(2018-12-27, 02:57 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Good find, Parnia's presentation gave quite a bit more information. Not that this study going to get any hits on secret, hidden, real-time visual targets. I particularly liked the photo showing the AWARE II set-up with the iPad mounted horizontally on a mobile stand above head height, because it also showed a ceiling mounted CCTV dome camera in the room, a nice touch I thought 
. I wouldn't expect any open discussion on that blog mind you, my comments were deleted by the owner prior to publication 
.
Someone will see that laptop screen, sooner or later, Max. They see everything else, don't they. I've spoken to people that have had cardiac arrest OBE's and by what they've told me, I'm as certain as I can be that their experience was real (real as in really up in the air).
For them it's crystal clear reality (that's why they are certain about it) and definitely not someone else's view transmitted into their brain through some kind of quantum "tangling". Even if such a thing was even remotely plausible, the resulting "pictures" would be about as clear as mud.
I'm surprised that you couldn't get your comments onto Ben's blog though. I've always found they just post straight away with no moderation ?
(2018-12-27, 07:01 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Well for me, the process I'm suggesting, is used for your everyday individual experience too, it's not something different, so there is absolutely no conflict. You've got two eye's and you unify both streams of sensory data (one from each eye) pretty well into a single visual experience. You can see what happens when it's not working so well, press on on one optic with your finger... and you get double vision... stop poking your eye, and you get a unified experience again.
It's just that with people in the local vicinity, often strangers, the experients brain networks (in an energy starved state), appear capable of becoming temporarily entrained by the environment within which they are embedded. That way they can sometimes share part of the experiences of these third parties, when their own sense data has been weakened by lack of energy.
There are lots of ways I think this may happen... in dreaming during sleep, the brain revs up, then goes quieter listening to it's past reving-up. The Quija board, where groups of people reduce distracting sensory data by turning the lights down, get their heads into close proximity around a table, share a uniquely patterned board, and share the identical movement of the puck, all whilst letting go of the sense that they are moving it. Hypnotism, where compatible subjects allow themselves to become influenced by a third party. I've got little doubt this idea is somehow also being used during event related desynchronization's, where small areas of the brain experience EM field loss of power (measured by EEG), because fields cancel, allowing that area of the brain to become temporarily exposed to external fields, within which that brain area is embedded. It's possible that narcotics might do something similar, powering down some affected areas of the brain. Prayer, where one gives way to something greater. Meditation, where one calms ones brain into a listening state, creating a firebreak from past experiences. The list is a very long one...
All we need is some sort of mechanism embedded within the brains networks, that is sufficiently isolated to allow quantum coherent interference. That is some highly conserved structure which allows 'adding-up' within it, in a non-intuitive, non-classical way. The information it is adding up, how that information is stored, is different to the way information appears to be stored in the everyday space-time world we inhabit. The everyday space-time world which we experience, is the result of that non-classical adding-up mechanism.
That's my own view anyway...
You've got a lot of energy and emotional attachment invested in this theory, Max I get that. However, if you read the reports of out of body experiences during cardiac arrest,
even if we were to accept that brains could actually do what you say they can do, that still doesn't explain how someone can see what is going on down the hallway for instance (often reported)
Also, during these out of body excursions, they understand that everything that comprises their sense of "self"... is continuing to function
out and often
well away from their body (sometimes thirty feet above for eg) and can cross through walls/ceilings, traverse tunnels etc whatever they feel they want to do.
Overlaying that data onto your model of some kind of exchange of information between brains (in the same room) simply doesn't fit.
Max said > "Verifiable NDE OBE recollections are far more frequently set around the immediate vicinity of the experient's body...."
Naturally because that's the starting point when the person gets out of the car, so to speak
Max said > "As too does the problem of the 'floating' OBE NDE experience, where the patient experiences 'self' as located above a scene,
They don't just "experience" their self as being (sometimes) at head height, they feel they are actually there and can move around wherever they want to, sometimes attempting to make contact (without success) with those present.
Max said >"We also have to explain why so many experients say they know what is going on in the minds of the people around them."
That's an artefact that may have something to do with the telepathic ability (in theory) of pure consciousness or discarnate "spirits" or separated "mind" whatever one prefers to call it, we will never know. But your theory of interacting brains doesn't solve anything, because then the information from more than one brain (several doctor's and nurse's brains that were focusing down on the patient) would all get jumbled up into one and wouldn't make any sense.
Max said >"We also have to explain the life review, where one experiences ones past behavior from a different perspective,"
But that isn't at all explained by someone else's brain 'tangling up' with one's own. This well attested phenomenon is often experienced in the company of a being who they feel extremely attracted to and very comfortable with who guides them through the experience and knows them intimately. Sorry Max, as I've said to you before, it's novel (your theory) but that's about it.
(2018-12-28, 09:42 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I won't bother with a response, lol
I do understand why it's unwelcome on your radar, Max but it's simply what the data tells us. Patients report separating from their physical bodies, the literature is packed with case reports. The driver in the car analogy fits with what they tell us.
(2018-12-29, 12:18 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's not unwelcome, it just didn't address the first original point I thought needed an explanation...
Well if I explain why that is, will you drop your theory, Max ?
(2018-12-28, 06:42 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Verifiable NDE OBE recollections are far more frequently set around the immediate vicinity of the experient's body, and become far less frequent the further away they are set from the experients body. But although less frequent, the proportion of those set further away which involve loved ones/familiy/partners rises compared with those involving strangers. That needs explanation.
As too does the problem of the 'floating' OBE NDE experience, where the patient experiences 'self' as located above a scene, but sometimes experiences 'self' from first person perspective at normal head height. That difference more closely correlates the presence of more than one third party with a floaty top-down perspective, where as the first person perspective correlates more closely with a singe third party presence. We also have to explain why so many experients say they know what is going on in the minds of the people around them. And when we think about child NDE's, we have to explain why some say they felt like an adult, or describe the experience as going into their sisters head and looking out of her eyes.
Information doesn't have to be confined to only what a third party is seeing around them, it can be what a third party is thinking about, like the hidden lipstick the nurse was thinking about inside her pocket. Hence, why I suspect experients might see ancestors in later parts of the NDE, because a third party is thinking about losing/saving the patient. (I appreciate that idea will be distasteful to many on this forum, sorry).
We also have to explain the life review, where one experiences ones past behavior from a different perspective, a third parties perspective (pattern) laid down on the patients exposed brain potentially fits that well in my view.
As regards ownership of the experience, one just accepts the experience as ones own, why shouldn't one, the brain is disinterested in where the data is coming from, it just deals with it and unifies it into a single location of 'self', as Henrik Ehrsson's studies show us.
There are many other bit's of data this idea might help us with explaining. I'm not saying it's correct, but the logic is good, it fits with the observations from many different studies, and in the last 18 months we finally have some physical theories appearing that are testable.
Is the lipstick example just an example, or is that from an NDE case?
Sam Parnia's presentation "Conscious Awareness, Mental and Cognitive Experiences During Cardiac Arrest" on DailyGrail:
Looking for Consciousness Beyond the Threshold of Death
Apparently AWARE II had similar problems as AWARE:
Quote:He runs through the numbers: of 3668 cardiac arrests so far, 2266 of them were out of the working hours of his teams. Of the 1402 patients who had cardiac arrest during working hours, only 371 of them were able to be recruited (that is, they were resuscitated before the team arrived, or the team was not notified of the cardiac arrest, etc.). Of those 371 patient who were ‘recruited’, 200 died during resuscitation, and of the remaining 171, 133 died afterward in hospital. This left just 38 patients, from 3668 cardiac arrests in total, who were able to be interviewed (roughly 10% of the recruited patients, 1% of all cardiac arrests).
(2018-12-28, 06:42 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Verifiable NDE OBE recollections are far more frequently set around the immediate vicinity of the experient's body, and become far less frequent the further away they are set from the experients body. But although less frequent, the proportion of those set further away which involve loved ones/familiy/partners rises compared with those involving strangers. That needs explanation.
As too does the problem of the 'floating' OBE NDE experience, where the patient experiences 'self' as located above a scene, but sometimes experiences 'self' from first person perspective at normal head height. That difference more closely correlates the presence of more than one third party with a floaty top-down perspective, where as the first person perspective correlates more closely with a singe third party presence. We also have to explain why so many experients say they know what is going on in the minds of the people around them. And when we think about child NDE's, we have to explain why some say they felt like an adult, or describe the experience as going into their sisters head and looking out of her eyes.
Information doesn't have to be confined to only what a third party is seeing around them, it can be what a third party is thinking about, like the hidden lipstick the nurse was thinking about inside her pocket. Hence, why I suspect experients might see ancestors in later parts of the NDE, because a third party is thinking about losing/saving the patient. (I appreciate that idea will be distasteful to many on this forum, sorry).
We also have to explain the life review, where one experiences ones past behavior from a different perspective, a third parties perspective (pattern) laid down on the patients exposed brain potentially fits that well in my view.
As regards ownership of the experience, one just accepts the experience as ones own, why shouldn't one, the brain is disinterested in where the data is coming from, it just deals with it and unifies it into a single location of 'self', as Henrik Ehrsson's studies show us.
There are many other bit's of data this idea might help us with explaining. I'm not saying it's correct, but the logic is good, it fits with the observations from many different studies, and in the last 18 months we finally have some physical theories appearing that are testable.
(2019-01-17, 06:56 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]A hospital NDE OBE case, Tim might remember it... the experient recalled seeing a lipstick inside a nurses pocket... there is a vague idea that it might have been French... and perhaps taken from a research paper.
Yes, I do remember that, Max. I'll see if I can find it.
A recent interview with Dr Sam Parnia. Nothing new, but the journalist who 'got it', confirmed it was very recent (I emailed her). Typical responses from mainstream neurologists such as Adrian Owen were...(summary) consciousness is produced by the brain and that's it, anything else is BS.
(Owen)
“If you take that organ away or kill that organ or that organ dies, you cannot be conscious.”
It's quite obvious that this statement cannot be correct, simply because of the vast amount of veridical OBE cases during and after many minutes of cardiac arrest. Owen is simply ignoring persuasive data and toeing the party line.
https://theprovince.com/news/canada/life...7d523bd34f
This short interview with Dr Sam Parnia was conducted today (19 April). Unfortunately, the host doesn't do a very good job, mainly because Parnia isn't given enough time, even to properly finish an anecdote he was recollecting about his colleague, Dr Richard Mansfield (and a patient of his that described events that occurred whilst he was dead)
So, I wondered if I should or shouldn't post it and I thought...maybe it's better than nothing for the time being.
http://www.iheartradio.ca/newstalk-1010/...de=Article