(2019-06-13, 03:27 PM)Raf999 Wrote: [ -> ]but until we get a true and verified "hit"
I believe they
will get a hit but it's going to take a lot longer that we thought, simply because of the numbers. Having said that, he might get lucky, who knows, he certainly hasn't had any "luck" previously.
There is however, something very interesting and potentially promising about this latest study which can potentially settle the matter, once and for all. He's got EEG on these patients. We know for sure that patients are able to somehow gather visual and auditory information whilst their brains are ostensibly off line.
If he get's veridical OBE's during the time when those patients (who report the veridical OBE) had a flat EEG, then that's just about it for sceptics. They won't accept that
that is indeed the case, of course, but then they will just make themselves look even more closed minded than they are now,
(2019-06-13, 04:00 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I believe they will get a hit but it's going to take a lot longer that we thought, simply because of the numbers. Having said that, he might get lucky, who knows, he certainly hasn't had any "luck" previously.
There is however, something very interesting and potentially promising about this latest study which can potentially settle the matter, once and for all. He's got EEG on these patients. We know for sure that patients are able to somehow gather visual and auditory information whilst their brains are ostensibly off line.
If he get's veridical OBE's during the time when those patients (who report the veridical OBE) had a flat EEG, then that's just about it for sceptics. They won't accept that that is indeed the case, of course, but then they will just make themselves look even more closed minded than they are now,
skeptics claim that medical EEG isn't sufficient to monitor consciousness, so they'll just say that those people had some conscious activity not shown on the EEG.
Max_B why do you think the OBE is real but they can't see targets above people's heads? it already happened once, anectodal of course but still really interesting, came from an anesthesiologist who had a patient read a number on top of some medical equipment, nobody knew the muber or could have seen it without climbing up on a ladder. he posted the experience on Quora.
(2019-06-13, 04:36 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]The failure of these studies to put real-time targets at more than one heights/positions, and instead, concentrating on high up targets, to test the idea that people are really up there on the ceiling looking down, is a real pity.
There's only you who thinks so, Max. I wasn't aware that your theory has gained acceptance ?
Max said > " If so, Aware 2 won’t get any target hits at all."
Maybe you'd be better rephrasing that, to
you hope they won't get any hits ? That would be rather more accurate.
I still don't get Max_B theory about OBEs and NDEs, as far as I can tell he thinks that thoghts and sensation of other people can mix up with a dying person's brain? through some sort of EM field.
(2019-06-13, 04:42 PM)Raf999 Wrote: [ -> ]skeptics claim that medical EEG isn't sufficient to monitor consciousness, so they'll just say that those people had some conscious activity not shown on the EEG.
Then they are not sceptics; they are ideological debunkers and they will say anything, no matter how far fetched. The notion that someone could accurately observe their surroundings with a flat EEG is ridiculous and no mainstream scientist would say otherwise.
Dr. John Greenfield: Okay, again, my name is John Greenfield. I’m a Professor of Neurology at the University of Toledo, College of Medicine. I have trained in both neurology and clinical neurophysiology and EEG, so I’m board certified in reading EEGs. So I suppose that’s my qualification.
Alex Tsakiris: Great. I contacted you because as folks who listen to this show regularly know, we’ve been kind of delving into EEGs because they crop up when we start looking at near-death experience and possible explanations for what’s going on in someone’s brain. So what I really wanted to focus on, and you provided a great insight in your e-mail, is this question of whether it’s likely that a near-death experiencer is having a complex near-death experience, as it’s described, without anything showing up on their EEG.
Dr. John Greenfield: Well, as I mentioned to you before, I think the likelihood of that is pretty low. Most patients, when the EEG is flat, when it’s not showing any activity, that really suggests that the brain is not doing very much. The likelihood of having any sort of experiences at all in that setting is pretty low.
Alex Tsakiris: You referenced in your e-mail to me, you said, “It’s very unlikely that a hypo-profused brain with no evidence…”
Dr. John Greenfield: Right. So when the brain is not getting much blood, it pretty much shuts down. And whether that ends up being permanent depends on how long the blood flow is shut off. But in that time when it’s not getting very much, there’s really very little activity going on and it would be very unlikely that somebody could have a complex sort of dream-like state as described for most near-death experiences, at least during that time.
(2019-06-13, 05:07 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Then they are not sceptics; they are ideological debunkers and they will say anything, no matter how far fetched. The notion that someone could accurately observe their surroundings with a flat EEG is ridiculous and no mainstream scientist would say otherwise.
Dr. John Greenfield: Okay, again, my name is John Greenfield. I’m a Professor of Neurology at the University of Toledo, College of Medicine. I have trained in both neurology and clinical neurophysiology and EEG, so I’m board certified in reading EEGs. So I suppose that’s my qualification.
Alex Tsakiris: Great. I contacted you because as folks who listen to this show regularly know, we’ve been kind of delving into EEGs because they crop up when we start looking at near-death experience and possible explanations for what’s going on in someone’s brain. So what I really wanted to focus on, and you provided a great insight in your e-mail, is this question of whether it’s likely that a near-death experiencer is having a complex near-death experience, as it’s described, without anything showing up on their EEG.
Dr. John Greenfield: Well, as I mentioned to you before, I think the likelihood of that is pretty low. Most patients, when the EEG is flat, when it’s not showing any activity, that really suggests that the brain is not doing very much. The likelihood of having any sort of experiences at all in that setting is pretty low.
Alex Tsakiris: You referenced in your e-mail to me, you said, “It’s very unlikely that a hypo-profused brain with no evidence…”
Dr. John Greenfield: Right. So when the brain is not getting much blood, it pretty much shuts down. And whether that ends up being permanent depends on how long the blood flow is shut off. But in that time when it’s not getting very much, there’s really very little activity going on and it would be very unlikely that somebody could have a complex sort of dream-like state as described for most near-death experiences, at least during that time.
interesting, Alex is the skeptico host right? I never really delved much in it, too much stuff on conspiracy theories and UFOs or other things i don't really believe in/I'm not interested at, but theDr. really sounds reasonable.
I have to say that the Dr. doesn't state that it's impossible, just very very unlikely. that's exactly the kind of things at which skeptics cling to.
(2019-06-13, 05:23 PM)Raf999 Wrote: [ -> ]I have to say that the Dr. doesn't state that it's impossible, just very very unlikely
It's scientific orthodoxy. They can't suddenly change it all and say ...well there's just a little bit of consciousness going on deep down somewhere, well away from the cortex, that can't be measured. That's just bullshit.
If consciousness could move and relocate around the brain in that way, like some kind of pinball in a machine, then consciousness must be an entity of it's own.
(2019-06-13, 05:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]It's scientific orthodoxy. They can't suddenly change it all and say ...well there's just a little bit of consciousness going on deep down somewhere, well away from the cortex, that can't be measured. That's just bullshit.
If consciousness could move relocate and move around the brain like that, like some kind of pinball in a machine, then consciousness must be an entity of it's own.
Yes it sounds really odd to me too, and you know i'm a bit skeptical myself, but the idea of being conscious with a flat EEG just seems wrong. But skeptics have an agenda (like most people, even psiresearchers) so they'll hold to little bits and implaubsible stuff to justify their ideas and make them either credible or anyway provide some evidence, as weak as it is. It's like a cat and mouse game, skeptics VS proponents, but honestly sometimes skeptics bring out really implausible explanations for thier own ends.
yeah, i get that consciousness existing without the body sounds crazy. But even being aware of what is going on around you and recalling it in a nearly perfect manner during CA and flat EEg sounds crazy enough after all.
(2019-06-13, 06:25 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, locally compatible EM fields within which a vulnerable brain is embedded, seem like they may be capable of resynchronizing it's networks into a 'pattern'... if patterns match, a second non-classical mechanism - as yet undiscovered - within the networks allows something like quantum coherent interference to occur between the matching patterns.
Interesting theory for sure! Although I'm not sold on it, it has some basis. Probably better than believing that people with a flat EEG are registering perfectly what happens around them ?
(2019-06-13, 06:15 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]At a local level only, you can sort of see what I mean by this crude picture of my early idea
Providing a pictorial representation of your theory, with dramatic colour and wavy EM field lines for effect, gives it no more credibility than if I were to draw a representation of a disembodied mind floating around the room up above.
Apart from the obvious problem that there isn't a shred of evidence that such fields even exist that can actually do what you assure us they can, I can see numerous problems even without that.
The heads around the patient are depicted 'statically' when in actual fact they would be moving around. Even if their was some kind of 'interlocking' of brain fields, it would all get jumbled up by the movement of the heads. And what allows you to relocate the position that the patient has seen it all from, to vantage point above ? That's just wishful thinking on your part.
Anyway, Max, no need to answer. We've been here before and you're not going to shelve it. Instead it seems to be updated every year to cover every new scenario.