Latest from Dr Sam Parnia

What does it mean for the people of the world if there's an afterlife that doesn't involve damnation at all? If there are mass suicides is that something that should be on your conscience? Instability in governments? Increased terrorism?

Maybe the world as it stands currently just isn't ready for Survival to be the scientific standard.

I do sometimes wonder that but I feel its almost too conspiratorial. Is it being hidden ooOoooOo ect ect. I don't think we'd see a grand change personally, people were killing themselves and others for thousands of years when an afterlife was believed without question and it hasnt stopped now that they don't believe in one. I think at most there'd be a lot of paranoid scrambling to find out its nature or a lot of religions suddenly using it for some recruitment.

I think of people like Parnia as akin to a Supreme Court. [They are wary of making broad changes to public life with their opinions.]

My guess is [Parnia and others like him] are quite wary of challenging religious orthodoxies including that of the Physicalist faith, the latter having a lot of potentially violent fundamentalists among its adherents.

What does it mean for the people of the world if there's an afterlife that doesn't involve damnation at all? If there are mass suicides is that something that should be on your conscience? Instability in governments? Increased terrorism?

Maybe the world as it stands currently just isn't ready for Survival to be the scientific standard.

I don’t see Parnia as any kind of arbiter. He is researching the subject and his findings stand by themselves (whatever they are). I think we’re at liberty to form our own view on his findings and in fact I’d suggest that’s exactly what we ought to do. Even if Parnia said bluntly “survival is a fact”, I’d say it’s incumbent on one to examine his reasoning with an open mind.

I do sometimes wonder that but I feel its almost too conspiratorial. Is it being hidden ooOoooOo ect ect. I don't think we'd see a grand change personally, people were killing themselves and others for thousands of years when an afterlife was believed without question and it hasnt stopped now that they don't believe in one. I think at most there'd be a lot of paranoid scrambling to find out its nature or a lot of religions suddenly using it for some recruitment.

I don't mean there's some smoking gun evidence that would convince everyone, though I do think - based on some stuff Radin has said - there's more stuff that goes unpublished than we know.

I don’t see Parnia as any kind of arbiter. He is researching the subject and his findings stand by themselves (whatever they are). I think we’re at liberty to form our own view on his findings and in fact I’d suggest that’s exactly what we ought to do. Even if Parnia said bluntly “survival is a fact”, I’d say it’s incumbent on one to examine his reasoning with an open mind.

Oh I don't think he's an arbiter either. Nor do I think he's hiding some amazing evidence in a file drawer.

What I mean is even in his own opinion his public statements will be more guarded than he might be in private.

I don't mean there's some smoking gun evidence that would convince everyone, though I do think - based on some stuff Radin has said - there's more stuff that goes unpublished than we know.

In relation to what Radin has said, there's definitely  a lot of scientists who are a lot more human than they're willing to let on. People who are potentially enthusiastic about these topics but don't show it, just look at all the views of Radin's research like what was pointed out on the PSI Encyclopedia. Like even among our rogue's gallery of skeptics you see a hint of your regular person shine through every so often. Stuff like Michael Shermer and his radio story, or even the fact that Richard Dawkins is scared of haunted houses. I feel like it's just such an us vs them (or maybe sometimes a perceived science vs religion) dynamic that we don't get to see the best of either side shine through. 

Like I saw a conversation from Anil Seth the other day talking about the Surviving Death Documentary and while he's a total prick for a good chunk of it you can tell that he definitely wants to know how NDE's supposedly work via brains for the benefit of everyone.

I don’t see Parnia as any kind of arbiter. He is researching the subject and his findings stand by themselves (whatever they are). I think we’re at liberty to form our own view on his findings and in fact I’d suggest that’s exactly what we ought to do. Even if Parnia said bluntly “survival is a fact”, I’d say it’s incumbent on one to examine his reasoning with an open mind.

Parnia only ever says bluntly, "consciousness continues for a short while after the heart has stopped". And he continues by supporting that statement with evidence. On occasion he has been asked questions such as, "tell us what you really think, personally" and his response is something like "I don't think anything, I have no opinion". I think we should bear in mind his starting position which was one of curiosity tinged heavily with scepticism. Some time around 2008 (at the address to the UN) he said he expected it would all turn out to be an illusion. That seemed an honest statement, he was a sceptic in the traditional sense, rather like Raymond Moody. The latter over many decades of researching NDEs would never commit himself to any particular opinion, he remained a neutral observer. More recently, perhaps as he nears the end of his days (I hope I'm not tempting fate!) Moody has eventually come down on the side of survival.

On occasion he has been asked questions such as, "tell us what you really think, personally" and his response is something like "I don't think anything, I have no opinion".
---
Some time around 2008 (at the address to the UN) he said he expected it would all turn out to be an illusion. That seemed an honest statement, he was a sceptic in the traditional sense, rather like Raymond Moody. 

That first bit to me is just funny. Such a "I'm just a researcher please leave me alone" response.

As for the second, if it was in 2008 I wonder what may have changed since then, he's done a bit of work. I don't think he would have taken a stance but I wonder how his views would have evolved.

That first bit to me is just funny. Such a "I'm just a researcher please leave me alone" response.

As for the second, if it was in 2008 I wonder what may have changed since then, he's done a bit of work. I don't think he would have taken a stance but I wonder how his views would have evolved.

Maybe he just wants to be left alone - at least in that context. But the
comment is usually part of a much longer interview and discussion, where he is a willing participant. To be honest, I don't get the sense of unease that say politicians emit when trying to avoid answering an awkward question, it seems more straight and open - in my opinion of course.

As to the old approx 2008 statement, it was made when announcing the launch at the very, very beginning of the first AWARE study. (A study which he estimated would take about three years, by which time they would have a clear answer, probably that it was all a waste of time and effort.) What happened since then - well the rather prolonged completion of the first AWARE study and the publishing of the results. Followed by the later launch of AWARE II, intended to be a larger study.

In my view the problem with these studies is the sheer numbers, ideally it would include vast numbers of patients, but the actual numbers are more modest, and it will take a very long time to gather meaningful results. I think I once estimated 50 years to several hundred years, though that is me, it isn't what Parnia said, he is more optimistic.

Oh I don't think he's an arbiter either. Nor do I think he's hiding some amazing evidence in a file drawer.

What I mean is even in his own opinion his public statements will be more guarded than he might be in private.

In private, I suspect, although I may of course be wrong, he believes that consciousness (whatever that is--and no one knows) continues. He has said this on radio interviews ("I think we do go on"). That of course is quite different from his official public statements on this matter which have to be carefully measured according to scientifically acceptable evidence alone. 

Personally, I think it's bleeding obvious (as they say) that consciousness continues (after the brain has stopped functioning). In the first Aware study, 40% of those that were able to be interviewed felt that they had been aware during their period of cardiac arrest, even though they had no specific observations to report. 

In Van Lommel's study, one in two of his patients were aware of being dead (as they described it). They were aware (of being dead) but they didn't feel dead, they were still there. Of course, sceptics just keep insisting that those memories could have been formed at a time when their brains came back on line etc. 

If consciousness was generated by brain processes, why doesn't it stop when the source of power has been lost ?  But as Typoz states, he's going to need much more time and funding to nail this once and for all. 

And on top of all the difficulties, he has to try do it during a plague. You wouldn't call the guy lucky, would you.

That first bit to me is just funny. Such a "I'm just a researcher please leave me alone" response.

As for the second, if it was in 2008 I wonder what may have changed since then, he's done a bit of work. I don't think he would have taken a stance but I wonder how his views would have evolved.

I think we do need to leave him alone. I post occasionally on Aware of Aware and that blog maybe understandably has generated a thirst for information. Many of the participants on there have tried to contact Parnia to get up to date information. He's not going to respond because he's already told us several times that information can't be released just on the request of someone on the net, like myself for instance.

That's why I haven't bothered him since 2014, when I did actually get a reply. We've just got to wait. Best to forget about it, really, one day there'll be some news surely. He must have something interesting.