• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

nde--read the interview with fenwick

its obvious that for science any evidence that consciousness is independent from the brain would lead to major changes in the way they see the universe
 
since you seem to be a bit lazy to read things you dont like i post here the most important:D

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4.


...snip...

And then, of course, there is transformation. Particularly notable was the finding that 72 percent of our respondents reported being more spiritual and having less fear of dying. Some findings from other studies provide some very interesting things to think about. For example, in Bruce Greyson’s (2003b) study of 272 patients who had a brush with death, 22 percent had NDEs, and they were found to be less psychologically disturbed than those who did not have NDEs. So that is extremely good news in that it goes against the idea that those who have NDEs have some mental pathology.
Willoughby Britton and Richard Bootzin’s 2004 study
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dunno, idunno. There may be some science here, but a few things set off my BS meter
idunno said:
And then, of course, there is transformation. Particularly notable was the finding that 72 percent of our respondents reported being more spiritual and having less fear of dying.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is there a quantitative way to measure "spirituality"? I can see that these responses may well have occurred, but they could just as easily be psychological as physical.

idunno said:
Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.
Click to expand...
I am also wary of anything that is offered with the authoritative, "Science says". Quite often, science says no such thing, or science may have a wide range of opinions on the subject. More warning buzzers go off.

idunno said:
So there are real difficulties in accepting that the NDE happens when the NDErs say it happens: during unconsciousness. So are you beginning to feel the significance of the timing of the NDE both for neuroscience as well as for our understanding of the NDE?
Click to expand...
I'm having problems accepting that a person undergoing a NDE is capable of assessing what their "consciousness" level is. The term "consciousness" is layered with many meanings. Are you truly unconscious when you dream? My experience says no.

idunno said:
The nonreductionist view is that there is a process to dying. There is apparent separation of mind and brain. Love and light are fundamental to the dying experience.
Click to expand...
Okay, big ol' buzzers going off here. "Love and light are fundamental"? "Separation of mind and brain"? This is drifting into the realm of serious woo. I have never seen a shred of evidence for any sort of "mind" that is unconnected to a brain. Also, the term "love" is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless in this context. This is sounding less and less like science.

idunno said:
So perhaps the near-death experience will help us to change science and to change our culture and bring back personal responsibility for our actions, if there is, indeed, continuing consciousness after death.
Will we ever really know? Perhaps, but let me end with a Zen parable.
Click to expand...
Nope that tears it. It concludes with a presumption that science needs to be changed. It throws in some drivel about "personal responsibility". It becomes quite clear that this is an article written by someone with some understanding of science, but who has an agenda to support their "spiritual" conclusions. I call BS.
 
Tricky said:
I dunno, idunno. There may be some science here, but a few things set off my BS meter

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is there a quantitative way to measure "spirituality"? I can see that these responses may well have occurred, but they could just as easily be psychological as physical.


I am also wary of anything that is offered with the authoritative, "Science says". Quite often, science says no such thing, or science may have a wide range of opinions on the subject. More warning buzzers go off.


I'm having problems accepting that a person undergoing a NDE is capable of assessing what their "consciousness" level is. The term "consciousness" is layered with many meanings. Are you truly unconscious when you dream? My experience says no.


Okay, big ol' buzzers going off here. "Love and light are fundamental"? "Separation of mind and brain"? This is drifting into the realm of serious woo. I have never seen a shred of evidence for any sort of "mind" that is unconnected to a brain. Also, the term "love" is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless in this context. This is sounding less and less like science.


Nope that tears it. It concludes with a presumption that science needs to be changed. It throws in some drivel about "personal responsibility". It becomes quite clear that this is an article written by someone with some understanding of science, but who has an agenda to support their "spiritual" conclusions. I call BS.
Click to expand...

i think you deliberately ignired the strong points he had made and focussed on the more woo woo stuff:D
 
Tricky said:
I dunno, idunno. There may be some science here, but a few things set off my BS meter

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Is there a quantitative way to measure "spirituality"? I can see that these responses may well have occurred, but they could just as easily be psychological as physical.


I am also wary of anything that is offered with the authoritative, "Science says". Quite often, science says no such thing, or science may have a wide range of opinions on the subject. More warning buzzers go off.


I'm having problems accepting that a person undergoing a NDE is capable of assessing what their "consciousness" level is. The term "consciousness" is layered with many meanings. Are you truly unconscious when you dream? My experience says no.


Okay, big ol' buzzers going off here. "Love and light are fundamental"? "Separation of mind and brain"? This is drifting into the realm of serious woo. I have never seen a shred of evidence for any sort of "mind" that is unconnected to a brain. Also, the term "love" is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless in this context. This is sounding less and less like science.


Nope that tears it. It concludes with a presumption that science needs to be changed. It throws in some drivel about "personal responsibility". It becomes quite clear that this is an article written by someone with some understanding of science, but who has an agenda to support their "spiritual" conclusions. I call BS.
Click to expand...

read again

The flat electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain activity during cardiac arrest, and the high incidence of brain damage afterwards both point to the conclusion that the unconsciousness in cardiac arrest is total. You cannot argue that there are ‘‘bits’’ of the brain that are functioning; there are not. There is a confusional onset and offset, and there is no brain-based memory functioning. Everything that constructs our world for us is, in fact, ‘‘down.’’ There is no possibility of the brain creating any images. Memory is not functioning during this time, so it should be impossible to have clearly structured and lucid experiences, and because of brain damage, memory should be significantly impaired, and you should not be able to remember any experiences which occurred during that time. Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.
 
idunno said:
...snip

Because the theory also presupposes that consciousness does not survive death, and the evidence is beginning to be against that, too.
The nonreductionist view is that there is a process to dying. There is apparent separation of mind and brain. Love and light are fundamental to the dying experience. And the suggestions are that, in fact, love and consciousness are the fundamental ground structure of the universe and that consciousness may survive death of the body. So perhaps the near-death experience will help us to change science and to change our culture and bring back personal responsibility for our actions, if there is, indeed, continuing consciousness after death.
...snip
Click to expand...

If this is science, where is the evidence that consciousness does survive death?

Love and light are fundamental? Have they looked at the supposed NDEs that involved fear and darkness?
 
idunno said:
i think you deliberately ignired the strong points he had made and focussed on the more woo woo stuff:D
Click to expand...

As I say, the author obviously has some experience with science, but I focused entirely on the passage you cited as the "scientific part", and it is markedly different from any scientific papers I have read.
 
idunno said:
read again

The flat electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain activity during cardiac arrest, and the high incidence of brain damage afterwards both point to the conclusion that the unconsciousness in cardiac arrest is total. You cannot argue that there are ‘‘bits’’ of the brain that are functioning; there are not. There is a confusional onset and offset, and there is no brain-based memory functioning. Everything that constructs our world for us is, in fact, ‘‘down.’’ There is no possibility of the brain creating any images. Memory is not functioning during this time, so it should be impossible to have clearly structured and lucid experiences, and because of brain damage, memory should be significantly impaired, and you should not be able to remember any experiences which occurred during that time. Now, that raises interesting and difficult questions for us, because the NDErs say that their experiences occur during unconsciousness, and science maintains that this is not possible.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it. I did a brief search to see if the EEG did indeed go flat at the onset of cardiac arrest, and I could find nothing that said it did. There is no citation for this declaration either. As I say, I am not an expert, but this seems unlikely to me. Yet it is exactly this point upon which the author hangs his "difficult question".
 
idunno said:
how about this?

Some researchers try to create artificial intelligence by computer technology, hoping to simulate programs evoking consciousness. But Roger Penrose, a quantum physicist, argues that “Algorithmic computations cannot simulate mathematical reasoning. The brain, as a closed system capable of internal and consistent computations, is insufficient to elicit human consciousness.”36 Penrose offers a quantum mechanical hypothesis to explain the relation between consciousness and the brain. And Simon Berkovitch, a professor in Computer Science of the George Washington University, has calculated that the brain has an absolutely inadequate capacity to produce and store all the informational processes of all our memories with associative thoughts. We would need 1024 operations per second, which is absolutely impossible for our neurons.37 Herms Romijn, a Dutch neurobiologist, comes to the same conclusion.30 One should conclude that the brain has not enough computing capacity to store all the memories with associative thoughts from one’s life, has not enough retrieval abilities, and seems not to be able to elicit consciousness.
Click to expand...

One of the problems is that these guys are thinking of the brain as a computer. They make assumptions based on computer models, and assume our brain works in a similar fashion. What if it doesn't? The same argument can apply to many fields where apparent complexity arises from simple instructions. Is the human genome long enough to code for our development?

It appears to me that we don't understand enough about the brain or consciousness to draw conclusions, especially those that posit that the mind is separate from the brain.

ETA: Thanks to brodski for reminding us of the need for paragraph breaks!
 
idunno said:
how about this?

Some researchers try to create artificial intelligence by computer technology, hoping to simulate programs evoking consciousness. But Roger Penrose, a quantum physicist, argues that “Algorithmic computations cannot simulate mathematical reasoning. The brain, as a closed system capable of internal and consistent computations, is insufficient to elicit human consciousness.”36 Penrose offers a quantum mechanical hypothesis to explain the relation between consciousness and the brain.
Click to expand...
It is possible to be brilliant at quantum mechanics (and I have way of knowing if 36 Penrose is or isn't) and yet know little about neurology. Beware of people who speak authoritatively of knowledge outside their fields, or as I call it, Pascalism.
 
idunno said:
i think you deliberately ignired the strong points he had made and focussed on the more woo woo stuff:D
Click to expand...

I think if there were any strong points to be made, there wouldn't be woo woo stuff in the article, and it would be much more recognizable as a peer reviewed paper published in...say...JAMA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom