Consciousness during CPR

Nope, as I've explained before I don't agree with your opinions... There is no implicit memory demonstrated by your two examples, both show purely explicit memory - both are consciously recalled. That's the limit of what you can say about your examples. I'll just stress again that you are talking about a detailed memory involving an alarm clock. That recalled memory is explicit.... it's declarative "I saw an alarm clock... etc.", consciously recalled memories containing detailed experiences of alarm clocks can never be defined as implicit memory. They don't meet the correct definition for implicit memory. That is just a fact. 

I'm conscious that I'm repeating the actual definition of implicit and explicit memories, and that you seem to have some objection with how I define your examples. It doesn't sound like a subject we're likely to agree on... so I'll leave the discussion here, in disagreement.

But there is no disagreement here. I stated in my very first post on this topic that “your recall of the dream is explicit”. And I have stated over and over again since that we are in agreement - talking about the dream and the dream itself is an example of an explicit memory.

And we are also using the same definition for implicit memory - memories which we do not have conscious recall of. I gave an example of a memory that the subject did not have conscious recall of - his neighbor’s house alarm went off. I could give you a list other sensory inputs that night, of which he was unaware because he was sleeping - the furnace came on six times, he felt cold, his husband snored briefly, an outside light came on. He was aware of none of that, including his neighbor’s house alarm.

Just because we don’t know about our own implicit memories does not mean that they don’t show up when we engage in specific tasks, like choosing a new shirt or dreaming or finding a word to complete a stem. 

Linda

Wow, what the hell. Wish I had heard about this earlier...

Do you consider what's in that thread conclusive? Reading through all the pages (and filling in the blanks as best as possible from quotes - it's really obnoxious that any part of the conversation was deleted) it seemed more of a gray area to me, and remains so.

Do you consider what's in that thread conclusive? Reading through all the pages (and filling in the blanks as best as possible from quotes - it's really obnoxious that any part of the conversation was deleted) it seemed more of a gray area to me, and remains so.

I agree, but it wasn't presented as a grey area by Jeffrey Long or Parnia, unless I'm mistaken. The claim being that the brain remained flatlined throughout the period of NDE is actually unsupported by the evidence cited to make the claim. I'm still reading the thread through, so I'm unsure still even if this is an accurate representation that I've given.

I agree, but it wasn't presented as a grey area by Jeffrey Long or Parnia, unless I'm mistaken. The claim being that the brain remained flatlined throughout the period of NDE is actually unsupported by the evidence cited to make the claim. I'm still reading the thread through, so I'm unsure still even if this is an accurate representation that I've given.

There is brain activity during CPR in a moderate amount of patients. We also have no easy way to monitor brainstem activity, which is probably even more active than the cortex of the brain.

I've been very disappointed by how sure most proponents of NDEs, MDs and all, talked about this. I believed their words. But actually, it looks like they were wrong.

I don't think they were fraudolent, just biased. They went on with wishful thinking and claimed uncertain stuff as true.

Now that you've become a sceptic along with lets eat, raff, (that's absolutely fine) would you be so good as to actually explain how some alpha brainwaves during prolonged CPR (in 2 patients out of 19), explains all veridical out of body experiences, instead of just sounding off continually ?

Lets hear it. How about starting with Al Sullivan. Take us through it step by step. Or you choose your own case that you think has been debunked by Parnia's poster.

Now that you've become a sceptic along with lets eat, raff, (that's absolutely fine) would you be so good as to actually explain how some alpha brainwaves during prolonged CPR (in 2 patients out of 19), explains all veridical out of body experiences, instead of just sounding off continually ?

Lets hear it. How about starting with Al Sullivan. Take us through it step by step. Or you choose your own case that you think has been debunked by Parnia's poster.

It's not just the alpha brainwaves, it's the mistake made by van lommel, long and the rest that really got me off the idea. You can't go around ignoring important facts because they don't fit with your idea.

Same thing with actual proof. We can call NDEs veridical, but actually in controlled environements they don't really seem to happen.

I'm inclined to think that most of them are actually a mix of external stimuli and dream-like memories.

(There is also more stuff, like why 80% or so of people don't have NDEs and what should the hellish ones represent, but these are minor compared to the above)

Now that you've become a sceptic along with lets eat, raff, (that's absolutely fine) would you be so good as to actually explain how some alpha brainwaves during prolonged CPR (in 2 patients out of 19), explains all veridical out of body experiences, instead of just sounding off continually ?

Lets hear it. How about starting with Al Sullivan. Take us through it step by step. Or you choose your own case that you think has been debunked by Parnia's poster.

All these cases suffers from the problem that there’s multiple years between the event and investigation by NDE researches. I believe the ‘veridical perception’ is mainly due to confirmation biases/false memories from an event that for most people are extremely traumatic. We know now from the prospective studies that these events are extremely rare (perhaps even unproven) during cardiac arrest when people are interviewed shortly after the event.

It's not just the alpha brainwaves, it's the mistake made by van lommel, long and the rest that really got me off the idea. You can't go around ignoring important facts because they don't fit with your idea.

Same thing with actual proof. We can call NDEs veridical, but actually in controlled environements they don't really seem to happen.

I'm inclined to think that most of them are actually a mix of external stimuli and dream-like memories.

(There is also more stuff, like why 80% or so of people don't have NDEs and what should the hellish ones represent, but these are minor compared to the above)

But why do you say Van Lommel made a mistake ? What important facts is he ignoring ? He's a recognised expert in cardiology and his clinical experience over decades working with cardiac arrests has enabled him to comment (with very good authority) on these matters. That's not changed.

And you don't have to be a medical expert to know that in cardiac arrest, blood flow into the brain ceases immediately. Whatever Parnia discovers, now or in the future, that's not going to change.  Unplug your computer and see if it still works. Try running your car without petrol. Brains need power to function like any other organ or "machine".

Prolonged (and very efficient) CPR produced some brain activity in 2 patients. Okay... but the poster didn't also say that the patient regained waking consciousness and confabulated an NDE etc.  Whilst it is obviously helpful to be able to completely rule out brain activity (if we are trying to "prove" continuing consciousness separate from brain function) that in itself  is not exclusively what the argument and debate over NDE's is about.

We still need to explain how patients lying flat out on a bed, with closed eyes, no brain activity at all (cardiac arrest with no intervention) or very low brain activity or with some brain activity (alpha waves restored with very efficient CPR) 
can see what is going on around them, including objects and actions out of their potential view (even if their eyes were wide open) and sometimes through the wall, up through the ceiling and down the hall. 

Parnia's 2 patients may turn out to be just an artefact. The study hasn't even been analysed yet but even if it does show that prolonged CPR restores some alpha brainwaves in a few patients, that's not going to explain or debunk veridical out of body experiences.

I didn't notice anyone in Parnia's presentation express the view that, "Right...mystery solved...lets pack up and go home, alpha brainwaves explains it all. Rather, Parnia is ramping it up with even more studies.

I just don't get this mad panic, Raf. You're not stupid, I can tell you're a thoughtful individual. Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions so easily especially when there's no need to.

All these cases suffers from the problem that there’s multiple years between the event and investigation by NDE researches. I believe the ‘veridical perception’ is mainly due to confirmation biases/false memories from an event that for most people are extremely traumatic. We know now from the prospective studies that these events are extremely rare (perhaps even unproven) during cardiac arrest when people are interviewed shortly after the event.

That's not right, though. Pam Reynolds reported what she'd experienced as soon as she woke up. It was witnessed by the surgeons. Her account was detailed and very accurate. No false memories or confirmation bias.

Penny Sartori's patient 10 was interviewed a mere three hours after his very accurate veridical experience. Michael Sabom's study was prospective and he was able to find over thirty veridical OBE's including six that were extremely detailed and verified as being accurate. They're not extremely rare.

I agree, but it wasn't presented as a grey area by Jeffrey Long or Parnia, unless I'm mistaken. The claim being that the brain remained flatlined throughout the period of NDE is actually unsupported by the evidence cited to make the claim. I'm still reading the thread through, so I'm unsure still even if this is an accurate representation that I've given.

As I understand it, "flat-line" in the instance discussed in that thread was meant as short-hand, which I think was a mistake; it's too easy to misconstrue.


Max is the only one besides Linda who participated in that thread and still active, and was more sympathetic to Van Lommel's position at the time if I read correctly; I'd be curious to know if that's changed over the years.