Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LightAngel

Consciousness Without Brain Activity.

598 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MauriOra
6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

When you die surely that connection is severed? Then you could go anywhere you want? 

I just think it would happen a lot if we really did have a seperately consciousness from our bodies. 

Like Xeno said people are worried about themselves. 

If I died in the same hospital as the rock, I'd would not go back into my own body given the chance, I would upgrade. Or go into a young body, we could cheat death like that and just keep upgrading into new shells. Cloning would be a lucrative enterprise. 

Just seems it should happen, and often, if that was the case. 

Hey Mr Psych ..

Thanks for responding ..

When you Die, The Chord or Thread is severed from the Body, and You Go forth to The Spiritual Plane , From the Earth plane ...Like in Birth, The Umbilical Chord is cut, and There you spring forth into the Earth Plane.. From The Spiritual Plane .. 

You dont go anywhere you want .. Once severed, your beckoned back to the Source, Your Energetic Imprint is Guided Home ..

Xeno, says a lot of things and right now He'd Be Wise to take His Own Advice and Worry About Him Self .. 

You wouldn't get the Rocks Body or a Younger Body, why .? You still have Desire for Something thats not yours .. Rather then being Grateful for the Lessons Learnt being Who You Are In This Life ..That Is Yours ..

Seems and Should are not Definitive.. Which means You Dont Know .. 

Some people Do Know .. But they are not being heard, because its not fitting into the 3D Model ..

Donna ..xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101
10 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

A quick surge of energy of that nature was detected in mice in one study. 

It was rats actually, the University of Michigan did the experiments. 

Sam Parnia and many others seem to think its a highly significant break through. I dunno WCF, there's some very intelligent people who are very excited about this. I don't think it's a random worthless one off because of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Isn't the entire subject more than a huge assumption? 

Why not? 

Many compare it to lucid dreaming  which does offer control doesn't it? 

Doctor Kevin Nelson says they are the same thing and both take place in the same area of the brain. 

More than 8 million Americans have had a near-death experience, and they most often occur during states of anesthesia-induced sleep, according to the center. Prior work by neurologists, including Kevin Nelson of the University of Kentucky, suggests that NDEs are indeed generated by the same brain mechanisms that cause lucid dreams. Nelson's research shows that both types of experiences arise when part of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal region — our "logical center," which is usually active only when we're awake — becomes active during REM sleep, allowing extremely vivid dreams that seem to be happening in real life. He calls the transitional state between dreaming and wakefulness a "borderland of consciousness" and believes it is in this mixed state that lucid dreams and NDEs occur.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html

There's a trick to being dead now? 

What do you mean exactly, I have not seen that movie in decades, but if I do remember correctly didn't swayze have his fair share of problems? And isn't that quite similar to the general view of the afterlife? 

You are mocking now phsyche. Let's not turn an otherwise cordial conversation into a spew of underhanded adhominyns. 

Thats why I said "beyond the obvious" referring to assumptions being made. 

No an NDE is nothing like a lucid dream other than maybe that you can float around. And no... they do not occur in the same area of the brain. What a silly comment for two reasons. During NDEs there is no brain function as we have already established, and it's extremely unethical to be monitoring a humans brain with the technology that can do so while someone is dieing. So obviously we wouldn't know what area of the brain would be associated with NDEs if there ever is one. As I have mentioned, This has been done with animals, and there is no brain function after cardiac arrest. Blood pressure is necessary to push sugar and oxygen into the cellular recepticals in nurons. 

As I said. Beyond the obvious that is a huge assumption that it could even be done. Much less by the equivalent of a newbie to being dead ( Hahahahah). Even in Patrick's world it took him a while to figure out much less simply taking over some young studs body just after death hahahahh. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It was rats actually, the University of Michigan did the experiments. 

Sam Parnia and many others seem to think its a highly significant break through. I dunno WCF, there's some very intelligent people who are very excited about this. I don't think it's a random worthless one off because of that. 

I think it's very interesting..yes. I have long hypothesized that there must be an energetic reaction if a 'spirit' is to connect or disconnect with the brain. I am not surprised by the results, and if you are so inclined for some serous research, somewhere in these threads years ago, you can find me posting about the possibility long before that study was even done. 

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
3 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

...
It would seem that its that easy cut and dry wouldn't it?

Well... yes.  Yes, it would.

Quote

I have actually already addressed this when I mentioned that I wrote to the aware study. The OOB or environment isn't so simple. Even maintaining coherency requires a certain amount of will and an objective. So much of our consciousness is about focus and intent. If you can imagine while in this state, If indeed your consciousness is outside the body, you don't really have eyes looking at something instead you would be sensing the surroundings with some other sort of sense. This sense is far to sensitive to intent and other psychological influences.

So, in other words, you can't really use it for anything provable.  Or, more to the point, it is EXACTLY like a dream or imagination....

Quote

For example during NDEs people can comeback with details, so the  aware study placed things above them facing up in the hopes the would see them and report them latter. That's not the way it works.

So you say.  I say it's EXACTLY like dreaming, and I'm sorry, but this all seems like a convoluted pile of excuses..because it is.

Quote

Now, if you slapped a postit note on their physical forhead with a simple shape, in almost all cases they are looking down at themselves because their focus necessarily goes in that direction. This would yield some strong results. Person says " and then I look down upon myself during the surgery." Researcher " did you notice anything different about your face?" "No?" A glaring bit of contrary data."yes.. a fuzzy yellow square was on my head?" Well that is solid data.

Well, duh.  They had a postit slapped on their face - so there's a pretty good explanation for why they felt/perceived that one.  That's solid data for the dream explanation and nothing else.

Quote

Now that sounds like an excuse, but it's the truth.

It doesn't sound like an excuse, it IS an excuse.

Quote

Now there are other ways to test. I do notice details like my son kicked his blanket off the bed and it has formed and arching shape. One boy had slipped into bed with the other while everyone was sleeping. The garbage truck has come. ( I chased it down the street one time flying above it... quite amusing). My wife has not parked in her normal spot outside. I have done all this. This is all verifiable, but it must be incidental.

Look, I'm sorry but that is just getting silly.  You clearly won't be verifying any of it (but do prove me wrong), and if you do, I'll bet it is so subjective that you would have to get 'matches'.   This all reminding me of someone...........

WCF, you really should have just left it at that - you can't prove it in any objective way, so it all might as well be a dream.  I have no problem with this being a harmless belief and that it brings comfort to many - but do NOT try to tell us that is in any way backed up by science.  It is NOT.

Quote

As I mentioned before. I think real empirical data could be obtained should researchers come and live with me or even maybe spending one day a week at a university for a number of months devising ways for incidental information.

Yes, the key to this is that 'devising' business... Yes, I'm sure you can come up with ways that you have 'successes'.  Subjective successes, or cherry-picked ones...  It's an old trick performed by those claiming paranormalcy (especially those who do seminars and write books and belong to pseudo-scientific self- run organisations like the Institute of Noetic Sciences...)

Quote

The simple what am I holding in my hand trick is nieve and does not take into acount the state the person is in and its quirks. As I mentioned before, only someone who is familiar with the environment is qualified to design the experiment.

Yes, it's funny how simple tests don't work - only complex, convoluted, subjective tests (aka bullmanure) works here.  You honestly don't see what is going on?  And yep, these folks are eminently 'qualified' to perform flawed experiments/studies that will give them the outcomes they desire - I'm currently reviewing one of their books on another thread to show the dirty tricks they use - and guess who that is?  You mention him below..  Thing is, whenever other (real) scientists try to replicate their results, the more careful they are with their methods, the less of an effect they find...

Quote

I had even sat down with Rupert Sheldrake himself

Yep, that's him - one the guys/gals who write the book(s) on this sorta garbage.  It's a real pity when it gets soiled by people like him - as I said, if it was just a harmless belief that would be fine.

 

BTW, just to ironically show how pathetic they are, I just went to the Noetic Sciences webpage to verify Sheldrake's current membership ... and before the homepage appeared I was deluged with popups - Omigod I've won a Samsung Galaxy, and I had been carefully chosen to participate in a survey...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
Posted (edited)
On 9/18/2017 at 7:36 PM, LightAngel said:

Share your thoughts about this topic :)

 

 

 

Rather unconvincing.

Starting with "Where did we get this crazy idea that brains are involved in thinking?" :rolleyes: is not only ridiculous, but not the best way to begin. That's hugely ignorant of whole branches of science. The obvious answer is, from the brain lol.

Then invoking quantum physics in a plea to ignorance doesn't help much. There is a lot we don't know or could be wrong about.

It's also rather disingenuous to say that scientists won't look at data unless you have a theory to go with it. If you could genuinely show via repeatable experiment that the mind existed independently of the brain, the cognitive sciences would swarm all over it. What he should be saying is that unverified non repeatable anecdotes aren't much use, because they aren't.

It's interesting that one of the criticisms of the repeatable scientific studies that have been indicating for a very long time that "consciousness" itself is not likely to be fundamentally involved in the process of decision making, is that the instruments aren't sophisticated enough. Yet often far less sophisticated instruments are the basis for the random and unscientific anecdotal claims these people cling to.

We seem to accept physical explanations for everything else, apart from the mind. For example heat is the vibration of atoms/ molecules. We don't say that because you can't capture a piece of heat itself to study that there is an explanatory gap, or that it must be something mysterious, or bang on about its "qualia". We don't wonder whether heat can flutteraround the universe independently of the process that results in it. Yet we do exactly this with neural activity and the mind, when it's very obvious neural activity in the brain is the mind.

He is claiming that brain function affects consciousness/mind ie. the more the brain is affected, it correspondingly affects the mind. So far so good. Until the point where the brain is sufficiently affected to the point it stops altogether, then somehow consciousness and the mind seems to have never been better? :rolleyes: 

As to people anecdotally seemingly "perking up" in their last moments, equally anecdotally it is not unheard of for clanky old machines in general, to suddenly seem to start working great just before they give out. Why would biological machines be different?

A couple of considerations. Afaik all scientific experiments trying to validate oobe have been failures. Indicating strongly that these are simply dreams with a heightened level of conscious awareness. For anyone who has been successfully under general anaesthetic (without glitch), this could be a good prequel of what to expect in the "hereafter". 

Consciousness itself (as an inner/introspectable mind space) is likely to be a learned social phenomena that we have been (unwittingly) perfecting along with language, rather than a discreet "thing" in itself. Why no one has managed to find it.

This all seems a rather conceited view, that we occupy some special place in the universe because we are under the illusion of being "conscious". As far as that goes I also wonder if people really ponder whether it would be desirable to exist forever. I can only think of one way it might be, but it would in many ways be the antithesis of what we now experience.

 

 

Edited by Horta
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Well... yes.  Yes, it would.

So, in other words, you can't really use it for anything provable.  Or, more to the point, it is EXACTLY like a dream or imagination....

So you say.  I say it's EXACTLY like dreaming, and I'm sorry, but this all seems like a convoluted pile of excuses..because it is.

Well, duh.  They had a postit slapped on their face - so there's a pretty good explanation for why they felt/perceived that one.  That's solid data for the dream explanation and nothing else.

It doesn't sound like an excuse, it IS an excuse.

Look, I'm sorry but that is just getting silly.  You clearly won't be verifying any of it (but do prove me wrong), and if you do, I'll bet it is so subjective that you would have to get 'matches'.   This all reminding me of someone...........

WCF, you really should have just left it at that - you can't prove it in any objective way, so it all might as well be a dream.  I have no problem with this being a harmless belief and that it brings comfort to many - but do NOT try to tell us that is in any way backed up by science.  It is NOT.

Yes, the key to this is that 'devising' business... Yes, I'm sure you can come up with ways that you have 'successes'.  Subjective successes, or cherry-picked ones...  It's an old trick performed by those claiming paranormalcy (especially those who do seminars and write books and belong to pseudo-scientific self- run organisations like the Institute of Noetic Sciences...)

Yes, it's funny how simple tests don't work - only complex, convoluted, subjective tests (aka bullmanure) works here.  You honestly don't see what is going on?  And yep, these folks are eminently 'qualified' to perform flawed experiments/studies that will give them the outcomes they desire - I'm currently reviewing one of their books on another thread to show the dirty tricks they use - and guess who that is?  You mention him below..  Thing is, whenever other (real) scientists try to replicate their results, the more careful they are with their methods, the less of an effect they find...

Yep, that's him - one the guys/gals who write the book(s) on this sorta garbage.  It's a real pity when it gets soiled by people like him - as I said, if it was just a harmless belief that would be fine.

 

BTW, just to ironically show how pathetic they are, I just went to the Noetic Sciences webpage to verify Sheldrake's current membership ... and before the homepage appeared I was deluged with popups - Omigod I've won a Samsung Galaxy, and I had been carefully chosen to participate in a survey...

I know Sheldrake's status. He is the only one interested in testing and I happen to have an audience with him that day he is a funny and open minded guy, but I don't put much stock into the actual science of his endevours either, but some interesting ideas for sure.

The fact that you are interested in Cynicism as an intellectual persuit clearly demonstrates that anything you run across will clearly confirm an obvious bias instead of an honest objective analysis. Much like a religion giving tenants for the demons to be watched for. Psudoskepticism disguising cynicism is what noble skepticism has degenerated to in many minds these days.   As for the rest of it , you are simply spewing the normal **** too. You are absolutely incorrect.

Just because something is difficult to gleam solid empirical proof of dosnt mean it's a "pile of excuses." This is an asinine bias position and you know it. All kinds of experiments need complicated tweeking from qualified people to create the conditions necessary for real objective data to be gleamed. Dont believe me? Try and detect a nutrino. Do you not realize this or do just you read Richard Dawkings' books all the time. Why not some Suskind, Hawking, or Green books. 

I was never trying to verify anything to you, why would I, and how could I? I thought we were merely having a conversation before you smash in to the typical adhom riddled cynical garbage. The truth is that if there is anything to discover, it certainly will not be done by people who think like you do. 

Anyway. I think it's you who should have left it at that. Clearly it's pointless to even have decent conversation with someone obsessed with cynicism, and you exemplify and demonstrate it oh so well. 

You are also absolutely incorrect that it's not useful. Even therepududic techniques like EMDR and methods used in trans personal psychology derive from people trying to underhand this part of humanity. As I have also mentioned, the state opens up the mind to solve problems which is very demonstratable. Then there is the glaring elephant in the room! I personally have used these concepts to help guide dozens of people to conquer lifelong intense fear and depression. I have thank you letters saved right here in UM. I guess that wouldn't constitute proof of usefulness to you. 

Where in that cynical mind of yours can you get off saying it not useful? Clear results with clear methodology.  If you mean useful like spying on Russia... well there is a possibility that it's simply not what it's for, but hey... that's just an excus. Except for the fact that I have never made such claims. 

Anyway charlz. I'm well aware of the paudoskeptial/cynical rhetorical position often held by militant atheists. Make no mistake it's just as logocally ridiculous as our super woo brothers and sisters. ;);) 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Well... yes.  Yes, it would.

So, in other words, you can't really use it for anything provable.  Or, more to the point, it is EXACTLY like a dream or imagination....

So you say.  I say it's EXACTLY like dreaming, and I'm sorry, but this all seems like a convoluted pile of excuses..because it is.

Well, duh.  They had a postit slapped on their face - so there's a pretty good explanation for why they felt/perceived that one.  That's solid data for the dream explanation and nothing else.

It doesn't sound like an excuse, it IS an excuse.

Look, I'm sorry but that is just getting silly.  You clearly won't be verifying any of it (but do prove me wrong), and if you do, I'll bet it is so subjective that you would have to get 'matches'.   This all reminding me of someone...........

WCF, you really should have just left it at that - you can't prove it in any objective way, so it all might as well be a dream.  I have no problem with this being a harmless belief and that it brings comfort to many - but do NOT try to tell us that is in any way backed up by science.  It is NOT.

Yes, the key to this is that 'devising' business... Yes, I'm sure you can come up with ways that you have 'successes'.  Subjective successes, or cherry-picked ones...  It's an old trick performed by those claiming paranormalcy (especially those who do seminars and write books and belong to pseudo-scientific self- run organisations like the Institute of Noetic Sciences...)

Yes, it's funny how simple tests don't work - only complex, convoluted, subjective tests (aka bullmanure) works here.  You honestly don't see what is going on?  And yep, these folks are eminently 'qualified' to perform flawed experiments/studies that will give them the outcomes they desire - I'm currently reviewing one of their books on another thread to show the dirty tricks they use - and guess who that is?  You mention him below..  Thing is, whenever other (real) scientists try to replicate their results, the more careful they are with their methods, the less of an effect they find...

Yep, that's him - one the guys/gals who write the book(s) on this sorta garbage.  It's a real pity when it gets soiled by people like him - as I said, if it was just a harmless belief that would be fine.

 

BTW, just to ironically show how pathetic they are, I just went to the Noetic Sciences webpage to verify Sheldrake's current membership ... and before the homepage appeared I was deluged with popups - Omigod I've won a Samsung Galaxy, and I had been carefully chosen to participate in a survey...

Hahahh you know what is funny about your response to sheldrake? It's people like Dawkins and well... you that throw such a fit over his claims that actually make him more famous and sell more books. Sometimes I wonder if he is just playing you all.

The thing is, I am very well aware of what it takes to prove something under the scrutiny of real science. Just because there is phenomenon that isn't fully understood or fleshed out yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that its nature cannot be discoverd. 

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Did you have to quote me twice?

3 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

I wonder if he is just playing you all

I don't wonder at all.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)

The neutrino analogy is very good - Neutrinos are incredibly tiny, do not interact in any way whatsoever with our normal reality, and even when they were proposed, it was recognised that the measuring devices required would have to be of unprecedented sensitivity.  Those devices are actually quite simple in design, it is not complexity that is the issue.

Let's compare that to your claims, which is that lots of complexity is required...  and yet you concede that there is no real evidence worthy of investigation, and that which exists is explained by simple dreaming and other well understood answers.  I'm just not getting it....

May I also politely suggest you re-read my post in a more pleasant mental voice, and you'll note it doesn't contain direct adhominems at all, apart from my criticism of Sheldrake.  And yet your reply contained all this, and it seems directed at me:

Quote

..anything you run across will clearly confirm an obvious bias instead of an honest objective analysis..
..much like a religion giving tenants for the demons to be watched for..
..Psudoskepticism {sic} disguising cynicism is what noble skepticism has degenerated to..
..you are simply spewing the normal **** too..
..asinine bias..
..you smash in to the typical adhom riddled cynical garbage..
..it certainly will not be done by people who think like you do..
..it's pointless to even have decent conversation with someone obsessed with cynicism, and you exemplify and demonstrate it oh so well..
..Where in that cynical mind of yours can you get off saying it not useful..
..I'm well aware of the paudoskeptial/cynical {sic} rhetorical position often held by militant atheists.

Feel free to quote all the similar content in my post.....?

May I suggest you do a careful mirror check before claiming the high road in future.

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

You are mocking now phsyche. Let's not turn an otherwise cordial conversation into a spew of underhanded adhominyns. 

I take offence to that, I am not mocking and am not sure what you refer too. I have looked into the subject in quite some depth myself  and I honestly feel that there are conventional explanations for that which I feel our species has exaggerated as a coping mechanism for the greatest and most common fear amongst the species - death. 

Quote

Thats why I said "beyond the obvious" referring to assumptions being made. 

That's where I thought you were throwing an ad him, but I decided to let it lay. I don't think much about the discussion is obvious at all. 

There's also two very different views here discussing the subject. 

Quote

No an NDE is nothing like a lucid dream other than maybe that you can float around.

There seems to be quite some debate on that. Some say they are the same experience  one coma patient I read about claimed the entire experience was one big lucid dream, but what medical science does seem to agree on is that both sensations do come from the same part of the brain. 

Quote

And no... they do not occur in the same area of the brain. What a silly comment for two reasons. During NDEs there is no brain function as we have already established,

No, we have not established that, Sam Parnia has proof that's not the case, like I say, things have changed dramatically on that front, and it's probably the first breakthrough in the area in the lest 50 years so it's big news 

Over the last few years, though, scientists have seen repeated evidence that once you die, your brain cells take days, potentially longer, to reach the point past which they’ve degraded too far to ever be viable again. This does not mean you're not dead; you are dead. Your brain cells, however, may not be.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.newsweek.com/where-do-you-go-when-you-die-increasing-signs-human-consciousness-after-death-800443%3famp=1

According to Parnia during this period, "You lose all your brain stem reflexes — your gag reflex, your pupil reflex, all that is gone." Brain waves from the cerebral cortex soon become undetectable. Even so, it can take hours for our thinking organ to fully shut down.

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim

The brain's cerebral cortex — the so-called "thinking part" of the brain — also slows down instantly, and flatlines, meaning that no brainwaves are visible on an electric monitor, within 2 to 20 seconds. This initiates a chain reaction of cellular processes that eventually result in the death of brain cells, but that can take hours after the heart has stopped, Parnia said.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/60593-flatliners-movie-death-resuscitation.html

Quote

and it's extremely unethical to be monitoring a humans brain with the technology that can do so while someone is dieing.

I really don't see any ethical issues arising from a terminal patient agreeing to die in an MRI as opposed to a hospital bed. What do you see as an ethical issue with that? 

Quote

So obviously we wouldn't know what area of the brain would be associated with NDEs if there ever is one.

Then a why are so many saying they can not only associate that part of the brain, but simulate them? 

For instance, the feeling of being dead is not limited to near-death experiences—patients with Cotard or "walking corpse" syndrome hold the delusional belief that they are deceased. This disorder has occurred following trauma, such as during advanced stages of typhoid and multiple sclerosis, and has been linked with brain regions such as the parietal cortex and the prefrontal cortex—"the parietal cortex is typically involved in attentional processes, and the prefrontal cortex is involved in delusions observed in psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia," Mobbs explains. Although the mechanism behind the syndrome remains unknown, one possible explanation is that patients are trying to make sense of the strange experiences they are having.

Out-of-body experiences are also now known to be common during interrupted sleep patterns that immediately precede sleeping or waking. For instance, sleep paralysis, or the experience of feeling paralyzed while still aware of the outside world, is reported in up to 40 percent of all people and is linked with vivid dreamlike hallucinations that can result in the sensation of floating above one's body. A 2005 study found that out-of-body experiences can be artificially triggered by stimulating the right temporoparietal junction in the brain, suggesting that confusion regarding sensory information can radically alter how one experiences one's body.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

 

Quite clearly, research that has demonstrated a surge in brain activity after death that is consistent with active cognitive processing. This at the very least suggests that a neural explanation for these experiences is more than plausible. 

 

Quote

 As I have mentioned, This has been done with animals, and there is no brain function after cardiac arrest.

You acknowledged to Michigan rat study, which clearly refutes that though. 

Quote

Blood pressure is necessary to push sugar and oxygen into the cellular recepticals in nurons. 

Not if they are dying, and it just takes them longer to die. It's just chemicals expending their last reactions just like how thermodynamics converts the last energy left in your body to heat.

Quote

As I said. Beyond the obvious that is a huge assumption that it could even be done. Much less by the equivalent of a newbie to being dead ( Hahahahah). Even in Patrick's world it took him a while to figure out much less simply taking over some young studs body just after death hahahahh. 

We patrick had demi as an inspiration, back in the day, I reckon she was good looking enough to raise the dead. 

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Have a look at these ones for another view. 

 

 

And some of the bigger names from both sides of the argument discuss the subject 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

The neutrino analogy is very good - Neutrinos are incredibly tiny, do not interact in any way whatsoever with our normal reality, and even when they were proposed, it was recognised that the measuring devices required would have to be of unprecedented sensitivity.  Those devices are actually quite simple in design, it is not complexity that is the issue.

Let's compare that to your claims, which is that lots of complexity is required...  and yet you concede that there is no real evidence worthy of investigation, and that which exists is explained by simple dreaming and other well understood answers.  I'm just not getting it....

May I also politely suggest you re-read my post in a more pleasant mental voice, and you'll note it doesn't contain direct adhominems at all, apart from my criticism of Sheldrake.  And yet your reply contained all this, and it seems directed at me:

Feel free to quote all the similar content in my post.....?

May I suggest you do a careful mirror check before claiming the high road in future.

I don't claim high roads chrlz. I just go. I gave up trying to be something a long time ago. 

"Conveluted pile of excuses"

"This all reminding me of somone..."

"this is just getting silly"

"I'm sure you can come up with ways to have success" 

"aka bullmanure"

If you can't tell how riddled with emotional attacks and frankly insulting many of your statements are, then I can't help you. I'm no spring chicken and can handle it, but you seem woefully unaware that although your emotional rhetoric is clever, it's still there. This of course generates a suspicion of intellectual dishonesty. 

Instead of adressing the issue thoughtfully it turns directly into that I Cant prove anything to you and that it must be all just dreaming, and that's it's useless. It's typical. Actually, without the wordsmithing it sounds even more immature. In fact that was not why we were having the discussion. 

You seem to think that the path to discovery is one of preconceived ideas about what the nature of something should be instead of what it actually is. This is always the problem with fundamentalism. It's especially problematic when an entire genre of books are dedicated to exposing pseudoscience and a cult like following develops to attempt to squash anything that appears to be on their radar without a healthy look at all the circumstances. I mean seriously how much more rhetoric can yet another book create exposing the likes Rupert sheldrake. Hahahah it's hysterical to me that a new book that you are reading even mentions him. Do you have a dead horse already? Does Dawkings have new baby or mortgage or something? Hahah

Anyway. No charlz, I cannot tell you that that is chapstic in your hand. ( movie reference. Mothman prophecies). I can tell you that I like science too and do respect sold data. Hell I used to tutor econometrics years ago, but data is an end result of well thought out concepts and experiments not preconceived notions or even logical conclusions. 

How about we start over. Why don't you take a look at my original arguments back a few pages, instead of me. I answered your questions partianing to me fully aware of your habits of being the haphazard woo buster, and we can stop discussing how wooey, emotional, and illogical we are, and address it one issue at a time. What do you say?

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I take offence to that, I am not mocking and am not sure what you refer too. I have looked into the subject in quite some depth myself  and I honestly feel that there are conventional explanations for that which I feel our species has exaggerated as a coping mechanism for the greatest and most common fear amongst the species - death. 

That's where I thought you were throwing an ad him, but I decided to let it lay. I don't think much about the discussion is obvious at all. 

There's also two very different views here discussing the subject. 

There seems to be quite some debate on that. Some say they are the same experience  one coma patient I read about claimed the entire experience was one big lucid dream, but what medical science does seem to agree on is that both sensations do come from the same part of the brain. 

No, we have not established that, Sam Parnia has proof that's not the case, like I say, things have changed dramatically on that front, and it's probably the first breakthrough in the area in the lest 50 years so it's big news 

Over the last few years, though, scientists have seen repeated evidence that once you die, your brain cells take days, potentially longer, to reach the point past which they’ve degraded too far to ever be viable again. This does not mean you're not dead; you are dead. Your brain cells, however, may not be.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.newsweek.com/where-do-you-go-when-you-die-increasing-signs-human-consciousness-after-death-800443%3famp=1

According to Parnia during this period, "You lose all your brain stem reflexes — your gag reflex, your pupil reflex, all that is gone." Brain waves from the cerebral cortex soon become undetectable. Even so, it can take hours for our thinking organ to fully shut down.

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim

The brain's cerebral cortex — the so-called "thinking part" of the brain — also slows down instantly, and flatlines, meaning that no brainwaves are visible on an electric monitor, within 2 to 20 seconds. This initiates a chain reaction of cellular processes that eventually result in the death of brain cells, but that can take hours after the heart has stopped, Parnia said.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/60593-flatliners-movie-death-resuscitation.html

I really don't see any ethical issues arising from a terminal patient agreeing to die in an MRI as opposed to a hospital bed. What do you see as an ethical issue with that? 

Then a why are so many saying they can not only associate that part of the brain, but simulate them? 

For instance, the feeling of being dead is not limited to near-death experiences—patients with Cotard or "walking corpse" syndrome hold the delusional belief that they are deceased. This disorder has occurred following trauma, such as during advanced stages of typhoid and multiple sclerosis, and has been linked with brain regions such as the parietal cortex and the prefrontal cortex—"the parietal cortex is typically involved in attentional processes, and the prefrontal cortex is involved in delusions observed in psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia," Mobbs explains. Although the mechanism behind the syndrome remains unknown, one possible explanation is that patients are trying to make sense of the strange experiences they are having.

Out-of-body experiences are also now known to be common during interrupted sleep patterns that immediately precede sleeping or waking. For instance, sleep paralysis, or the experience of feeling paralyzed while still aware of the outside world, is reported in up to 40 percent of all people and is linked with vivid dreamlike hallucinations that can result in the sensation of floating above one's body. A 2005 study found that out-of-body experiences can be artificially triggered by stimulating the right temporoparietal junction in the brain, suggesting that confusion regarding sensory information can radically alter how one experiences one's body.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

 

Quite clearly, research that has demonstrated a surge in brain activity after death that is consistent with active cognitive processing. This at the very least suggests that a neural explanation for these experiences is more than plausible. 

 

You acknowledged to Michigan rat study, which clearly refutes that though. 

Not if they are dying, and it just takes them longer to die. It's just chemicals expending their last reactions just like how thermodynamics converts the last energy left in your body to heat.

We patrick had demi as an inspiration, back in the day, I reckon she was good looking enough to raise the dead. 

Im going to have to disagree whith you that these experiences are coping mechanisms. That implies it's psychologically based. Certainly religions and interpretations can be that, but this is something that is happening not something simply created to sooth. We can use dreaming as an example. We don't dream because of a psychological need we created. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Being in a coma is not an NDE, but we have to accept  a possibility here that it really doesn't matter if the brain is functioning or not .If it is a spiritual experience, it may happen also when the the brain is fully functional. If there is nothing spiritual, then it certainly should not be happening when it's not. This rules out any data we get from a functional mind when discussing NDEs. I don't get how you... or they are saying an NDE can come from an area of the brain unless they were under scans while dying complete with injected dyes. You can't put someone under imaging while you are doing CPR on them. It would be an unethical experiment, and I doubt anyone would live through it to tell the take. I think you better check your facts on that one. 

Forgive me these multiple quotes arguments become difficult to keep up with. Are you saying that someone had agreed to die under a scan for these purposes? That would be cool data, and if I were dieing I'd do it. Is that expedient in those links?

Im not refuting that possibility. There are two problems with that though. In humans, if that surge of energy is in humans, that quick surge of dying cells or whatever is not going to coordinate the various parts of the brain that have to work together to form complex experiences like having a conversation with dear old dad or floating above the doctor and noticing he is bald on the top. Do you have any idea the level of coordination a brain must go through to acomplish all that? 

The other issue is that it can fit both theories, which it doesn't give us any diferintiation. As I have mentioned, I have always thought there should be an energetic signature.

As to the rest of it. The biology not fully decaing for days. That is all moot. We know there is no real coordinated brain activity. But dam, what a macabre thought to think we could be conscious for days after desth. Omg that would be hell. 

Yes Demi. I would have come back too. At lest up until the point she married Ashton. For some reason she lost crush status at that point for me. 

 

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Im going to have to disagree whith you that these experiences are coping mechanisms. That implies it's psychologically based. Certainly religions and interpretations can be that, but this is something that is happening not something simply created to sooth.

That's fair enough, I just feel there's good reason to consider a psychological defense to a common anxiety issue. At some point we realise life is going to end and it's daunting for the best of us to face that. 

Defence mechanisms

A defence mechanism is an unconscious psychological mechanism that reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful stimuli.

Schacter, Daniel L. (2011). Psychology Second Edition. 41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010: Worth Publishers. pp. 482–483. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.

We are unaware of the unconscious reaction when this defence mechanism kicks in regardless of the reason for invoking it, you honestly don't find it quite possible that it could consider the realisation of death enough of a threat to kick in and help qualm the natural anxiety that comes with such knowledge? 

Quote

We can use dreaming as an example. We don't dream because of a psychological need we created. It's a lot more complicated than that.

It is complicated and as far as I know there's no supported answer, but theories do point at a coping mechanism. Some think that it helps us organise the huge input of data from a normal day, the colour of the cars that passed you by, people you passed in the street, the challenges at work, while that's going on your body goes into maintenance mode, repairing muscles, organising memories and the immune system gets a boost. I've got to say it really sounds a lot like a mental and physical coping mechanism combined. Sleep, or perhaps rather inactivity, is required for the physical, so logically I find it stands to reason that data would be psychologically handled. 

Of course there's also the theory that it's random nonsense, just neurons misfiring but the above theory of being a function strikes me as more logical. 

Quote

Being in a coma is not an NDE, but we have to accept  a possibility here that it really doesn't matter if the brain is functioning or not .

I'd say the coma comparisons are more to do with comparing low brain activity, and what the brain does in that state over an extended period. 

Quote

If it is a spiritual experience, it may happen also when the the brain is fully functional. If there is nothing spiritual, then it certainly should not be happening when it's not.

A great many people have sought to find proof of an afterlife, yet 100% have failed to find proof, going all the way back to Duncan MacDougall, don't you think we logically should have something more than cultural claims to support the idea by now? As Sean Carroll illustrates up there, Thermodynamics and physics both offer good evidence as to why it does not exist, at what point is the evidence enough to compete with what is essentially a traditional claim? 

Quote

This rules out any data we get from a functional mind when discussing NDEs. I don't get how you... or they are saying an NDE can come from an area of the brain unless they were under scans while dying complete with injected dyes. You can't put someone under imaging while you are doing CPR on them. It would be an unethical experiment, and I doubt anyone would live through it to tell the take. I think you better check your facts on that one. 

Forgive me these multiple quotes arguments become difficult to keep up with. Are you saying that someone had agreed to die under a scan for these purposes? That would be cool data, and if I were dieing I'd do it. Is that expedient in those links?

Yes, not so much agreed, but not much choice, people with terminal injuries or conditions are usually hooked up to an array of recording instruments including EEGs. 

Here's a very interesting personal account from an Electroneurodiagnostic Technologist: (How's that for a mouthful!) 

Personally, I have monitored with Long Term EEG the brains of many dying patients.  These patients would be monitored for various reasons, anoxic encephalopathy following cardiac arrest, constant seizures (status epilepticus), subarachnoid hemorrhage or altered mental state. 

The mortality rates of these patients was high, so invariably many of them would die while they were hooked up to EEG. 

As expected, EEG would go flat over a period of minutes. The frontal lobes would be the last parts of the brain to give up but there were characteristic patterns that would develop before the EEG was flat. "Burst Suppression," would be common. This is a pattern characterized by high voltage bursts of EEG interspersed with many seconds of flat EEG. As if the brain was mustering everything it had then giving up, exhausted and flat, recovering for another attempt a few seconds later. These bursts would diminish slowly and gradually, sometimes over a period of days, the bursts getting smaller, the periods of suppression longer, until there was nothing. The term for this is "Electro-Cerebro-Silence."


Sometimes the heart would continue to beat but once the brain stem was gone, so were the heart and lungs. 

Most of the time the heart would stop first, they would call a code blue, try to resuscitate the patient.  Often we would come in the morning, the patient would be gone, only the electrodes dangling from the EEG machine. Then we would go back and look at the EEG during the time of the dying, before they called the code, the EEG slowing, diminishing in amplitude. It was eerie.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-brain-activity-of-a-dying-person-ever-been-monitored/answer/Tommy-Thompson-10

 

There's quite a few accounts like this, it seems they are a step ahead of Michigan University in that they have seen humans not only exhibit the spike of activity at death, but the small pulses over an extended period of time which tend to fade away. 

It also supports Sam Parnias comment of the brain possibly showing some activity over a period of days after death. 

Quote

Im not refuting that possibility. There are two problems with that though. In humans, if that surge of energy is in humans, that quick surge of dying cells or whatever is not going to coordinate the various parts of the brain that have to work together to form complex experiences like having a conversation with dear old dad or floating above the doctor and noticing he is bald on the top. Do you have any idea the level of coordination a brain must go through to acomplish all that? 

The other issue is that it can fit both theories, which it doesn't give us any diferintiation. As I have mentioned, I have always thought there should be an energetic signature.

If that function is organisation of data as is suspected though, it would answer quite a lot. 

Maybe it's something to do with the shutdown process, a final major organisation of all data, recent data would be likely to be the most vivid accounting for the detail at the time of death, and overall, one might consider that as 'ones life flashing before one's eyes'? 

It might also be an amazing hidden skill of a supermemory? Just guessing wildly, but if we can do that at death, it would be a good skill to have on demand. 

Quote

As to the rest of it. The biology not fully decaing for days. That is all moot. We know there is no real coordinated brain activity. But dam, what a macabre thought to think we could be conscious for days after desth. Omg that would be hell. 

I know right! 

There's a thread on it. We might be recording data for some time, but I would say there's a more immediate threshold where the data can't be processed and organised, it would just 'be there' (and no doubt reorganised at reanimation which we would call an NDE) if we can still process any input at all, then yeah, it's pretty macabre to think that we hear our deaths announced and relatives in grief, perhaps that's the anxiety mechanism afterlife faith confronts? If the brain in that state is focused on an expectation, it could well be that the other data is not processed because of the focus on the expectation brought up repetitively from stored data in the thrioes of death which might put that data 'in line to be processed' while the afterlife ideologies play out until we run out of time to process the fresh input. 

I'm just guessing there of course, but from what I understand of what we do know, it seems a logical conclusion to me. 

Quote

Yes Demi. I would have come back too. At lest up until the point she married Ashton. For some reason she lost crush status at that point for me. 

Yeah, I'm still good there lol :) she sure looks after herself I reckon. 

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
6 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

During NDEs there is no brain function as we have already established, and it's extremely unethical to be monitoring a humans brain with the technology that can do so while someone is dieing

Wait a second....

You have NOT established except as a Hooey Dooey Belief System that there is no brain functionality....obviously there is, otherwise there would be no experience remembered and reported as a NDE.  How completely ridiculous is that?  Look at the needle Bob...ain't movin' at all...they's deader 'n hell.  OMG Bob...they's breathin' again...it's a miracle...

Utter Nonsense

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
4 hours ago, joc said:

Wait a second....

You have NOT established except as a Hooey Dooey Belief System that there is no brain functionality....obviously there is, otherwise there would be no experience remembered and reported as a NDE.  How completely ridiculous is that?  Look at the needle Bob...ain't movin' at all...they's deader 'n hell.  OMG Bob...they's breathin' again...it's a miracle...

Utter Nonsense

Petito Principi my dear joc. We have established that that there is no brain function upon cardiac arrest other than a possible energetic surge detected in rats. Try and keep up. You may want to have a look at why you should not assume your own conclusion when making a point. 

Its entirely possible that NDEs happen after brain function has been restored only in an exceleraded time frame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's fair enough, I just feel there's good reason to consider a psychological defense to a common anxiety issue. At some point we realise life is going to end and it's daunting for the best of us to face that. 

Defence mechanisms

A defence mechanism is an unconscious psychological mechanism that reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful stimuli.

Schacter, Daniel L. (2011). Psychology Second Edition. 41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010: Worth Publishers. pp. 482–483. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.

We are unaware of the unconscious reaction when this defence mechanism kicks in regardless of the reason for invoking it, you honestly don't find it quite possible that it could consider the realisation of death enough of a threat to kick in and help qualm the natural anxiety that comes with such knowledge? 

It is complicated and as far as I know there's no supported answer, but theories do point at a coping mechanism. Some think that it helps us organise the huge input of data from a normal day, the colour of the cars that passed you by, people you passed in the street, the challenges at work, while that's going on your body goes into maintenance mode, repairing muscles, organising memories and the immune system gets a boost. I've got to say it really sounds a lot like a mental and physical coping mechanism combined. Sleep, or perhaps rather inactivity, is required for the physical, so logically I find it stands to reason that data would be psychologically handled. 

Of course there's also the theory that it's random nonsense, just neurons misfiring but the above theory of being a function strikes me as more logical. 

I'd say the coma comparisons are more to do with comparing low brain activity, and what the brain does in that state over an extended period. 

A great many people have sought to find proof of an afterlife, yet 100% have failed to find proof, going all the way back to Duncan MacDougall, don't you think we logically should have something more than cultural claims to support the idea by now? As Sean Carroll illustrates up there, Thermodynamics and physics both offer good evidence as to why it does not exist, at what point is the evidence enough to compete with what is essentially a traditional claim? 

Yes, not so much agreed, but not much choice, people with terminal injuries or conditions are usually hooked up to an array of recording instruments including EEGs. 

Here's a very interesting personal account from an Electroneurodiagnostic Technologist: (How's that for a mouthful!) 

Personally, I have monitored with Long Term EEG the brains of many dying patients.  These patients would be monitored for various reasons, anoxic encephalopathy following cardiac arrest, constant seizures (status epilepticus), subarachnoid hemorrhage or altered mental state. 

The mortality rates of these patients was high, so invariably many of them would die while they were hooked up to EEG. 

As expected, EEG would go flat over a period of minutes. The frontal lobes would be the last parts of the brain to give up but there were characteristic patterns that would develop before the EEG was flat. "Burst Suppression," would be common. This is a pattern characterized by high voltage bursts of EEG interspersed with many seconds of flat EEG. As if the brain was mustering everything it had then giving up, exhausted and flat, recovering for another attempt a few seconds later. These bursts would diminish slowly and gradually, sometimes over a period of days, the bursts getting smaller, the periods of suppression longer, until there was nothing. The term for this is "Electro-Cerebro-Silence."


Sometimes the heart would continue to beat but once the brain stem was gone, so were the heart and lungs. 

Most of the time the heart would stop first, they would call a code blue, try to resuscitate the patient.  Often we would come in the morning, the patient would be gone, only the electrodes dangling from the EEG machine. Then we would go back and look at the EEG during the time of the dying, before they called the code, the EEG slowing, diminishing in amplitude. It was eerie.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-brain-activity-of-a-dying-person-ever-been-monitored/answer/Tommy-Thompson-10

 

There's quite a few accounts like this, it seems they are a step ahead of Michigan University in that they have seen humans not only exhibit the spike of activity at death, but the small pulses over an extended period of time which tend to fade away. 

It also supports Sam Parnias comment of the brain possibly showing some activity over a period of days after death. 

If that function is organisation of data as is suspected though, it would answer quite a lot. 

Maybe it's something to do with the shutdown process, a final major organisation of all data, recent data would be likely to be the most vivid accounting for the detail at the time of death, and overall, one might consider that as 'ones life flashing before one's eyes'? 

It might also be an amazing hidden skill of a supermemory? Just guessing wildly, but if we can do that at death, it would be a good skill to have on demand. 

I know right! 

There's a thread on it. We might be recording data for some time, but I would say there's a more immediate threshold where the data can't be processed and organised, it would just 'be there' (and no doubt reorganised at reanimation which we would call an NDE) if we can still process any input at all, then yeah, it's pretty macabre to think that we hear our deaths announced and relatives in grief, perhaps that's the anxiety mechanism afterlife faith confronts? If the brain in that state is focused on an expectation, it could well be that the other data is not processed because of the focus on the expectation brought up repetitively from stored data in the thrioes of death which might put that data 'in line to be processed' while the afterlife ideologies play out until we run out of time to process the fresh input. 

I'm just guessing there of course, but from what I understand of what we do know, it seems a logical conclusion to me. 

Yeah, I'm still good there lol :) she sure looks after herself I reckon. 

I'm not sure the mind would even be aware of being on deaths door, but no I don't, and here is why. Where in nature does any part of nature sooth an animal upon death? It all looks pretty dam raw and painful to me. We have to consider that a large chunk of people that do die, and do not live to tell the tell actually do go through NDE like experiences. No. Psychologically soothing a dying person does not fit nature. In fact evolution would seem so dictate that one should fight like hell for survival not create a fluffy fantasy of meeting most relatives and meeting a warm loving being through a tunnel of light. What is that going to acomplish? Furthermore, we only have descent life saving technology in what the last what 80-100 years. Prior to that, in all of human history a heart attack or any cardiac arrest was a near certain death. There is no reason to assume a soothing psychological reaction. In fact, I would seem that it should be just the opposite.

Yes dreams. Dreams actually play a very important part in survival and learning. Dreams seem to have the function of virtual training. Nightmares create heightend fight or flight responses. Dreaming about your various problems creates new nural pathways that help you latter attack the problem better. Many Children around five or six go through a night terror stage of brain development. This is right about the time they loose their magical thinking tendencies and start to realize the world can be a dangerous place. It makes sense to be running from preditors in yours dreams and becoming afraid of the dark and building survival instincts right about the time you may start to venture from the boma. It all fits evolutionary psychology quite nicely. NDEs..... not so much. There seems to be no survival advantage. Why would nature go through any trouble to sooth us at death? That's awefully nice of her. 

There is reason to believe a reorganization of data is part of the dying process. The term " my life flashed before my eyes." Is an actual real experience that people report. The life review is a well known aspect of NDEs... but agin it doesn't fit. That is a pretty complicated thing to be doing when your heart is stoped. And in all of our evolution there was no one standing around with a D fib or even knew CPR. The chances of coming back from a cardiac arrest are slim to nil. Certainly not enough to pass on more genes with these tendencies. 

Possibly a review of data helps save who the person is by storing it somewhere else, just incase they wake up, but that too is a stretch and a guess.

Sometimes when trying really hard to explain away something, the 'explanations' just don't pan out. We can get infinitely creative trying to force the NDE into a materialistic model, but non of it really adds up as of yet. At some point it may simply not fit in the box that you want it too. Fundamentalists can never come to terms with this, and that is largely what we are seeing. Yes I know we cannot detect what a spirit might be materially or have no empirical data that other places exist.... so. Billions of years from now our galaxy will merge with andromeda, then the expansion of the universe will seperate all galaxies beyond a horizon that we can detect them from. We will be one large galaxy sitting in a sea of blackness. We will not have a Big Bang theory because we will not be able to detect the expansion. We will not recognize dark energy, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and all kinds of other things. Hell we won't even be looking for them. Sometimes there are things that do exist but the data simply cannot be gleamed. Should we just speculate? Well no. There are other circumstances and statistical reasons that create ooertunjties to seek out the signatures of truth that might be available to us. Empirical fundamentalism has its powerful use, but ultimately it's limited and we must think through logically and without bias to be led in to the next step of possible data collection.

anyway going to the lake. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)
On 6/23/2018 at 2:08 AM, White Crane Feather said:

Petito Principi my dear joc.

May I suggest pseudo-intellectual smarm be accompanied ONLY by being correct...  (yes, ad hominem..)

Quote

We have established that that there is no brain function upon cardiac arrest..

Oh, right.  And that's why in First Aid we teach how to restart the heart, and it is OFTEN successful even after several minutes with no long term effects to the one who had the cardiac arrest.  And that's why we have defibrillators.... etc..

 

Seriously WCF, you should think about the claims you make...  After that one I would like you to now answer two questions:

Q.1.  Who is the 'we' who has established no brain function after cardiac arrest?

Q.2. Could you cite a credible reference for that?

 

Please answer both questions, or withdraw the claim and admit you were wrong.

The FACTs are that 15 minutes is about the normal limit for brain activity after cardiac arrest, for complete recovery.  Under different conditions, eg extreme cold, that may be much longer and there are reports of reasonable recoveries after more than three hours.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

May I suggest pseudo-intellectual smarm be accompanied ONLY by being correct...  (yes, ad hominem..)

Oh, right.  And that's why in First Aid we teach how to restart the heart, and it is OFTEN successful even after several minutes with no long term effects to the one who had the cardiac arrest.  And that's why we have defibrillators.... etc..

 

Seriously WCF, you should think about the claims you make...  After that one I would like you to now answer two questions:

Q.1.  Who is the 'we' who has established no brain function after cardiac arrest?

Q.2. Could you cite a credible reference for that?

 

Please answer both questions, or withdraw the claim and admit you were wrong.

The FACTs are that 15 minutes is about the normal limit for brain activity after cardiac arrest, for complete recovery.  Under different conditions, eg extreme cold, that may be much longer and there are reports of reasonable recoveries after more than three hours.

 

Actually,  before we address the rest, I'm really interested in how you evaluate joc's statement. Particularly if you would indulge why  I 'may' have thought he was assuming the conclusion. Would you indulge that for a bit?

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Nope.  I'm out, as you are unwilling to admit blatant errors and clearly will use any tactic to avoid anything that doesn't align with your views.

You made specific claims, I asked you to support / cite them.  You are obviously refusing, but the claims are clearly false.

 

When I screw up, I admit it and learn.  As you don't wish to do that, there is little point 'conversing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Nope.  I'm out, as you are unwilling to admit blatant errors and clearly will use any tactic to avoid anything that doesn't align with your views.

You made specific claims, I asked you to support / cite them.  You are obviously refusing, but the claims are clearly false.

 

When I screw up, I admit it and learn.  As you don't wish to do that, there is little point 'conversing'.

Hahah typical. You are making this about me personally.....AGAIN. I'm trying to address one issues at a time. A person clearly made a circular argument and you for some reason disagree, I wanted to know why. I was merely trying to keep the discussion to one thing at a time, yet you feel the need to invent my intentions for me and use that as a platform to discredit. I think you should try for Randi's prize with that kind of psychic power. You must know how dishonest and fallacious that is. 

My statement was based off of studies done on many mammals. Coordinated brain function ends at cardiac arrest. If you have even been following the entire conversation, I have already pointed to where I got the information, and I have cited here on UM many times in the past. I'm not going to go dig it up again, but I will point you in the right direction. ( this is the second time I'm posting this) There is an introduction to the aware study that sites a number of sources it used as to why the aware study should happen. I followed those sources to studies done on animals and brain activity during cardiac arrest. According to those studys there are no active areas of the brain with no blood pressure. Now I'm not talking about the normal electrical signatures that is in all biomass. Even a pile of horse crap has an elecrcial signature. I'm talking about areas of the brain lighting up to do things. You know....brain activity. 

And here is where I have made the mistake. By "brain activity" I'm referring to the Brain doing brain things. You know like the brainstem keeping you breathing. I should have said "coordinated brain activity." The kind of activity that would be needed to have visions of grandpa and old aunt sally in the afterlife. The kind of activity that would coordinate the speech recognition, visual, and ultimately memory areas of the brain to hear and remember doctors giving commands. We know that this is impossible from detailed studies done on mammals. As I have already mentioned in this thread (again), at that time no human studies had been done because it's completely unethical to try and study someone's brain instead of trying to save them. Phsyce 101 even offered a solution to that. I just don't think it's been done yet as far as I can tell.

Now.... I can tell you that for a moment I did try to dig up those old studies just to satisfy your constant demand for proof about crap we already have established because for some reason you don't try and keep up with the whole discussion. I did run across something really interesting. There has been follow up studies after the rat studies to see if the surge in rats is in humans. It turns out there is. In fact with new techniques, they can even tell what the brain is doing at that time, and it turns out that the brain is attempting to put all its resources toward the heart. In fact the brain doing this actually hastens death, so doctors are trying to figure out a way to block it. How interesting.

So I'll stand corrected because I have been away from the subject matter for a few years and there has been that development,'but dude. Seriously. Your constant habit of taking a page out of the militant cynics handbook to discredit people instead of arguments is exhausting, illogical, and intellectually dishonest. I asked you to look back and address my original arguments, and you didn't. Instead, you keep lawyering to discredit me personally. A constant unending atempt at a big fat ad hom. 

I'm even going to give you some credit and try to believe that you don't  it on purpose, but you do. Some personal reflection may be in order. 

Now I'm going to ask you again to look back at some of the ideas I originally posted. I'm not interested in discussing me or you for that matter. If you can do that without trying to get me to jump through hoops for you while you look for materials to build your straw men against me personally, then all is good otherwise I think it best that you stick to the last match you threw and we can leave it at that. 

 

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel
On 21/6/2018 at 2:25 PM, MauriOra said:

 

This was a great Vid .. Thankyou for Sharing ..

 

 

You are welcome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.