Latest from Dr Sam Parnia

Paria seems to be exuding more confidence in this last interview, will it have hits?

Paria(h) ? Yes, for some of the members here, Fern he certainly would be considered that.

Do you mean, has he had any hits ? We won't know until at least 2020 but he will get them sooner or later, of that I'm confident.

This update on Aware 2 was posted by someone called Samwise (According to Ben Williams) on his blog, Aware of Aware. I haven't had time to go through it but I'm sure it won't reveal if any "hits" have been garnered. He's already told us that no results will/can be published until after the study closes in 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...uR_a98Vi2Q

https://awareofaware.co/welcome/blog/

Well that's an eye opener !! It's quite clear that the vast majority of patients die (we knew that of course) but also even the patients that the Aware team were able to get to with their equipment=meaning "recruited" (ie attended whist in cardiac arrest ?)  > 54% of those died leaving 171 patients. And then 78% of those died leaving only thirty eight to discharge and potential interview.

I wonder if any of the 133 final in hospital deaths after return of heartbeat were able to recount any experience or if there was anyone to make a note ? Seems unlikely. So as of March 2018, they had 38 potential patients to interview. 

10-20-30 % of which will have had an NDE. Lets say 7-8 patients  with NDE. Then 10% of those with an OBE...ahem... that's not even one.

On the positive side, the protocols/methodology are tight and far reaching with the brain oxygen measurer, ear phones to determine from what position the patient is hearing from and even a portable EEG to cover the brain activity.

Finally, they have now (apparently) doubled the number of sites which is very positive indeed. Realistically, we can all now easily see just how incredibly difficult it is to carry out a study like this one and it's going to take many years before they have enough data to even take it to the next level which will (need to be?) be ten times (possibly) the size of this study.

Good find, Parnia's presentation gave quite a bit more information. Not that this study going to get any hits on secret, hidden, real-time visual targets. I particularly liked the photo showing the AWARE II set-up with the iPad mounted horizontally on a mobile stand above head height, because it also showed a ceiling mounted CCTV dome camera in the room, a nice touch I thought   . I wouldn't expect any open discussion on that blog mind you, my comments were deleted by the owner prior to publication .

Someone will see that laptop screen, sooner or later, Max. They see everything else, don't they. I've spoken to people that have had cardiac arrest OBE's and by what they've told me, I'm as certain as I can be that their experience was real (real as in really up in the air).

For them it's crystal clear reality (that's why they are certain about it) and definitely not someone else's view transmitted into their brain through some kind of quantum "tangling".  Even if such a thing was even remotely plausible, the resulting "pictures" would be about as clear as mud.

I'm surprised that you couldn't get your comments onto Ben's blog though. I've always found they just post straight away with no moderation ?

Well for me, the process I'm suggesting, is used for your everyday individual experience too, it's not something different, so there is absolutely no conflict. You've got two eye's and you unify both streams of sensory data (one from each eye) pretty well into a single visual experience. You can see what happens when it's not working so well, press on on one optic with your finger... and you get double vision... stop poking your eye, and you get a unified experience again.

It's just that with people in the local vicinity, often strangers, the experients brain networks (in an energy starved state), appear capable of becoming temporarily entrained by the environment within which they are embedded. That way they can sometimes share part of the experiences of these third parties, when their own sense data has been weakened by lack of energy.

There are lots of ways I think this may happen... in dreaming during sleep, the brain revs up, then goes quieter listening to it's past reving-up. The Quija board, where groups of people reduce distracting sensory data by turning the lights down, get their heads into close proximity around a table, share a uniquely patterned board, and share the identical movement of the puck, all whilst letting go of the sense that they are moving it. Hypnotism, where compatible subjects allow themselves to become influenced by a third party. I've got little doubt this idea is somehow also being used during event related desynchronization's, where small areas of the brain experience EM field loss of power (measured by EEG), because fields cancel, allowing that area of the brain to become temporarily exposed to external fields, within which that brain area is embedded. It's possible that narcotics might do something similar, powering down some affected areas of the brain. Prayer, where one gives way to something greater. Meditation, where one calms ones brain into a listening state, creating a firebreak from past experiences. The list is a very long one...

All we need is some sort of mechanism embedded within the brains networks, that is sufficiently isolated to allow quantum coherent interference. That is some highly conserved structure which allows 'adding-up' within it, in a non-intuitive, non-classical way. The information it is adding up, how that information is stored, is different to the way information appears to be stored in the everyday space-time world we inhabit. The everyday space-time world which we experience, is the result of that non-classical adding-up mechanism.

That's my own view anyway...

You've got a lot of energy and emotional attachment invested in this theory, Max I get that. However, if you read the reports of out of body experiences during cardiac arrest, even if we were to accept that brains could actually do what you say they can do, that still doesn't explain how someone can see what is going on down the hallway for instance (often reported)

Also, during these out of body excursions, they understand that everything that comprises their sense of "self"... is continuing to function out and often well away from their body (sometimes thirty feet above for eg) and can cross through walls/ceilings, traverse tunnels etc whatever they feel they want to do.

Overlaying that data onto your model of some kind of exchange of information between brains (in the same room) simply doesn't fit.

Max said > "Verifiable NDE OBE recollections are far more frequently set around the immediate vicinity of the experient's body...."

Naturally because that's the starting point when the person gets out of the car, so to speak

Max said > "As too does the problem of the 'floating' OBE NDE experience, where the patient experiences 'self' as located above a scene,

They don't just "experience" their self as being (sometimes) at head height, they feel they are actually there and can move around wherever they want to, sometimes attempting to make contact (without success) with those present.

Max said >"We also have to explain why so many experients say they know what is going on in the minds of the people around them."

That's an artefact that may have something to do with the telepathic ability (in theory) of pure consciousness or discarnate "spirits" or separated "mind" whatever one prefers to call it, we will never know. But your theory of interacting brains doesn't solve anything, because then the information from more than one brain  (several doctor's and nurse's brains that were focusing down on the patient) would all get jumbled up into one and wouldn't make any sense.

Max said >"We also have to explain the life review, where one experiences ones past behavior from a different perspective,"
   
But that isn't at all explained by someone else's brain 'tangling up' with one's own. This well attested phenomenon is often experienced in the company of a being who they feel extremely attracted to and very comfortable with who guides them through the experience and knows them intimately. Sorry Max, as I've said to you before, it's novel (your theory) but that's about it.