Near-death experiences and consciousness

Do you think it's worthwhile to investigate what this means? It's looking a bit like, technically, this maybe can't be shown, but I don't know yet.If I suggest (after reviewing the evidence and explaining my reasons) that it can't be known that brain activity stops, are you going to be willing to address the technical arguments? Such a finding would simply mean that this NDE info is not evidence for biological or non-biological explanations of consciousness.Is that worthwhile to you? I'm willing to go ahead, read the references, and ask my colleagues (who do EEG stuff for a living) about what an EEG flat line does and does not mean.Ben

By all means ask them.

While that line is quoted in the Ode magazine article, it does not appear in the Lancet publish one. Is that from some interview and is it simply an personal assertion or believe?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's totally misleading.If that figure applies to the populas, then that assumes 100% have been dead for a short while. What is the percentage of people who have been brain dead? For example 15% of the populas. Then figure out the percentage of the people who were brain dead, of which experienced the event. Then, all you can conclude logically, is that a small percentage of those who have died, experienced the inexplicable event. You can infact not infer anything about the populas as a whole.For all you know, if we all died for ten minutes, 80% of us could remember the death period, and I would say the 20% is accounted for, via the lack of ability witin some brains. As surely as only some can pass an IQ test at 100, so would this be in this scenario, posssibly, IMHO. The fact is that if consciousness did survive the brain, then that would mean that thoughts outside of the brain during brain death, would not depend on the brain, and therefore your brain would not necessarily remember the death-period, but rather it might just remember segments, or incoherency, or nothing.It could also be a possibility that those who have been able to remember, were meant to remember. Don't forget, his quote mentioned the ability of enhanced memory during death, which the brain doesn't have during life.These variables are all hypothetically valid in an area of uncertainty, IMHO.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-29-2005 01:26 PM

What would you consider a sufficient sample size to derive data applicable to the general populace?TTFN,WK

Sampling is more than numbers. If for instance, culture is relevant (and IIRC it is), then the sample needs to take that into account.h

It does appear in the study. Read it. I can't copy and paste from that link, but it's there.

The study argues that the fact that only a portion experienced NDEs shows it is not likely to be the result of a medical phenomenon such as brain activity, but shows something else.

Well, I did read it again. And still could not find it in the Lancet Article, although, as I said, it is quoted in the pop-sci interview.Just to be sure, I searched on the single word 'disappeaared' which is part of your quote. That word itself does not appear in the Lancet article.Now it's very possible that I overlooked something so if you can point out the page, column and paragraph it would help.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Look under Discussion, which starts: Go to the last page and there are clear references to the fact NDES occur when "the brain no longer functions...with a flat EEG."It's unequivocal in it's claims.

I don't trust statistics.My worry here is the major term.If the conclusion refers to every member of the major term, then the premise must also refer to every member.In this case, surely we come close to the illicit process, in that Aracnophilia is saying something about the major term, after looking at some members of that term.If we had 20% of Brits that were chess players, does that mean 20% of the population are chess players? (Paul K's comment is very relevant to this point aswell).I don't see statistics as all that conclusive. You can put spin on them, and basically make them mean anything you want them to and not know that you are even doing anything wrong. I also dislike analogies because of their silent implications that are really biased.

Actually, it looks like you are once again playing with the facts. The initial quote does not appear in the Lancet article, at least, having completely read and reread it several times, I have not been able to find it. Your quote does not appear to be from the Lancet article but rather solely from the Ode magazine article. Well, that's not what the Lancet article says. The closet thing I can find in the Lancet article is not from their study but a reference to yet another study. Far from being unequivocal in it's claims, the actual conclusion is Doesn't sound like they reached any conclusion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, you aren't reading the same article or you are glossing over it over and picking and choosing quotes out of context.The original quote may not be word for word in the article, but clearly he refers to the same idea, that brains are inactive due to flat EEGs, and therefore the patient's memories cannot be explained by brain activity.The statement you think is inclusive is merely a nice, academic way of stating that the evidence suggests consciousness is not localised in the brain.

That's the same sense I got from reading (most of) the article. I would be absolutely shocked to see a scientist, especially at such an early stage of research with so many theoretical avenues wide open, make any equivocal statement at all. That was the take-home point I got from the Lancet article as well.Randman, I'll talk to some colleagues at work tomorrow and see if I can get some answers about the minimum level of brain activity which is detectable by EEGs, and thus what set of conditions could possibly show a flat EEG.Ben

Are you talking about the article you originally posted or the actual paper from Lancet? This is a gross overstatement.TTFN,WK