Aware II results

Hi Tim,

The problem is that the statement you make here is clearly false. In Sam Parnia's AHA presentation of the Aware 2 results he clearly states that there are "Electrocordical markers suggestive of of lucid consciousness" and "EEG spikes".

There are also experiments on lab animals done by other researchers that measures a detectable voltage in the brain for quite a while after blood circulation is stopped.

/Steen

Relevant timestamp on the presentation.

Relevant timestamp on the presentation.

Relevant to what ? With the highly efficient resuscitation methods they routinely utilise, it would be surprising if there weren't some brainwaves generated, as they are trying to bring them back to life. 

If...and it is an if (because he hasn't told us how many files he has and if they are overlappingwith any RED's) he can match brainwave spikes with a RED, then that would allow the usual suspects to point to a physiological explanation, I agree. They'd be wrong to do that, but they will, for sure. 

I've already tried to explain why Parnia is utilising the spikes found. It's because he can't present a paper that suggests that patients can have these experiences without a brain. We are not that far on yet in mainstream science.

Relevant to what ? With the highly efficient resuscitation methods they routinely utilise, it would be surprising if there weren't some brainwaves generated, as they are trying to bring them back to life. 

If...and it is an if (because he hasn't told us how many files he has and if they are overlappingwith any RED's) he can match brainwave spikes with a RED, then that would allow the usual suspects to point to a physiological explanation, I agree. They'd be wrong to do that, but they will, for sure. 

I've already tried to explain why Parnia is utilising the spikes found. It's because he can't present a paper that suggests that patients can have these experiences without a brain. We are not that far on yet in mainstream science.

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!

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!

As someone who's never been overly worried about bits of brain activity during NDEs I think we would have to know more about the brain's relation to production/filtering of consciousness to be sure. It would seem strange the *sometimes* brain activity needs to be at quite a higher level to produce our normal experiences but then can get by with spikes to produce the NDE content. I guess the argument is that the NDE happens before or after.

I personally think the veridical evidence is the most interesting aspect, which of course can happen during dreams and OBEs without the "near death" part. Without that aspect the NDE would be more easily dismissed as dreams after all.

As someone who's never been overly worried about bits of brain activity during NDEs I think we would have to know more about the brain's relation to production/filtering of consciousness to be sure. It would seem strange the *sometimes* brain activity needs to be at quite a higher level to produce our normal experiences but then can get by with spikes to produce the NDE content. I guess the argument is that the NDE happens before or after.

I personally think the veridical evidence is the most interesting aspect, which of course can happen during dreams and OBEs without the "near death" part. Without that aspect the NDE would be more easily dismissed as dreams after all.

I agree that the veridical evidence is the part which baffles and challenges our scientific worldview, and is one of the more fiercely-debated parts. It is one of the aspects which particularly in the AWARE studies I and II receives attention.

There is another aspect, the visionary, mystical experiences which can vary widely. Whether these are a topic of fierce debates too is something which may depend on the context. Perhaps one important type of progress is the greater ability for people to share and discuss their own experiences. In the past, sometimes people have been shut down when they tried to speak, whether by family, medical or religious advisers. There have been very sad tales of people keeping a story secret for fifty years before eventually feeling able to talk about what happened.

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!

Hi, Silence ! I don't know what you mean about any "there there". And I disagree that my post is an apologetic but you are fully entitled to your opinion. 

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. But they don't mean anything. 

So proponents said, well what about these NDE's that obviously occurred during cardiac arrest, surely as scientists (people who are interested in how the world works) that must be enormously interesting to you ? Yes, they said, it would be if they actually occurred like that, but there aren't any of those, and the ones that you've provided were not scientifically controlled. Hence, worthless. And that's largely been the response. Except it's just pure, cynical bullshit. The very nature of the NDE does not lend itself to the laboratory. 

So now we're in the position of (using Michael Sabom's analogy) trying to nail jelly to the wall. One day, when Parnia has enough interviewed patients in his future study someone will see that laptop picture. One OBE is not a test of the experiment. 

Now the brainwaves.  (I'm not an expert BTW but feel free to ask Bruce Greyson) Brain waves do not equal NDE. Why do you suspect they do ? You're not having an NDE now, are you, Silence?   NDE's occur with or without brain waves, but the discovery of spikes when they are trying to bring patients back to life is hardly surprising, surely or is that not so ? 

I seem to get a hard time (you're not giving me a hard time) just pointing out the facts and don't even start me with our fellow poster MaxB's "back to the future" "brain exchanger" muddying the water (Hi Max)  

Lastly, have you read the literature ? What cases are you familar with ? Have you read the previous posts on here. What do you think about Parnia's comments when he is not presenting ?

Edited four times now, because of one lousy spelling mistake (I'll bet there's more)

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 understand AWARE II used a 4 sensor medical EEG instrument, placed on the forehead... it's still interesting... but it's not very detailed EEG, it's not invasive EEG, and it's not looking at the back of the head where we process vision.

Some thoughts on why it's hard to ignore neural correlates of consciousness... when we find them...

You can see we appear to be able to correlate neuron firing with vision - this video from years ago...


and bang up to date... you can see we're now using neuron firing to predictably control a video game with... well a monkey brain... but would anyone dispute that mind is involved in what is going on here?

Relevant to what ?

Just timestamped the section of the video sbu was talking about, in case anyone wanted to hear it in Parnia's own words.

The fact that Parnia is promoting something like the filter theory in interviews shows this sort of activity hasn't dissuaded him, but as Silence and Max said (if I understand correctly), it doesn't seem these can be divorced from mental activity.

Just timestamped the section of the video sbu was talking about, in case anyone wanted to hear it in Parnia's own words.

Okay, but because you've chosen to timestamp that segment, leads me to suspect that you think there is something very significant about the discovery of brainwaves after long periods of intensive resuscitation when they are trying to bring people back to life. And that is not the case, brainwaves do not equal NDE; they only allow sceptics to suspect that they might.  

More significantly, you are making the mistake of not reading between the lines. Parnia is performing a delicate balancing act, trying to stay within the accepted bounds of science to continue to get funding (he has to do that) until he's got enough evidence to do otherwise.

But he obviously hasn't got the hit on the lap top that would have allowed him to potentially say something more adventurous, so he presented his paper (which does have some very interesting data in it) in a rigorous scientific manner. 

It appears at face value that he thinks the spikes are the culprit. Right ? Those spikes represent enough brain activity to power an NDE and that's it, case closed. No such thing. If it was the case that Parnia thought the spikes were responsible, then that would mean that when the spikes stopped, the person's NDE would stop and they would be dead forever, physicalism is true, no continuation of consciousness. 

How does that integrate with the themes of the RED's he's collected. What on earth would be the point of a naturally occuring  intensely meaningful life review, seeing the results of your actions on others, only to be snuffed out forever a few minutes later. Kindly explain what sense that makes.

A friend of mine sent me this quote (abbreviated ) shortly before the presentation appeared online. 

"In summary, there are a lot of spikes in all the four different wave bands for people having CPR for up to 60 minutes, but ultimately these are, for the most part, in patients that never recovered. There are only two EEG files from patients who survived to interview and no more data is provided on whether these had memories or not, NDE's or OBE's." 

What do you think about the spikes now ?

Secondly, he's already published the new guidelines. Have you read those ? What does travelling to a destination mean (other dimension). Why are his RED's not delusions, illusions, confabulations or hallucinations? He says they are not, he's done the study so what are they ? Novella thinks they are confabulations formed in the ICU later. 

I actually think you're a sceptic, Will. That's fine but if you're going to be sceptical, remember to be sceptical of sceptics too.

Okay, but because you've chosen to timestamp that segment, leads me to suspect that you think there is something very significant about the discovery of brainwaves after long periods of intensive resuscitation when they are trying to bring people back to life. And that is not the case, brainwaves do not equal NDE; they only allow sceptics to suspect that they might.  

More significantly, you are making the mistake of not reading between the lines. Parnia is performing a delicate balancing act, trying to stay within the accepted bounds of science to continue to get funding (he has to do that) until he's got enough evidence to do otherwise.

But he obviously hasn't got the hit on the lap top that would have allowed him to potentially say something more adventurous, so he presented his paper (which does have some very interesting data in it) in a rigorous scientific manner. 

It appears at face value that he thinks the spikes are the culprit. Right ? Those spikes represent enough brain activity to power an NDE and that's it, case closed. No such thing. If it was the case that Parnia thought the spikes were responsible, then that would mean that when the spikes stopped, the person's NDE would stop and they would be dead forever, physicalism is true, no continuation of consciousness. 

How does that integrate with the themes of the RED's he's collected. What on earth would be the point of a naturally occuring  intensely meaningful life review, seeing the results of your actions on others, only to be snuffed out forever a few minutes later. Kindly explain what sense that makes.

A friend of mine sent me this quote (abbreviated ) shortly before the presentation appeared online. 

"In summary, there are a lot of spikes in all the four different wave bands for people having CPR for up to 60 minutes, but ultimately these are, for the most part, in patients that never recovered. There are only two EEG files from patients who survived to interview and no more data is provided on whether these had memories or not, NDE's or OBE's." 

What do you think about the spikes now ?

Secondly, he's already published the new guidelines. Have you read those ? What does travelling to a destination mean (other dimension). Why are his RED's not delusions, illusions, confabulations or hallucinations? He says they are not, he's done the study so what are they ? Novella thinks they are confabulations formed in the ICU later. 

I actually think you're a sceptic, Will. That's fine but if you're going to be sceptical, remember to be sceptical of sceptics too.

It was the part of the video sbu alluded to. You don't need to read more into it than that.

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