Recalled Experience of Death (RED)

[ProfessorDavey]

They are talking about thar but they are also talking about the experiences being of death so they aren't looking at death in that sense as being irreversible. So they obviously aren't working with the same definition. Alan, apart from anything else, believes in resurrection.

I don't think they are considering that as somehow just a restarting of physiological/neurological processes though, are they.

But this is the Science & Technology MB so it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to use the standard scientific definition of death when engaging in conversations on Science & Technology.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps the word 'life' needs to be defined.  As a noun it seems to suggest that there is an entity which exists in its own right e.g. in the saying attributed to Jesus - 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life'.  When one tries to examine it objectively, it appears to be more a process e.g. living forms rather than life forms.

That's surely more about a generalised concept. Both those arguing that there are such a thing as 'REDs' and against ard talking about individual entities. Note in the case of those arguing for that applies more clearly to Alan than to Sriram.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think they are considering that as somehow just a restarting of physiological/neurological processes though, are they.

But this is the Science & Technology MB so it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to use the standard scientific definition of death when engaging in conversations on Science & Technology.

  I've already said I think their usage of their definition is problematic. I'm not sure whether they think of it as a restarting of physiological/neurological processes makes much difference, though I'm not sure how you could think of resurrection without that. They do think the individual has experienced 'death' and that they have not remained 'dead' so they can't logically be thinking of it as irreversible.

[Aruntraveller]

A long time ago I owned a shop and an old chap called Arthur used to come in daily for his cans of Guinness.

We got on well and talked about all sorts of things.

One of these things was his health. He had a heart problem and he told me that he had died three times in the hospital and been brought back.

He also told me and I'll try and quote him word for word:

"All this afterlife stuff is bollocks, there was no white light, no tunnel, on-one calling me. It's all bollocks. I was dead and there was nothing"

Bollocks was one of his favourite words.

I know it is anecdotal, as such feel free to dismiss it, as I do the other anecdotes I've read.

[Nearly Sane]

A long time ago I owned a shop and an old chap called Arthur used to come in daily for his cans of Guinness.

We got on well and talked about all sorts of things.

One of these things was his health. He had a heart problem and he told me that he had died three times in the hospital and been brought back.

He also told me and I'll try and quote him word for word:

"All this afterlife stuff is bollocks, there was no white light, no tunnel, on-one calling me. It's all bollocks. I was dead and there was nothing"

Bollocks was one of his favourite words.

I know it is anecdotal, as such feel free to dismiss it, as I do the other anecdotes I've read.

  I like the sound of Arthur

[ProfessorDavey]

A long time ago I owned a shop and an old chap called Arthur used to come in daily for his cans of Guinness.

We got on well and talked about all sorts of things.

One of these things was his health. He had a heart problem and he told me that he had died three times in the hospital and been brought back.

He also told me and I'll try and quote him word for word:

"All this afterlife stuff is bollocks, there was no white light, no tunnel, on-one calling me. It's all bollocks. I was dead and there was nothing"

Bollocks was one of his favourite words.

I know it is anecdotal, as such feel free to dismiss it, as I do the other anecdotes I've read.

Once upon a time doctors would use the term 'clinically dead' - what this actually meant was that the cessation of the heart beating and breathing. Now years ago that would have been the same as actual death, because we had no way to start the heart beating again and start breathing again. But that isn't actually death at all, as certainly nowadays in many cases people 'clinically dead' can be readily resuscitated.

So, your chap never died, let alone three times, although he may have been told that. He actually had three episodes where there was a temporary and reversible cessation of blood circulation and breathing.

He didn't experience anything during those hugely physiologically traumatic episodes - others apparently do, but the research clearly points to a series of measurable alterations in physiology and neurophysiology associated with that physiological stress. Others experience similar effects in situations which are similarly physiologically stressing but not associated with death.

[ProfessorDavey]

  I like the sound of Arthur

I suspect he may be dead now - not just clinically dead, but actually dead.

[Sriram]

As I have said earlier, we can't define something on the basis of our limited understanding and then expect reality to match that definition. Definitions of such unknown phenomena have to necessarily be tentative.

Death is the great unknown. We can't be casual about our knowledge of it.

It is like we are sitting inside a robot and every once in a while (for whatever reason) we might peep out of the robot to see the outside world directly. These are the OBE's. Finally we close down the robot and exit permanently. This is death.

Death is not just about the exiting of the soul or consciousness. It is  also about the closing down of the power supply. Like switching off the electricity. As long as the electricity is on...the consciousness can come back. Once the power supply is off, it is permanent.

In Hinduism the idea of death is about the Prana (life force... like electricity) exiting the body/mind. It is in fact defined as the prana leaving the body/mind. Once this happens, the atma (soul) exits permanently.     

[Aruntraveller]

I suspect he may be dead now - not just clinically dead, but actually dead.

He was a lovely chap. He hated the Tories way back then.

And yes he is no more.

[ekim]

"The question of whether there is life after death is one that has been debated throughout human history, and it touches on both scientific and philosophical beliefs.

Scientifically, there is no conclusive evidence that life continues after death. The biological perspective defines death as the end of the physical functions of the body, and from this viewpoint, there is no continuation of life as we know it once these functions cease1.

However, many people believe in some form of afterlife, often based on religious or spiritual beliefs. Near-death experiences (NDEs) have been reported by some individuals, which they interpret as evidence of an afterlife2. These experiences and their interpretations vary widely, and while they are compelling to those who have them, they do not constitute scientific proof of life after death.

Philosophically, the concept of an afterlife is a matter of personal belief. Some philosophical arguments suggest that consciousness could continue in some form after physical death, but these ideas are not empirically verifiable.

Ultimately, the existence of an afterlife remains a matter of faith or personal conviction rather than scientific fact."

Reply to a question put to A.I.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

As I have said earlier, we can't define something on the basis of our limited understanding and then expect reality to match that definition. Definitions of such unknown phenomena have to necessarily be tentative.

But we can define it, and adding contrary speculations to the definition doesn’t invalidate the definition we have. Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. People who think they experience death temporarily and then return to talk about it weren't dead. They have experienced something other than death no doubt, but not death. You can no more expand the meaning of death to suit your personal beliefs than I can expand the meaning of rainbows to include “those things that leprechauns put there to store their pots of gold” to suit my beliefs.           

Death is the great unknown. We can't be casual about our knowledge of it.

No it isn’t.

It is like we are sitting inside a robot and every once in a while (for whatever reason) we might peep out of the robot to see the outside world directly. These are the OBE's

Like I occasionally observe leprechauns you mean? If you want to reify your faith claims into facts, you have no basis then deny me the same opportunity about my faith claims.   

Finally we close down the robot and exit permanently. This is death.

If you’re trying to say here something like, “there are deep comas that some recover from to discuss but others don’t and then actually die” then I agree. 

Death is not just about the exiting of the soul or consciousness. It is  also about the closing down of the power supply. Like switching off the electricity. As long as the electricity is on...the consciousness can come back. Once the power supply is off, it is permanent.

What “power supply” would that be?

In Hinduism the idea of death is about the Prana (life force... like electricity) exiting the body/mind. It is in fact defined as the prana leaving the body/mind. Once this happens, the atma (soul) exits permanently.

And in aboriginal beliefs it’s thought that the entire world was made by their ancestors at the very beginning of time, called the Dreamtime. Lots of ancient folklore and myth are available, but if you want to elevate any of them to fact you have to find a method of verification. Until you can do that, your Hindu beliefs and the Aborigine's beliefs are epistemically equivalent. 

[Sriram]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/near-death-experiences-during-cpr-impetus-better-care-2024a10002m7?form=fpf


********

"Many people label recalled experiences of death as 'near-death' experiences, but they're not," Parnia said. "Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it."

********

[torridon]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/near-death-experiences-during-cpr-impetus-better-care-2024a10002m7?form=fpf


********

"Many people label recalled experiences of death as 'near-death' experiences, but they're not," Parnia said. "Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it."

********

This probably references the modern understanding that death is a process.  Traditionally we viewed someone with no pulse as dead; now we know that is rather simplistic given we can often resuscitate people following coronary heart failure if we act quickly enough.  These people were dead in a sense, but not fully dead, still having some neurological function despite heart failure.

[jeremyp]

It's not about shifting definition, it's about using a definition out of context.

Here is the problem. If you don't use PD's definition of death, then the phenomenon of NDE's becomes uninteresting. I don't think anybody would dispute the possibility of having experiences after the heart stops but before the brain shuts down permanently.

Don't forget that Sriram's real conjecture is that people have souls independent of their physical bodies and that they can exist and continue to have experiences after the physical body has died. It's only remarkable if death is defined as irreversible cessation of biological function.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/near-death-experiences-during-cpr-impetus-better-care-2024a10002m7?form=fpf

********

"Many people label recalled experiences of death as 'near-death' experiences, but they're not," Parnia said. "Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it."

I’m no medic, but this is plainly wrong – or at least its plainly wrong unless you define “death” in the idiosyncratic way that he does. Even the most cursory reading of the literature will tell you that brain function typically continues for up to ten minutes after circulatory failure, and there are documented cases of recovery after much longer periods of circulatory failure than that – here for example is the Anna Bågenholm case in which she experienced circulatory arrest after 40 minutes in the water but nonetheless recovered many hours later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_B%C3%A5genholm

As Jeremy notes though, NDEs aren’t especially interesting for someone looking to confirm their a priori faith beliefs about a supposed afterlife (ie you) because for this purpose the only rational response is “so what?”. The subject may have been “dead” only in the Parnia sense, but not in a way that makes biological brain activity impossible.

Here’s Wiki on confirmation bias too by the way, which appears to have you firmly in its grip:

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is insuperable for most people, but they can manage it, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[Enki]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/near-death-experiences-during-cpr-impetus-better-care-2024a10002m7?form=fpf


********

"Many people label recalled experiences of death as 'near-death' experiences, but they're not," Parnia said. "Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it."

********

Parnia also accepted that there is evidence that the cells in the body (including the brain) can remain viable for several hours after being starved of oxygen.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/near-death-experiences-during-cpr-impetus-better-care-2024a10002m7?form=fpf


********

"Many people label recalled experiences of death as 'near-death' experiences, but they're not," Parnia said. "Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it."

********

I'm sorry but he is talking non-sense. Someone who has suffered a cardiac arrest isn't dead, until or unless there is an irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. Parnia is being at best disingenuous in the extreme and at worst deeply dishonest in claiming that someone merely suffering a cardiac arrest is dead - they aren't.

[Sriram]

It is quite clear therefore that no one knows what death really is. It is a process and no one is clear precisely where and at what point it takes a definitive turn towards permanence and irreversibility.

We should perhaps stop trying to define death as purely a biological process and try defining it in terms of consciousness.

[torridon]

It is quite clear therefore that no one knows what death really is. It is a process and no one is clear precisely where and at what point it takes a definitive turn towards permanence and irreversibility.

We should perhaps stop trying to define death as purely a biological process and try defining it in terms of consciousness.

Consciousness is a biological function, one of many

[Enki]

It is quite clear therefore that no one knows what death really is. It is a process and no one is clear precisely where and at what point it takes a definitive turn towards permanence and irreversibility.

We should perhaps stop trying to define death as purely a biological process and try defining it in terms of consciousness.

A person can lose consciousness quite easily in situations entirely unrelated to death, so, although consciousness is one element, there are, I suggest, other equally or more important factors to consider when describing the death process.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It is quite clear therefore that no one knows what death really is. It is a process and no one is clear precisely where and at what point it takes a definitive turn towards permanence and irreversibility.

We should perhaps stop trying to define death as purely a biological process and try defining it in terms of consciousness.

Here's another set of corrections for you to ignore.

1. Yes we do know what death “really is” – it’s the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. When exactly these functions become irreversible is delineated by our ability to define and detect these phenomena but the principle at least is broadly agreed.   

2. No, death isn’t a process. Dying is a process, but death itself isn’t.

3. Death is definable as “as purely a biological process” as consciousness is a biological process too. If you want to insert the notion of life/death involving a non-biological component then you have all your work ahead of you first to define and then to  demonstrate the existence of such a thing.         

[Sriram]

Consciousness is a biological function, one of many

That is just an assertion. You don't actually know that for a fact....!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That is just an assertion. You don't actually know that for a fact....!

Yes he does.

[Outrider]

That is just an assertion. You don't actually know that for a fact....!

Given the range and extent of demonstrable correlations between not just consciousness and neural activity, but particular states of consciousness and particular patterns of neural activity in particular regions of the brain, it would take wilful ignorance to assert that consciousness isn't, at least in part, a biological activity.

There remains the possibility that it is not JUST a biological activity, but there seems no immediate reason to presume that it's anything more than biological activity.

It is, though, beyond any reasonable doubt, a biological activity.

O.

[jeremyp]

It is quite clear therefore that no one knows what death really is.

Speak for yourself. What is wrong with PD's definition?

It is a process and no one is clear precisely where and at what point it takes a definitive turn towards permanence and irreversibility.

If you don't know the point at which death occurs, how can you possibly say that NDE's occur while the patient is dead?

We should perhaps stop trying to define death as purely a biological process and try defining it in terms of consciousness.

That doesn't help you. If death is permanent loss of consciousness, then people who have experienced NDE's are definitely not dead.