Latest from Dr Sam Parnia

I won't bother with a response, lol

I do understand why it's unwelcome on your radar, Max but it's simply what the data tells us. Patients report separating from their physical bodies, the literature is packed with case reports. The driver in the car analogy fits with what they tell us.

It's not unwelcome, it just didn't address the first original point I thought needed an explanation...

Well if I explain why that is, will you drop your theory, Max ?

Verifiable NDE OBE recollections are far more frequently set around the immediate vicinity of the experient's body, and become far less frequent the further away they are set from the experients body. But although less frequent, the proportion of those set further away which involve loved ones/familiy/partners rises compared with those involving strangers. That needs explanation.

As too does the problem of the 'floating' OBE NDE experience, where the patient experiences 'self' as located above a scene, but sometimes experiences 'self' from first person perspective at normal head height. That difference more closely correlates the presence of more than one third party with a floaty top-down perspective, where as the first person perspective correlates more closely with a singe third party presence. We also have to explain why so many experients say they know what is going on in the minds of the people around them. And when we think about child NDE's, we have to explain why some say they felt like an adult, or describe the experience as going into their sisters head and looking out of her eyes.

Information doesn't have to be confined to only what a third party is seeing around them, it can be what a third party is thinking about, like the hidden lipstick the nurse was thinking about inside her pocket. Hence, why I suspect experients might see ancestors in later parts of the NDE, because a third party is thinking about losing/saving the patient. (I appreciate that idea will be distasteful to many on this forum, sorry).

We also have to explain the life review, where one experiences ones past behavior from a different perspective, a third parties perspective (pattern) laid down on the patients exposed brain potentially fits that well in my view.

As regards ownership of the experience, one just accepts the experience as ones own, why shouldn't one, the brain is disinterested in where the data is coming from, it just deals with it and unifies it into a single location of 'self', as Henrik Ehrsson's studies show us.

There are many other bit's of data this idea might help us with explaining. I'm not saying it's correct, but the logic is good, it fits with the observations from many different studies, and in the last 18 months we finally have some physical theories appearing that are testable.

Is the lipstick example just an example, or is that from an NDE case?

Sam Parnia's presentation "Conscious Awareness, Mental and Cognitive Experiences During Cardiac Arrest" on DailyGrail:
Looking for Consciousness Beyond the Threshold of Death

Apparently AWARE II had similar problems as AWARE:

He runs through the numbers: of 3668 cardiac arrests so far, 2266 of them were out of the working hours of his teams. Of the 1402 patients who had cardiac arrest during working hours, only 371 of them were able to be recruited (that is, they were resuscitated before the team arrived, or the team was not notified of the cardiac arrest, etc.). Of those 371 patient who were ‘recruited’, 200 died during resuscitation, and of the remaining 171, 133 died afterward in hospital. This left just 38 patients, from 3668 cardiac arrests in total, who were able to be interviewed (roughly 10% of the recruited patients, 1% of all cardiac arrests).

Verifiable NDE OBE recollections are far more frequently set around the immediate vicinity of the experient's body, and become far less frequent the further away they are set from the experients body. But although less frequent, the proportion of those set further away which involve loved ones/familiy/partners rises compared with those involving strangers. That needs explanation.

As too does the problem of the 'floating' OBE NDE experience, where the patient experiences 'self' as located above a scene, but sometimes experiences 'self' from first person perspective at normal head height. That difference more closely correlates the presence of more than one third party with a floaty top-down perspective, where as the first person perspective correlates more closely with a singe third party presence. We also have to explain why so many experients say they know what is going on in the minds of the people around them. And when we think about child NDE's, we have to explain why some say they felt like an adult, or describe the experience as going into their sisters head and looking out of her eyes.

Information doesn't have to be confined to only what a third party is seeing around them, it can be what a third party is thinking about, like the hidden lipstick the nurse was thinking about inside her pocket. Hence, why I suspect experients might see ancestors in later parts of the NDE, because a third party is thinking about losing/saving the patient. (I appreciate that idea will be distasteful to many on this forum, sorry).

We also have to explain the life review, where one experiences ones past behavior from a different perspective, a third parties perspective (pattern) laid down on the patients exposed brain potentially fits that well in my view.

As regards ownership of the experience, one just accepts the experience as ones own, why shouldn't one, the brain is disinterested in where the data is coming from, it just deals with it and unifies it into a single location of 'self', as Henrik Ehrsson's studies show us.

There are many other bit's of data this idea might help us with explaining. I'm not saying it's correct, but the logic is good, it fits with the observations from many different studies, and in the last 18 months we finally have some physical theories appearing that are testable.

A hospital NDE OBE case, Tim might remember it... the experient recalled seeing a lipstick inside a nurses pocket...  there is a vague idea that it might have been French... and perhaps taken from a research paper.

Yes, I do remember that, Max. I'll see if I can find it.

A recent interview with Dr Sam Parnia. Nothing new, but the journalist who 'got it', confirmed it was very recent (I emailed her). Typical responses from mainstream neurologists such as Adrian Owen were...(summary) consciousness is produced by the brain and that's it, anything else is BS.

(Owen)  “If you take that organ away or kill that organ or that organ dies, you cannot be conscious.”

It's quite obvious that this statement cannot be correct, simply because of the vast amount of veridical OBE cases during and after many minutes of cardiac arrest. Owen is simply ignoring persuasive data and toeing the party line.

https://theprovince.com/news/canada/life...7d523bd34f

This short interview with Dr Sam Parnia was conducted today (19 April). Unfortunately, the host doesn't do a very good job, mainly because Parnia isn't given enough time, even to properly finish an anecdote he was recollecting about his colleague, Dr Richard Mansfield (and a patient of his that described events that occurred whilst he was dead)

So, I wondered if I should or shouldn't post it and I thought...maybe it's better than nothing for the time being.

 http://www.iheartradio.ca/newstalk-1010/...de=Article