Christof Koch on NDEs

In Koch's Skeptiko interview, he does (maybe unwittingly?) set out his requirements for what it would take to make him sit up and take notice. He's obviously acknowledging that NDE's do occur and aren't fantasies, but like 90% of academics, he pretends that there isn't plausible evidence that the experience occurs when the brain is not functioning.    
 
Dr. Koch: …once again it’s all about the details. The only way you can do such an experiment would be to have a near-death experience while your brain waves are being recorded, while you’re in a brain scanner. Because otherwise, how do I know? Otherwise, the guy wakes up an hour later, right, and then you ask what happened to his brain an hour before. Of course, an hour before he wasn’t in the brain scanner. So the only way to do the experiment is while you’re having this near-death experience.

Now this is simply disingenuous. Why ? Because we all know (the information is available to everyone) that NDE's occur during cardiac arrest (at least they appear to at least) And he must know (as a neuroscientist) that there's no better way to get rid of your brainwaves than to completely stop the blood flow into the brain. (This has been adequately demonstrated by  carefully monitoring patients having implanted pacemakers tested for reliability)  

So even though brainwaves of patients in cardiac arrest are not being monitored, they don't actually need to (monitor them). Furthermore, we already have cases (Pam Reynolds) where brainwaves were monitored all the way through the operation and the NDE experience was timed to periods of flat EEG.

Koch of course, would probably respond by pointing out that if that really did occur (like that), it didn't (occur) in an experimental study and therefore, though it may be interesting, it can be set aside as an anecdote. 

Parnia's  Mr A (Aware study) certainly meets the criteria of an out of body experience during (the period of) an experimental study, but the patient didn't have EEG monitoring on his head.   

Koch is likely well aware there's something extraordinary going on with these experiences, but he's got a comfortable niche in Academia and he's not going to risk that. Maybe in the future but not until it's safe to do so.

My read of this article by Koch is more historical, than what is being noted.  No argument is won, without being taken seriously.  Psi has been dismissed in general.  Science may have been ignorant, socially and professionally, toward the subject in the past, but so what?

Here is Koch in the article, with much better prose than I am capable, saying something that underlies the ground-work data for Psi.

 It must be remembered that NDEs have been with us at all times in all cultures and in all people, young and old, devout and skeptical (think, for instance, of the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead, which describes the mind before and after death).

Once actual data is in play - science will favor Psi as needing an explanation.   if Koch's explanations aren't good ....................

This article vaguely and very briefly summarising Koch's claims doesn't do him any favours lol: 

https://newslanded.com/2020/05/24/near-d...ssion=true

According to Koch’s hypothesis, NDE is caused by core parts of the brain shutting down due to trauma or lack of oxygen. The resulting rush can be compared to extreme behaviors like free diving, mountain climbing, or even erotic asphyxiation. As local brain regions go offline one after another, the mind tells a story shaped by a person’s experience, memory, and cultural expectations.

I'm not too sure that's exactly what he was saying, but if so, that's just lazily researched. It's been well-established by now that expectations do not always play a part, nor do memories or previous experiences. I'm also pretty sure it's been well-established by now that the whole 'lack of oxygen' explanation has been well-refuted, if not debunked.

My read of this article by Koch is more historical, than what is being noted.  No argument is won, without being taken seriously.  Psi has been dismissed in general.  Science may have been ignorant, socially and professionally, toward the subject in the past, but so what?

Here is Koch in the article, with much better prose than I am capable, saying something that underlies the ground-work data for Psi.



Once actual data is in play - science will favor Psi as needing an explanation.   if Koch's explanations aren't good ....................

I think you are overly optimistic about the response of the Science community (or "Big Science", the consensus, the universities, etc.) to data on paranormal phenomena. The response up to now and probably for the foreseeable future is to closed-mindedly deny that there actually is any "real" data, regardless of the quality that is presented.

And unfortunately, by its very nature much of or most of the data of paranormal phenomena (rather than being laboratory data) is empirical evidence of spontaneous occurrences that simply can't be made to occur under controlled conditions, subjected to laboratory analysis, replication by different labs, etc. This is the large body of empirical veridical evidence accumulated for many phenomena including NDEs, past life memories of young children, mediumistic communications, and many other categories. This data must be evaluated more by abductive reasoning and the "courtroom" criteria of evidentiality. When objectively considered, the overall body of this evidence more than meets the "preponderance of evidence" criterion and perhaps also the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" criterion.

But of course to the fossilized closed-minded reductive materialist "consensus" this simply must a priori be merely unscientific anecdotes, regardless of quality. I don't think Science at least in the foreseeable future will open-mindedly consider Psi as a viable explanation for such evidence. All that is needed is to dismiss it as anecdotal rubbish and go on, business as usual. Koch's flawed and already debunked "explanations" for NDEs will go on being credulously accepted by the science faithful because they are the party line mindset that it is forbidden to transgress.

I think you are overly optimistic about the response of the Science community (or "Big Science", the consensus, the universities, etc.) to data on paranormal phenomena. The response up to now and probably for the foreseeable future is to closed-mindedly deny that there actually is any "real" data, regardless of the quality that is presented.

I don't think Science at least in the foreseeable future will open-mindedly consider Psi as a viable explanation for such evidence. 

Scientific data output is not opinion while, as you say, data interpretation can be extremely close-mind.  Objective patterns in well-formed data can be measured and their structural components identified as variables.  While I am a strong supporter of Psi, currently there is not one clear functional model with well-defined variables.  There is real data output that is been generated in the last decades that does meet peer-review as to methodology.  Whether they acknowledged their presence of Psi research as we would like - it is there in professional formats to be addressed .

My emotions about the Koch article were the opposite of frustration.  They were more like the feeling when playing sports (many years ago) when a win was developing.  A thirst pushes to drive home incremental momentum by covering the newly won ground assuring its status.  And then look to at strike weak points.

I had decided to email Dr Kelly himself about the article and how Koch seems to have suddenly changed his ways. Dr Kelly says he's happy Koch is taking NDEs seriously, but not seriously enough, and is wilfully ignoring aspects of evidence that don't fit his outdated theories. According to Dr Kelly, this confused him since Koch was given a copy of his book Irreducible Mind by a colleague, so Kelly is suspicious that Koch even read it. The confusing part is that Koch definitely did abandon conventional physicalism according to his autobiography Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. 

Kelly too is baffled by this unexplained return to previous ways of thinking. He suspects, like some of us here, that maybe Koch's colleagues pressured him into revoking his status as a near-panpsychist and gave him harsh criticism for his previous statements on consciousness.  

I've also noticed that Michael Egnor has written his own article on MindMatters responding to Koch, getting more of the facts right about NDEs and pointing out the flaws of Koch's arguments. Although I don't fully trust Egnor since I'm aware he's pretty biased, but he at least writes an article that's more accurate about NDEs. I recognise that his bias does not play as much of a role here either.

This is a recent conference on consciousness in Liege. Obviously it's mainly in French but Van Lommel uses English. Stephen Laureys, head of the coma group in Liege, is trying to persuade the scientific community at large to give NDE's the attention they deserve.

He has to approach this (at least) from a reductionist scientific basis, ie the 'a priori' assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot exist without it. I actually thought he was closed minded and dogmatic at first (as would be expected), but no, he isn't. He's actually very supportive of Parnia's experiment, knows all about it and doesn't rule out the possibility that someone will see the target.

And that is really something in itself, coming from a medical research group in Belgium, who have some of the most scathing sceptics in the world. Our own Smithy (Rudolf Smit) spoke to Laureys about this a while back and was told that he (Laureys) is being monitored closely. 

This is a question from the audience addressed to Laureys about the (Aware) experiment (seeing the picture on top of the cabinet (as the man incorrectly says). He basically asks (the question) why is Laureys not impressed already with (an example of a veridical OBE) the bronze plaque under the operating table, for instance ? This is actually the case of Jean Morzelle who was accidentally shot by a wooden dummy bullet during his National service.

Laureys then explains what his criteria are. Hits in prospective, blind studies and if that is met he can accept it and he doesn't rule out the possibility. Van Lommel then (correctly) points out the problem with this. Patients won't be looking out for a sign somewhere, when they are out of their body.

I do think Laureys knows that this is happening. But what can he do ? The extraordinary nature of what patients are telling us means that in order to settle the argument, Parnia is going to have to get the evidence. And to do that he's going to need to increase the numbers in his study and to do that, he's going to need more and more funding. Will he get it ?   

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LT1CV8HkvE go to 5.46

...The extraordinary nature of what patients are telling us means that in order to settle the argument, Parnia is going to have to get the evidence. And to do that he's going to need to increase the numbers in his study and to do that, he's going to need more and more funding. Will he get it ?   

 

A couple of thoughts on this.

Will any amount of additional funding for the Aware study finally obtain the "hits" thought (perhaps wrongly) to be convincing to mind-brain materialists? This phenomenon is notoriously elusive especially when proponents are trying to obtain iron-bound evidence from a prospective, blind, experiment. The very nature of the most important phenomena (like NDEs) seems to be elusive, spontaneous, unable to be pinned down by any sort of lab experiment. Almost as if some active intelligent force or principle is preventing humans from obtaining "proof" of the paranormal that is totally convincing to the rational intellect which shies away from anything that is seemingly impossible from the physical standpoint. Maybe we just aren't allowed to obtain complete peace of mind and freedom from doubt. Maybe we are supposed to have doubt as part of the mission, part of the intended human condition. 

And perhaps no amount of evidence, even "hits" in Parnia's experiment, will really settle the argument, because the argument is primarily with totally closed minds. Closed for many reasons, but one of them is prior and public commitment to materialism over a lifetime. To such mentalities there is too much at stake especially with the ego -  a priori there absolutely has to be an alternate explanation. Like fraud, or (real desperation) super-psi. Anything to avoid admitting that the mind can separate from the body.

@nbtruthman

Some intriguing thoughts there, especially the idea that the forthcoming evidence is intentionally elusive, maybe ? I tend to think that Parnia has/had simply underestimated how incredibly difficult the experiment actually is/was and on top of that, he's had zero "luck", however one might define that (luck).

I do suspect many materialist sceptics are secretly delighted by Parnia's lack of progress so far. And then there's the inevitable (incorrect) accusations of the failure of the experiment, which are always highlighted, even though not one person so far has actually had an out of body experience in a research area. It doesn't seem to matter about the facts.
 
I suspect that Aware 2 (even with such very low numbers recruited) will still provide very interesting data no matter if there is a hit or not.

This is a recent conference on consciousness in Liege. Obviously it's mainly in French but Van Lommel uses English. Stephen Laureys, head of the coma group in Liege, is trying to persuade the scientific community at large to give NDE's the attention they deserve.

He has to approach this (at least) from a reductionist scientific basis, ie the 'a priori' assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot exist without it. I actually thought he was closed minded and dogmatic at first (as would be expected), but no, he isn't. He's actually very supportive of Parnia's experiment, knows all about it and doesn't rule out the possibility that someone will see the target.

And that is really something in itself, coming from a medical research group in Belgium, who have some of the most scathing sceptics in the world. Our own Smithy (Rudolf Smit) spoke to Laureys about this a while back and was told that he (Laureys) is being monitored closely. 

This is a question from the audience addressed to Laureys about the (Aware) experiment (seeing the picture on top of the cabinet (as the man incorrectly says). He basically asks (the question) why is Laureys not impressed already with (an example of a veridical OBE) the bronze plaque under the operating table, for instance ? This is actually the case of Jean Morzelle who was accidentally shot by a wooden dummy bullet during his National service.

Laureys then explains what his criteria are. Hits in prospective, blind studies and if that is met he can accept it and he doesn't rule out the possibility. Van Lommel then (correctly) points out the problem with this. Patients won't be looking out for a sign somewhere, when they are out of their body.

I do think Laureys knows that this is happening. But what can he do ? The extraordinary nature of what patients are telling us means that in order to settle the argument, Parnia is going to have to get the evidence. And to do that he's going to need to increase the numbers in his study and to do that, he's going to need more and more funding. Will he get it ?   

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LT1CV8HkvE go to 5.46

Thanks for bringing this up, Tim.

I have watched the Youtube video above, and was glad to hear that Pim van Lommel said that the 100 cases in our book The Self Does Not Die constitute proof for him.

However, for some, such as the very nice Steven Laureys (I know him personally - yes, he is very likeable and openminded) these proofs cannot be more than anecdotes. The problem with anecdotes is that, however true they may be, they cannot be 'scientific' proof... according to him and his fellow scientists for whom the only way to do science is strictly controlled experiments, not just one time, but preferably very many times.

My personal take is that such assumption is in fact ridiculous. And also the way in which Dr Koch thinks the problem could be solved: let some have a NDE while in an fMRI scanner... Suppose that this may happen: someone having a massive heart attack while in such a machine... And then afterwards seeing that the brain has fizzled out...  Yet, the patient reports a wonderful NDE with veridical aspects. And what would happen then? Will it be accepted as proof? Forget it: cognitive dissonance will play up and thus simply deny the entire event...

Smithy