The Science Thread

[SirRumpole]

Rather than continuing to entertain your customary playing of the usual "fraud" and/or "hallucination" trump cards from the acclaimed tarot deck of the sceptics, how about we talk about the real issue that has you so vehemently opposed to the findings of the AWARE study?

Interesting question. I'm surprised by the strong opposition of some to the possibility of life after death. One would have thought it would be a more pleasant thing to believe in , rather than to believe we just go back to dust and it's the end for us.

I think the sceptics generally have a disregard for religion and must try and prove them wrong at all costs, in the mistaken belief that religion "owns" life after death because of all their supernatural teachings. I think religions are fooling themselves and others with their brand of "fire and brimstone"; ie obey us or go to hell.

Therefore its possible to keep an open mind about life after death from a non religious perspective instead of just trying to debunk the whole issue because you don't like religion.

 

[Value Collector]

how about we talk about the real issue that has you so vehemently opposed to the findings of the AWARE study?

Which findings?

 

[Value Collector]

Interesting question. I'm surprised by the strong opposition of some to the possibility of life after death.
.

I don't have an opposition to life after death, after all I don't want to die either.

But I have an opposition to jumping to the conclusion that there is life after death before we have a good reason to think that it exists.

One would have thought it would be a more pleasant thing to believe in , rather than to believe we just go back to dust and it's the end for us.

Yes it would be, but the fact that a belief might be comforting doesn't increase its chance that it is true, and I would much rather believe a cold hard truth, than a comforting lie. But not every one does.

I think the sceptics generally have a disregard for religion and must try and prove them wrong at all costs,

you have that backwards.

the burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, its not up to sceptics to "prove things wrong"

All of my discussion here has been related to other possible explanations that would need to be ruled out before we could accept the claim that consciousness exists outside of brains.

Therefore its possible to keep an open mind about life after death from a non religious perspective instead of just trying to debunk the whole issue because you don't like religion

as I said, its not about debunking things, its about making sure something is true before believing it.

 

[cynic]

Which findings?

How about we start with the ones that gave rise to your perceived need to accuse Dr Parnia et al. of fraud!

Edit: I am now convinced this discussion is better suited to the metaphysical/sceptical/science/religion thread so I would be happy, if at all possible, to see my posts accordingly moved.

 

[Value Collector]

Evidence? How would evidence be possible? The only evidence would be experiential.

a brain scan that made sure the brain wasn't processing information might be a start, before you assume the brain is not functioning.

Also if the person is saying they left their body and watched from the corner of the room, maybe researchers could hide signs on the top of shelves that could only be viewed by a person floating high in the corner of the room with a code on it.

If the person comes back and says, yeah I sore this hidden message with XXXX code on it, maybe that would carry more weight.

But saying people sore a light or felt peaceful etc, there is nothing that suggests this isn't all happening in their brain.

 

[Value Collector]

How about we start with the ones that gave rise to your perceived need to accuse Dr Parnia et al. of fraud!

Edit: I am now convinced this discussion is better suited to the metaphysical/sceptical/science/religion thread so I would be happy, if at all possible, to see my posts accordingly moved.

when did I call Dr parnia a fraud?

 

[cynic]

I am saying that a large body of anecdotal claims doesn't mean something is true, for example, there is a large body of anecdotal claims of alien encounters, this isn't evidence that alien encounters are actually happening, its just evidence that people are saying they are happening.

The reasons for the large body of alien encounter claims can vary from hallucination to attention seeking, drug use and many other things.

--------------------

10 years after his best selling book was published this boy has admitted he made up the whole story of going to and returning from heaven.



Do you you think he is the only one that has made up stories for money, fame or attention?

add, the made up stories to the hallucinations, dreams and unconscious information gathering etc and you get a "Large body of anecdotal stories" non of which are real.

when did I call Dr parnia a fraud?

Actually I may be in error, it appears that I may have mistaken one of your references to the pronoun "he" as meaning "Dr Parnia", when it may have been that you meant it in reference to somebody else. If that is the case then I sincerely apologise and ask that my response be revised to read "How about we start with the findings that gave rise to your perceived need to strongly doubt the integrity of Dr Parnia et al!"

 

[Value Collector]

"How about we start with the findings that gave rise to your perceived need to strongly doubt the integrity of Dr Parnia et al!"

I am not even sure who Dr Parnia is, or where I have said I doubt his integrity, or which findings you are talking about.

 

[pixel]

Well I hope that science will continue to study the subject and come to a definite conclusion before I die, otherwise I'm not going.

I am fully aware of the need to go. Otherwise, we'd long ago have started eating babies.
I am also fully aware that we can't be sure what's on "the other side" of physical death, while we're still on "this side". All I have to go by is observable evidence and conclusions drawn by analogy. And on balance, I find it far more likely that consciousness (regardless of the number of sub-"conscious" dream levels) only exists in connection with living cells, predominantly of the brain and nerve variety. Picking up on the hardware/ software analogy, software only becomes "real" when it's loaded into the RAM hardware. A jpeg image of my avatar needs to have a medium, be that a pattern inside a computer chip, or pixels on a flat screen. Even in transit from my computer's RAM, via the Internet, onto your display screen, where it's reduced to bits in a wave pattern rushing through wires or "empty space", there won't be any pixels of Pixel without the physical Pixel having existed in person. (And don't anybody deny that a cat is a person )

Once the "hardware", i.e. the living organism and specifically the nerve cells, is gone, no new "software", i.e. thoughts and dreams and consciousness, can be generated. Only pictures, copies, recorded shadows survive, and they remain in a very static and sterile form.

For me personally, the above is backed by sufficient evidence to carry me through life with a peaceful mind. If, against all expectation, consciousness (a term I prefer to "soul") can somehow migrate across and exist without the living organism that generated it, I'll do my utmost to get back in touch and let you know I was wrong. (... assuming I can find the time off more important tasks, like haunting the current crop of "World Leaders", or re-programming the software in religious nutters' brains... )

 

[cynic]

I am not even sure who Dr Parnia is, or where I have said I doubt his integrity, or which findings you are talking about.

What!!?
If that is truly the case, then how did you come to be so acutely aware of one particular aspect of his methodology, and how did we come to be engaged in a discussion centred on his actual research findings?

 

[SirRumpole]

Picking up on the hardware/ software analogy, software only becomes "real" when it's loaded into the RAM hardware.

So that CD with Windows on it does not actually exist ?

Anyway, you are right, we can't be sure what lies on the other side if there is one. I have anecdotal evidence to go by , but I'm sure sceptics would dismiss it as illusory so I won't repeat it here.

To each their own on this subject I think.

 

[pixel]

So that CD with Windows on it does not actually exist ?

It does exist, but it's a static copy. Dead. Unchanging.
Unless some functioning ("living") hardware is coming along to change it. The original "Master", from which yours is a static copy, can only be changed if it's loaded into a "live" hardware brain.

Within this analogy, the "image" you have of "Pixel" is being built inside YOUR hardware (brain) and only you can change it as new bits and pixels enter your input port(s). Once the connection breaks and no new data arrive at your end, your copy is static. Mind you, it's unlikely to ever be a true, identical copy. But without the Pixel software running and changing shapes inside the Pixel hardware, the original will no longer change and give you a valid reason to change your static copy.

 

[Value Collector]

What!!?
If that is truly the case, then how did you come to be so acutely aware of one particular aspect of his methodology, and how did we come to be engaged in a discussion centred on his actual research findings?

I still have no idea about which findings you are talking about, and which methodology or where I said I disputed the findings.

Did you link it some where?

 

[cynic]

I still have no idea about which findings you are talking about, and which methodology or where I said I disputed the findings.

Did you link it some where?

Yes!

 

[pixel]

I still have no idea about which findings you are talking about, and which methodology or where I said I disputed the findings.

Did you link it some where?

Google Dr Parnia
e.g. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

In 2008, a large-scale study involving 2060 patients from 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, United States and Austria was launched.

(my highlights)

I would raise a few concerns in the context of the above study:

• All 2000+ patients had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest. As far as I'm aware, cardiac arrest may be a precursor to death, but the patient is not dead.
• If Cardiac arrest equates Death, why not interview patients undergoing Open Heart surgery? Or any surgery where the heart stops beating, regardless whether intentionally or by accident.
• Only two patients reported "visual" memories from the period during which their hearts hadn't been beating. The rest mentioned either nothing at all, or talked about sounds and dreams.

Another interesting link in the same context:
http://skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-probably-an-illusion/

 

[Tisme]

Therefore its possible to keep an open mind about life after death from a non religious perspective instead of just trying to debunk the whole issue because you don't like religion.

I still go and sit in front of the grave and have a chat, so I'm guessing my primitive is still strong. So far I haven't sighted any psychopomps or astral projections, but I have a feeling I might some time in the future when my turn comes.

 

[SirRumpole]

I still go and sit in front of the grave and have a chat, so I'm guessing my primitive is still strong. So far I haven't sighted any psychopomps or astral projections, but I have a feeling I might some time in the future when my turn comes.

Yep, we will all find out for sure one day.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes!

Ahh ok you are talking about the article that describes the study.

I have no problem with the data of the study or The findings.

My problem is people jumping to the conclusion that the findings some how prove life after death.

Basically all the study's findings are is that 39% of people reported some sort of awareness while they were unconscious, as I have explained I have no problem with that as I said there are natural reasons this can occur.

I would expect that people might be dreaming or having some sort of experience related to their brain being in distress as it heads towards death or comes back from the edge.

And one guy reported out of body experience, I have no problem with the study reporting his account, because they aren't claiming it actually happened, they are just reporting his account, which may be an hallucination, or even a fraud, or a mixture of real information And imagined.

The fact we may experiance various levels of consciousness and dream states as we die doesn't surprise me, but yeah the before we jump to supernatural conclusions we need to rule out other more logical causes.

 

[cynic]

Google Dr Parnia
e.g. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page
(my highlights)

I would raise a few concerns in the context of the above study:

• All 2000+ patients had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest. As far as I'm aware, cardiac arrest may be a precursor to death, but the patient is not dead.
• If Cardiac arrest equates Death, why not interview patients undergoing Open Heart surgery? Or any surgery where the heart stops beating, regardless whether intentionally or by accident.
• Only two patients reported "visual" memories from the period during which their hearts hadn't been beating. The rest mentioned either nothing at all, or talked about sounds and dreams.

For those patients undergoing heart surgery, does the blood flow carrying oxygen to the brain cease?

If not, then that would likely be the reason for not including them within the study.

As to your other concerns/comments, my understanding is that the majority of those 2060 patients perished, with only 330 surviving.

140 of those survivors were qualified for a stage one interview with only 101 of those progressing to the stage two interview.
7 reported experiences that are typically referred to as (and/or associated with) NDE/OBEs.
As you have already rightly mentioned, 2 of those were able to recount having witnessed events pertaining to their resuscitation.

 

[cynic]

Ahh ok you are talking about the article that describes the study.

I have no problem with the data of the study or The findings.

My problem is people jumping to the conclusion that the findings some how prove life after death.

Basically all the study's findings are is that 39% of people reported some sort of awareness while they were unconscious, as I have explained I have no problem with that as I said there are natural reasons this can occur.

I would expect that people might be dreaming or having some sort of experience related to their brain being in distress as it heads towards death or comes back from the edge.

And one guy reported out of body experience, I have no problem with the study reporting his account, because they aren't claiming it actually happened, they are just reporting his account, which may be an hallucination, or even a fraud, or a mixture of real information And imagined.

The fact we may experiance various levels of consciousness and dream states as we die doesn't surprise me, but yeah the before we jump to supernatural conclusions we need to rule out other more logical causes.

I trust that it is now understood that my purpose in posting those articles to this thread, was (and still is), to highlight that those findings present some definite challenges to popular scientific conceptions about consciousness and the role of the physical brain in supporting same.