Consciousness during CPR

I'm glad this has been moved here.

As an ex-believer, I find that NDEs are by now almost debunked. No study, no matter how deep or accurate, ever provided a true "hit". Nobody ever saw hidden targets of any kind under controlled conditions.

Now of course there is a score of NDEs that have been labeled as veridical, but none has been done under controlled conditions. Until then, no matter how much effort researchers put in their work, I won't trust it. Researchers are always biased, either skeptical or proponent, and they will just try to make their views come true. This happened a lot, with Maria's shoe (unreliable reports, Maria was untraceble), with Cherylee Black "telekinetic" powers never shown to public or tested by skeptical people, with the denture's man (unreliable account, sometimes the NDE is placed after CPR sometimes before) and many others.

This "CPR shows blood flow and EEG" is the nail in the coffin for NDEs in my mind, along with multiple failed experiments like the rest of parapsychology). Nearly all people that gets to the hospital and has a NDE received some form of CPR during transportation, and if the EEG is firing who knows what the brainstem is up to at that point.

They are probably drug dream, false memories, confirmation bias and wishful thinking combined in a single idea. Now that the words of Van Lommel and many others have been proven wrong, proponents cling to the transformative aspect or the spiritual common experience, but that isn't science. It looks a lot like faith to me.

Yes, both are examples of explicit memory, and then you say...


which is incorrect.

You should have written...

"However, in the first case, the memory is explicit and declarative and the source is known, while in the second case, the memory is implicit explicit and the source is unknown and hidden."

The problem is that nothing about the memory of the house alarm is explicit. The person has no explicit, declarative memory of the house alarm. So it would be wrong to call it "explicit". His only explicit, declarative memory is of a dream. And it gets worse. The dream not only was about something other than a house alarm, the study I referred to earlier demonstrates that it is implicit memory processes which are drawn upon when dreaming, not the explicit memory system.

Linda

I'm glad this has been moved here.

As an ex-believer, I find that NDEs are by now almost debunked. No study, no matter how deep or accurate, ever provided a true "hit". Nobody ever saw hidden targets of any kind under controlled conditions.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the problem with hidden targets is that they rely on explicit memory systems, and whatever is going on with NDEs (as well as most of the other phenomena under the "psi" heading) relies upon implicit memory systems. Some of the testing done in parapsychology involves implicit tests, but much does not. So it's not yet clear (to me, anyways) whether or not the failure to pin these phenomena down is due to looking in the wrong place, or due to non-existence.

To be fair, the KPU study registry includes some studies looking at implicit processes, which have so far been negative. So it may be non-existence, after all. But I don't think it's proven, yet. 

Linda

I'm glad this has been moved here.

As an ex-believer, I find that NDEs are by now almost debunked. No study, no matter how deep or accurate, ever provided a true "hit". Nobody ever saw hidden targets of any kind under controlled conditions.

Now of course there is a score of NDEs that have been labeled as veridical, but none has been done under controlled conditions. Until then, no matter how much effort researchers put in their work, I won't trust it. Researchers are always biased, either skeptical or proponent, and they will just try to make their views come true. This happened a lot, with Maria's shoe (unreliable reports, Maria was untraceble), with Cherylee Black "telekinetic" powers never shown to public or tested by skeptical people, with the denture's man (unreliable account, sometimes the NDE is placed after CPR sometimes before) and many others.

This "CPR shows blood flow and EEG" is the nail in the coffin for NDEs in my mind, along with multiple failed experiments like the rest of parapsychology). Nearly all people that gets to the hospital and has a NDE received some form of CPR during transportation, and if the EEG is firing who knows what the brainstem is up to at that point.

They are probably drug dream, false memories, confirmation bias and wishful thinking combined in a single idea. Now that the words of Van Lommel and many others have been proven wrong, proponents cling to the transformative aspect or the spiritual common experience, but that isn't science. It looks a lot like faith to me.

What exactly compelled you to do a 180 on NDEs in such a short amount of time?

What exactly compelled you to do a 180 on NDEs in such a short amount of time?

Constant failures from studies, Van Lommel's being wrong on rhe zero EEG and blood flow during CPR, unrealible accounts on what is considered veridical OBEs, mostly.

There is a huge gap between self reported NDEs, and what happens in studies like AWARE. I really can't trust that anymore, I need proof and investigators are usually proponents, so that is gonna be biased.

Also, the fact that Cherylee Black's "powers" are considered a NDE proof really distresses me.

Constant failures from studies, Van Lommel's being wrong on rhe zero EEG and blood flow during CPR, unrealible accounts on what is considered veridical OBEs, mostly.

There is a huge gap between self reported NDEs, and what happens in studies like AWARE. I really can't trust that anymore, I need proof and investigators are usually proponents, so that is gonna be biased.

Also, the fact that Cherylee Black's "powers" are considered a NDE proof really distresses me.

The main reason why I'm replying to these posts you've made, Raf is because you've been a welcome addition to this forum (as an Italian as well). I'm not foolish enough to think anything I say will make any difference but nevertheless, here goes.

 Raf said > "As an ex-believer, I find that NDEs are by now almost debunked. No study, no matter how deep or accurate, ever provided a true "hit". Nobody ever saw hidden targets of any kind under controlled conditions."

This (rather odd) statement presumably stems from Parnia's 'poster' which revealed that one person maybe two had some alpha brainwaves during prolonged CPR but no sighting of the laptop screen? Firstly the brainwaves. If you think it's reasonable to deduce that some alpha waves explain veridical out of body experiences, then you are simply making a giant leap with absolutely no reason to. Surely I don't have to spell out why for you?

Secondly, as I understand it, previous to Parnia's current Aware 2, only one patient (in a prospective study) has ever reported being in an out of body position to even have a chance to see the target and that was Penny Sartori's patient 10. That man accurately reported everything that was occurring around his body when he was comatose and that should be remarkable enough for anyone. When asked why he didn't see the target he said that he didn't look in that direction and didn't know it was there, or even that he was supposed to look for anything, anyway.

In Parnia's study, the target (laptop screen) is indeed there for every patient (they are able to attend), true, but they still have to have an out of body experience where they actually report viewing the scene of their resuscitation from above. Some people report "standing" next to the bed or going backwards through the wall or going down through the bed to the floor and then floating up again.

Parnia has only collected 4 NDE's so far. He doesn't tell us if any of those even had out of body experiences, let alone that they were actually in a position to see the laptop screen. 

They (the patients) have no idea that if they suddenly find themselves out of their bodies, they are supposed to 'float up' and look on top of a pole that happens to be stood next to the bed, to check if there's something interesting (that happens to be very important to a scientific study).

Rather, most of them tell us of their initial amazement at what is occurring. They report being fascinated by being able to view themselves (their own body from a detached position). Sometimes they see a tunnel that appears opposite them or up in the ceiling with maybe a 'dead relative' beckoning them to come, as you are well aware. 

Expecting them to "automatically" seek out and identify an image on a laptop up on a pole (which they don't even know the purpose of) during all this, is optimistic, to say the least. It always was and will remain so but Parnia's doing the experiment  regardless because this is only way that he can get irrefutable "proof" which is acceptable to science for what is an extraordinary claim in the first place. At least give him a chance (for heaven's sake) to complete this next stage in what is going to be a very long difficult and arduous experiment.

I'm not Parnia's apologist, BTW.  I'm not trying to make excuses for him. These are the facts of the matter. 

Raf said >"Researchers are always biased, either skeptical or proponent, and they will just try to make their views come true. This happened a lot, with Maria's shoe (unreliable reports, Maria was untraceble), with Cherylee Black "telekinetic" powers never shown to public or tested by skeptical people, with the denture's man (unreliable account, sometimes the NDE is placed after CPR sometimes before) and many others."

Firstly, researchers are absolutely NOT always biased. By and large they are (or they should be) true sceptics who want to test their initial observations with an open mind and report honestly what they discover. All the prospective NDE studies have been carried out to the highest standard, with the correct controls and checks to remove bias and error as much as possible.

That's not to say that the retrospective studies were biased. Not at all, and it's been shown that those pretty much matched up with the later prospective ones. As for quoting the case of Maria's shoe as being fraudulent because they couldn't find the migrant worker to (later) talk to her about it, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether 'sceptics' are able to talk to the experiencer or not, it still makes no difference. They still refuse to accept what they say. Kimberley Sharp (who witnessed the case) has provided all the information necessary (which I can refer you to)

As to the denture man being an unreliable account, this is particularly annoying for me as Rivas and Smit, the researchers who investigated this case (and subsequently published several detailed papers on it), I know myself are meticulously honest and careful in their work.

They went to the only available true source, the male nurse (TG) who witnessed the case. You either accept what they discovered about it or you reject it. What you can't do is substitute incorrect information (basically lies) from another source (Woerlee) who wasn't in anyway involved and has a vested interest in smearing it. 

As for Cherylee Black, once again, I have always found her to be entirely honest. No one is forcing you to accept her claims. You either take them or leave them (again).

There is no reason, common sense or justification whatsoever to suddenly classify the large collected body of verified veridical out of body experiences as unreliable, just because of the information that was presented in Parnia's poster. I don't understand why you would even think that there is...or why you would suddenly do this amazingly quick 180 degree turn.  

You clearly seem to want absolute proof of life and after death, (for reasons best known to yourself--you're only thirty years old, for heavens sake) and you want it NOW ! But even if Parnia gets a hit or two (and he will eventually when he has the numbers)
the sceptics will come up with some problem they believe invalidates it. They always do. Max (for instance) might say that the attending doctors caught a reflection (of the laptop image) from the security sensor system and 'transmitted it' into the patient's brain.

If you have now become a reductionist sceptic (on this subject) then fine; it doesn't matter to me (or anyone else). There's nothing wrong with that. Such a change is certainly unwarranted but if the only evidence that you will accept is a verified hit in a controlled study, then it's better that you have.

For what it's worth, I thought that Parnia's poster contained some very revealing and extremely positive data for proponents but I guess I would say that, wouldn't I.  

What you mean is that the explicit memory in one example is not of a house alarm, but of an alarm clock. That is the limit of what you can say about your examples. There is no implicit memory demonstrated by your examples, both show purely explicit memory - both are consciously recalled.

Ah, I see what you are objecting to. I agree that if I hadn't stipulated that the dream about the alarm clock was initiated by the sound of the house alarm, we would not know that there was an implicit memory in my example (because, as I mentioned earlier, a dream about an alarm is not specific enough on its own). However, I specifically gave you that information, because I wasn't distinguishing between whether or not we know about an implicit memory (that was something which came up later), but was distinguishing between implicit and explicit memory.

So it looks like you agree with my original contention that if the dream about the alarm clock was initiated by the house alarm, it would represent an implicit memory. We just wouldn't know that it was an implicit memory unless we had some sort of test to look for implicit memories, or somebody (like the author of the example) gave us that information. Contrast this with the study I referenced earlier about dreams of Tetris. In that case, any mention of falling blocks in the dream mentation was assumed to be an implicit memory about playing Tetris, because that particular scenario was specific enough on its own.

Linda

Constant failures from studies, Van Lommel's being wrong on rhe zero EEG and blood flow during CPR

Interestingly, van Lommel's statements were already demonstrably wrong on the basis of the studies he referenced in support of those statements. We had a discussion, on the Skeptiko mind/body forum several years ago, where some of the forum members actually looked at the references (instead of taking van Lommel's word for it). It was eye-opening for them to discover that the studies did not show zero EEG activity (https://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skep...tudy/page2 - please note that a number of posts were deleted by the mods as Alex wanted to move away from discussions about evidence). I contacted van Lommel about this and he admitted that it was his (unsupported) opinion that the EEG activity seen was inadequate, and that his statements about "flat EEG" were meant to convey that.

I agree that ongoing research, which continues to show blood flow, oxygenation, and activity associated with CPR, adds more nails to the coffin. But that coffin lid seems to have been closed quite a while ago.  

We also had a discussion here earlier this year on the subjects who were in position to see hidden targets, but did not, in Penny Sartori's study.

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-d...4#pid27524

Linda