'What Happens When We Die'

[jeremyp]

Sam Parnia clearly states that......“We were able to conclude that the recalled experience of death is real.

Nobody has ever been able to recall an experience of death, on account of the fact that, by definition, they were dead.

[Sriram]

Change your definition...!

[jeremyp]

Change your definition...!

Changing a definition doesn't help you.

[Enki]

Sam Parnia clearly states that......“We were able to conclude that the recalled experience of death is real. It occurs with death, and there’s a brain marker that we’ve identified. These electrical signals are not being produced as a trick of a dying brain, which is what a lot of critics have said.”

Greyson says.....“That is, those patients who had near-death experiences did not show the reported brain waves, and those who did show the reported brain waves did not report near-death experiences,” Greyson told CNN via email.

I don't know what they were trying to establish but they did succeed in establishing that there is no correlation between brain activity and NDE's.

Sam Parnia obviously disagrees with Bruce Greyson. Just read the last part of your link. He suggests that electrical activity is no trick but instead points to such activity being key to understanding NDEs. Even the title of your link (Near-death experiences tied to brain activity after death, study says) suggests this.

This is what Sam Parnia says:

“Although doctors have long thought that the brain suffers permanent damage about 10 minutes after the heart stops supplying it with oxygen, our work found that the brain can show signs of electrical recovery long into ongoing CPR,” said senior study author Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health. “This is the first large study to show that these recollections and brain wave changes may be signs of universal, shared elements of so called near-death experiences.”

https://nyulangone.org/news/patients-recall-death-experiences-after-cardiac-arrest

And he has been and is involved in such work. As far as I know, Bruce Greyson isn't.

[Sriram]

Parnia has clearly stated the following...

“We were able to conclude that the recalled experience of death is real. It occurs with death, and there’s a brain marker that we’ve identified. These electrical signals are not being produced as a trick of a dying brain, which is what a lot of critics have said.”

Greyson says..

“That is, those patients who had near-death experiences did not show the reported brain waves, and those who did show the reported brain waves did not report near-death experiences,” Greyson told CNN via email.

Parnia agrees with that and says....

It’s correct that the study was not able to match electrical activity with a near death experience in the same patient, Parnia said.


The way I see it,... brain activity and NDE's are not related. NDE's are independent of the brain....and the above findings confirm that view. So...all fine, as far as I am concerned!

Now....what exactly Parnia is trying to prove by insisting on establishing a connection between NDE's and brain activity ....I am not clear.

[Enki]

Parnia has clearly stated the following...

“We were able to conclude that the recalled experience of death is real. It occurs with death, and there’s a brain marker that we’ve identified. These electrical signals are not being produced as a trick of a dying brain, which is what a lot of critics have said.”

Greyson says..

“That is, those patients who had near-death experiences did not show the reported brain waves, and those who did show the reported brain waves did not report near-death experiences,” Greyson told CNN via email.

Parnia agrees with that and says....

It’s correct that the study was not able to match electrical activity with a near death experience in the same patient, Parnia said.


The way I see it,... brain activity and NDE's are not related. NDE's are independent of the brain....and the above findings confirm that view. So...all fine, as far as I am concerned!

Now....what exactly Parnia is trying to prove by insisting on establishing a connection between NDE's and brain activity ....I am not clear.

As I said, Sam Parnia doesn't think that this electrical activity is a trick of the brain, but points to something much more important, as his own words suggest.

Yes, he did say that

It’s correct that the study was not able to match electrical activity with a near death experience in the same patient

but, as the article went on to say, Parnia said:

“Our sample size wasn’t large enough. Most of our people didn’t live so we didn’t have hundreds of survivors. That’s the reality of it,” he said. “Of those that did live and had readable electroencephalograms, 40% of them showed that their brain waves went from flatline to showing normal signs of lucidity.”

In addition, Parnia said, people who survive often have fragmented memories or forget what they experienced due to heavy sedation in intensive care.

“Absence of record doesn’t mean there’s an absence of consciousness,” Parnia said. “Ultimately, what we’re saying is, ‘This is the great unknown. We’re in uncharted territory.’ And the key thing is that these are not hallucinations. These are a real experience that emerges with death.”

which suggests strongly that he disagreed with Greyson.

As you can see, by the tenor of the article (its name remember was Near-death experiences tied to brain activity after death) the writer disagrees with you that brain activity and NDEs are not related, as does Sam Parnia of course.
 

[Sriram]

It is obvious that Parnia thinks of NDE's as real death experiences, as he has said. That is not in doubt.

However why he is trying to link NDE's with brain activity contrary to the evidence that he himself concedes to...I have no idea.   

[Gordon]

Not sure why it matters since living brains are capable of producing all sorts of weird shit anyway, such as when we are asleep, if we have taken or been given certain substances, or due to certain types of illness - and truly dead brains don't produce anything.

[Enki]

It is obvious that Parnia thinks of NDE's as real death experiences, as he has said. That is not in doubt.

However why he is trying to link NDE's with brain activity contrary to the evidence that he himself concedes to...I have no idea.

I think that this very recent paper from the Scientific American clearly sets out the way the present scientific research is heading with a viable, if provisional hypothesis. You are, of course, quite entitled to your own point of view, regardless.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-patients-who-died-but-survived-report-lucid-near-death-experiences-a-new-study-shows/

[jeremyp]

I think that this very recent paper from the Scientific American clearly sets out the way the present scientific research is heading with a viable, if provisional hypothesis. You are, of course, quite entitled to your own point of view, regardless.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-patients-who-died-but-survived-report-lucid-near-death-experiences-a-new-study-shows/

It's important to point out that the word "died" in the headline is in scare quotes because the patients they were able to interview didn't die.

[SteveH]

Sounds like bollocks to me, but what do others think?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/patients-near-death-may-enter-a-new-dimension-of-reality/ar-AA1gLNt1

[jeremyp]

Sounds like bollocks to me, but what do others think?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/patients-near-death-may-enter-a-new-dimension-of-reality/ar-AA1gLNt1

It is bollocks. The authors describe it thus

The authors suggested that as it is dying, the brain removes natural braking systems, which may open access to ‘new dimensions of reality’, including lucid recall of all stored memories from early childhood to death, evaluated from the perspective of morality

That's not a new dimension, even if true. The best you could say is that it is a new mode of operation of the brain. I'm still a bit sceptical. What are these braking systems? Has anybody demonstrated that they do exist?

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Steve started another thread on this which has been merged into this one.

[Sriram]

Sounds like bollocks to me, but what do others think?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/patients-near-death-may-enter-a-new-dimension-of-reality/ar-AA1gLNt1

Might as well face the reality of consciousness surviving death. Why should scientists have so much resistance to this natural and universal phenomenon just because it has been a part of religious teaching in the past?!

Trying to find an evolutionary purpose for the phenomenon will amount to force fitting it.... like pushing a square peg into a round hole. 

[Sriram]

Not sure why it matters since living brains are capable of producing all sorts of weird shit anyway, such as when we are asleep, if we have taken or been given certain substances, or due to certain types of illness - and truly dead brains don't produce anything.

But what do we mean by 'living'? When is a brain dead?

[jeremyp]

Might as well face the reality of consciousness surviving death. Why should scientists have so much resistance to this natural and universal phenomenon just because it has been a part of religious teaching in the past?!

Because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it exists.

[Gordon]

But what do we mean by 'living'? When is a brain dead?

When it ceases to function of course - especially when deprived of blood etc, which happens when people die.

[Sriram]

Death is hardly understood. We have childish definitions about 'cessation of bodily functions' and so on, which are neither here nor there.

We can't use such definitions as a base to understand NDE's and other such phenomena. 

[Gordon]

Death is hardly understood. We have childish definitions about 'cessation of bodily functions' and so on, which are neither here nor there.

We can't use such definitions as a base to understand NDE's and other such phenomena.

Nothing childish about the reality of death: especially for those of us for whom it is an imminent reality we now have to actively plan for.

[Stranger]

Death is hardly understood. We have childish definitions about 'cessation of bodily functions' and so on, which are neither here nor there.

On the contrary, it is your little fantasies about an afterlife that are childish.

We can't use such definitions as a base to understand NDE's and other such phenomena.

Yes, yes, we should all give up doing proper science and just take Sriram's word about everything.     

[Sriram]

Nothing childish about the reality of death: especially for those of us for whom it is an imminent reality we now have to actively plan for.

I didn't say death is childish.  I said that the definition of death as 'cessation of all bodily functions' is childish.

Sorry if it has offended you...Gordon.

I do seriously believe that death is not the end and is only a transition. I link again the video I did some time ago. Do try to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhcJNJbRJ6U&t=20s

[Gordon]

Sriram

That death isn't the end, as you believe, seems to me to be cruel: we are bringing up two of our grandchildren, now 9 and 7, who have had a permanent home with us since 2020, and they are going nowhere.

That I won't be able to see the job through as I'd like to thanks to cancer is bad enough - but to think that something of my consciousness might survive after I've died seems to me that, in effect, I'd be abandoning the most important responsibility I've ever held and be leaving it all to Ann because, according to what you believe, something of 'me' will survive my demise.

That seems perverse to me.

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram

That death isn't the end, as you believe, seems to me to be cruel: we are bringing up two of our grandchildren, now 9 and 7, who have had a permanent home with us since 2020, and they are going nowhere.

That I won't be able to see the job through as I'd like to thanks to cancer is bad enough - but to think that something of my consciousness might survive after I've died seems to me that, in effect, I'd be abandoning the most important responsibility I've ever held and be leaving it all to Ann because, according to what you believe, something of 'me' will survive my demise.

That seems perverse to me.

Yes, I often find that what people seem to cling to as beliefs are not in any sense comforting. Knowing you, I know that you would never abandon your children or grandchildren, but this survival of consciousness that is the unevidenced basis of so many claims seems to be based on a denial of what you are.

[Enki]

Death is hardly understood. We have childish definitions about 'cessation of bodily functions' and so on, which are neither here nor there.

We can't use such definitions as a base to understand NDE's and other such phenomena.

Surely death is a process, and because of scientific and technological advancements we are able to disrupt that process more successfully than we ever could before. Obviously there comes a point in the deterioration and damage done to brain cells when we are no longer able to resuscitate, but we have found that that point is reached sometimes hours after a person has been named as 'clinically dead'.Hence the idea that the brain can continue to function in some way, at least intermittently, during this process is surely a fairly reasonable proposition. Recent research seems to show this as electrical activity within the brain.

As far as NDEs are concerned there is no reason to think that they cannot be classed as brain experiences and we have no knowledge as to when such experiences take place, whether they are at the point of unconsciousness, the point of revival, or during any active phase of brain activity in between.

The main sticking point is whether consciousness is to be regarded as a brain activity or something separate from the brain. All the evidence suggests that consciousness is a result of brain activity, even though we cannot yet define in scientific terms what the hard problem of consciousness entails. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that consciousness is something distinct from brain activity( as, for instance, in the analogy of the TV signal and the TV set).

Therefore there is no evidence and hence no reason to think that NDEs reflect or point to some type of afterlife. One can still hold such views, of course, but I would say that to hold such views is purely a matter of personal faith.

[Sriram]

Sriram

That death isn't the end, as you believe, seems to me to be cruel: we are bringing up two of our grandchildren, now 9 and 7, who have had a permanent home with us since 2020, and they are going nowhere.

That I won't be able to see the job through as I'd like to thanks to cancer is bad enough - but to think that something of my consciousness might survive after I've died seems to me that, in effect, I'd be abandoning the most important responsibility I've ever held and be leaving it all to Ann because, according to what you believe, something of 'me' will survive my demise.

That seems perverse to me.

I don't for a moment claim to understand or justify everything that happens in our lives.   There are surely many sorry situations in all our lives that we would like to be different from what they are.

But that has nothing to do with the idea of consciousness surviving death.  If that is a reality and there is enough evidence for it, we have to accept it. We don't have a choice. We cannot possibly choose a different reality just because we don't understand or like certain situations.