• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Human consciousness is a the by product of a human brain.
Can you deduce that proposition from any fact, or is that just your religion?

I did ask you to present any facts and an argument by which to conclude the claim that you are making.

Would it be futile to ask you to account for the facts of the NDEs such as noted in the OP?
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
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?

Let's delve further into that.
What cases can you present where the NDE is claimed to have happened while the brain activity was closely under watch ?
Is it Pam Reynolds' case only ?

I
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?

It doesn't. And that's exactly the point.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What cases can you present where the NDE is claimed to have happened while the brain activity was closely under watch ? Is it Pam Reynolds' case only ?
And her eyes were taped closed. Go right ahead and account for her veridical perception and experience.

The heart beat and blood pressure of Dr. Rudy's patient was being monitored, and he was without both for more than 20 minutes. There is obviously no rational reason to conclude that his anoxic brain was functioning when he observed Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after the patient was pronounced dead. Even if his brain were functioning, it wouldn't explain his observation and report of the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor. So account for this patient's veridical perceptions.

The Parnia 2014 patient was in ventricular fibrillation for 3-5 minutes when the automated voice of the AED said, “Shock the patient!”, which the patient reported. There is no rational reason that this patient's brain was functioning 3-5 minutes after the onset of VF. This patient also accurately reported seeing, from above, and described a “chunky fellow” in blue scrubs, who was bald, which was evident even though he was wearing a hat, Account for this patient's perceptions.

Brad and Vicki were/are congenitally blind, and had never see or dreamed or hallucinated images. Yet Brad reported seeing, from an elevated position, the boy in the next bed get up to call the nurse when Brad was unable to breathe. Similarly, from an elevated position, Vicki saw a body below, and, seeing the woman's hair and the flowers on the wedding ring, she deduced that it was her body. Account for these congenitally blind people seeing correct imagery for the first time in their lives.

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?
It doesn't. And that's exactly the point.
The difference is that I'm not trying to make any argument that assumes the existence of some unknown "mechanism". I have merely deduced the only conclusion about consciousness that one can deduce from the facts of these cases. You haven't shown that any other conclusion can be deduced from those facts, and you haven't articulated any fact that prohibits such a conclusion.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
And her eyes were taped closed. Go right ahead and account for her veridical perception and experience.

The heart beat and blood pressure of Dr. Rudy's patient was being monitored, and he was without both for more than 20 minutes. There is obviously no rational reason to conclude that his anoxic brain was functioning when he observed Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after the patient was pronounced dead. Even if his brain were functioning, it wouldn't explain his observation and report of the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor. So account for this patient's veridical perceptions.

The Parnia 2014 patient was in ventricular fibrillation for 3-5 minutes when the automated voice of the AED said, “Shock the patient!”, which the patient reported. There is no rational reason that this patient's brain was functioning 3-5 minutes after the onset of VF. This patient also accurately reported seeing, from above, and described a “chunky fellow” in blue scrubs, who was bald, which was evident even though he was wearing a hat, Account for this patient's perceptions.

Brad and Vicki were/are congenitally blind, and had never see or dreamed or hallucinated images. Yet Brad reported seeing, from an elevated position, the boy in the next bed get up to call the nurse when Brad was unable to breathe. Similarly, from an elevated position, Vicki saw a body below, and, seeing the woman's hair and the flowers on the wedding ring, she deduced that it was her body. Account for these congenitally blind people seeing correct imagery for the first time in their lives.

The difference is that I'm not trying to make any argument that assumes the existence of some unknown "mechanism". I have merely deduced the only conclusion about consciousness that one can deduce from the facts of these cases. You haven't shown that any other conclusion can be deduced from those facts, and you haven't articulated any fact that prohibits such a conclusion.

In the first part of your post, you criticize my position because I can't explain the mechanism that would allow those events to take place. I am not sure whether you understand that the same criticism can be done to any other explanation ( that accepts those reports as true ). This includes any explanation that you can come up with. It is also worth to note that the possibility I am pointing includes the capacity to pull off incredible feats such as those that you mention. In other words, you keep repeating the same things as if they were a counter-argument to my position when they are not.

In the second part of your post, you state that you have reached your position through a particular line of reasoning that ends with the conclusion ( I assume this is the conclusion you are talking about ) that the consciousness is not a product of the electrical activity within the brain. First of all, be careful so as not to get into a 'false dichotomy'. Even if you had accurately concluded that this activity is not responsible for consciousness, it is not automatically true that the consciousness is independent from a physical body. Case in point, it could be a property of our brain cells unrelated to electrical activity. Can I substantiate this position ? No. But that holds true for any other explanation as I have pointed in the former paragraph.

Putting that aside, I have specifically asked if you have any other example of an individual being having its brain activity monitored during an NDE. You have provided none, and as such I will assume, for the time being, you have no other example to provide. Regarding your other examples, you have not determined there was absolutely no electrical activity in the brain, you are merely asking me to assume that to be the case. So, what's left to discuss is whether the one particular case you have mentioned is sufficient evidence. I would say it is a very frail evidence.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In the first part of your post, you criticize my position because I can't explain the mechanism that would allow those events to take place. I am not sure whether you understand that the same criticism can be done to any other explanation ( that accepts those reports as true ). This includes any explanation that you can come up with. It is also worth to note that the possibility I am pointing includes the capacity to pull off incredible feats such as those that you mention. In other words, you keep repeating the same things as if they were a counter-argument to my position when they are not.

In the second part of your post, you state that you have reached your position through a particular line of reasoning that ends with the conclusion ( I assume this is the conclusion you are talking about ) that the consciousness is not a product of the electrical activity within the brain. First of all, be careful so as not to get into a 'false dichotomy'. Even if you had accurately concluded that this activity is not responsible for consciousness, it is not automatically true that the consciousness is independent from a physical body. Case in point, it could be a property of our brain cells unrelated to electrical activity. Can I substantiate this position ? No. But that holds true for any other explanation as I have pointed in the former paragraph.

Putting that aside, I have specifically asked if you have any other example of an individual being having its brain activity monitored during an NDE. You have provided none, and as such I will assume, for the time being, you have no other example to provide. Regarding your other examples, you have not determined there was absolutely no electrical activity in the brain, you are merely asking me to assume that to be the case. So, what's left to discuss is whether the one particular case you have mentioned is sufficient evidence. I would say it is a very frail evidence.
So you are unable to account for the facts of any of the particular cases noted here. And you are unable to argue that there is any reason that NDEs cannot be realistically interpreted or that there is any fact that prohibits the conclusion that consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain.

You should have said so upfront. You could have saved yourself a lot of useless typing.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
So you are unable to account for the facts of any of the particular cases noted here.

And neither can you.

And you are unable to argue that there is any reason that NDEs cannot be realistically interpreted...

Since we don't know how consciousness arises... Indeed.

...or that there is any fact that prohibits the conclusion that consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain.

I am not sure what you mean when you say 'prohibits the conclusion'. Just to clarify, are you asking whether I can posit any fact that would contradict the statement that 'consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain' ? Or are you asking me whether I agree with your conclusion ?

You should have said so upfront. You could have saved yourself a lot of useless typing.

As I see it, my general stance on this topic was summarized in one of my first posts : "Let's admit there are cases of veridical perception. What can we actually establish using that as a starting point ? Nothing, except there are cases of veridical perception.".
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So you are unable to account for the facts of any of the particular cases noted here.
And neither can you.
That's true, except to conclude that the facts demonstrate that consciousness is not merely the product of the electrical activity of the brain. That seems to me an important conclusion to be able to derive from any set of facts.

I am not sure what you mean when you say 'prohibits the conclusion'. Just to clarify, are you asking whether I can posit any fact that would contradict the statement that 'consciousness is not the product of the electrical activity of the brain' ?
Yes.

As I see it, my general stance on this topic was summarized in one of my first posts : "Let's admit there are cases of veridical perception. What can we actually establish using that as a starting point ? Nothing, except there are cases of veridical perception.".
These cases of complex, coherent experiences, forming of memories and the use of logical thought processes during clinical death and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective lead to the conclusion that consciousness is not a product of the electrical activity of the brain.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Owing to a discussion with a friend, I recently had occasion to reread the van Lommel et al. paper published in 2001 in Lancet detailing their prospective study of cardiac patients who had suffered cardiac arrest and were successfully resuscitated from clinical death. I had read that paper probably 10-12 years ago, and it seems to have been about the last thing I had read on the topic of NDEs. There have been several noteworthy studies and books published on NDEs in the interim, and I recently perused some of these.

In the process I came across a video of the 2014 Intelligence Squared debate on the topic. Team 1, arguing for the motion “Death is not final,” consisted of neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, whose academic appointments include Duke University Medical Center, UMass Medical School, Harvard Medical School and University of Virginia Medical School, and who had an extensive NDE in 2008 during a 7-day coma due to a severe case of case of bacterial meningitis, and Dr. Raymond Moody who coined the term “near-death experience” in 1975 in Life After Life, which included the earliest qualitative study of this phenomenon. Arguing against the motion were CIT physics professor Sean Carroll and Yale neurology professor Steven Novella, apparently neither of whom seem to have any professional or personal connection to NDEs.

Although oozing civility, I found the debate disappointing. I thought both teams advanced certain poor or otherwise dubious arguments, oftentimes premised on assertions about metaphysics--despite the chairman Robert Rosenkranz and moderator John Donvan assuring us at the beginning that it would not be a “religious debate” but would rise to the level of science.

Dr. Alexander was first up, mostly using his opening statement to tell about his own NDE and the subsequent change in his beliefs. He got around to noting a few general facts about NDEs just before his time ran out.

So, before getting to my questions, I wish to review some of the easily discoverable information on NDEs.

An NDE is an event consisting of awareness or perception of various unusual phenomena, occurring most often (but not always) in the context of clinical death or life-threatening circumstances or injury, and for research purposes the elements of which are often identified and measured by the Greyson NDE Scale. Of course, this fact itself raises the question as to why the basic elements of NDEs are so similar from person to person, regardless of culture. In contrast, people have an endless variety of dreams and hallucinations.

In the van Lommel et al. study of 344 consecutive patients who were resuscitated from clinical death, 62 (18%) subsequently reported some memory during the episode, with 41 of these describing elements commonly associated with NDEs, such as awareness of being dead, positive emotions, moving through a tunnel, meeting with deceased relatives, involvement in a life review, interacting with a bright light. The authors found that whether or not a patient had an NDE was not associated with the duration of cardiac arrest (presumably a proxy measure of degree of hypoxia) or unconsciousness, medications, fear of death before cardiac arrest, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or education.

NDEs were transformative for those who had them. In follow-up questionnaires at 2 and 8 years, these people were more likely to report positive changes in beliefs and outlook such as an increased acceptance of others, being more empathetic and loving, having a sense of inner meaning of life, appreciation of ordinary things. As van Lommel and many others have pointed out, it's basically unheard-of for people to undergo a radical transformation in their outlook and beliefs about reality in response to a single hallucination or dream lasting a few minutes at most.

Dr. van Lommel et al. comment on the well-known fact that experiences that are superficially similar to NDEs can sometimes be induced by methods such as electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe, high blood levels of CO2 (hypercapnia or hypercarbia), cerebral hypoxia such as fighter pilots sometimes experience resulting in G-LOC, and certain hallucinogenic substances. Yet the authors also point out some of the ways that these experiences are distinct from NDEs:

These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.​

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

In her study Sartori found that patients who had hallucinations (which were clearly distinguishable from NDEs in various ways) due to large doses of sedatives or painkillers eventually acknowledged that their experience was an hallucination, whereas those who had NDEs remained adamant that their experience was real.

Likewise, the induced experiences, in the absence of life-threatening circumstances, do not consistently entail the awareness of being dead, which, except for “positive emotions,” was the most prevalent NDE element described by those in the van Lommel study. In NDE accounts, people often indicate that their awareness of being dead was arrived at by an inference based on factors such as the perception of leaving their bodies, or seeing, from an elevated position, a lifeless body below them that they subsequently recognized as their own.

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 2001 Parnia et al. prospective study that van Lommel cites yielded too few people reporting NDEs for statistical comparison, but the authors note that there was little difference between the NDErs and control group in partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and that arterial partial pressure of oxygen was double in the NDE group than in the control. The fact that NDEs cannot be attributed to hypoxia, anoxia or hypercarbia is further demonstrated by the fact that NDEs occasionally occur in the context of non-life-threatening illnesses and near-accidents.
To your point question, it is hard for quantum mechanics to violate physics when it can already theoretically achieve just about anything, spooky actions from a distance, time travel, multiple paradoxical universes. etc., ghosts and NDE's would be just another drop in the bucket of weirdness.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
To your point question, it is hard for quantum mechanics to violate physics when it can already theoretically achieve just about anything, spooky actions from a distance, time travel, multiple paradoxical universes. etc., ghosts and NDE's would be just another drop in the bucket of weirdness.
I doubt that Professor Carroll would agree with all of your claims about QM here. Nevertheless, he does ridiculously indicate that the idea that consciousness is not reducible to the electrochemical activity of neurons is contrary to not just unnamed "laws of physics" but to every finding of every scientific experiment. Obviously no one here has been able to defend his claims.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
That's true, except to conclude that the facts demonstrate that consciousness is not merely the product of the electrical activity of the brain. That seems to me an important conclusion to be able to derive from any set of facts.

Yes.

These cases of complex, coherent experiences, forming of memories and the use of logical thought processes during clinical death and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective lead to the conclusion that consciousness is not a product of the electrical activity of the brain.

What facts ? So far, your so-called facts appear to be nothing more than 'assumed facts'.
I will reiterate: "Regarding your other examples, you have not determined there was absolutely no electrical activity in the brain, you are merely asking me to assume that to be the case.".
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What facts ?
These facts that you haven't been able to account for, noted in #123, beginning with the fact that Reynolds' eyes were taped shut when the saw and tray of interchangeable blades was brought out, which she was able to describe.

The heart beat and blood pressure of Dr. Rudy's patient was being monitored, and he was without both for more than 20 minutes. There is obviously no rational reason to conclude that his anoxic brain was functioning when he observed Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after the patient was pronounced dead. Even if his brain were functioning, it wouldn't explain his observation and report of the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor. So account for this patient's veridical perceptions.

The Parnia 2014 patient was in ventricular fibrillation for 3-5 minutes when the automated voice of the AED said, “Shock the patient!”, which the patient reported. There is no rational reason that this patient's brain was functioning 3-5 minutes after the onset of VF. This patient also accurately reported seeing, from above, and described a “chunky fellow” in blue scrubs, who was bald, which was evident even though he was wearing a hat, Account for this patient's perceptions.

Brad and Vicki were/are congenitally blind, and had never see or dreamed or hallucinated images. Yet Brad reported seeing, from an elevated position, the boy in the next bed get up to call the nurse when Brad was unable to breathe. Similarly, from an elevated position, Vicki saw a body below, and, seeing the woman's hair and the flowers on the wedding ring, she deduced that it was her body. Account for these congenitally blind people seeing correct imagery for the first time in their lives.​

I will reiterate: "Regarding your other examples, you have not determined there was absolutely no electrical activity in the brain, you are merely asking me to assume that to be the case.".
So you're still trying to knock down the straw man--"But they weren't really dead!"

I put the following in the OP and have quoted it several times throughout the thread. Do me a favor: read it and tell us what it says:

In NDE accounts, people often indicate that their awareness of being dead was arrived at by an inference based on factors such as the perception of leaving their bodies, or seeing, from an elevated position, a lifeless body below them that they subsequently recognized as their own.

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
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
These facts that you haven't been able to account for, noted in #123, beginning with the fact that Reynolds' eyes were taped shut when the saw and tray of interchangeable blades was brought out, which she was able to describe.

The heart beat and blood pressure of Dr. Rudy's patient was being monitored, and he was without both for more than 20 minutes. There is obviously no rational reason to conclude that his anoxic brain was functioning when he observed Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after the patient was pronounced dead. Even if his brain were functioning, it wouldn't explain his observation and report of the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor. So account for this patient's veridical perceptions.

The Parnia 2014 patient was in ventricular fibrillation for 3-5 minutes when the automated voice of the AED said, “Shock the patient!”, which the patient reported. There is no rational reason that this patient's brain was functioning 3-5 minutes after the onset of VF. This patient also accurately reported seeing, from above, and described a “chunky fellow” in blue scrubs, who was bald, which was evident even though he was wearing a hat, Account for this patient's perceptions.

Brad and Vicki were/are congenitally blind, and had never see or dreamed or hallucinated images. Yet Brad reported seeing, from an elevated position, the boy in the next bed get up to call the nurse when Brad was unable to breathe. Similarly, from an elevated position, Vicki saw a body below, and, seeing the woman's hair and the flowers on the wedding ring, she deduced that it was her body. Account for these congenitally blind people seeing correct imagery for the first time in their lives.​

So you're still trying to knock down the straw man--"But they weren't really dead!"

I put the following in the OP and have quoted it several times throughout the thread. Do me a favor: read it and tell us what it says:

In NDE accounts, people often indicate that their awareness of being dead was arrived at by an inference based on factors such as the perception of leaving their bodies, or seeing, from an elevated position, a lifeless body below them that they subsequently recognized as their own.

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

I will repeat once again: "Regarding your other examples, you have not determined there was absolutely no electrical activity in the brain, you are merely asking me to assume that to be the case.".

You haven't addressed this. You keep expecting me to accept there was no electrical activity in their brains. But I have no reason to.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I will repeat once again: "Regarding your other examples, you have not determined there was absolutely no electrical activity in the brain, you are merely asking me to assume that to be the case.".

You haven't addressed this. You keep expecting me to accept there was no electrical activity in their brains. But I have no reason to.
Did you read my post above at all? Did you read what I quoted from the OP? If so, why can't you tell us what it says? Is it too frightening for you to read and comprehend?

I noted this about Dr. Rudy's patient:

There is obviously no rational reason to conclude that his anoxic brain was functioning when he observed Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after the patient was pronounced dead. Even if his brain were functioning, it wouldn't explain his observation and report of the string of Post-It notes on the computer monitor.

If you believe that either of those sentences are erroneous in any way, then provide that "rational reason to conclude that his anoxic brain was functioning when he observed Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo in the doorway with their arms folded after the patient was pronounced dead." Be sure to provide a link to substantiate your claims.

If you believe the second sentence is erroneous, then tell us how whatever electrical activity you assume to have been in his brain accounts for his observation of the Post-It notes.

If you believe that some electrical activity in Reynolds' brain somehow accounts for her veridical perception, while her eyes were taped shut, of the saw and tray of interchangeable blades, then provide that explanation. (No one claims that Reynolds' brain was void of electrical activity during the entire 7-hour operation.)

Have you ever been under general anesthesia with your eyes taped shut? If so, what were your experiences and perceptions?

Tell us how electrical activity in the brains of Brad and Vicki accounts for their veridical perceptions.

Do you understand what a straw man argument is? Your claim that I didn't prove that these patients' brains were entirely void of electrical activity is a straw man argument. Except in the case of Dr. Rudy's patient, who was pronounced dead, I never proposed that the brains of these people were void of electrical activity. The fact remains that (in Dr. van Lommel's words) "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."
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
@Nous

I found this NDE stuff fascinating and am perplexed regarding some of the details. I have no idea how people can report seeing when they were incapacitated or blind from birth.

What laws of physics are violated?

Or was the point that they wouldn't be?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
@Nous

I found this NDE stuff fascinating and am perplexed regarding some of the details. I have no idea how people can report seeing when they were incapacitated or blind from birth.
Jaiket, it's very reassuring to me that someone as reasonable as you find these experiences fascinating and perplexing--as I do. As I noted elsewhere, when I began this most recent foray into this topic, even though I had read a good deal of the literature in the past, including the van Lommel paper, I was highly skeptical that there was good evidence by which to conclude much of anything.

The mere fact that people blind from birth report seeing images and colors during these experiences, for the first time in their lives, is something that requires serious attention and explanation, as it refutes the idea that such experiences are "like dreams or hallucinations". NDEs are not akin to dreams or hallucinations among the congenitally blind.

[/quote]What laws of physics are violated?

Or was the point that they wouldn't be?[/QUOTE]I know of no laws of physics that are violated by realistic interpretations of these experiences. I don't know how Professor Carroll justifies his claims.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Do you understand what a straw man argument is? Your claim that I didn't prove that these patients' brains were entirely void of electrical activity is a straw man argument. Except in the case of Dr. Rudy's patient, who was pronounced dead, I never proposed that the brains of these people were void of electrical activity. The fact remains that (in Dr. van Lommel's words) "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."

I will jump straight into the main issue.

If you don't claim that their brains were entirely void of electrical activity, then how did you reach the conclusion that electrical activity is not responsible for consciousness ( and the NDE experiences ) ?

Let me quote this from your post: "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.".

Considering how it is written, it simply suggests that we might have to reconsider what should and shouldn't be happening, and what would and wouldn't be expected. It suggests a gap, or fault, in our current understanding. That's all. No magic needs to be invoked to explain it. It might to be, or it might not.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
It is difficult to avoid the issues of metaphysics when discussing NDEs. Nevertheless, I'm certain you agree that one cannot assess the reality or unreality of NDEs or anything about NDEs by beginning with what one believes about the nature of reality. If I begin with the assumption that Yoko Ono is the Great Mother of the Universe, then I can easily deduce that she would be telling the truth about any NDE she might have had. I thought both sides were guilty of this. I was hungry for facts about NDEs.

I think kit simply implies the incorrect interpretation of an experience that happened while the brain was oxygen starved and about to stop functioning.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think kit simply implies the incorrect interpretation of an experience that happened while the brain was oxygen starved and about to stop functioning.
(1) Explain how a brain starved of oxygen is able to able to have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes and even have veridical perceptions from an out-of-body experience.

What do you claim had nothing already stopped functioning in the brains of Dr. Rudy's patient, who had not had a heart beat or blood pressure for at least 20 minutes and had been declared dead? Whatever it is that you claim was "about to stop functioning," how had it been functioning during those 20 minutes?

(2) On what basis do you claim that something "implies" that anyone drew an "incorrect interpretation of an experience"? Have you deduced your claim from some fact? If so, state and substantiate the fact, and show us your deduction.

I think what you're saying in your sentence is something circular--there isn't anything that "implies" that anyone incorrectly interpreted an experience, but you merely "think" that because you already had that belief. Is that what you're saying?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I will jump straight into the main issue.

If you don't claim that their brains were entirely void of electrical activity, then how did you reach the conclusion that electrical activity is not responsible for consciousness ( and the NDE experiences ) ?

Let me quote this from your post: "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.".

Considering how it is written, it simply suggests that we might have to reconsider what should and shouldn't be happening, and what would and wouldn't be expected. It suggests a gap, or fault, in our current understanding.
No one on this thread, including you, has been able to articulate any hypothesis that could possibly account for the complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, logical thought processes, and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body experience except for the fact that consciousness is not the product the electrical activity of the brain.

If you can articulate any such possible hypothesis, then why haven't you done so? Why don't you do so now? Just explain in what way Reynolds' taped-closed eyes could have possibly been involved in her correct perception of the electric saw and tray of interchangeable blades from over her surgeon's shoulder.

Just explain how a brain that has not had oxygen for 20 minutes and is not even functioning enough to produce a heart beat could possibly be involved in the perception of a string of Post-It notes on a computer monitor that a person with a functioning brain and eyes would not have been able to see. If consciousness were a product of electrical activity of the brain, then how is it possible for Dr. Rudy's patient to have been conscious?

Electrical activity in the brain obviously does not explain the fact that people who have been blind since birth and do not dream or hallucinate in imagery see objects and colors, including their own bodies from an out-of-body position, during these experiences. Right?
 
Top