Why was the hit from the first AWARE given more importance?

Well, it was classified as 'verified' in the paper. There's no ambiguity there.

Personally I think the EEG-measurement aspect is following a separate tack. There are two different things under examination here. One is, do the perceptions described by the patient when observing from outside the body have a factual basis, or are they some sort of delusion/fabrication? A second question is does consciousness persist after the death of the body, which the AWARE study considered in a limited fashion. Sam Parnia has said that he is confident that the individual consciousness persists for at least some short though undefined period of time after death.

The reason for separating these issues out and considering them separately is that even if there was a very lively brain activity going on the whole time, the verified observations from beyond the body are still inexplicable. All sorts of convoluted hypotheses have been proposed, but they are even more incredible than the simple one, that the person really is observing from that location - while apparently lifeless and certainly not having the use of eyesight. The case described by Dr Tom Aufderheide (not within the AWARE study) is another example of an impossible event which nevertheless happened.

I absolutely agree, I guess I’m perplexed as to why AWARE is considered a failure, I was wondering if there was a failure in terms of methodology or what not that made this case something to be discounted.

I absolutely agree, I guess I’m perplexed as to why AWARE is considered a failure, I was wondering if there was a failure in terms of methodology or what not that made this case something to be discounted.

Here I can only refer to my earlier posts in this thread.

I regarded the first AWARE at the time and continue to regard it as a success.

One measure of that is a statement from Dr Sam Parnia many years ago, at the very beginning of the first AWARE study, when the initial announcements were made. He said basically that (perhaps in a tone his audience would be comfortable with), he expected it would all turn out to be just an illusion, and that being the case, after the conclusion of the study they could just wind it all up and move on. The other possible outcome was that they would find something and it would then be necessary to do further studies.

Well look at where we are. At least one further study has been done (I understand that in other countries there may be projects in the same field which are also taking place). The outcome of AWARE II (of which we still await further details) again concluded that even more study will be needed in future.

[The study authors] say recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine empirical investigation without prejudice.

Perhaps there was some sort of unrealistically great expectation, that the problems of life and death and human existence which have puzzled humankind through many millennia would quickly be solved with some sudden dramatic breakthrough. I never thought that would or could happen. It is just a step-by-step process.

I absolutely agree, I guess I’m perplexed as to why AWARE is considered a failure, I was wondering if there was a failure in terms of methodology or what not that made this case something to be discounted.

There are two categories of science work.  Data gathering and followed by analysis.  They are supposed to feel like they are partitioned.  The data gathering of Aware I and II are professional.  Others may judge the analysis work, in terms of a statistical view.  I find them significant.

If there is a failure - it is in marketing.  In terms of popularity - Psi still loses to the conservative view of past years.  My personal marketing "feel" is that while there is no single "aaha" coming, the steady drumbeat has turned.  The difference should be seen as a change from a defensive framework to one of offense.  Aware is going on offense.  

Anomalous information transfer (outside of a physical signal) is exhibited in history at all times and places.  It has not been ruled out, and now the change to an attitude of ruling it in, as framework, can slowly emerge.  At the base of it is actual probing of the informational environment, where non-local and entangled phenomena are measurable.

I think that people see mind is "magic" from the material of brains.  I say --- show how mind evolved and how it integrates the context of an agent with environments.  Psi falls out naturally, has part of mind's capability to detecting the past and future.

we got a cherry picked section of the interview… and absolutely no details about what was verified

No we didn't, Max, The whole interview is meticulously itemised in "Erasing Death." It was all verified as accurate (all his observations) but what was even more remarkable is that the man heard the command of the automated defibrillator to shock the patient, which is literally impossible according to neuroscientific principles (so he must have heard with something else). 

In cardiac arrest within 10 -- 20 seconds, the global electrical activity is completely absent, so the experts tell us. The brain stem which is responsible for hearing (apparently) is also lost, non functioning.  The machine cannot make a mistake and correctly identified the rhythm as ventricular fibrillation where no blood is pumped. 

The analysis takes up to two minutes, so when the command was issued, the man was clinically dead so should not have been able to hear anything, let alone remember it clearly (cardiac arrest is a massive insult to the brain).  If sceptics want to suggest the machine was faulty and he wasn't really in cardiac arrest (dead) then they would have to explain why he didn't report the excruciating pain of the shocks. And this happened twice but he reported no pain at all, (Parnia himself actually confirmed this for me that the man called it twice)

And any sceptics that might argue that he wasn't dead should ask themselves why they bothered restarting his heart. If he wasn't dead, they could have just left him alone, presumably ? 

Just to add, there was no (board) target fitted in the room (cath lab) where the man had his arrest so it wasn't a case of missing anything. He saw the whole show correctly and made no mistakes. 

(@ the opening post) Why has it been forgotten about ? Because sceptics prefer to forget about it, basically. They don't like it, so they either ignore it or come up with silly objections, such as that's just an anecdote. Well it wasn't an anecdote (not that that would necessarily discount it), it was reported during a clinical trial looking for that effect. 

I suppose one could try to say it was just an amazing set of lucky guesses and the 57 year old (sound minded and responsible) social worker already knew all about the commands that automated defibrillators make and wanted to pull the wool over the eyes of Parnia for some obscure reason. It's possible I suppose, but I doubt it somehow. Maybe I'm naive.

No we didn't, Max, The whole interview is meticulously itemised in "Erasing Death." It was all verified as accurate (all his observations) but what was even more remarkable is that the man heard the command of the automated defibrillator to shock the patient, which is literally impossible according to neuroscientific principles (so he must have heard with something else). 

In cardiac arrest within 10 -- 20 seconds, the global electrical activity is completely absent, so the experts tell us. The brain stem which is responsible for hearing (apparently) is also lost, non functioning.  The machine cannot make a mistake and correctly identified the rhythm as ventricular fibrillation where no blood is pumped. 

The analysis takes up to two minutes, so when the command was issued, the man was clinically dead so should not have been able to hear anything, let alone remember it clearly (cardiac arrest is a massive insult to the brain).  If sceptics want to suggest the machine was faulty and he wasn't really in cardiac arrest (dead) then they would have to explain why he didn't report the excruciating pain of the shocks. And this happened twice but he reported no pain at all, (Parnia himself actually confirmed this for me that the man called it twice)

And any sceptics that might argue that he wasn't dead should ask themselves why they bothered restarting his heart. If he wasn't dead, they could have just left him alone, presumably ? 

Just to add, there was no (board) target fitted in the room (cath lab) where the man had his arrest so it wasn't a case of missing anything. He saw the whole show correctly and made no mistakes. 

(@ the opening post) Why has it been forgotten about ? Because sceptics prefer to forget about it, basically. They don't like it, so they either ignore it or come up with silly objections, such as that's just an anecdote. Well it wasn't an anecdote (not that that would necessarily discount it), it was reported during a clinical trial looking for that effect. 

I suppose one could try to say it was just an amazing set of lucky guesses and the 57 year old (sound minded and responsible) social worker already knew all about the commands that automated defibrillators make and wanted to pull the wool over the eyes of Parnia for some obscure reason. It's possible I suppose, but I doubt it somehow. Maybe I'm naive.

We were discussing the published results from the first study, and the published paper definitely only contains only a brief cherry picked section of an interview with the patient. I wasn't aware Parnia had separately published a book which contained a full transcript of an interview Parnia had with this patient... which I've been able to download to my Kindle and read.

...but they are even more incredible than the simple one, that the person really is observing from that location - while apparently lifeless and certainly not having the use of eyesight. The case described by Dr Tom Aufderheide (not within the AWARE study) is another example of an impossible event which nevertheless happened.

I particularly liked that story, as what really grabbed the Dr Aufderheide's attention, is that the patient recalled what the Dr was actually thinking... a nice clue as to where some of the anomalous information originated.

We were discussing the published results from the first study, and the published paper definitely only contains only a brief cherry picked section of an interview with the patient.

I know very well the published paper only contains a portion of the interview. So what ? It contains what Parnia thought was most relevant as there obviously wasn't room to publish the whole interview. I'm at a loss to understand what you're trying to insinuate. Maybe you would like to stick up the portion of the interview with the 57 year old man where he's retracted or contradicted his previous statements. Good luck with that, Max, because I can't find it.  

I wasn't aware Parnia had separately published a book which contained a full transcript of an interview Parnia had with this patient... which I've been able to download to my Kindle and read.

We do seem to have these bizarre exchanges which I have to tell you, (and it really doesn't give me any pleasure),  I just don't know what on earth you're talking about here. You are usually on the ball as I've said to you previously (although I completely disagree with your theory). The full interview begins on page 241 and runs to 253. There isn't anything in that full interview which is in contradiction to the excerpt in his paper.

I particularly liked that story, as what really grabbed the Dr Aufderheide's attention, is that the patient recalled what the Dr was actually thinking... a nice clue as to where some of the anomalous information originated.

That's certainly one part of the mystery. There are stories of a person knowing when a relative or loved one has passed away or is in serious trouble many miles away, even on the other side of the world. But 'information' is only a portion of the experiences we are trying to understand.

I have a similar difficulty with those who describe possible reincarnation cases in terms of acquired information. That is only a part of the experience, often not even the most important part. Dealing with past life existence is a state of being, of feeling, an active engaging and participating in the experience. But I'm getting away from the main subject of this thread now. Though an understanding of the nature of death and what follows requires many different strands of study from apparently separate fields. Both NDEs and past-life recall frequently necessitate a coming to terms with the impact it may have on a person's life.

Presumably you're happy, Max that your statement (about Parnia's interview) was inaccurate. That's fine.