Aware II results

Tim, I'm sympathetic to the brain doesn't not equal mind worldview.  Yet, if I'm trying to be at all objective your post seems more of an apologetic than a counter.  Are we sure there isn't any "there there" on these spikes of activity that seem to otherwise correlate to consciousness?

The whole thing is certainly fascinating!

I think what Tim is doing is just highlighting the unfortunate state of the AWARE 2 results. We already knew there were spikes of activity during cardiac arrest, ESPECIALLY during ressucitation, for years now. But the question has simply become whether or not that is sufficient to explain NDEs. Some people will say yes, others will say no. There's certainly reasons to think no, which AWARE 2 has added and taken away from, but we're still in the same place we already were. May be why it comes off as an apologetic sounding response, it's kinda what we're stuck with. 

As for what Max said, in regards to neural correlates of consciousness, brainwaves, ect. It really comes down to what basis you're using to approach this issue in general. You're not gonna find a person on here or otherwise that thinks if we hit someone on the head with a brick they're gonna be completely unnaffected by it. If you're a dualist, you're gonna have a different explanation to how and why that happens then an idealist. If you're something like an emergent dualist your explanation is going to be even more different than that. The same thing goes with monkeys playing games, rough ideas of animal's vision. These things aren't reading minds, they're just recording the parts of the brain that light up 1000 times and then training computers to respond in relation to those images. Certainly insightful, but nothing incredible (other than the obviously incredible nature of what they're doing). Personally I don't prick a side cause I think we need to be looking for the NEXT thing, something that's never existed before beyond idealism, physicalism, dualism, and right now we're just trying to explain reality with the best old stuff we have. But then that's just me.

This one data point hasn't swayed me. I just don't consider it trivial.

That's up to you but it doesn't mean that your consideration is correct. You seem to have lost the perspective from which these EEG readings were taken. 

Parnia and his colleague's work, first and foremost, is concerned with trying everything they can to bring patients back to life, the EEG monitoring is a secondary consideration, so why you think there is anything spectacularly interesting about some brainwaves appearing after thousands and thousands of chest compressions, drugs, oxygenation and goodness knows what else they do, beats me. That's the objective, isn't it, bring the patient back to life. 

Put an EEG on a person in cardiac arrest and leave them, I guarantee you will see no brainwaves appearing whatsoever. Just before this conversation ends, because it will, I don't remember any of you agnostics being particularly interested (getting excited about) cases such as Pam Reynolds, where she had a fully monitored flat EEG and full consciousness. 

Why not ? You know, I thought that was far more interesting, but I guess that must be because I'm not agnostic.

I think what Tim is doing is just highlighting the unfortunate state of the AWARE 2 results. We already knew there were spikes of activity during cardiac arrest, ESPECIALLY during ressucitation, for years now. But the question has simply become whether or not that is sufficient to explain NDEs. Some people will say yes, others will say no. There's certainly reasons to think no, which AWARE 2 has added and taken away from, but we're still in the same place we already were. May be why it comes off as an apologetic sounding response, it's kinda what we're stuck with. 

As for what Max said, in regards to neural correlates of consciousness, brainwaves, ect. It really comes down to what basis you're using to approach this issue in general. You're not gonna find a person on here or otherwise that thinks if we hit someone on the head with a brick they're gonna be completely unnaffected by it. If you're a dualist, you're gonna have a different explanation to how and why that happens then an idealist. If you're something like an emergent dualist your explanation is going to be even more different than that. The same thing goes with monkeys playing games, rough ideas of animal's vision. These things aren't reading minds, they're just recording the parts of the brain that light up 1000 times and then training computers to respond in relation to those images. Certainly insightful, but nothing incredible (other than the obviously incredible nature of what they're doing). Personally I don't prick a side cause I think we need to be looking for the NEXT thing, something that's never existed before beyond idealism, physicalism, dualism, and right now we're just trying to explain reality with the best old stuff we have. But then that's just me.

Happy Christmas, Smaw ! In fact, Happy Christmas to all !

I found at least one study done on dying patients measured by EEG. A cessation in EEG activity actually preceded death and continued flat 30 minutes in.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28231862/

We already have more than enough verified cases of cardiac arrest where no CPR of any kind was being performed. During that specific time, when no CPR was being performed (zero brain activity) they were able to report accurate visual perception, with reasoning and memory formation, of what occurred around them, sometimes out the door and down the hall.  I'm not going to list them, it never makes any difference and I'm quite fed up (not with you) of repeating myself.

These were gathered patiently (by well qualified researchers) down the 48 years of on-going research, in order to try and convince the sceptics that there is something interesting going on here. Eventually, the sceptics (so called) agreed. Yes, people do have NDE's. 

The problem with all these cases are that they are collected retrospectively often long after the event with absolutely no controls in place. False memories is a known psychological phenomenon after all and there’s certainly some heavy confirmation biases in the NDE “movement”

The problem with the “external consciousness” interpretation is that it contradicts everything else so to speak. So obviously the evidence most be overwhelming and of the very highest quality.

The problem with the “external consciousness” interpretation is that it contradicts everything else so to speak.

Not sure I'm following you here sbu.  How so?

The problem with all these cases are that they are collected retrospectively often long after the event

No they are not. And if you are going to make sweeping, inaccurate statements like that, no one will take you seriously. Well, not on here anyway. 

with absolutely no controls in place.

The prospective studies have controls in place. Aside from that, the NDE's reported outside (anecdotally) happen as they happen, wherever they happen. That is the nature of the NDE, you can't predict when someone's heart is going to stop. You cannot create 'laboratory conditions' around an unexpected event.  However, the retrospective studies have proved to be reliable, that is the findings have been replicated by the prospective studies. 

False memories is a known psychological phenomenon

 
It certainly is but we've moved well beyond appealing to that. Even Chris French, the sceptic who popularised that proposal has abandoned it.  

there’s certainly some heavy confirmation biases in the NDE “movement”

  
Such as ? 

The problem with the “external consciousness” interpretation is that it contradicts everything else so to speak

The problem with any theory of consciousness is that no one has a clue how it comes to be in the first place. There is nothing particularly strange about something immaterial and mysterious (like consciousness) being able to relocate, except in the minds of dogmatic materialist pseudosceptics.

Such as ? 

NDEs are like UFO sightings. Scientific minded persons accept the phenomena as one that warrants further investigation like Sam Parnia. “Beliefers” jumps to conclusion and firmly conclude that the only possible explanation are E.T.s flying around even though it contradicts everything we know about physics.

Please note that I do accept that consciousness cannot be explained by the usual approach of reductionism. But it still takes an enormous leap of faith to believe it can exists outside of a living body. It after all emerges in a living body. The notion of the ‘self’ is not established before around 24 months after inception. Should it suddenly be able to detach?

NDEs are like UFO sightings.

No they are not. And the analogy is ridiculous. An unidentified flying object is just an unidentified flying object, whatever it may actually be (turn out to be).  NDE's have been scientifically proven to occur in varying percentages throughout the world wide population and no serious scientist would deny that. 

Scientific minded persons accept the phenomena as one that warrants further investigation like Sam Parnia.

As do all the researchers.

“Beliefers” jumps to conclusion and firmly conclude that the only possible explanation are E.T.s flying around even though it contradicts everything we know about physics.

I draw no conclusions about UFO's. About NDE's, I think they point to a continuation of consciousness, as Van Lommel stated, they could hardly be anything else. As to the laws of physics, they clearly need to be expanded upon as that's how science works. Nothing is set in stone.

Please note that I do accept that consciousness cannot be explained by the usual approach of reductionism.

You could have fooled me

But it still takes an enormous leap of faith to believe it can exists outside of a living body. It after all emerges in a living body.

Faith has got nothing to do with it. The evidence is overwhelming that it obviously can and does. There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate how it could possibly emerge from the interactions of brain cells. 

The notion of the ‘self’ is not established before around 24 months after inception. Should it suddenly be able to detach?

Not established by who ? Attributing limitations based on what is rational is always unwise. Sort of like the old.. "rocks can't fall from the sky" maxim.

Not established by who ? Attributing limitations based on what is rational is always unwise. Sort of like the old.. "rocks can't fall from the sky" maxim.

Established in a newborn human being. There have been made tons of phsylogical tests establishing that babies does not have a sense of self. It emerges during the first months of a life.