As I was reading that letter, I highlighted this sentence (and particularly the part which I placed in
bold text):
Quote:As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death.
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...X/fulltext
That seems to leave things wide open as to what might really be going on.
(2023-12-18, 09:39 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]As I was reading that letter, I highlighted this sentence (and particularly the part which I placed in bold text):
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...X/fulltext
That seems to leave things wide open as to what might really be going on.
Yes this was unusual explicit from Dr. Parnia
(2023-12-18, 09:39 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]As I was reading that letter, I highlighted this sentence (and particularly the part which I placed in bold text):
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...X/fulltext
That seems to leave things wide open as to what might really be going on.
In what way, Typoz ? What are you hinting at specifically ? Interesting.
(2023-12-19, 02:49 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]In what way, Typoz ? What are you hinting at specifically ? Interesting.
Nothing special really. It just means - as I read and understand it - that Parnia explicitly states that the RED (formerly known as NDE) is unexplained. They found some measurable stuff but that doesn't imply it is the cause of consciousness, for example it could just as easily be a symptom or result caused by consciousness. Or something else entirely. That's what I meant by 'wide open', they are not reaching any particular conclusion.
Yes I know there is some hypothesis which is talked about, but there are other hypotheses too.
I should add too that the term 'consiousness' in this area of discussion has more than one meaning. Firstly it means the patient is having an experience, they are aware and conscious. The other meaning is more of a medical one, it means whether or not the patient is responsive or inert, but this is just an external observation from the outside.
(2023-12-19, 03:12 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]that Parnia explicitly states that the RED (formerly known as NDE) is unexplained.
Strictly speaking of course, yes, not explained. But his comments on the subject of what they mean are fairly clear, "it's not the end we thought it was". Peter Fenwick also said recently that there
is life after death, he said the evidence is basically good enough. That kind of talk doesn't go down well with some (they get quite angry I have to say), so we must remain cautious, of course.
(2023-12-18, 05:50 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect many have already seen this letter to the editor from Sam Parnia. It was posted on Aware of Aware (which I don't contribute to anymore after we had a disagreement about the definition of death)
To the editor,
.........................................................
I think Parnia was being as tricky and ambiguous as usual. He is choosing his words very carefully so as not to exclude an implied significant probability that the materialist position is true, and thereby he attempts to keep his perceived credibility with the scientific community.
The phrase needs to be read carefully: "As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death." Notice that logically all this does is state that a particular study involving certain brain biomarkers failed to indicate that REDs = brain processes. Logically, "Failed to indicate that REDs = brain processes" doesn't imply "did indicate that REDs are not brain processes". The statement leaves completely open the implied significant possibility that other studies looking at different biomarkers or having completely different methods would in fact reveal this, the materialist mantra.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(2023-12-19, 05:27 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I think Parnia was being as tricky and ambiguous as usual.
I don't necessarily agree with that statement, nbtruthman but some would, no doubt.
(2023-12-19, 05:27 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]He is choosing his words very carefully so as not to exclude an implied significant probability that the materialist position is true, and thereby he attempts to keep his perceived credibility with the scientific community.
But I do agree with that!
As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death.
I think this is very clear and I also think he is being bold in saying so. What he is basically stating is that something other than brain processes is producing the recalled experience of death. Now what could that be other than what we all (most of us not all) suspect it is ?
His novel "theory" referred to, I personally think is utter nonsense, but I believe I understand why he is happy to run with that, as I've said. He's got evidence that patients can be aware during cardiac arrest which should be literally impossible. So, by what mechanism are they aware? Scientists require a mechanism and there isn't one. And he doesn't have the "hit" which would persuade science to look at other possibilities.
So are his colleagues really going to swallow his novel theory ? They might prefer it to, god forbid, soul talk which is anathema to them, but I doubt if any of them actually give it any credence. But if it gets him his funding, does it matter. Every time I hear him talking about it, I feel even less convinced.
I'm not sure if this video is new to this thread, but it does seem to contain some extra information relating to various ways of reviving the brain after being dead for some time. I thought at first that this was a video debunking the NDE process, but it certainly isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_18UdG4STHA&t=8s
David