Anyone care to assess why the author claims NEDs occur when the brain is not functioning?
Sure. He's driven by an agenda to establish a pseudo-scientific basis for the existence of the soul. It's clear from his paper, and clear from his comments. Otherwise he wouldn't be making these statements in the absence of any evidence.
He addresses that specifically and generally in his references to medical causes and in the other article written by him I quoted from.
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.
Moreover, one of the accounts he relies on deals with a woman who had the blood drained from here brain, operated on at very cold temperatures, with her eyes taped shut and yet she a very accurate description of details of the operation.
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.
*edited to correct link and page number*
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-Dec-2005 10:50 AM
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-Dec-2005 10:51 AM
Do you believe a person's consciousness or a form of consciousness can exist without the brain then?
If it can exist without the brain; remain in the physical world and make observations, hear sounds, see things, etc - why do we need brains at all? Why not have an empty skull? Maybe with a little hatch on the back to store things?
What do our brains do if not thinking and remembering? And if that's not what they do, then why do drugs work?
quote:the brain also has a high degree of activity while it's running out of oxygen -- and THOSE effects seem to explain nde's.
How? We have a peer-reviewed study in a prestigious scientific journal claiming otherwise
peer review and publication of a study in a scientific journal doesn't mean all of the author's opinions and beliefs are facts.
and we have your statement with no data given to back it up.
or, if you had read the study you were talking about:
quote:And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21
4 Lempert T, Bauer M, Schmidt D. Syncope and near-death experience. Lancet 1994; 344: 829-30. [PubMed] 21 Schröter-Kunhardt M. Nah--Todeserfahrungen aus psychiatrisch-neurologischer Sicht. In: Knoblaub H, Soeffner HG, eds. Todesnähe: interdisziplinäre Zugänge zu einem außergewöhnlichen Phänomen. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1999: 65-99. 23 Penfield W. The excitable cortex in conscious man. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1958. 24 Meduna LT. Carbon dioxide therapy: a neuropsychological treatment of nervous disorders. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1950. 25 Whinnery JE, Whinnery AM. Acceleration-induced loss of consciousness. Arch Neurol 1990; 47: 764-76. [PubMed] 26 Jansen K. Neuroscience, ketamine and the near-death experience: the role of glutamate and the NMDA-receptor. In: Bailey LW, Yates J, eds. The near-death experience: a reader. New York and London: Routledge, 1996: 265-82 27 Greyson B. Biological aspects of near-death experiences. Perspect Biol Med 1998; 42: 14-32. [PubMed] 28 Grof S, Halifax J. The human encounter with death. New York: Dutton, 1977.
anyways, not to be accused of quotemining, the article is say that those explanations do not fully explain the phenominon. the above is immediately followed by:
quote:These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE.
no reference given, but i'll assume for the benefit of the doubt it's talked about in one of the above references.
quote: Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.
and that's simply a result of the interpretation of the event by the cardiac arrect victim. if you black out while in a g-force simulator, you're not going to think you died and went to heaven, and if you have a hallucination while on lsd, you're more likely to rationalize it as such. but if you're on the operating table, and you die, you're less likely to think it was a product of your own biology. the fact that it means something to someone doesn't make it real, or an external phenominon.
the article is arguing, basically, that biology alone is not enough. which is a "duh" statement. if we're counting after effects like the ones above, we're obvious including psychology. it's a call for explanation, not an explanation.
what i am saying is that i consider the physiological and biological causes, when added to the psychological ones, to be enough, because the lack of an external meaning is contextual, and the fragmentation of memories is not a large enough difference. it's the same process, with similar results -- no suprises here.
but i do agree with one point in the article: it should be studied more.
Actually, it's just not about the Lancet article. That's just one article. It's about the idea. The fact you reject the idea so staunchly, imo, is surprising if you really believe in the existence of the soul, or consciousness independent of the body.
It's telling, imo, that you don't want to settle the issue by answering a simple question.
But what is really odd is that you seem to deny that the doctor is even making these claims. At least WK here, even though he disagrees with the doctor, is willing to admit Van Pommel makes the claim of consciousness functioning while the brain is not.
Thus far, you have not even been willing to acknowledge that fact, and it is an uncontestable fact that this is what the doctor claims.