Debunk my experience

[quote pid='27470' dateline='1555604326']
The vast majority of patients reporting veridical OBE/NDE's during cardiac arrest, report things that actually happened, not some variation...but just the way they saw it (whilst unconscious) which are later confirmed. Furthermore, when brains undergo such massive trauma, memory should be the most susceptible function, not the least (apparently according to experts)

"You describe it like an everyday event, while in reality maybe 4-5 of these veridical experienced have ever been reported in prospective studies using a proper methodlogy. Your position seems very biased."
[/quote]

It is an everyday event when you take into account that millions of people have reported near death experiences (George Gallup 1982). Dr Michael Sabom exceeded your estimation of 4-5 veridical OBE's (specific verified details during cardiac arrest). He found six patients who could recall the precise series of events that occurred around their physical bodies when they were in cardiac arrest (dead).

32 patients in his Atlanta study had veridical OBE's but 26 of them could only give a vague report of what occurred. When probed as to why that was, they reported being so amazed at what was occurring to them and the pleasant feelings etc that they didn't pay any attention to what was going on around their body (Sabom Page 86 Recollections of Death)

Off the top of my head, I think we're up to the seventh or eighth prospective study now. Veridical OBE's during cardiac arrest are by nature extremely difficult to collect. The vast majority of patients die and even those who are brought back to potentially report one are often brain damaged or too ill to participate. The fact that there are now hundreds of these in the literature (not prospective studies) is a credit to the researchers.

Why would you expect it to be an everyday event ? The fact that they happen at all is remarkable enough ! The fact that they happen during a period when the patient is effectively dead is astounding. As to me being biased, you're entitled to your opinion, but I base mine (opinion) on the evidence. You sceptics seem to base yours on a closed minded, pseudo-sceptical ideology.

You describe it like an everyday event, while in reality maybe 4-5 of these veridical experienced have ever been reported in prospective studies using a proper methodlogy. Your position seems very biased.

"Report things that actually happened..."

Looking into these reports more carefully, what is malleable is who was the source of the specific information in the first place. When the telling of the story and the subsequent feedback ("confirmation") are documented, what we see is that the initial patient statements are not specific until they receive feedback relating to a specific event. Then the story is subsequently told with the specific event, rather than with the original non-specific statements.

For an example of this (https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_Healing):

The patient said, "I could see one of the doctors pulling my eye, what for I didn't know."

The story on subsequent tellings becomes, "the patient correctly identified the consultant as having shone the light in his eyes, rather than one of the junior doctors with whom he was familiar."

What is lost is that the patient did not specify which doctor it was, nor that a light was shone in his eye. And what is amazing about this, is that both parties may be completely unaware of the substitution on subsequent questioning. Almost always, what we hear is what the story has become after feedback is given, so we can no longer discover who was the original source of the veridical information. What also is lost/discarded, are the many statements made by the patients which could not be matched to a specific event during the feedback process.

As far as I know, Sartori's work offers the only prospectively documented "veridical" experiences, and none of them hold up. And what's worse, is that we can see the process of providing specific information to the patient at work, in that documentation. Sartori was trying to be a careful researcher, and she still did it. In the loosey goosey give and take of informal discussion of an NDE, it's going to be even worse, not better. I think bringing up this research is treated as "debunking" in the derogatory sense, though.

Linda
[/quote]



 Absolute nonsense !

Tim bases his bias on the presumption all brain activity ceases immediately once blood flow to the brain stops. Research indicates that may not be so.

I base my bias ? Shouldn't good sceptics refrain from drawing conclusions ?
As to brain activity ceasing when blood flow is stopped, that's not quite right (apparently). The electrical activity (deemed to be the basis of consciousness by medical science and most materialist sceptics) ceases after 10-20 seconds. The brain stem doesn't function anymore (without a brain stem there's nobody in there, apparently) 

It may or may not be the case that some neurons in the brain are still exchanging chemical signals with each other for some short period of time but during cardiac arrest (complete heart stoppage) consciousness is absent.

I base my bias ? Shouldn't good sceptics refrain from drawing conclusions ?
As to brain activity ceasing when blood flow is stopped, that's not quite right (apparently). The electrical activity (deemed to be the basis of consciousness by medical science and most materialist sceptics) ceases after 10-20 seconds. The brain stem doesn't function anymore (without a brain stem there's nobody in there, apparently) 

It may or may not be the case that some neurons in the brain are still exchanging chemical signals with each other for some short period of time but during cardiac arrest (complete heart stoppage) consciousness is absent.

Tim you are jumping the gun no matter what you say. I referred this study before and I remember your reaction.

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-what-our-brain-does-after-death?pid=18198#pid18198
They're also intellectually dishonest and cynical about the strength (and amount) of the evidence.

Click the word "study" highlighted in red to read the full research paper. Tim I do refrain that's why I have no conclusion on the NDE.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...32921.html
A very brief summary. For the brain to stop working completely "terminal depolarisation" must occur and that takes a few minutes apparently. Prior to that resuscitation efforts are possible. What is unknown (though some claim to know) before that happens is if a brain has awareness. In short the nde may not be what you think it to be. With more unknowns than knowns it is wise to conclude as you and many others do. You see Tim I am being a good skeptic by not having a firm position.

A Newsweek article: https://www.newsweek.com/does-dying-brai...new-820355

P.S. As far as I know the brain stem is only responsible autonomic functions not conscious awareness. I checked.
When finger pointing keep your quote in mind.

Tim you are jumping the gun no matter what you say. I referred this study before and I remember your reaction.

Click the word "study" highlighted in red to read the full research paper. Tim I do refrain that's why I have no conclusion on the NDE.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...32921.html
A very brief summary. For the brain to stop working completely "terminal depolarisation" must occur and that takes a few minutes apparently. Prior to that resuscitation efforts are possible. What is unknown (though some claim to know) before that happens is if a brain has awareness. In short the nde may not be what you think it to be. With more unknowns than knowns it is wise to conclude as you and many others do. You see Tim I am being a good skeptic by not having a firm position.

A Newsweek article: https://www.newsweek.com/does-dying-brai...new-820355

P.S. As far as I know the brain stem is only responsible autonomic functions not conscious awareness. I checked.
When finger pointing keep your quote in mind.

How may times do I have to say this....we've already been through this experiment (as you say), Steve, months ago. The patients they are referring to were brain dead on ventilators. They are not talking about electrical activity commensurate with producing consciousness, they're measuring the viability of cells so that they can better understand how long they (brain cells) can survive for.
 
To investigate this in the human brain, we performed recordings with either subdural electrode strips (n = 4) or intraparenchymal electrode arrays (n = 5) in patients with devastating brain injury that resulted in activation of a Do Not Resuscitate–Comfort Care order followed by terminal extubation.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that those brain dead patients might be able to observe their surroundings etc etc simply because their brain cells haven't yet burst ? Are you not embarrassed to even stick this up as a serious possibility to explain veridical out of body experiences ? 

Talk about clutching at straws, you must be absolutely desperate.
  

How may times do I have to say this....we've already been through this experiment (as you say), Steve, months ago. The patients they are referring to were brain dead on ventilators. They are not talking about electrical activity commensurate with producing consciousness, they're measuring the viability of cells so that they can better understand how long they (brain cells) can survive for.
 
To investigate this in the human brain, we performed recordings with either subdural electrode strips (n = 4) or intraparenchymal electrode arrays (n = 5) in patients with devastating brain injury that resulted in activation of a Do Not Resuscitate–Comfort Care order followed by terminal extubation.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that those brain dead patients might be able to observe their surroundings etc etc simply because their brain cells haven't yet burst ? Are you not embarrassed to even stick this up as a serious possibility to explain veridical out of body experiences ? 

Talk about clutching at straws, you must be absolutely desperate.
  

The brains were not dead. For assuming only one personally desirable conclusion it's you whom is doing the clutching.

The brains were not dead. For assuming only one personally desirable conclusion it's you whom is doing the clutching.

Holy mackerel, Steve … they were all regarded as brain dead (fact) Meaning that they had all sustained irreversible damage to the brain=no possibility of regaining consciousness=as good as dead. Their relatives gave consent for the invasive electrical probes to be inserted into their brains to measure the time it took for the brain cells (those that were still viable) to change and die, to learn about how long they took to change after withdrawal of life support/cessation of blood flow etc.

Do you seriously think their relatives would have let doctors carry out this kind of research (sticking probes deep into their loved one's brains which would cause  even greater damage in itself) if they hadn't already been judged/certified brain dead ? :/

Yeah, not gonna lie, once veridical OBE's and SDE's get involved the pure neuroscience explanations just fall apart. It makes much more sense to have a firm position against them than remaining a fence sitter even if a good explanation of why they happen isn't yet available. Though some form of dualism at the very least seems the most likely candidate so far since every other form of explanation eventually involves something that involves it. I personally don't think consciousness is anything special or even immaterial, I think it could very well be entangled energy that's out of phase with normal matter here. But I have no way of knowing for sure yet.