Near-death experiences and consciousness

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

Darn, thats the last time I leave a post half finished and go and do some work. I'm so redundant!!!TTFN,WK

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

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

There is absoloutely no evidence presented in the article to show the timing and therefore simultaneity of NDE with flat lining, its sole argument for that is based on anecdotal accounts of verified details from out of body experiences, something which the study didn't actually look at.TTFN,WK

Now where does it say that there is a flat EEG for the entire period of time? Have you read the paper? He does mention the 10-15 seconds in the journal paper, that has absoloutely no bearing on the fact the the actual instance of the experience of the NDE is impossible to pinpoint unless there is some real hard objective evidence to tie experiences within the NDE with external events. The only reason to include anecdotal accounts of veridical observations during an NDE is to tie the timing into that of the fltlining EEG, and it is the only evidence presented to tie them in. The fact they choose to use that as an a priori assumption doesn't mean that all of those people were flatlining when they had their NDEs. Whether there was any electrical activity or not is only important if you can show that the NDE actually occurred during that period, not merely that they recall it as having done so but some actual objective measure to allow you to place the timing. Please provide the relevant, non-anecdotal, evidence from the paper.TTFN,WK

The bit where the 'specific memories' are supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence. No, it doesn't. It records a number of common experiences associated with NDE, it doesn't provide any timing for them based on anything other than assumption and the two anecdotal accounts, one within the paper and one referenced, perhaps the referenced one is not merely anecdotal we would need access to that paper to find out. It doesn't list 'remembered facts' it lists remembered experiences, can you spot the subjectivity? Have you read any of the paper? That entire section is in quote marks because it is the authors recounting an ANECDOTE told to them by a nurse about an instance the nurse recalled where they were struck by the accuracy of details the patient gave while he was being revived after being in a coma. In what way is this anything other than pure anecdote?Anecdotal evidence is real evidence, it just isn't strong or compelling evidence as it is so dependent on the subjective experiences of human beings. A Factual claim might well be supported by anecdotal evidence, but not well supported enough for everyone to accept it as a fact.TTFN,WK

Its as conclusive as when people remember things which have never happened to them.Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the work of Elizabeth Loftus.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-29-2005 08:03 PM

Well the studies authors claim that their research shows this, on the grounds that only a few patients recalled having an NDE while if it was a purely physiological effect of the lack of oxygen they contend that everyone should have had one. Of course patients may have had them and not remembered.It might be interesting to find out how the proportion reportinf NDEs compares to the usual proportions of recollection of dreams upon waking, or whether those who experienced NDEs were more prone than others to recalling their dreams.TTFN,WK

Could you try and get the journal's name right! It is called 'The Lancet'. A lancet is a surgical instrument while a lancelet is a cephalochordate.Not even getting the name right doesn't bode well for your grasp of the details of the research.TTFN,WK

Eh? What is this supposed to mean? They don't go into any of the patients experiences in that are, that are being veridical accounts of events ocurring during the time their EEG was flatlined. The only account in the paper is an anecdotal account from a nurse, it isn't even clear whether or not the patient in question was one who was part of the study. The only other example is merely a reference, which hardly counts as detailed.The fact that you claim this suggests that you have only read other peoples posts about this rather than having read the whole article yourself. No it doesn't, please quote any evidence of this from the article which isn't from the nurses anecdote. So if I assert something as a fact it suddenly stops being an assertion, cool. I assert as a fact that you are failing to discuss the data at all because the data to support your claims simply isn't in the paper. There are no data relating to the timing of the experiences or localising the experiences during the period of flat EEG other than the anecdotal account of the nurse.TTFN,WK

Just look at that part of the article.. can you see where the one anecdotal instance in the paper has suddenly become 'They', one patient has become a 'they', and this isn't even based on the patients account but on an account of one of the nurses who attended them.The anecdote also doesn't give us any reason to suppose the patient was flatlined. The doctors were performing CPR and ventilating the patient for one and a half hours presumably this treatment was itself aerating the brain, otherwise the patient's brain would have died due to the lack of oxygen. All you can really say is that the patient appeared comatose, you don't know what state his brain activity was in.TTFN,WK

The answer is obvious, he claims it because he accepts the anecdotal accounts of veridical observations by a patient, or more than one patient, during a supposed OBE/NDE. If we were to accept both the flat lining and the timing of the incident recounted in the paper, neither of which are all that well evidenced, then his localisation of the timing would be strong evidence for the experience occurring during that period. Absent any such evidence it is pretty unconvincing.TTFN,WK

Tht isn't actually what I was arguing in this instance, although it is a perfectly reasonable argument as is Ben's line of thought as to whether a flat EEG really represents zero electrical activity in the brain. I was actually arguing that the anecdotal account doesn't suggest that the patient was flat lining at the time of the supposed experience.My extensive watching of ER suggests that they would have started CPR and ventilation before they intubated him, the explicit purpose of both of which is to maintain oxygenation and circulation in vital organs. So we may assume that there was some oxygenated blood getting to the patients brain prior to the nurse removing his dentures. So all we are left with is the comatose state of the patient, which doesn't neccessarily reflect the comatose states visible on an EEG and certainly doesn't imply a flat EEG would have been measured during the supposed OBE/NDE.TTFN,WK

Well why not direct us to the specific points he makes to address it then, rather than making me read both articles again right the way through. I hope you will forgive the rather unorthodox approach to the remainder of this reply. Given that this refernce is to a book to which I don't have ready access it is hard to tell exactly what that particualr case shows.I have however tracked down an old JREF thread which has a sizable extract from the relevant chapter of the book. To get to the relevant section find 'page 37' and you will have the right post. This post is from a memeber of the board who has been convinced that a number of the claims about Pam Reynolds NDE have been confused in retelling, and that confusion is echoed in the section you quote.If you read the account of the operation, from the book Van Lommel referenced, you will see that in fact all of the details that might be properly verified, and are attested to on any number of pro NDE websites, occurred prior to the chilling and draining of the blood. There are veridical details associated with the OBE but not with the actual period of flat EEG.If you are aware of particulars which contradict this interpretation I would be glad to hear them.TTFN,WK*edited to correct link and page number*This message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-Dec-2005 10:50 AMThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-Dec-2005 10:51 AM