Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Near-death experiences and consciousness
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 145 (263989)
11-29-2005 1:37 AM


The most remarkable thing, Van Lommel says, is that his patients have such consciousness-expanding experiences while their brains register no activity. But that’s impossible, according to the current level of medical knowledge. Because most scientists believe that consciousness occurs in the brain, this creates a mystery: How can people experience consciousness while they are unconscious during a cardiac arrest (a clinical death)?
After all those years of intensive study, Van Lommel still speaks with reverence about the miracle of the near-death experience. “At that moment these people are not only conscious; their consciousness is even more expansive than ever. They can think extremely clearly, have memories going back to their earliest childhood and experience an intense connection with everything and everyone around them. And yet the brain shows no activity at all!”
This has raised a number of large questions for Van Lommel: “What is consciousness and where is it located? What is my identity? Who is doing the observing when I see my body down there on the operating table? What is life? What is death?”
....
In order to convince his colleagues of the validity of these new insights, Van Lommel first had to demonstrate that this expansion of the consciousness occurred, in fact, during the period of brain death. It was not difficult to prove. Patients were often able to describe precisely what had happened during their cardiac arrest. They knew, for example, exactly where the nurse put their dentures or what doctors and family members had said. How would someone whose brain wasn’t active know these things?
Nevertheless, some scientists continue to assert that these experiences must happen at a time when there is still some brain function going on. Van Lommel is crystal clear in his response: “When the heart stops beating, blood flow stops within a second. Then, 6.5 seconds later, EEG activity starts to change due to the shortage of oxygen. After 15 seconds there is a straight, flat line and the electrical activity in the cerebral cortex has disappeared completely. We cannot measure the brain stem, but testing on animals has demonstrated that activity has ceased there as well. Moreover, you can prove that the brain stem is no longer functioning because it regulates our basic reflexes, such as the pupil response and swallowing reflex, which no longer respond. So you can easily stick a tube down someone’s throat. The respiratory centre also shuts down. If the individual is not reanimated within five to 10 minutes, their brain cells are irreversibly damaged.” He is aware that his findings on consciousness fly in face of orthodox scientific thinking. It is remarkable that an authoritative science journal like The Lancet was willing to publish his article. But it wasn’t without a struggle. Van Lommel recalls with a smile, “It took months before I got the green light. And then they suddenly wanted it finished, within a day.”
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4207
Imo, the study published in the Lancet scientifically confirms that consciousness exists outside of the brain and after death. The fact people can remember what happened when their brain is inactive and they are dead is proof positive of this.
For this discussion, I suggest this go into the ID forum simply because I think in order to talk about an ID mechanism, that something like consciousness needs to be discussed, perhaps defined which is hard to do. In other words, if we are going to discuss a potential for an Intelligent Consciousness to affect the natural world, I think it's useful to discuss what consciousness is, and where it resides.
So my topic proposal is to discuss this study, and the claims stemming from it. I will say that although I have met people with experiences such as the one described, I see a flaw in the magazine's depiction of the study (haven't read the original) in that some people do not have such a positive experience, and have even had the experience of being in a pit not being able to get out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-29-2005 10:03 AM randman has not replied
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 10:46 AM randman has replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 11:26 AM randman has not replied
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2005 11:27 AM randman has not replied
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2005 8:27 PM randman has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 145 (264057)
11-29-2005 9:11 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Placed in Is It Science? because there is strong likelihood that this will turn out to be an example of what was discussed in most scientific papers are wrong?
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-29-2005 08:15 AM


  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 145 (264075)
11-29-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-29-2005 1:37 AM


There was a long thread on this before NDE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 1:37 AM randman has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 4 of 145 (264089)
11-29-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-29-2005 1:37 AM


A link to the actual study
randman,
I couldn't find a link to the actual study, so I did a quick search. Turns out it's available free online.
http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf
Imo, the study published in the Lancet scientifically confirms that consciousness exists outside of the brain and after death. The fact people can remember what happened when their brain is inactive and they are dead is proof positive of this.
I agree that would be really nice evidence. Although there's always other hypotheses, so "proof positive" is a little strong. But itdefinitely would be nice evidence, and put some pressure on scientists to find evidence that might support another hypothesis.
I'm interested to know how "brain inactivity" is operationally defined--that's a critical part in knowing if the study is being interpreted validly. Randman, do you know? If not, I'll try to make time to look through the study and find out. But if you know, that would be a huge help.
Ben
This message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/11/29 07:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 1:37 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 11:27 AM Ben! has not replied
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 11:49 AM Ben! has not replied
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 12:21 PM Ben! has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 145 (264094)
11-29-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-29-2005 1:37 AM


Imo, the study published in the Lancet scientifically confirms that consciousness exists outside of the brain and after death.
Well, no, it doesn't. The study didn't even measure brain activity, so they had no way of knowing whether or not brain activity had ceased.
I take it you haven't actually read the study. Van Lommel's remarks are supported by absolutely nothing actually contained in his study, and your entire post is an attempt to equivocate his personal, unsupported speculations with legitimate scientific research and discovery.
The fact people can remember what happened when their brain is inactive and they are dead is proof positive of this.
The fact is that this is not a fact; the entire study has one anecdote about a comatose - not brain-dead - man remembering where his dentures were. In other studies of the same thing, respondents were consistently inaccurate about what actually went on during their resuccitation; the most likely experience is that they're simply conflating things they've watched on TV medical shows with what actually happened. Which is not surprising; most medical TV programs are either written and created by doctors, or have very good medical consultants.
Once again, you've completely misunderstood what peer-review research is. You've completely ignored the fact that none of Van Lommel's statements appear to be supported by his research. He's either a poor scientist indeed, or drastically misquoted for this article. And your attempt to bait-and-switch - trying to offer a media interview as "scientific proof" is just further evidence of your disgusting, insulting mendacity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 1:37 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2005 11:37 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 145 (264095)
11-29-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-29-2005 1:37 AM


here's a problem
quote:
The most remarkable thing, Van Lommel says, is that his patients have such consciousness-expanding experiences while their brains register no activity.[...] How can people experience consciousness while they are unconscious during a cardiac arrest (a clinical death)?
clinically dead ≠ brain dead.
clinical death is when the cardio-pulmonary system stops. usually a person can be revived with cpr, or with electrical stimulation.
brain death is when all electrical activity in the brain stops. to the best of my knowledge, brain death is by definition not reversible. instances where an eeg reports no activity but the patient is revived are not considered brain death, iirc. i think the declaration needs to be confirmed a day later for it to stand.
anyways, this is from the actual article:
quote:
With a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one.
(see above for reference)
this in the interpretation part of the abstract. it's just not good science. that's like saying that since speeding is a leading cause highway fatalites, most people who speed should die on the highway. causation is not commutable like that. although a factor may contribute to one effect, it is not gauranteed to contribute to the same effect in all situations.
similarly, i could make the same claim regarding religion: if nde's were geniune spiritual experiences, why don't ALL clinically-dead-and-revived patients report it? the study shows 18%, and 12% that reported the standard experience.
12%.
doesn't that make it an usual occurance? so does everyone's conciousness live outside their brain, or just 12%?
quote:
Nevertheless, some scientists continue to assert that these experiences must happen at a time when there is still some brain function going on. Van Lommel is crystal clear in his response: “When the heart stops beating, blood flow stops within a second. Then, 6.5 seconds later, EEG activity starts to change due to the shortage of oxygen. After 15 seconds there is a straight, flat line and the electrical activity in the cerebral cortex has disappeared completely. We cannot measure the brain stem, but testing on animals has demonstrated that activity has ceased there as well. Moreover, you can prove that the brain stem is no longer functioning because it regulates our basic reflexes, such as the pupil response and swallowing reflex, which no longer respond. So you can easily stick a tube down someone’s throat. The respiratory centre also shuts down. If the individual is not reanimated within five to 10 minutes, their brain cells are irreversibly damaged.”
how do we know the experiences are happening, or the memories being added while the brain is inactive? the brain works in very strange ways -- have you ever had a dream that took hours while you dozed off for a few minutes? i remember dreams that centered around a particular sound. where did the minutes of lead-up to a momentary experience come from?
now, i've seen two bits of evidence, and one bit of non-evidence that kind of hamper this particular interpretation.
  1. airforce pilots report them all the time: during g-force centrifuge training. draining the blood from the brain produces all the stereotypical symptoms including tunnel vision, bright lights, out of body experiences, and the occasional flashback.
  2. ketamine has been known to produce similar results, which is why they stopped using it.
  3. i heard of a study (if someone can find this, please do) where an exceptional number of nde were beng reported in a particular hospital. since many reported looking down on their dying bodies in the er, they placed various signs on top of equipment, hanging lights, etc, coded with colors and messages and such. to my knowledge, no one reported them after an nde, let alone got the right answer. that suggests that nde's are something internal, not external.
there's another similar phenominon, too: sleep paralysis. it's also been known to produce out of body experiences, and sensations of weightlessness. lots of people report these experiences as alien abductions or demonic visitation, because it's usually accompanied by visions of distorted figures and extreme terror. but those who understand it can control it to a degree, and make it go away.
the brain simply does strange things. who's to say that memories involving the passage of time and events are really indicative of the passage of time or events?
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-29-2005 11:28 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 1:37 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 11:54 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2005 1:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 145 (264096)
11-29-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ben!
11-29-2005 10:46 AM


Re: A link to the actual study
I'm interested to know how "brain inactivity" is operationally defined--that's a critical part in knowing if the study is being interpreted validly.
In the study, they aren't defining it - they're using cardiac arrest as a clinical definition of death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 10:46 AM Ben! has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 145 (264099)
11-29-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
11-29-2005 11:26 AM


The study didn't even measure brain activity, so they had no way of knowing whether or not brain activity had ceased.
it mentions the acronym "EEG" a few times. once in anecdotal sense (?!?) and once in a presumed sense (ie: "EEG usually becomes flat 10 minutes after cardiac arrest").
but no, they don't seem to actually be studying brain activity.
the entire study has one anecdote about a comatose - not brain-dead - man remembering where his dentures were.
well, there's another anecdote, actually involving a flat eeg, with a reference:
quote:
22 Sabom MB. Light and death: one doctors fascinating account of near-death experiences. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998: 37-52.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-29-2005 11:38 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 11:26 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 11:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 9 of 145 (264102)
11-29-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
11-29-2005 11:37 AM


Looks like the last page of the study is the most relevant to "brain activity". You mentioned some.. there's one other section that seems relevant:
Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30
Those studies may have more information about relating "brain activity" with the contents of this study.
29 Clute HL, Levy WJ. Electroencephalographic changes during brief cardiac arrest in humans. Anesthesiology 1990; 73: 821-25.


30 Aminoff MJ, Scheinman MM, Griffing JC, Herre JM. Electrocerebral accompaniments of syncope associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 791-96.
I don't have time to find refs or poke around in these other studies right now. Maybe tomorrow.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2005 11:37 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 10 of 145 (264103)
11-29-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ben!
11-29-2005 10:46 AM


Re: A link to the actual study
We defined clinical death as a period of unconsciousness caused by
insufficient blood supply to the brain because of inadequate blood circulation, breathing, or both. If, in this situation, CPR is not started within 5-10 min, irreparable damage is done to the brain and the patient will die.
They don't actually use brain activity as the relevant criteria, but the assumption is that a flat EEG is achieved within about 10 seconds of the heart ceasing to beat.
The paper doesn't suggest that EEGs were actually taken for most of the patients in the study.
The 'Veridical out-of-body-experience' example seems to be nothing more than pure anecdote, and not really suitable for a scientific study, there seems to be no objective measure of the veracity of any such experiences. To my mind this is the weakest element of the paper, and the only part which really argues for any seperation of consciousness from the physical.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 10:46 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 11:50 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 145 (264104)
11-29-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wounded King
11-29-2005 11:49 AM


Re: A link to the actual study
Darn, thats the last time I leave a post half finished and go and do some work. I'm so redundant!!!
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 11:49 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 12 of 145 (264106)
11-29-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
11-29-2005 11:27 AM


Re: here's a problem
brain death is when all electrical activity in the brain stops. to the best of my knowledge, brain death is by definition not reversible. instances where an eeg reports no activity but the patient is revived are not considered brain death, iirc.
If you could find any ref on this, that'd be great. It'd be surprising, as EEG is a pretty basic electrical signal. Certainly weak signals can be damped by the skull, and the amount of damping depends on the actual tools that they're using.
But if that's the case, then we're talking semantics--the real information would simply not be measurable given the tools. "Brain death" would then just be defined not based on some unmeasurable measurement, but on a definition (i.e. can't be revived). So it just means the term wouldn't be useful for this discussion, I think.

I do think your overall argument and evidence are pretty compelling, and that NDE can successfully be explained--as long as there's brain activity. Certainly the brain uses reconstructive processes all the time; NDE being "out of body" or "unrealistic" is not a problem at all. The same thing goes with "time compression" and all that. Not much problem explaining that either.
So really, I think the interesting point is to focus on the claim of "no brain activity" and seeing how memory formation relates to such epochs.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2005 11:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2005 8:13 PM Ben! has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 145 (264110)
11-29-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ben!
11-29-2005 10:46 AM


Re: A link to the actual study
I don't know for sure, but the claim in the article is that electrical signals stop, and that electrical signals measure brain activitity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 10:46 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 11-29-2005 12:33 PM randman has replied
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 11-29-2005 7:59 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 145 (264114)
11-29-2005 12:28 PM


brain activity
After 15 seconds there is a straight, flat line and the electrical activity in the cerebral cortex has disappeared completely.
It seems to me the doctor addresses the issue of brain activity here. His work was published in a prestigious medical journal.
Can anyone show where it is likely that electrical activity continues in the cerebral cortex after 15 seconds, or is it more a statement of belief that somehow the brain must still be functioning?

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 12:32 PM randman has not replied
 Message 18 by jar, posted 11-29-2005 12:42 PM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 145 (264117)
11-29-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
11-29-2005 12:28 PM


Re: brain activity
Can anyone show where it is likely that electrical activity continues in the cerebral cortex after 15 seconds, or is it more a statement of belief that somehow the brain must still be functioning?
The statement of belief is the unsupported assumption that the experience itself happens during the time of loss of brain function. Also, the study doesn't specifically indicate that the patients were uniformly in an arrested state long enough for brain function to cease, as near as I can tell. Van Lommel doesn't even come right out and say that every patient had no brain activity while they experienced their NDE, probably because he knows it's not possible to verify exactly when the experience took place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 12:28 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024