NDE Research - Changes You'd Want to See

Borjigin gets...



spontaneously appearing 15 seconds into rodent cardiac arrest. That humans *also* mention realer-than-real visual experiences apparently experienced during cardiac arrest is interesting and significant.


Can't see why you think Borjigin's study dismisses "40 years" of human near death experiences or research into these experiences. Borjigin's detailed iEEG laboratory study gives more weight to the suggestion that this sort of highly coherent visual activity may indeed be going on in humans, as she's found such activity in rodents during cardiac arrest. This is exactly what researchers are investigating...



So if a mainstream research team investigating the neural correlates of cardiac arrest in rodents, identifies neural correlates of conscious brain activity, which strongly parallel characteristics of human conscious information processing. It adds weight to the argument that human NDE/OBE experiences reported by survivors of cardiac arrest, may indeed be formed at the time of cardiac arrest, just as they claim.

Max, why didn't you read the conclusions of some of the experts in that link I posted above. You can't make assumptions about what the rat may or may not be experiencing. In another study on humans (Sonny Dhanani)  the same type of (similar) claim was made and then they retracted it and said it was an artefact because human brains cease to function after 20 seconds of cardiac arrest.

This is Borjigin's conclusion about her study :


NDE represents a biological paradox that challenges our understanding of the brain and has been advocated as evidence for life after death and for a noncorporeal basis of human consciousness (39⇓⇓–42), based on the unsupported belief that the brain cannot possibly be the source of highly vivid and lucid conscious experiences during clinical death (9, 12). By presenting evidence of highly organized brain activity and neurophysiologic features consistent with conscious processing at near-death, we now provide a scientific framework to begin to explain the highly lucid and realer-than-real mental experiences reported by near-death survivors.

Sounds good doesn't it ? Especially to people that have some reason for wanting this to be true. Has Borjigin's study moved on the debate about the cause of near death experience ? No it has not. And no serious academic has said that it has. It's just you and Scooby Doo on here and that's about it.

Why, because human beings are not rats and we have no way of corelating what the rats were experiencing even if it wasn't just an artefact.

We could rerun Borjigin’s dying rodent studies, but with one group of rodents shielded in mumetal light-tight boxes.

You'd still have the problem of rats making notoriously poor interview subjects for recounting the experience.

I would think improved hospital studies could integrate the findings of Borjigin's team, and the more recent rat study from 2017. If you could get an accurate timeline for a given patient's cardiac arrest established, and if the patient had an NDE with verifiable information that took place before or during that window of activity found in the study, that would support Borjigin's attempt to apply her findings to NDEs. If the experience has verifiable info that takes place after that window, and then continues into the classic transcendent phenomena, then that's a strike against the spike having anything to do with it.

Sounds like you've missed the point of this experiment, if you think that's a problem.

It's certainly possible; the more technical the paper, the more I struggle to follow it, and I remember both this paper and the one from 2017 being extremely technical. But if these observations in rats could have some bearing on NDEs, then at a certain point, you'd have to find a way to confirm whether or not there's any meaningful correlation, and you'd need a report from the experiencer for that. McGonigle's suggestion above sounds like a feasible way to do that.

I often investigate your claims... but there is nothing much to point-out in these short media quotes... although at least two of the guys seem pretty opposed to the idea of an afterlife... so perhaps you thought that might be worthwhile for people on here to read?

Well the quotes are from academics that I would have guessed you might pay some attention to, given that you've accepted academic Jimo Borjigin's assertions wholeheartedly, even though they are massively overstated.

Max said >"although at least two of the guys seem pretty opposed to the idea of an afterlife."

I'm curious as to what you mean by that, genuinely. Do you think I only pay attention to people who believe in an afterlife ? Do you (for instance) prefer to listen to people who don't believe in an afterlife (for whatever reason) ? What does that matter anyway, shouldn't it be solely about the evidence ? I note Jimo Borjigin makes it plain which side of the fence she's on but she would have to, of course. Otherwise she'd be ejected out of academia faster than a rat down a drainpipe.

If consciousness continues in human beings then everybody needs to know, don't they ? Trying to hijack NDE research with something that is even more improbable than a separate mind is not helpful. It's muddying the water and you never know, you might even convince someone who sadly is a bit dim.

Never read any of the others guy’s papers, apart from Parnia.

I'll read any paper that I think might actually make sense. What I'm not going to do is take a massive diversion down a quantum coherent dead end for no good reason. Near death experience research hasn't discovered anything inconsistent with the model favoured by 99% of the people that have actually had the experience, so there is no need to. 

You seem to revel in the fact that no one has seen a target in one of the hospital studies, conveniently forgetting that this experiment is just about the most difficult one imaginable. Only one, possibly two people have even had a chance to see a target so far (Sartori's patient 10) but you would already have them give up before they've really got started ! Quite telling that isn't it.

Have you actually spoken to anyone that's had an out of body experience during cardiac arrest, veridical or not ? Why not do that and see what they have to say about your theory?  Be clear about it, so that they know exactly what you're getting at.

Inform them that they weren't really outside of themselves...that their clear conviction that they were (actually out of body), was just an illusion, made possible by the inherent ultra real information exchange of quantum coherence. See how you get on, Max. You could even take Scooby Doo with you to assist.

You could even take Scooby Doo with you to assist.

If it hadn’t been for those pesky kids I’d have proved my theory!!!!