or, as I have been suggesting the possibility, it is a fact that defies our current understanding of the brain.
Either way, we are missing the pieces to explain how these experiences are possible, and it might be the case that the answer still lies in the brain.

 

[Nous]

That you are able to correctly understand the methods and findings of the van Lommel study which were reviewed and approved by peers at Lancet. I.e., that you are able to understand that the authors of the paper did not do something as ridiculous and aberrant as secretly sticking an inference in the first sentence of their statistical methods section, and that you are able to understand that the Lancet reviewers would never approve a paper that did such a ridiculous and aberrant thing.

You give the impression that this was the first time you've ever read a peer-reviewed paper.

OMG, looping back again;

If you are ever able to identify any error in the van Lommel et al. paper or any of the other studies presented on this thread, be sure to let us know. Hopefully soon you will be able to read and understand information provided in the peer-reviewed literature such as:

Findings 62 patients (18%) reported NDE, of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Occurrence of the experience was not associated with duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest. Frequency of NDE was affected by how we defined NDE, the prospective nature of the research in older cardiac patients, age, surviving cardiac arrest in first myocardial infarction, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during stay in hospital, previous NDE, and memory problems after prolonged CPR. Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001). The process of transformation after NDE took several years, and differed from those of patients who survived cardiac arrest without NDE.

[. . .]

Statistical analysis
We assessed causal factors for NDE with the Pearson [chi-squared] test for categorical and t test for ratio-scaled factors. Factors affecting depth of NDE were analysed with the Mann-Whitney test for categorical factors, and with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation for ratioscaled factors. Links between NDE and altered scores for questions from the life-change inventory were assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The sums of the individual scores were used to compare the responses to the life-change inventory in the second and third interview. Because few causes or relations exist for NDE, the null hypotheses are the absence of factors. Hence, all tests were two-tailed with significance shown by p values less than 0·05.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

 

[Nous]

Or, as I have been suggesting the possibility, it is a fact that defies our current understanding of the brain.

How would a different "understanding of the brain" account for NDEs and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective?

As far as I can tell, the only "misunderstanding" about the brain that prevents such phenomena from being accounted for is the idea that conscious experience is somehow (mysteriously) produced by the electrical activity of the brain.

Either way, we are missing the pieces to explain how these experiences are possible

The facts presented on this thread about NDEs and veridical perception from an out-of-body perspective are only "impossible" if one assumes that consciousness is somehow a product of brains. Right?

 

[Koldo]

How would a different "understanding of the brain" account for NDEs and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective?

As far as I can tell, the only "misunderstanding" about the brain that prevents such phenomena from being accounted for is the idea that conscious experience is somehow (mysteriously) produced by the electrical activity of the brain.

The facts presented on this thread about NDEs and veridical perception from an out-of-body perspective are only "impossible" if one assumes that consciousness is somehow a product of brains. Right?

If the explanation doesn't fit the data, then either the data or the explanation is incorrect in some meaningful way.
One must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.
Even if consciousness is a product of brains, it is not a given that an out-of-body perspective is impossible. It may actually be something that only brains can do, with a mechanism that we don't comprehend yet.

 

[Nous]

If the explanation doesn't fit the data, then either the data or the explanation is incorrect in some meaningful way.

Obviously the idea that consciousness is a product of the electrical activity of the brain is the only obstacle in attempting to account for the data.

Even if consciousness is a product of brains, it is not a given that an out-of-body perspective is impossible. It may actually be something that only brains can do, with a mechanism that we don't comprehend yet.

What kind of mechanism in the brain would have enabled Pam Reynolds to see and remember the electric saw used on her skull while her eyes were taped closed and she was anesthetized?

What sort of mechanism in the brain would have enabled Dr. Rudy's patient to see and remember seeing Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amada-Cattaneo standing in the doorway after Rudy had declared him dead after he had not had a heartbeat or blood pressure for more than 20 minutes?

Obviously you are suggesting some kind of magical mechanism that allows brain cells to somehow function when they don't have oxygen and are not firing. Why would one entertain such an illogical idea?

 

[Koldo]

Obviously the idea that consciousness is a product of the electrical activity of the brain is the only obstacle in attempting to account for the data.

What kind of mechanism in the brain would have enabled Pam Reynolds to see and remember the electric saw used on her skull while her eyes were taped closed and she was anesthetized?

What sort of mechanism in the brain would have enabled Dr. Rudy's patient to see and remember seeing Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amada-Cattaneo standing in the doorway after Rudy had declared him dead after he had not had a heartbeat or blood pressure for more than 20 minutes?

Obviously you are suggesting some kind of magical mechanism that allows brain cells to somehow function when they don't have oxygen and are not firing. Why would one entertain such an illogical idea?

Explain step by step how you have reached the conclusion that such is an illogical idea.

 

[Nous]

Explain step by step how you have reached the conclusion that such is an illogical idea.

Neurons that are deprived of oxygen become non-functioning within a few seconds (see Dr. van Lommel's description above). Brain cells are especially susceptible to hypoxia, and the visual system is apparently (among) the first to cease functioning during hypoxia (I have read that jet fighter pilots learn when they are about the experience G-LOC by the effect on their vision). Yet you're illogically claiming that it is somehow possible for the non-functioning brain cells of people such as Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient to have complex, coherent experiences, to engage in logical thought processes, and to form memories. What you're saying doesn't make sense, much less is it premised on any fact.

 

[Koldo]

Neurons that are deprived of oxygen become non-functioning within a few seconds (see Dr. van Lommel's description above). Brain cells are especially susceptible to hypoxia, and the visual system is apparently (among) the first to cease functioning during hypoxia (I have read that jet fighter pilots learn when they are about the experience G-LOC by the effect on their vision). Yet you're illogically claiming that it is somehow possible for the non-functioning brain cells of people such as Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient to have complex, coherent experiences, to engage in logical thought processes, and to form memories. What you're saying doesn't make sense, much less is it premised on any fact.

But what if the neurons don't actually become non-functioning when deprived of oxygen ?
The fact that we are unable to detect any activity doesn't necessarily mean that there is none happening.

If we are to assume that we know everything about the relationship between our sight and the brain, then we must consider those reports as false. As far as our understanding of human physiology goes, those events can't happen at all. You are not supposed to be able to see anything from such a, literally, different perspective even with a fully functional brain without the use of some external apparatus. Period. Therefore, if we are to assume these events were true, then we must admit the possibility that we are missing pieces in this puzzle, and by consequence that allows us to question our current understanding of the matter.

 

[Nous]

But what if the neurons don't actually become non-functioning when deprived of oxygen ?

Yes, maybe all the brains rotting in graves are having wonderful experiences, seeing things on the other side of the world, engaging in logical thought processes.

And what if the Andes are not really mountains but an ocean?

You don't have any speculations pertaining to the topic here that are premised on any corroborated facts, do you?
The fact that we are unable to detect any activity doesn't necessarily mean that there is none happening.

As far as our understanding of human physiology goes, those events can't happen at all.

This is called a circular argument. You can't tell us how the electrical activity in brains produces consciousness, can you? There is nothing in "our understanding of human physiology" that explains how electrical activity creates conscious experience and free will. Correct?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, maybe all the brains rotting in graves are having wonderful experiences, seeing things on the other side of the world, engaging in logical thought processes.

And what if the Andes are not really mountains but an ocean?

You don't have any speculations pertaining to the topic here that are premised on any corroborated facts, do you?

The fact that only individuals with a functioning brain were able to report their experiences is consistent with the need of a brain to have them. The possibility I am pointing is certainly speculative, but can you legitimately posit any alternative explanation that stands on firmer grounds ? I am all ears if you do. But if you can't, then I have succeeded on establishing that you can't rule out the brain as being a necessary part of those experiences.

This is called a circular argument. You can't tell us how the electrical activity in brains produces consciousness, can you? There is nothing in "our understanding of human physiology" that explains how electrical activity creates conscious experience and free will. Correct?

The matter at hand is not merely the consciousness. We are talking about individuals that were not only conscious, but that were also able to perceive their surroundings. People able to actually 'see' as if they either had a functioning physical apparatus ( e.g. eyes ) or as if they didn't even need one. That's not supposed to happen according to our understanding of human physiology. That simply doesn't fit our explanations on how 'sight' works.

 

[idav]

The matter at hand is not merely the consciousness. We are talking about individuals that were not only conscious, but that were also able to perceive their surroundings. People able to actually 'see' as if they either had a functioning physical apparatus ( e.g. eyes ) or as if they didn't even need one. That's not supposed to happen according to our understanding of human physiology. That simply doesn't fit our explanations on how 'sight' works.

Your using a plea of ignorance but nothing we know of that can account for experiences except for the brain. People don't need sight to "see" the world around them, that is how the brain works.

 

[Koldo]

Your using a plea of ignorance but nothing we know of that can account for experiences except for the brain. People don't need sight to "see" the world around them, that is how the brain works.

I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase and elaborate it ?

 

[idav]

I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase and elaborate it ?

Although the mind is a complex enigma, doesn't change the fact that we have a firm grasp that the human brain is the cause for human insight.

 

[Koldo]

Although the mind is a complex enigma, doesn't change the fact that we have a firm grasp that the human brain is the cause for human insight.

Insight or sight ?

 

[Nous]

The fact that only individuals with a functioning brain were able to report their experiences is consistent with the need of a brain to have them.

Is that what you meant to say?

No one claims that Pam Reynolds didn't own a brain when she had an NDE; it's just that she was under anesthesia and her eyes were taped closed when the surgical team brought out the electric saw and the tray of interchangeable blades that she was able to describe, from a position above the surgeon's shoulder.

No one claims that Dr. Rudy's patient didn't have a 3-pound ball of gelatin in his skull when he saw Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway with their arms folded after they had given up trying to resuscitate him after he had had no heartbeat or blood pressure for 20 minutes. Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo said the patient could not have seen the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor from his position on the operating table.

No one claims that Vicki, in the Ring and Cooper article, was lacking a brain when she saw objects and colors for the first time in her life (from an out-of-body position).

You haven't accounted for any of these facts. Right?

If your statement quoted above is supposed to mean something to the effect: “Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient must have had functioning brains at the time when they saw things that they later accurately reported, because . . .” then your premise is not consistent with the facts. There is no fact by which to conclude that they had functioning brains at the time of their veridical perceptions, and your premise does not account for their veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective anyway (e.g., claiming, without reason or evidence, that Reynolds' brain was perfectly able to have complex, coherent experiences when she was under anesthesia does not account for the fact her eyes were taped closed, yet she accurately described the electric saw and tray of interchangeable blades).

The possibility I am pointing is certainly speculative, but can you legitimately posit any alternative explanation that stands on firmer grounds ? I am all ears if you do.

From the fact that people have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes, and even have veridical perceptions from out-of-body perspectives during clinical death, the only conclusion about consciousness that one can draw is that consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain. While such a conclusion upsets many people because it conflicts with their religion, it doesn't conflict with any actual corroborated fact--there is no explanation as to how electrical activity among cells (or anything else) produces consciousness, and there is no fact that consciousness must be somehow the product of the electrical activity of neurons. Right?

NDEs and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective are not the only phenomena unaccounted for by the idea that consciousness is somehow the by-product of electricity among neurons. The ability of creatures such as humans (and undoubtedly others) to act willfully is not accounted for by such an idea, yet one cannot account for the performance of voluntary goal-directed acts except as willful, chosen acts.

Other problems with the idea that the brain is a stand-alone computer are noted in the OP: Professor Berkovitch's calculations that the human brain is severely deficient in capacity to produce and store its memories and associated thought processes, and Professor Forsdyke's findings that brain size does not scale to either information content or intelligence.

But if you can't, then I have succeeded on establishing that you can't rule out the brain as being a necessary part of those experiences.

You haven't explained how Reynolds observed the electric saw and tray of interchangeable blades while her eyes were taped closed, have you?

And you haven't explained how Dr. Rudy's patient was able to observe Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after they had given up trying to resuscitate him after he had had no heart beat or blood pressure for 20 minutes, or how the patient was able to observe the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor, which both doctors claim he couldn't have seen from his position on the operating table. Have you?

The matter at hand is not merely the consciousness. We are talking about individuals that were not only conscious, but that were also able to perceive their surroundings.

And are you trying to ignore or dismiss the fact that there is no logical reason to claim that the experiences of Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's and the Parnia 2014 patients were somehow the product of their brains or that their veridical perceptions were seen with the eyeballs in their heads?

It sounds like you're trying to make an argument analogous to Professor Carroll's in which he suggested that realistic interpretations of NDEs imply the violation of some (or all) unnamed laws of physics. Are you trying to argue that there is some fact that disallows realistic interpretations of the facts noted about the experiences and veridical perceptions of Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's and the Parnia 2014 patients, et al.? If that is what you are trying to argue, then just state the fact, substantiate that it is a true fact, and provide your argument.

Again, as far as I know, the only obstacle to realistic interpretations of the experiences and veridical perceptions of the NDErs noted here is not any fact but is merely the baseless belief that consciousness is somehow a by-product of the electrical activity of neurons.

 

[Nous]

we have a firm grasp that the human brain is the cause for human insight.

Can you present any facts and an argument by which to conclude that "the human brain is the cause" of whatever it is you are claiming the human brain is the cause of? Are you claiming that consciousness and free will are somehow the by-product of the electrical activity of the brain?

 

[Koldo]

Is that what you meant to say?

No one claims that Pam Reynolds didn't own a brain when she had an NDE; it's just that she was under anesthesia and her eyes were taped closed when the surgical team brought out the electric saw and the tray of interchangeable blades that she was able to describe, from a position above the surgeon's shoulder.

No one claims that Dr. Rudy's patient didn't have a 3-pound ball of gelatin in his skull when he saw Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway with their arms folded after they had given up trying to resuscitate him after he had had no heartbeat or blood pressure for 20 minutes. Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo said the patient could not have seen the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor from his position on the operating table.

No one claims that Vicki, in the Ring and Cooper article, was lacking a brain when she saw objects and colors for the first time in her life (from an out-of-body position).

You haven't accounted for any of these facts. Right?

If your statement quoted above is supposed to mean something to the effect: “Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient must have had functioning brains at the time when they saw things that they later accurately reported, because . . .” then your premise is not consistent with the facts. There is no fact by which to conclude that they had functioning brains at the time of their veridical perceptions, and your premise does not account for their veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective anyway (e.g., claiming, without reason or evidence, that Reynolds' brain was perfectly able to have complex, coherent experiences when she was under anesthesia does not account for the fact her eyes were taped closed, yet she accurately described the electric saw and tray of interchangeable blades).

From the fact that people have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes, and even have veridical perceptions from out-of-body perspectives during clinical death, the only conclusion about consciousness that one can draw is that consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain. While such a conclusion upsets many people because it conflicts with their religion, it doesn't conflict with any actual corroborated fact--there is no explanation as to how electrical activity among cells (or anything else) produces consciousness, and there is no fact that consciousness must be somehow the product of the electrical activity of neurons. Right?

NDEs and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective are not the only phenomena unaccounted for by the idea that consciousness is somehow the by-product of electricity among neurons. The ability of creatures such as humans (and undoubtedly others) to act willfully is not accounted for by such an idea, yet one cannot account for the performance of voluntary goal-directed acts except as willful, chosen acts.

Other problems with the idea that the brain is a stand-alone computer are noted in the OP: Professor Berkovitch's calculations that the human brain is severely deficient in capacity to produce and store its memories and associated thought processes, and Professor Forsdyke's findings that brain size does not scale to either information content or intelligence.

You haven't explained how Reynolds observed the electric saw and tray of interchangeable blades while her eyes were taped closed, have you?

And you haven't explained how Dr. Rudy's patient was able to observe Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after they had given up trying to resuscitate him after he had had no heart beat or blood pressure for 20 minutes, or how the patient was able to observe the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor, which both doctors claim he couldn't have seen from his position on the operating table. Have you?

And are you trying to ignore or dismiss the fact that there is no logical reason to claim that the experiences of Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's and the Parnia 2014 patients were somehow the product of their brains or that their veridical perceptions were seen with the eyeballs in their heads?

It sounds like you're trying to make an argument analogous to Professor Carroll's in which he suggested that realistic interpretations of NDEs imply the violation of some (or all) unnamed laws of physics. Are you trying to argue that there is some fact that disallows realistic interpretations of the facts noted about the experiences and veridical perceptions of Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's and the Parnia 2014 patients, et al.? If that is what you are trying to argue, then just state the fact, substantiate that it is a true fact, and provide your argument.

Again, as far as I know, the only obstacle to realistic interpretations of the experiences and veridical perceptions of the NDErs noted here is not any fact but is merely the baseless belief that consciousness is somehow a by-product of the electrical activity of neurons.

Hold on a moment.
Do you believe that by asserting that consciousness can exist independent from our bodies you have somehow provided a better substantiated explanation to those events ? If that's the case, provide a source that explains the mechanism behind such events. What is the mechanism that allows 'consciousness' independent from a physical body to 'see' something from a given point in space ?

 

[idav]

Can you present any facts and an argument by which to conclude that "the human brain is the cause" of whatever it is you are claiming the human brain is the cause of? Are you claiming that consciousness and free will are somehow the by-product of the electrical activity of the brain?

Human consciousness is a the by product of a human brain.

 

[Nous]

Do you believe that by asserting that consciousness can exist independent from our bodies you have somehow provided a better substantiated explanation to those events ?

I will repeat this:

From the fact that people have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes, and even have veridical perceptions from out-of-body perspectives during clinical death, the only conclusion about consciousness that one can [deduce] is that consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain.​

You haven't shown the any other conclusion can be deduced from this facts. Right?

And you haven't shown that that conclusion is prohibited by some other fact. Right?

What is the mechanism that allows 'consciousness' independent from a physical body to 'see' something from a given point in space ?

That's probably a question that's premised on an erroneous assumption.

If I am unable to name any such "mechanism," does that imply anything different than the fact that you are unable to name any mechanism by which consciousness is the by-product of electricity?