Parnia to the "dark side"?

At a quick glance it seems to me Parnia is still sitting on the borderline as he has been doing for some time...

But thanks to @Typoz for digging deeper!

Mod here.

This kind of post does not belong in this section of the forum. Please see rule 7.

Not to nitpick too much but wouldn't it make sense to move the whole thread since the discussion is about potential materialist explanations?

Mod here.

This kind of post does not belong in this section of the forum. Please see rule 7.

sorry, I failed to notice this wasn’t in the skeptics vs. proponents section. I think the title of the thread mislead me to think it was an open discussion on Parnias stance 😳

sorry, I failed to notice this wasn’t in the skeptics vs. proponents section. I think the title of the thread mislead me to think it was an open discussion on Parnias stance 😳

It should probably go in SvP anyway given the topic, at least to my eye. Otherwise it is difficult to discuss...

I'm trying to avoid looking at what journalists or the media say, since they often distort and misrepresent things - whether knowingly or unknowingly isn't the issue. Instead I prefer to look directly at the source material from Parnia and his team.

... mechanisms are proposed for the emergence of consciousness. The former considers consciousness as an epiphenomenon from brain activities; the latter, as a separate undiscovered entity not produced by understood brain mechanisms, which can independently modulate brain activity. The identification of potential electrocortical biomarkers of consciousness doesn’t resolve this conundrum, as an association doesn’t imply causation. However, the paradoxical finding of lucidity and heightened reality when brain function is severely disordered, or has ceased raises the need to consider alternatives to the epiphenomenon theory.

Sorry, I might have been too quick in my assumptions and those quotes are worth a second look. Thanks.

For myself, the appearance of such "biomarkers" certainly doesn't justify any conclusion that the experience is created by brain activity. This boils down to the basic debate over consciousness being fundamental or epiphenomenal and it doesn't move it along much at all as is pointed out in that quoted text.

Besides, Near Death Experiences are phenomena which can and do occur when death is not imminent nor an actual risk. Yet very similar experiences are reported when there is no loss of oxygen to the brain, no recovery from such trauma and no cardiac event taking place either. Why is it that the subjective content of the experiences are ignored or dismissed when they provide what are probably the most valuable insights?

[Ninshub]

sorry, I failed to notice this wasn’t in the skeptics vs. proponents section. I think the title of the thread mislead me to think it was an open discussion on Parnias stance 😳

No problem! Following Sci's suggestion, I've moved the thread. Proceed!

Besides, Near Death Experiences are phenomena which can and do occur when death is not imminent nor an actual risk. Yet very similar experiences are reported when there is no loss of oxygen to the brain, no recovery from such trauma and no cardiac event taking place either. Why is it that the subjective content of the experiences are ignored or dismissed when they provide what are probably the most valuable insights?

it's important to differentiate between Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) and Near Death Experiences (NDEs). While OBEs can be a component of NDEs, they represent only a small part of the broader NDE phenomenon. OBEs, can be reported without life-threatening circumstances, such as in dreams, deep meditation, or other altered states of consciousness. Additionally, some epileptic episodes, especially those originating in the temporal lobe, can induce out-of-body experiences, suggesting a neurological basis for this aspect of the NDE phenomenon.

OBEs in the cardiac arrest setting is a particular rare event. If I recall the figures correct they only has 1 OBE in Aware II which could not be verified.

I however think we should be encouraged by the “altered brain state” hypothesis emerging from Aware II as it  will hopefully be easier to get funding to either prove or disprove this hypothesis as it becomes a more clear study goal than previous prospective studies.

Parnia altered his labeling of 'cardiac arrest' to 'death' many years ago. He can then state that consciousness may not be annihilated at the time of death.

Once it was revealed that AWARE II study design was also going to use a hidden/secret target, it was obvious that the visual target could never be seen - verifying the veridical nature of some of the visual information recalled during the OBE was the only interest I had in these studies.

These hospital studies are just too difficult for the weakly-committed. The final numbers of patients recruited for AWARE/AWAREII considering the size of these studies have been paltry, compared with Van Lommel's and Penny Sartori's studies.

It has been clear to me for many years that the brain was still active after cardiac arrest. That in the absence of the brain's endogenous EM field, it's networks can become temporarily susceptible to all external compatible fields within which it is embedded - resulting in anomalous access to information during the OBE.

It has been clear to me for many years that the brain was still active after cardiac arrest. That in the absence of the brain's endogenous EM field, it's networks can become temporarily susceptible to all external compatible fields within which it is embedded - resulting in anomalous access to information during the OBE.

Under normal conditions, the electromagnetic energy emitted by one person's brain is unlikely to interfere with the electromagnetic energy emitted by another person's brain. There are a few reasons for this:

a) The electromagnetic signals produced by the brain are quite weak. To detect these signals (as in EEG or MEG), specialized equipment is used that amplifies the signals and processes them to extract meaningful data.

b) Electromagnetic fields decrease in strength with distance. Given the weak nature of brain-generated electromagnetic fields, their strength would decrease rapidly with even a short distance from the scalp. So, the effective range of these signals, in terms of potential interference, is quite limited.

c) The brain's electrical activity is complex and varies from moment to moment and person to person. This variability and complexity mean that it's unlikely for one person's brain activity to sync up in a way that would create interference in another person's brain.

In everyday settings and without the aid of equipment, one person's brain activity does not interfere with another's in terms of electromagnetic energy. So why should it in NDE setting?